Ken Ham gets wackier email than I do!

And he doesn’t even appreciate how deranged it all is! He just published some fan mail titled “Overheard in a locker room” (it’s a fundagelical locker room, apparently, so don’t expect anything crude: the strongest word used is “crap”, and even that gets edited out.) But wow, does this letter ever highlight a bunch of the under-appreciated tropes of the modern creationist movement.

I wanted to offer a word of encouragement. I recently returned from visiting the Creation Museum. I was at the gym, in the locker room, telling a pastor how great the museum was. Pastor Jack asked me, “You believe in a literal 6 days?”

“Absolutely!” I replied.

Then out of nowhere, a man came around the corner who overheard our conversation said, “Ken Ham is a piece of c—.”

This man went on to tell me that he has four degrees, studies fossils, bends light, is a Christian, and is a follower of Reasons to Believe and its president Hugh Ross.

[1. Notice that this is a conflict between a young earth creationist and a slightly more liberal Christian (very slightly, if he’s giving Hugh Ross any credibility). They don’t care much about atheists except as boogiemen, like Satan, and see the real battle as one between slightly different Christian sects.]

But out of his same mouth he called a fellow Christian a piece of c—. There was no sign of the humble heart of a Christian.

I thought: You have got to be kidding me, right!?

I stood in my underwear arguing with this man (possibly a professor) about God being big enough to do what He said in Genesis.

[2. “We’re sooooo humble, but our god is so much bigger than their god.”]

I can’t believe that I have fellow brothers and sisters wanting to side with “scientists”.

[3. On the one hand, the creationists desperately desire to don the mantle of the “True Scientist”; on the other, they deeply distrust and despise scientists. We are their “other”…but weirdly, we are the “other” that they wish they were.]

This has been a real eye-opener for me.

I lead a men’s morning study and I am very excited to take the men down this road. Thank you for the resources, and thank you for being willing to stand on God’s Word while we have brothers and sisters scoffing at us. May our God strengthen you in your work.

[4. Two things: this is an evangelical young earth creationism. The reason creationism is so widespread in the US is that they have effectively coupled what was once a fringe belief in the Christian community, that the earth is only 6000 years old, to proper beliefs in god and morality. And they are damn sure going to make their neighbors follow the straight and narrow, which now includes creationism. The other thing to notice is the reinforcement of sex roles in these churches. Why should there be male and female guidance in understanding the Bible? Why do men and women need separate Bible study sessions? Because they’re reinforcing boundaries.]

I am one of the millions of young people who was struggling with the idea of millions of years. But Ken spoke at my church in Boise, Idaho, 8 years ago, and God really used this AiG ministry to strengthen my faith.

Thanks again.

In Christ’s grip,

[I’m sorry, but I have never received a letter that closes with “In Christ’s grip”, and I’m so jealous. I’m also thinking that these are the first words appropriate to a locker room conversation.]

– J.C., Boise, Idaho

Ken ham is a demented ideologue with scientific and religious beliefs that ought to be way out on the fringe, but never forget — and this is the scary part — he has equally deranged minions threaded through every community in the country. They’re here in Morris, Minnesota, and they’re there in your town. And they are dedicated: they are running church groups to spread that nonsense further, they are running for school boards to destroy public education, and they are effectively collaborating to elect their candidates to the city council, to state representative, to governor and senator.

The shit-house rats are cunning and organized. And they’re trying to take over the country.

So who’s going to do the recording?

Now that Ray Comfort has a column on World Net Daily, he has decided to dedicate himself to taking down notorious atheists…and his first target is that giant of the atheist movement, Billy Joel.

Wait. Billy Joel? Is he even an atheist? Yes, I guess he is.

Maybe he’ll be willing to sing these new lyrics for an old song. If he’s not, maybe some reader with musical talent will do it instead. It could be a hit! You know, like the rewritten Candle in the Wind.

Have you been counted?

Participate in the Atheist Census It’s quick and easy, and then we get to see the stats, too.

Currently, the most godless country in the world seems to be…Brazil. Somebody is doing a good job of promoting it down there, I think.

Get on the list. As a bonus, I think every participant gets the Mark of the Beast and is automatically enrolled in a sweepstakes where the grand prize is an evening with the Whore of Babylon. Also, any Christians who try to skew the poll will be instantly damned to hell by Jesus. Just warning you.

Marco Rubio backs off

Rubio has changed his mind: he now concedes that the earth is 4½ billion years old.

“There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old,” Rubio told Mike Allen of Politico. ”I was referring to a theological debate, which is a pretty healthy debate.”

“The theological debate is, how do you reconcile with what science has definitively established with what you may think your faith teaches,” Rubio continued. “Now for me, actually, when it comes to the age of the earth, there is no conflict.”

I’d actually agree with that statement, although I’d go on to mention that reality and faith are irreconcilable, so that theological debate is pretty damned pointless.

But of course now the Teabaggers will be gasping in horror. He is also now officially a flip-flopper.

