Stereotypical redneck stupid

What are they thinking? You may have heard that Bill Dembski commissioned and posted to his website for kids a very silly flash animation mocking Judge Jones and the words of his decision—it uses images of various evolution supporters to trigger Jones to recite criticisms of ID in a high-pitched voice, with grunts and fart sounds and other such classy touches. Now we learn that Dembski himself did the voice-overs. This was all absurd enough, but here’s the icing on the cake: Dembski was so proud of this effort, and so convinced that it was sufficiently amusing that everyone represented in the animation would enjoy it, that he sent out a letter asking those same evolution supporters for a “high res jpg” so they could be included, and asking Judge Jones to record his voice for the miserable little sneer.

Richard Dawkins has posted the letter. It’s unbelievably oblivious.

If they ever make a movie of the Dover trial, I think they have to get Larry the Cable Guy to play William Dembski.

Wait! There’s more!

In Richard Dawkins’ reply to that tripe, he wrote, “Anybody who resorts to tactics of desperation like this has to be a real loser.” This has prompted that master of decorum, DaveScot, to reply by calling Dawkins a “girly man”.

Now we have a real problem. For the movie, where are we going to find someone to play DaveScot? We need someone able to do crude and stupid even more thickly than Larry, and with even less sympathy.

Good grief, it’s like Dembski is in a contest to demonstrate how stupid he can be (I’m now thinking Jim Carrey must play him in the movie). He has just announced that there’s a new version…without the fart sounds.

The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance “The Judge Jones School of Law.” As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).

These guys are insane.

Ardea Skybreak teaches the controversy

Most books that teach the basics of evolutionary biology are fairly genteel in their treatment of creationism—they don’t endorse it, of course, but they either ignore it, or more frequently now, they segregate off a chapter to deal with the major claims. There are also whole books dedicated to combating creationist myths, of course, but they’re not usually the kind of book you pick up to get a tutorial in basic biology. In my hands I have an example of a book that does both, using the errors of creationism heavily to help explain and contrast the principles of evolutionary biology—it’s fascinating. This is what we should do if we were to “teach the controversy” in the classroom; it’s not what the other side wants, because teaching it honestly would mean the creationists would be the comic relief and endless whipping boy of the course, as they should be.

The book is The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) by Ardea Skybreak. It’s very good, but right up front I’ll mention its flaw, and one reason few scientists write books from this perspective: the frequent comparisons with creationism mean we’re also hoping the book will someday be hopelessly obsolete, if ever we can get those myths treated like the jokes they are. Scientists who are not engaged in the culture war are going to regard the book rather quizzically, since it does raise up nonsensical issues frequently; it really requires a peculiarly modern American context to make it all work. It’s one of those books that, the more it is read, the less relevant its approach would become.

But it does work in that context. Skybreak covers all the key concepts, but does so in a passionate, refreshingly aggressive way. She doesn’t hesitate to call a stupid idea stupid, and back up the charge with the evidence. If your interest in evolution isn’t simply academic, this is an excellent book to simultaneously inform and instruct, and supply the reasoning to deal with creationist foolishness. It’s also refreshing to see a book that isn’t timid about pointing out that fundamentalist religion is the source of the problem, and that isn’t afraid of offending creationists. It makes for an invigorating read, and I recommend it highly.

It’s not too late to order it for Christmas! It’s perfect for that person who wants to learn some solid biology, but also wants to be an activist for good science.

I do feel obligated to mention one thing that didn’t disturb me at all, but some readers might be concerned about. The book began as a series of articles in The Revolutionary Worker. There are a few hints of sympathy for socialist ideals in a few of the sidebars and endnotes, a sympathy I share (perhaps with significant reservations not held by the author), but otherwise, this is not an ideological work. Read it for the good science and the healthy slams against creationism without reservations about the source.

More creationist ellipses!

Over on Uncommon Descent, Sal Cordova quotes Lauren Sandler from her book Righteous, in a self-congratulatory attempt to claim the Dover decision as a victory for ID (oh, my, but aren’t they desperate). However, if you look at Cordova’s quote, there are…ellipses. Seeing an ellipsis in a creationist quote really ought to make you automatically wonder. Fortunately, Steve Story pulled out the actual, original quote over at Antievolution.org, so you too can see what was edited out.

