It’s a big weekend for the creationists in Minnesota

We have a couple of unfortunate events happening.

One is the Creation Science Fair. I’ve been thinking for years that I ought to drop in on this event, and every year it rolls around and I find myself completely unable to do it. I can cope with adults who do stupid things — they are independent and presumably responsible, after all — but these are kids who are being lied to and led deeper into ignorance. It would be like going to a puppy-kicking party, and I’d just want to gather up all the victims and take them home with me.

The other event this weekend is a debate…a debate between a dimwitted dogmatic creationist and a minister in Owatonna. There can be no winner here: it’s a battle between a severely brain-damaged cretin and a blind man. The event is a byproduct of the Clergy Letter project/evolution weekend promotion, which seeks to get ministers around the country to preach science from the pulpit.

Did I ever mention how much I despise the clergy project?

I know they mean well, but I’ve read some of these sermons the participants preach, and they are uniformly awful. They say things like, “the rightful place of science is in church,” a sentiment I find horrifying. No, science does not need to be swaddled up in superstition and dogma. Ultimately, what this project looks like to me is an attempt to expand the domain of religion to encompass science, and that’s something I’m always going to oppose.

The ‘good’ guy in the Owatonna debate is John Weisenburger, a Lutheran pastor, who makes some semi-sensible comments.

My goal is to bring light to the fact that you don’t have to be a Christian and believe Genesis as the actual time span. That’s not why the Bible was written. It’s not a book that is set out to tell scientific facts — it sort of answers deeper questions related to why God created us.

So evolution is not a religious idea…so why is Weisenburger trying to appropriate it? Leave it alone. Keep it out of the churches. It’s kind of pointless, anyway, since in the Coming Atheist Paradise, people will be converting the churches into bowling alleys and art galleries, anyway.

But I also detest that claim that the Bible answers “deeper questions”. What are they? Zippy the Pinhead also answers “deeper questions,” but that doesn’t mean his answers are any good, after all. How do we evaluate the validity of answers the Bible comes up with? It seems to be an exceptionally unreliable document.

i-33108e78c6a2983fa213f646c37fe6d1-zippy.jpeg

A conversation with Weisenburger might be weakly interesting as an exercise in challenging someone who is at least trying to think. His opponent, Brock Lee, is a Big Fat Creationist Idiot. He’s not just ignorant, he’s been flogged hard with a stupid stick. Brock Lee is the kind of nitwit who makes arguments like this:

Around November 19th of 2008, Brock Lee calculated the number of mutations that would be needed to randomly create the largest protein in the world (which, according to Ian Juby’s The Complete Creation Part 12, is 26,926 amino acids long). The calculations took about half an hour to complete, and revealed that the required mutation number is 3.41777×10^35031. That’s correct: 3 followed by 35031 zeros, or more precisely, 341777 followed by 35026 zeros. This is a massive number, and shows the incredible intricacy of the creation and the impossibility of evolution. In other words, before creating even the most complex protein, there would have to be more than 1×10^35000 calculations per second. To beat the point to death, or as Ian Juby says, to flog the fossil equines, Brock gave evolutionists 1 quadrillion times the amount of time that they claim for the universe. It is still more than 1 x10^34998 calculations per second. Evolution is impossible. To read more, click on the title above to go to an article entirely dedicated to this topic.

He’s quite proud of the fact that he calculated the value of 2026926, so proud that he has a whole page dedicated to explaining how he did basic arithmetic in a spreadsheet. He doesn’t even stop to think that maybe his whole premise is false: it assumes the entire protein was instantaneously assembled completely by the chance arrangement of a series of amino acids. It’s so bad, it’s not even wrong.

Speaking of not even wrong, here’s the way his mind works in that newspaper article:

To me this is not about creation versus evolution. Most people want to peg it as religion versus science. It’s not. First off, if you’re going to say it’s a religion that’s preventing science, evolution is the religion that’s preventing science, because you’ve got atheistic evolutionists who are saying ‘Well, all the science points to a God, but I don’t want to believe in that so I’ll believe the impossible instead.’

This debate is going to be insane.

I’m half-tempted to go just for the laughs.

Rise up, Texans!