Man, it’s got to be fun to be jockeying for a position in the 2016 presidential run…trying to simultaneously seem rational and intelligent while looking just stupid enough to appeal to the far right base.

Ignorance isn’t my ally

It’s so nice of Hank Campbell to share his lack of concern about creationism with us “simpletons”.

One of the silliest tropes in the hyped-up ‘controversy’ over evolution is that all religious people should be conflated with ‘Young Earth Creationists’.

Uh, what? Who does that? You certainly won’t catch the NCSE claiming that; you won’t even find me, rabid militant shrill atheist that I am, saying that. I’m not a fan of theistic evolutionists, but you won’t find me denying their existence.

So what does he base his belief in? Well, the recent news that Pat Robertson is an old earth creationist, a point I mocked myself — but that’s just an old story, and as I point out, this radically literalist bible-believing Christian stuff is relatively recent. But Campbell goes way too far in denial, and builds a case on his personal ignorance.

Granted, anecdotes are not data but I have never actually met a Young Earth Creationist. I know they exist but I know lots of religious people inside and outside of science and I have just never come across one of the true crazies. However, living in California I have come across all kinds of anti-science atheists who are just as creepy and nuts as any religious zealot. Because I am not a science blogger who wants to be a political one, I am not worried about evolution – Young Earth Creationists can’t even convince other Christians they aren’t batty so they are not convincing the country to make a federal standard for education and include religion in the science curriculum. If we just ignored them, they would be patronized and disregarded as harmless cranks, like they are in every civilized country where people have more interesting things to talk about.

He’s never met a YEC? Wow. What kind of bubble does he live in?

The data is available: a little less than half the American population believes that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago. The biggest creationist organization is Answers in Genesis, and I think the second biggest is the Institute for Creation Research; both explicitly insist that the earth is very young. Stroll into your local conservative mega-church and ask the pastor about the age of the universe — you’re most likely going to get a young answer. Check your local school board, and unless you’re in a very liberal region, it’s probably packed with teabaggers and the religious right.

But oh, yes, that sounds like a winning strategy: ignore them and they’ll go away. Right.

The rest of his agenda reveals his true agenda, though: he wants to argue that Democratic anti-science attitudes are worse than Republicans’, and tries to make the case that nobody ever criticizes the Democrats’ follies. Yeah, because I love Tom Harkin and hate those icky vaccinations and think every Democrat is automatically a saint of science.

But oh, no, he’s not a political blogger.

αEP: Shut up and sing!

This is one of a series of posts I’m working on over the next few days to criticize evolutionary psychology. More will be coming under the label αEP!

Recently, Bob Costas, a sports announcer, spoke out about gun control. In reply, the right wing has been in a frenzy of denunciations — he should just shut up, he’s not qualified to speak, he can’t possibly have reasonable opinions about anything other than football (of course, these same angry commentators don’t express similar opinions about Ted Nugent). It’s called Shut Up and Sing Syndrome.

Named after a Laura Ingraham book and a 2006 documentary about the harsh reaction to the Dixie Chicks’ anti-Bush comments, this syndrome condemns many Americans to believe that actors, musicians and athletes — really, anyone not deemed political “experts” — have no right to use their platform to address issues considered “political” in nature. In this case, conservatives are insisting that Costas is not merely wrong on the substance of his gun-related comments, but also that, according to the New York Times, “it was inappropriate to use the platform of an NFL telecast to make arguments concerning a hot-button issue like gun control.”

The insinuation is that as a sportscaster, he has no standing to weigh in on a political issue. In other words, like critics of outspoken athletes who tell them to “shut up and play,” critics want Costas to simply “shut up and talk only about sports.”

Sound familiar? It should. It’s a problem in more than just entertainment and politics — it’s also a problem in skepticism. What it really is is an authoritarian defense of orthodoxy that dismisses criticism unless it comes from the right kind of person — preferably one comfortably embedded deeply in the orthodox position. It’s a version of the Courtier’s Reply, only in this case it’s used to defend science, or a political position, rather than theology. Shut Up and Sing Syndrome imposes unjustifiable barriers to criticism: you don’t get to criticize the subject at hand unless, for instance, you have a Ph.D. in the relevant subject, or some other lofty credential, even if the criticism is based on obvious and trivial flaws that a layperson can see.

[Read more…]

Feathers on dinosaurs are UNBIBLICAL!

So Ken Ham visited Sea World in Australia — he didn’t like it, it was too expensive and full of evilution, so he thinks you should save money and go to his el cheapo animatronic Sunday School in a box, instead — but I did learn something new from his complaint. I knew that “millions of years” was a phrase to make a young earth creationist’s bowels palpitate, but it turns out there are three wicked phrases to assault Christians with.