Sal Cordova’s version

intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach thier views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed….” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intellignt design movement…

no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover’s attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis–the name says it all–don’t approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that’s just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one….
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth

The actual text:

Moreover, intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach their views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intelligent design movement that thinks in small steps, always taking the long view; any opportunity to introduce theism in the classroom is a push forward.
To be sure, a legal victory would have been a boon to the movement, but no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover’s attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis-the name says it all-don’t approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that’s just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one. Lawsuits, even the Rock for Life kids would tell you, aren’t the way to change hearts and minds.
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth: hire Evangelical teachers in mainly Christian communities, and make sure the local church elders have a presence on the PTA.  This is exactly what’s happening all over the country, beyond the gaze of newspaper assignment editors and pro bono prosecutors, and it’s working.

The message is simple: NEVER EVER TRUST A CREATIONIST.

The Disco Institute’s Division of Legal Affairs screws the pooch again

Didn’t I tell you Casey Luskin would weigh in on the DI’s take on Judge Jones’ “plagiarism” in his own inimitably bumbling way? What do you know, he did, and he has already been shot down. John West has also floundered in trying to address the issue, and he too has felt Sandefur’s fists of fury. Poor Discovery Institute. Isn’t media management supposed to be their area of expertise? How can they be sucking so badly at it?

So the media aren’t all bad…

Since I was just mean to the British press, here’s a compensatory accolade: here’s a nice, sharp editorial from James Randerson.

ID was itself designed as a Trojan horse for creationism, with its origins in the Discovery Institute, a thinktank in Seattle whose stated aim is “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”.

Even a conservative judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, saw through the sham last year when he heard a case brought by parents who objected to ID being taught in their school. “Intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” he wrote in his judgment.

Let’s be honest: despite its scientific-sounding frills and baubles, ID is pure religion. It is a reincarnation of an old idea that Darwin dispensed with and it has no place in a science class.

If they can’t get the details right, why trust them at all?

Is anyone else getting a “look how stupid Americans are” vibe from all the British coverage of Ken Ham’s creation ‘science’ museum? It’s another story from the European press that politely echoes Ham’s overblown claims for his grandiose edifice to ignorance, and mostly recycles the same old stuff we’ve heard over and over again. It really does seem to simply parrot whatever the Answers in Genesis con men say with complete credulity…for instance, I’ve seen this strange comment repeated multiple times in these kinds of stories.

Two-thirds of the US population lives within six hours’ drive of Cincinnati, but Mr Ham has bigger ambitions for tackling agnostics further afield.

Hold it. Think. Check your facts. Look at a map, and you’ll see that that domain outside of a circle with a radius of 300 miles includes everything west of Chicago, the entire urban Northeast, and most of the major cities of the South, such as Atlanta. It includes Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc., a populous region to be sure, but how can one argue that a small area that excludes California, Texas, New York, and Florida contains the bulk of the nation’s people? That’s an area of about 280,000 square miles in a country of 3,700,000 square miles—shouldn’t that make a reporter stop and think, especially when it is an area that does not include our regions of highest population density?

I’m beginning to feel a “look how stupid the BBC can be” vibe right now, myself. Does anyone know where this mysterious number comes from? Is it Ken Ham lying, or is it the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce lying?

DI: consult a lawyer

I am amused that now the Disco Institute is reduced to complaining that Judge Jones adopted the ACLU’s findings of fact in the Dover trial. It’s true that Jones didn’t write a big chunk of his decision, because he literally accepted the opinion of the DI’s opponents.

Apparently, this is a common judicial practice. I didn’t know that, but shouldn’t the DI know about it? Don’t they have a lawyer or lawyers working for them (they sure have a scientist deficiency)? Couldn’t they have asked someone on their staff whether this was ordinary procedure before they started complaining?

Oh, wait.

Casey Luskin. No wonder they screwed up. That boy has a reputation for rank incompetence and getting the facts wrong.