And it’s in an article by Cornelia Dean, one of their best science people. I have to single out this short summary of the argument as a good example of the right way to handle the “controversy”.

The growing furor over the movie, visible in blogs, on Web sites and in conversations among scientists, is the latest episode in the long-running conflict between science and advocates of intelligent design, who assert that the theory of evolution has obvious scientific flaws and that students should learn that intelligent design, a creationist idea, is an alternative approach.

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are “not within the scope or abilities of science.”

I’ve emphasized that last paragraph because it is so good to see: instead of the usual dreadful “he said, she said” nonsense that passes for balance, Dean plainly states the scientific position, which does not include the supernatural. But on to the premise of the film, and the dishonest protestations of its makers:

[Read more…]

Denyse O’Leary finds another review of Lifecode … and reveals again her own lack of discrimination. It’s by Jerry Bergman, a deranged young earth creationist who works for the Institute of Creation Research. Why??? This is a man with disreputable credentials afflicted with a ridiculous position on science — it’s like writing down the ramblings of some addled wino, and has just as much credibility.

It’s a tepid review that does not endorse Pivar’s work at all (not good enough for Jerry Bergman—that’s got to sting.) But mainly what we learn is that Bergman doesn’t know any biology.

All cells and embryos assume the toroidal shape. How they respond to this initial shape determines their adult morphology. The details of how this shape guides development and morphogenesis in general were, in my opinion, not very well defended in this work. This theory may explain certain aspects of the external morphology of a life form, but how much else does it explain?

No, Pivar’s theory explains nothing, because cells and embryos do not assume this hypothetical toroidal shape. The reason the work fails is that it ignores and contradicts basic observations of developmental processes — the kind of stuff undergraduates can routinely observe.

Bergman also whines a little bit; I can understand why he’d sympathize with crackpottery, since he’s one himself. But this claim is bogus:

In the meantime, the comments on Amazon and various Web sites leave me wondering why there is such an emotional and vociferous reaction to a new theory of evolution. Part of the reaction is that any theory that proposes to replace Darwinism produces a knee-jerk reaction of uncalled-for invective. This attitude hardly encourages new ideas.

You can read my reviews of Lifecode and it’s second version. My gripes were that it was fantasy, not science, and that it ignored the evidence.

There is no “knee-jerk”. There is a recognition that people like Pivar and Bergman are unqualified kooks who make stuff up, and act as if they’re knowledgeable. It is well-considered, measured, and deserved invective.

I know there are a few fans of Peter Irons out there — and maybe some of you agree that he ought to have a blog. Since he doesn’t, though, I’m posting a little email exchange he had with Denyse O’Leary and William Dembski, by his request and with the permission of the participants.

[Read more…]

Wesley Elsberry covers the contemptible David Vitter’s stealth funding for creationism efforts. Vitter’s a devious little sneak, and it’s good to see him exposed.

Oh, no. Another one. Yet another kook is inspired by Ken Ham’s example and plans to open a “museum” … in the Wisconsin Dells. The Dells, if you don’t know it, is a family resort area, rather cheesy (ha! In Wisconsin! I made a funny), and crammed with waterparks and waterskiing shows and carnival rides and bowling alleys and little stage shows—a creationist “museum” will fit right in.

The guy who has collected a hodge-podge of creationist exhibits, Bill Mielke, exhibits the typical rhetorical coherence of his breed.

“What we’re doing is those that say it’s scientific, is to say it’s not religion against science, but religion against ‘junk science,'” he said. “There is no transitional life forms and there’s no evidence.”

Um, OK. Whatever he just said.

Anyway, this joker has already rented out space in the Waupaca High School (to which we all have to say, “wtf??!?”), and has been exhibiting his trash for some time. Now he wants to put it on display in a dedicated space at a resort, not far from the lovely university town of Madison, Wisconsin. Bleh. All I can say is that, if he does this … ROAD TRIP! Let’s catch the lunacy before it folds into bankruptcy.

(Hat tip to Beautiful Biology)

How do the Irish keep track of them all? They have more than two political parties, and yet they only have two middle fingers to raise up and wave at them. All I can say, though, is that if I were living in Northern Ireland, I wouldn’t be voting for the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which narrows the field a little. Look at the tripe they’re pushing on the schools now:

A DUP proposal that Lisburn Council should write to local secondary and grammar schools encouraging them to teach alternative theories to evolution is set to face stiff opposition when it is debated next week.

That sure sounds familiar: “alternative theories” is one of the mantras of the Discovery Institute, which then conveniently neglects to mention that none of the lies they’re peddling rises to the level of legitimacy of a theory. The DUP has an up-and-coming young wanker named Paul Givan to babble yet more familiar old nonsense.

The Corporate Services Committee agreed to a proposal by the DUP’s Paul Givan that they should contact all second level schools in the Lisburn City Council area “encouraging them to teach alternative theories to evolution as the origins of the earth, such as Creation and Intelligent Design.”

Mr Givan said: “I have never believed in the theory of evolution and, like many people, believe in the teaching of creation. I believe science points to creation but our schools are teaching a very narrow remit and many exclude alternative theories to evolution. I have asked the Council to write to local schools encouraging them to give equality of treatment to other theories of the origins of life and how the earth came into existence.”

Mr Givan believes science points to creation, yet his qualifications list only his degrees in Business Studies and, of course, his hobby of lying to children at a Sunday School. Perhaps that’s where he learned all of his science?

While the Irish newspapers might poke fun at our creationist idiots (deservedly, too), at least now we can poke back at Ireland’s own creationism problem, with representation in Northern Ireland’s largest political party.