Grassroots action can do wonderful things. Voters in Don McLeroy’s district in Texas are organizing an ad campaign and are looking for contributions to help air radio ads opposing McLeroy’s candidacy: as they say, “The ads will target moderate republicans who realize that to compete globally in the 21st century Texas needs smart students who are well educated, critical thinkers,” which is exactly the right approach to take. We need to mobilize the sensible conservatives and get them to realize that their continued entanglement with raving nutbags has been a formula for short-term electoral success and long-term disaster.

Dutch poll needs a little help

Dutch creationists have put up a foolish little poll — surprise them with a little adjustment.

Hoe is het leven op aarde ontstaan? (How did life arise on Earth?)

God schiep het leven in zes dagen (God created life in six days)
69.4%
Door Evolutie (By Evolution)
20.7%
Door Spontane Generatie (By Spontaneous Generation)
5%
God stuurde de evolutie (By god-directed evolution)
4.1%

God schiep het leven in langere tijd (God created life some time)
0.8%

Er is een intelligente ontwerper maar onbekend wie (There is an unknown intelligent designer)
0%

It isn’t an exclusionary filter, it’s a standard of quality

In my week long visit to Ireland, I only had one encounter that left a bad taste in my mouth. Everyone I talked to was forthright and willing to state their views clearly, even if I thought they were dead wrong and rather stupid (my radio interview with Tom McGurk comes to mind — he was an unpleasant person more interested in barking loudly than having a conversation, but his views were plain), and most of my conversations were fun and interesting. The one exception was with a creationist in Belfast.

After my talk, this one furtive fellow who hadn’t had the nerve, apparently, to ask me anything in the public Q&A, came down front to confront me with his, errm, ‘irrefutable’ argument, which came straight from Answers in Genesis. I later learned that he’s one of the leaders of a creationist organization on campus.

He first declared that creationists and evolutionists all use the same evidence, we just differ in our presuppositions. AiG makes this claim all the time, and it’s complete nonsense. The creationists deny almost all of the evidence, using their catch-all excuse: if it contradicts the Bible, it is false. It’s not just a difference in starting premises, but a willingness on the part of the faith-based crowd to stick their fingers in their ears and shout “LA-LA-LA” at the majority of the reality-based evidence.

The only way to call it merely a difference in presuppositions is if they’re willing to admit that their fundamental presupposition is an unthinking obtusity.

That was just his prelude, though. His real goal was to try and trap me. He asked me if I admitted that the scientific position demands that we reject all alternative explanations — whether we can consider supernatural causes. I’ve thought about this before, and I told him no. I am willing to consider other possibilities, if someone provides a useful, testable, confirmable means for evaluating truth claims.

Then I asked him what alternative method to science he was suggesting.

He didn’t give me one — he simply announced with a grin that he was just confirming that I automatically rejected alternative explanations, and as I repeated my simple statement, that no, I did not, but that he was obligated to explain what his alternative might be — after all, I reject tarot cards and entrails-reading as methods for interpreting the world, and it’s a bit silly to pretend that I should have blanket acceptance of just any alternative method without telling me what it is — he thanked me for confirming his opinion and the sneaky little git scuttled away.

That’s what I detest most. Lying weasels who won’t listen honestly, and especially won’t even speak honestly.

Anyway, what brought up this recollection was an interesting post on Sandwalk on methodological naturalism. It nicely points out that there is a convention in the scientific community that treats methodological naturalism as a straitjacket that arbitrarily binds us. I don’t think that’s true at all.

The principle of MN is often conceived of as an intrinsic and self-imposed limitation of science, as something that is part and parcel of the scientific enterprise by definition. According to this view (Intrinsic MN or IMN) – which is defended by people like Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse and Robert Pennock and has been adopted in the ruling of Judge John E. Jones III in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case – science is simply not equipped to deal with the supernatural and therefore has no authority on the issue. It is clear that this depiction of science and MN offers some perspectives for reconciling science and religion. Not surprisingly, IMN is often embraced by those sympathetic to religion, or by those who wish to alleviate the sometimes heated opposition between the two.

However, we will argue that this view of MN does not offer a sound rationale for the rejection of supernatural explanations. Alternatively, we will defend MN as a provisory and empirically grounded commitment of scientists to naturalistic causes and explanations, which is in principle revocable by future scientific findings (Qualified MN or QMN). In this view, MN is justified as a methodological guideline by virtue of the dividends of naturalistic explanation and the consistent failure of supernatural explanations in the history of science.

