Suddenly, lots of people want to debate me. I’m really not that much into the debate business, and I think most of the people who want to battle me don’t need a high-level argument about biology — they need a remedial course in elementary science. Especially since most of the challenges are rather like this one:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47a2cb894dc2340b;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=24870

Note that the drooling animals are clamoring for P.Z. Myers and Dembski to have a “debate.” What is to debate? Myers is a rabid mad man, completely out of control. His condition is progressive, irreversible, incurable and hopefully terminal.

Besides, Myers is an intellectual coward and won’t “debate” anyone of substance. Neither will Dawkins nor Hitchens. The word “debate” doesn’t even exist in the lexicon of science. It is reserved for lawyers, politicians and evangelists.

Myers immediately retired from the contest at “One Blog A Day” after arrogantly introducing his “Pharyngula” thread with much fanfare, leaving Martin and I with the wonderful opportunity (which we thoroughly exploited) to reduce the Darwinian hoax to a shambles. I sure hope someone preserved it because it is gone now.

I would love to confront him anywhere, with or without his equally deranged cronies – Dawkins and Hitchens. It would be a rout! I can’t even goad them into recognizing my existence. Myers is a cowardly victim, a “prescribed” vendor of hate, the epitome of cultural, moral and ethical evil. There is nothing that can be done for him or for his colleagues and followers. They are “born that way” losers in the lottery of life. Until they are gone they will remain a menace to Western Civilization. Hopefully that won’t take too much longer.

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A, Davison

Sorry, John, I do have standards, and I don’t debate the mentally ill and logically incoherent (really, read what you write. You sneer that “debate” isn’t in the lexicon of science while you challenge me to a debate. Think about it.) (Oh, wait, never mind. The irony of your challenge is so bold that it is clear that you don’t read your own words, and you definitely don’t think.)

And I’m currently scheduled to debate Angus Menuge of the DI this spring. I’ve already agreed to talk with one droning bore of a theologian, why should I also meet with Dembski?

P.S. Any of you drooling animals who wants to comment on this faces a challenge: Davison is banned here, as are his numerous pseudonyms, so you’re going to have to be circumspect lest you invoke his name and your comment ends up awaiting moderation.

I’m swamped with teaching labs, writing deadlines, and the DFL caucus — you’re all going to caucus, right? — so I’m just going to have to ask you to pretend that Henry Rollins is me for a little while.

Sure you do. So you might enjoy this webcast series from Scientific American.

One of the things they mention is the recent “peer-reviewed” “scientific” “journal” from Answers in Genesis (sharply slammed by Larry Moran), and they criticize Nature‘s coverage, which urges scientists to avoid taking “too strong a stance against the journal” because it would “fuel creationist’s claim of scientific bias against religion.”

This is what always happens when you go to appeasers for quotes: you get urged to be a coward in dealing with the opposition.

I appreciate sincere criticism, I really do, and despite all the praise for my recent radio debate, I listened to it and mainly heard a lot of things I could have done better. So I like it when I find someone who also offers suggestions for improvement, but at the same time, I have to disagree with one (just one, the others are good) central point he makes.

However, in the future I would warn PZ against calling his opponent ignorant or berating them in a debate like this. Save that kind of stuff when you’re venting to your fellow smart people. Name calling doesn’t convince any of the audience and it gives your opponent a chance to get off the ropes through subversive rhetoric. Using the term “ignorant” allowed Simmons to take the upper hand and make PZ look like a dick even though he was right in pointing out Simmons’ lack of knowledge. Or at least, it would have allowed Simmons to take the upper hand if he didn’t suck so much. In essence, don’t attack the opponent, attack the opponent’s ideas.

[Read more…]

This is awesome. A band set a Chick tract to music, and not just any Chick tract, but one of the sickest, creepiest Chick tracts ever.

Any google experts out there? ERV has been having some difficulties — she keeps getting delisted by google, and then coming back up. Strangely, if you search for ERV, this currently comes up:

Wha…? Go to the link, and that text isn’t there. It’s as if someone has been whining to google, and their complaint is what’s appearing in the search. Maybe someone can explain this to us.

By the way, that text sure sounds like poor pathetic Casey Luskin, the sad little mouse. He’s always getting picked on by all those people who are bigger and meaner and smarter than he is; he probably wears a football helmet when he goes on the internets to protect his delicate little brain.

Do the intelligent citizens of Florida a favor and sign the petition urging better standards for education. More pressure!

A review in the New Orlando Sentinel asks the question, “Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?”

In the cruelest slam of creationism yet, it is accompanied by this photo:

That’s just mean.

Anyway, read the whole thing. It’s a review of Expelled, and … no, sir, he didn’t like it.

He uses "straw man" tactics to attack, mainly The Origin of the Species, as Darwin wrote it in 1859. He sets up false theses that "the other side" must hold (classic Limbaugh) and knocks those straw men down. Citing scientific research as recent as 1953, he can’t understand why no peer-reviewed scientist thinks this "fairytale" version of the emergence of life is worth his or her time.

Most despicably, Stein, a Jew, invokes the Holocaust, making the Hitler-was-a-Darwinist argument, this AFTER he’s used the Holocaust denier’s favorite trick, "math," to show how remote the chances are that life was created by natural, not supernatural processes. It reminded me of the phony slump Michael Moore showed walking away from ambushing crusty old Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine.

Animation, similar to that used in Columbine, makes its mock points about how science comes to conclusions and how the culture is structured to accept them. Snippets of The Wizard of Oz, Inherit the Wind and other films (if this film is indeed "unfinished," it may be from unresolved rights-clearance issues) to make his points funny. Not really. The Stalin and Soviet and Nazi clips are used in a not-quite-subliminal seduction way to demonize the people who might hold a contrary view.

For those of you looking for audio of that debate with Simmons, you can download an MP3 now. I’m actually a little bit impressed that the radio station has enough integrity to retain the file and make it available to their listeners.

I can’t say as much about Uncommon Descent. They briefly put up a thread to discuss the debate as it was happening, the comments accumulated, and many conceded the debate to me (while, of course, disagreeing with me). It wasn’t a troll thread, no vituperation was going on, it was just a fairly ordinary set of comments with nothing objectionable, I though…but then, poof, today it is gone. It is preserved at After the Bar Closes.

I don’t like to do this; even when discussing the work of the anti-scientists in the creationist movement, we should link to their work. But I’m not going to link to Uncommon Descent ever again. It’s not that they’re wrong or that I disagree with them, but that the site is profoundly dishonest and unreliable, and can’t be trusted. I’m not going to link to a site which will freely shift and modify their content to polish their image, since who knows where any link will end up.