As Christians, we need to have a mental security system where an alarm goes off when aspects of this anti-God religion are presented. Here’s what should happen when you hear or read the following:

  • “Millions of years” should set off a mental buzzer that says, “warning—this is an attack on biblical authority—this is a buzz word to say there was no global Flood.”
  • “Evolution” should set off a mental buzzer that says, “warning—this is an attack on biblical authority—this is a buzz word to say creation by God was wrong.”
  • “Feathered dinosaurs” should set off another mental buzzer that says, “warning—an attack on biblical authority—this is a buzz word to say creation by God was wrong.”

According to the true history book of the universe—the Bible—birds were made on Day 5, and dinosaurs (which are land animals) were made on Day 6. So birds existed before dinosaurs. But evolutionists claim dinosaurs existed before birds!

Umm, yes — birds are derived descendants of dinosaurs. Here Hammy boy, just to make you apoplectic: Microraptor. We’ve got some very good fossils of dinosaurs with feathers — and reality once again makes a creationist’s head buzz.

Hey, if I go up to a bible-believing Christian and say, “Feathered dinosaurs evolved over millions of years”, will the klaxons going off in their head make their brains explode, or just give them a mild headache? Either seems worth doing.

Did he just compare atheists to the Washington Generals?

I am offended! But I’m too busy waging war on the ubiquity of Christmas to care very much.

I have a plan. As Stewart notes, Christmas has been expanding, reaching gigantic size as it gobbles up Thanksgiving and threatens Halloween. It’s massive size means it has some vulnerabilities, however; there is a small thermal exhaust port located on 25 December itself which leads directly to the core of the religious system, and which we believe can be reached by a small elite strike team…either the atheists, or if they aren’t available, the Washington Generals. Your mission is to fly in close and drop a torpedo directly down their holiday by treating it as an entirely secular event: give material presents to family and friends, eat non-imaginary food, discuss real events, and just generally treat it as a period of time in the rotation of our planet at a particular point in its rotation about our home star.

This is going to work.

Oh gob, evo psych again?

You may have already heard that Ed Clint, a guy who has been dedicated to bashing Skepchick and Freethoughtblogs for over a year, has cloaked his biases in a pretense of objectivity and written a long critique of one of Rebecca Watson’s talks, accusing her of being a science denialist and anti-science because she so thoroughly ridiculed pop evo psych. The excesses and devious misrepresentations in that post were painful to read, as was the revelation that Clint is throwing away his career by jumping on the evo psych bandwagon in graduate school (I frequently advise students on good disciplines to pursue in grad school; bioinformatics and genomics have a great future ahead of them, as does molecular genetics and development, but evolutionary psychology is one I would steer them well clear of, as a field that has not and will not ever contribute much of substance. The good papers in evo psych are the ones that use the tools of population genetics well and avoid the paleolithic mumbo-jumbo altogether).

Fortunately, Stephanie Zvan has already torn into his ‘analysis’, showing that it’s mostly misplaced and misleading. I’m relieved, because I’m going to be tied up for a while, and I found Clint’s response to be extremely irritating.

One think that particularly rankled is that Clint puts up a pretense of being objective and that his criticisms are nothing personal; bizarrely, he even puts up a photo of himself taken with Rebecca Watson as if that were evidence that he’s not biased against her. What he doesn’t mention is that he’s been sharpening an axe since the “elevatorgate” episode; together with a disgruntled ex-FtB blogger who left in a bizarre huff over not getting enough respect, he founded a competing network (which is fine, of course) which they proceeded to stock almost entirely with writers with an an anti-FtB and strongly anti-Skepchick slant — I’ve had to laugh at the lineup which looks largely drawn from the ranks of the Slymepit, a notorious anti-feminist/anti-Rebecca Watson hate site, and my list of banned commenters. And looking at the people who comment there, again, they seem to be largely driven by hatred of Watson and feminism in general.

Again, that’s fine — we have biases here at FtB, too, in that we tend to be pro-feminist and when we founded it, I specifically told Ed Brayton that we needed to be sure to include more than just old white guys like us — but what isn’t fine is to lie about your motives. Any day, I’ll prefer open antagonism from an avowed enemy than fair and dissembling words from an Iago.

For example, after telling people to avoid insults in the comments, this is what Clint has to say:

Although PZ’s behavior is unfortunate, I would urge a modicum of compassion. I believe he lashes out because he feels so small and vulnerable, and because he is. I can think of few other reasons for such unprovoked barking. He is making a mistake in coming after me. He will be wounded by it. I wish it didn’t have to be this way, and that we could just have a calm chat about it.

Condescending and smarmy, isn’t he? Ick. He won’t call me names, he’ll just call me “small and vulnerable.” Man, I despise that kind of sliminess.

I’ll follow up on Stephanie’s post later this week, when my schedule calms down, and what I intend to do is dig into the substantive flaws in both Clint’s hatchet job and in that awful discipline of evolutionary psychology. Seriously, in the reviews Clint recommended to give the background on what evo psych is, I was appalled — do these people have any understanding of modern evolutionary theory at all? I think the answer is clearly “no.”