I think science is primarily a pragmatic approach that takes whatever tools work to build a better (as evaluated by testing against real-world observations) understanding of how the universe works. My major objection to creationism isn’t that it violates a set of dogmatic rules established by scientists playing a formal game, but that it provides no working alternative that I can use. The creationists mistake a series of assertions about history for a bank of operational methods for creating and answering new questions about the world.

Exclusion isn’t quite the right word for what we’re doing. Science’s job is to fill up the silos of the world with the grain of useful information, and we’ve found that applying the principles of the scientific method and operating under the guidelines of methodological naturalism means we’re productive: we can keep trundling up with wagonloads of corn and wheat and rice. The creationists are showing up with broken-down, essentially empty carts, containing nothing but chaff, a few dirt clods, and some fragrant manure, and they’re being turned away because they have nothing to contribute. You’re not being excluded if you have nothing to offer.

I imagine that Belfast creationist went back to his clique of ignorant pissants with a sense of triumph, and proudly announced that I had dogmaticly refused to include his offering of hot air and dust as nutritious and fit for a feast, and therefore was yet another tool of the establishment who unfairly discriminated against their way of knowing. Sorry, guy; a wealth of ignorance is no substitute for even a grain of knowledge.

Oh, cool: somebody standing there actually recorded the conversation in question.

Word salad lunacy Bible babble blah blah blah

I’ve often noticed a tendency for some people to host a whole gnarly syndrome of denialist symptoms: some people are creationists+HIV denialists+global warming denialists+ant-vaxers+whatever. They stand out in the crowd as hyper-intense paragons of idiocy; I often wonder how they get around at all, since the power of their disbelief is so strong that they probably deny their shoelaces as soon as they get up in the morning, yet at the same time they believe a magic man in the sky will soon make them float up into the air to a rapturous eternal congress of their fellow reality deniers.

I’ve found an amazing example of this syndrome. You’ll be able to recognize the problem from just the title of his blog post: Christendom Preachers Pastors Christian Lay People Asleep Wheel Ignore Darwinian Attacks Veracity Genesis Scriptural Inerrancy Not Defended Historical Account Torah Doubted Treated Lightly Quaint Fairie Tales Believers Story Adam Jesus Revelation When Will Evangelists Pulpits America Wake Up Academic Intellectual Onslaught Christian Holy Writ? The post is ostensibly a defense of Young Earth Creationism, but somehow includes rants about Obama’s “shadow government,” gays, Egyptian history, teabaggers, birth certificates, yadda yadda yadda. Have you ever had a conversation with a schizophrenic? Read that long, long post and you’ll get a slight feel for that.

Unfortunately, he claims to be done with blogging.

So I think I’ll be cutting back on my blogging, tired of so very few inquiries and expressions of interest, none from pastors, can you believe it?

No, really?

Teach both sides!

I’d recommend that every school board member who proposes that we teach both sides of the evolution “controversy” view this movie, except they’re usually such delicate prudes who get outraged at tone that they’d probably have a heart attack at the profanity in this clip.

Wait…maybe that’s an additional reason they should watch it!

West Bend, Wisconsin: aspiring to be the next Texas?

There is a nest of creationist fruit loops scattered across Wisconsin, and they do try to get on school boards. The latest is David Weigand, a candidate for the board of education in the West Bend school district. Seriously, do not vote for this kook. Here’s his statement on evolution.

WITH REGARD TO TEACHING EVOLUTION OR CREATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

In a nutshell, this is what I believe:

1. Origin studies, (whether Creation or evolution) and the idea of “millions of years” does not belong in the science classroom because these are not testable, repeatable or observable; they are philosophical and accepted by faith.

2. If evolution is taught in school, students should be taught the truth about it and the scientific data surrounding it. Ideas that were once championed by evolutionists are no longer valid, much like the false science behind man-made global warming. Students deserve the truth.

You can spot an acolyte of Answers in Genesis from a mile away — that mantra of “millions of years” is a theme they recite over and over in their “museum” and website. They regard the phrase as a dead giveaway that one is not a true Christian out to destroy America.

The relativism is also AiG baloney. They love to whine that all ideas are equal, that it’s all just opinion, so their clown circus values are just as valid as science. It’s not true. The age of the earth has been repeatedly tested and observed using multiple methods, and it always comes up old, old, old…no faith required, and the science actually crosses the boundaries of individual faiths. Their young earth dogma, though, is built on nothing but faith, and has been actively refuted by experiment and observation.

