That radio debate was a hoot and a half, but I can’t take credit. All the joy came straight from the mouth and brain of my lovely opponent, who obviously didn’t do a lick of research for either the debate or for his books. I was shocked for a moment when, after I’d mentioned the recent discovery of Indohyus, he went on to claim that there were no intermediates between that deer-like artiodactyl and modern whales … and when I tried to mention Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodcetus, Basilosaurus, etc., he seemed to have never heard of them, claimed his information came from a Scientific American article some months ago (way to plumb the depths of the scientific literature, Dr Simmons!), and then started making stuff about them not exhibiting dorsoventral flexion in swimming, and not having dorsal blowholes. He wrote a whole book about “Billions of missing links”! His other book, What Darwin Didn’t Know, needs to be retitled in a new edition, What Geoffrey Simmons Doesn’t Know. It will be a very large book.

I shouldn’t have been surprised at his performance, though. I have a secret: I read part of What Darwin Didn’t Know before the show, and knew exactly what kind of creationist I was engaging.

I have to share a few tidbits with you from that hilarious book. It has a chapter titled “Purposeful Design” which purports to list 81 examples of design. He has very low standards. Basically, anything that works is evidence of design.

The mouth, vagina, urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.

This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn’t drooling and feces aren’t dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.

The book is full of confessions like that.

Menopause: Are women designed not to have babies when they age or are physically less fit, or is it the reverse, that babies shouldn’t be born to women who might not live until their children have grown up? Most women go through menopause around 52 years of age, and they all go through menopause in much the same way. It is clearly programmed. A similar pattern is found in men. As they approach 50, many have lower testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, and less interest in having sex.

What a bizarre argument. So, when the life expectancy was around 30 or 40 (say, in the time of Jesus), shouldn’t women have entered menopause around the age of ten or twenty? And if a designer is setting the timers on women’s fertility for optimum utility, I have a complaint: I want daughters’ fertility switched off until they’re old enough to handle it. Like around 30.

All women don’t go through menopause in the same way. There is an underlying similar cause, but the symptoms and expression of that mechanism is different in everyone.

And, umm, how old is Geoffrey Simmons?

His age might not matter. I don’t think he knows very much about sex. Look at this argument: women’s bodies are perfectly designed to maximize their enjoyment of the missionary position!

Intercourse: Face-to-face intercourse is relatively rare in the animal world, found only among whales, dolphins, dugongs, manatees, beavers, sea otters, centipedes, some crustaceans, a aNew Zealand songbird, and some primates like orangutans and bonobos [and squid. “Relatively rare,” huh? — pzm]

One might ask, how did human males and females evolve to be so perfectly compatible? Pelvic thrusting during intercourse stimulates both individuals and deposits the sperm in the deepest possible spot. Vaginal rugae (folds) stimulate the penis. Every male aspect of intercourse—from the initial excitement set off by visual cues and pheromones, to a good mechanical fit, to stimulation, to the placement of sperm—matches up well with the female’s equivalent interest, her means of being stimulated, the delivery of the egg, and her mechanisms to help the sperm on their voyage. Dopamine, a chemical responsible for feelings of reward and pleasure, is released into the bloodstream in males and females after sex, just as it is released after ingesting a good meal or certain illicit drugs.

Please, somebody, show Dr Simmons where the clitoris is and explain female orgasms to him…for the sake of Mrs Simmons!

After that mercy is taken care of, explain evolution to him. I will note that Dr Simmons is the product of parents who had sufficient interest in sex and sufficiently compatible plumbing that they could generate him, and that they in turn had parents with compatible genitalia, and they came from parents likewise, and on and on back into the past. There was never a point where anyone had two parents who did not have sex with each other, so his observation, from an evolutionary perspective, is completely trivial. Design is unnecessary.

I was really tempted to turn this debate into a sex education discussion, which would have been good for the Christian listeners. Imagine a Christian talk station that patiently explained to the male listeners what a clitoris was … there would be many happy smiling ladies in church.

Two days ago I was asked to participate in a radio debate with a Discovery Institute fellow. I asked about the topic and the format, and they said, “the evidence of Evolution vs. evidence of Intelligent Design” and “each would get a 5 minute opening statement and then we would debate the issues brought out in the opening statements.” OK, sure, I said, while rolling my eyes at the ridiculous expectations.

I’m supposed to call in in an hour and a half. I just got this email.

I just received an e-mail from Dr. Simmons requesting the title of the debate to change to “Are Darwin’s Theories Fact or Faith Issues?” When you agreed to the debate I proposed the title and format to you but did not consult with Dr. Simmons. I was corresponding with you while I was in the middle of a show that day and didn’t think to pass that specific information to Dr. Simmons. When he learned of the original title he requested this change but sent it to our Producer last night and I just learned of it now.

Well, isn’t this just so incredibly typical of frauds? Bait and switch, juggle the terms, move the goalposts, play games.

The show will go on. I had absolutely no respect for my opponent’s intellectual honesty in the first place, so I can’t argue that this has diminished it.

Floridians are meeting to discuss evolution! You just have to read one account, complete with quotes, of a creationist mob trying to articulate their opposition to science. There are plenty of amusing examples of dumbitude, but this one is my favorite:

Referring to the discovery that Pluto no longer is considered a planet by scientists today, Kendall said scientific opinions can change as scientists explore new information.

You have to understand…this fellow Kendall was using that as an argument against evolution.

That silly Iowa State physics fellow who was denied tenure has finally admitted to something sensible. First:

Gonzalez said in an e-mail Monday that he is applying for tenure-track positions in case the Regents do not act in his favor.