That last paragraph is just kook-sign, a symptom of religious derangement syndrome. I’ve found that people who reject the science of evolution also have a tendency to be avid denialists of all kinds of other science, from climate change to the HIV cause of AIDS.

David Wiegand. Your wingnut ignoramus candidate. Vote for him if you hate science and education, too.

Wheels within wheels

Ben Stein wins another honor. He has been declared the Rosa Parks of Darwin skeptics on the Rosa Parks of Rosa Parks Blogs, which points out amusing and offensive instances of rhetorical hyperbole. The amusing bit here, though, is that he got named this on the basis of an old post by creationist Kevin Wirth which does literally say Ben Stein is the Rosa Parks of Darwin Skeptics, right in the title. I’d seen this before, way back in the old days of the Expelled hoo-ha, but this time I noticed an interesting connection. At the bottom of the article, it has this brief biographical note:

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is the publisher and editor of the new book “Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters” by Dr. Jerry Bergman. He has investigated and researched issues related to the persecution of Darwin Doubters since 1982.

Wait, what? Jerry Bergman? That Jerry Bergman, the carbon-is-irreducibly-complex and chemistry-is-a-religion-so-you’ll-get-fired-for-posting-the-periodic-table Jerry Bergman? The crazy Jerry Bergman I debated back in November?

Wow. Kevin Wirth really knows how to pick ’em.

It also reminds me…that debate was recorded by the local creationists, and they said a DVD would be made available; it would have been nice if they’d sent me a copy. They haven’t. The existence of any recording seems to have faded away from their site. I wonder why?

It can’t be embarrassment, because they actually host a pdf by Bergman arguing his bizarre version of irreducible complexity.

…the only way to refute the concept of irreducible complexity is to demonstrate that all objects can be reduced to a fundamental particle and still function properly. If a radio, a functional eye or ear, can be achieved, for example, by a single quark (the particle scientists now believe is irreducible)–or all, of the functions of an intelligent human, including the ability to reproduce with other humans, can be produced by a single quark, they are not irreducibly complex.

Yeah, he’s that nuts. He doesn’t demand that evolutionists produce a mere crocoduck to prove evolution, he wants us to produce a porn film starring talking quarks.

Poor science standard in Minnesota

Our state science standards are being patched up right now, and while they’re mostly just fine, one sneaky provision is still on the books.

“The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory.”

It’s the old ‘teach the controversy’ argument. While it seems innocuous, and we actually should teach kids how to address established theories critically, it’s really just a backdoor for teachers who sympathize with creationism to smuggle in instruction in intelligent design creationism. It’s also more difficult than it sounds. Even this article, which is sympathetic to good science education, gets the idea wrong. Here’s an example given of a ‘challenge’ to evolutionary theory.

The National Geographic article reports that the fossil, called Ardi, challenges portions of the theory of evolution that say the missing link between humans and apes would look something like a chimpanzee. For example, Ardi is changing our way of thinking about how hominids moved about. Its big toe splays out from the foot to better to grasp tree limbs. However, its foot contains an extra bone that keeps the toe rigid to help the hominid walk bipedally on the ground. The extra bone is not found in the lineages of chimps and gorillas. Also, the upper pelvis is “positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp,” researchers say, while the lower pelvis was built like an ape’s to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.

No, no, no, no, no. There is absolutely nothing in the discovery of Ardipithecus that challenges any portion of the theory of evolution. It’s an observation of a historical quirk, a detail of the pattern of changes in one lineage. It’s the equivalent of finding an apple tree, watching the fruit fall, and noticing that one apple bounced left, and another bounced to the right — if you’re really, really interested in the distribution of apple bounces (in the way we’re personally interested in human evolution), it may be interesting…but it does not in any way challenge Newton’s laws of gravity.

See the problem? A lot of people misunderstand the concept of a theory; we’re going to get a crop of teachers who don’t know what they’re talking about who will intentionally try to sow doubt in students’ minds by putting forward claims that miscellaneous facts challenge evolutionary theory when they do no such thing.

The only way this standard could be at all useful is if the teacher actually understands deeply that the theories listed can not be currently challenged, except by inventing weird science-fictional ideas that are unsupported by evidence…like intelligent design creationism. I can think of observations that would contradict evolution, easy, but guess what? There are no alternatives, and the creationists certainly have not provided any evidence against evolution.