Good for him! Tenure denials happen all the time, and smart academics pick themselves up off the floor, brush off the debris, and move on. Turning it into a major trial in which your self-esteem and reputation are shackled to false notions that one must retain this one job is a recipe for further self-destruction. Move on, Guillermo! Liberty University and a host of other bible colleges need you!

The second thing needs a little work, but it’s getting close, and it is accurate.

“I’m convinced that I was denied tenure because of my [credulous, unproductive, failed] research,” he wrote in the e-mail.

OK, he actually wrote, “I’m convinced that I was denied tenure because of my intelligent design research,” but it means exactly the same thing.

Now, if he really wants to move on into a new position, one thing he has to realize is that he has to stop doing the same old stupid things that cost him his first one … like wasting time with a flop of a research plan designed by theocratic ideologues.

Larry Moran has one video clip, and here’s another:

What the heck is wrong with this country that such a clueless git should be considered by many to be a viable candidate for president?

It’s a bit of a switch from doing the Minnesota Atheists radio show last Sunday to what I’ll be doing on Thursday: I’ll be on the Jeff and Lee Christian talk radio program (they told me 4pm, but their schedule says 3; somewhere around there, anyway). Their guest is Geoffrey Simmons, and I’m supposed to “debate” him — he gets 5 minutes to present the evidence for ID, then I get 5 minutes to present the evidence for evolution, and then follows a 50 minute free-for-all.

I already told them the format wasn’t fair. I need weeks of air time just to summarize the evidence for evolution, while Simmons only needs nanoseconds of silence to cover the absence of evidence for his side. But we take what we can get.

By the way, the online poll you scamps ransacked is still up, and Hillary Clinton is still winning.

I didn’t know this until just now, but the National Center for Science Education has an Amazon Wish List. It’s interesting to see what dark corners they’re poking around in, so have a browse.

And of course, if anyone wanted to make a little contribution to that worthy organization, you could always click on “Add to Cart” and help them out by sending them a copy. These are resources they use to understand the opposition (and their own side) and to help make informed arguments … so give the gift of knowledge!

Steven Schafersman is the president of Texas Citizens for Science, and he sent along a status report for Texas — it’s not all bad news, and of course it’s always good to see a strong, active organization defending science in the state. I’ve put the full report below.

[Read more…]

Ben Stein must be on a campaign to make himself look stupid. Everyone here knows about his association with creationism, but it turns out this former student of economics at Yale is clueless about everything…but he still gets published in The New York Times.

First, let me begin with a first. I have never warned readers away from any one columnist or journalist, but after reading his column this weekend in The New York Times , I feel obligated to tell readers to never read Ben Stein again.

In indicting traders and lackeys in the press for the subprime selloff, Stein offers not one shred of evidence. Moreover, his implication that traders would purposefully tank the subprime market because they are short stock belies the reality that almost every Wall Street firm is getting creamed because they were not short. And traders are getting laid off left and right. Again: because they were not short.

He speaks about a wise brother-in-law who apparently once explained the legal system to him. He mentions a trader he once spoke to about a movement in the price of IBM. And that’s it.

He goes on to raise an eyebrow about the spread between the size of the write-offs and size of the market losses, without mentioning that part of the market losses have to do with the fact that no one knows where these securities should be priced (unknown is the greatest market fear) and, uh, there has been a concern or six about the economy besides subprime taking down prices.

I have seen a lot of bad business journalism in my day, but nothing as irresponsible and so wholly unsupported by facts. Actually, by even a single fact. This is his last line:

“And one thing’s for sure: With the traders running things, it won’t be a good time for amateurs until the traders cry “Switch!” and the market starts to rise.”

Read it (if you promise me it’ll be the last of his work you read) and tell me if this effort is any better than the braying on conspiracy Web sites. It was a shameful effort.

I’ve remarked before how difficult it is to satirize creationists — they’re already so absurd that any mockery is often overtaken by the reality. There is a corollary: creationists shouldn’t try to do satire. They really, really suck at it. This fellow from Sebring, Florida, William Dailey, Jr., has created a web site called the First Church of Evolution, for instance. There’s not much to it; he seems to have simply vented his spleen in a few text pages, but while he may think he was cleverly making fun of evolutionists, but all he really accomplished was to parade his own misconceptions. Here’s a sample:

Statement Of Faith

NATURAL SELECTION

We believe Natural Selection is a God to many, with the power of chance to form all things. This unseen, unknown force is the power for those who truly believe they have ascended from lower animals.

CHARLES DARWIN

We believe Charles Darwin is the prophet of Natural Selection. Having been chosen by Natural Selection, he has evolved to the most high prophet, having visualized through imagination the formation of all living things.

DECENT

The belief in positive mutation of living things which have descended from a common ancester, through millions of years in time and gazillions of transitions is a matter of faith.

THE SACRED WRITINGS

We believe that each of the written words of the Prophet Charles Darwin are as holy scripture among those who by faith believe they have evolved from lower animals.

CHANGE OF SPECIES

We believe change above or below species such as frog to dog, pig or monkey to man is a matter of unquestionable faith.

WE BELIEVE IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

Not even close. Look, a good satire needs a germ of truth to it. You need to take an actual attitude prevalent in the group you are making and just give it a little twist, enough that your target can recognize themselves and be made a bit uncomfortable. This is at best a satire of creationists, because it reflects their attitudes about faith more than ours.

Sorry, Bill. Go back to the drawing board, and aim for a little subtlety. This effort reminds me of a second-grader’s attempt at mockery, the kind of thing where a kid tries to make fun of someone else by making a funny face and announcing, “Durrr, I’m Suzy. I’m a poopy-head. Durrr.” I cringe when I see it, not because it’s struck anywhere near the mark, but because the poor dope doing it looks so foolish.