It’s a somewhat odd article in which I apparently attributed evolution to nothing but chance, since the only alternative is Design. This, of course, is not my view, but there’s enough other stuff in there to stir up controversy that maybe we’ll stir up a contentious audience.

There is, apparently, an intelligent design creationism proponent on the faculty of Southern Oregon University, and they got a few comments from him.

Professor Roger Christianson said there are alternative explanations of how diversity happened, and “people who believe in intelligent design feel the complexity of life is too great to come about by naturalistic forces.”

Christianson, an evangelical Christian, said he has brought up intelligent design and creation science in class to show the swing of the pendulum between the two schools of thought, and “I suggest the truth is somewhere in the middle.”

“I talk mostly about adaptation that can be seen from either point of view,” he said. “… I see the world as an evolving pot, with natural selection as the driving force, but I certainly don’t rule out that an intelligence or a creator is involved.”

Charming. Of course, my talk tonight is specifically a counter to that silly and ignorant notion that the fact that organisms are complex must imply that they were designed. And no, there aren’t two schools of thought: there are religious kooks on one side, and the scientific evidence on the other…and only in the minds of the deluded is the correct answer “somewhere in the middle”.

Experience tells me, though, that Professor Christianson will be nowhere near my talk tonight.

This is terribly crass of me, I know, but I’d love to win a free iPod Touch or iPod Shuffle. All I have to do is get the most people to click through the link posted below, and if I’m one of the top 3 promoters, I win! I get all these readers here, so I figure I might as well use you for personal gain.

Here’s the link. Come back and click on it every day!

Creation Minute is an exciting series hosted by Eric Hovind that explores the creation worldview using cutting-edge visual effects and digital technology. Each episode challenges the evolution theory and gives evidence of the Bible’s historical and scientific accuracy.

Well, as you can guess, I’m not really after the gadget itself…I’m more interested in seeing Eric Hovind compelled to send it to me. Heh heh heh.

(Of course, given his family’s criminal tendencies, and their adherence to Christian immorality, there is a good chance that even if I get the most click-throughs, I won’t win.)

There is hope in Texas. Deranged creationist dentist Don McLeroy is getting grilled in confirmation hearings.

State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, faced searing questioning during his uncommonly long confirmation hearing Wednesday at the Senate Nominations Committee.

And Chairman Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, said McLeroy’s nomination is on shaky ground because he might not be able to get the required two-thirds vote from the Senate.

Texans, call your congresscritters and urge them to purge this embarrassment from the board of education. If you can shed McLeroy, I will celebrate and write a post fulsome in its praise of the beauty and wisdom of Texans, I promise.

It’s long and fairly detailed, but this synopsis by a lawyer will give you the gist.

This lawsuit is gloriously insane. From top to bottom, this is exactly the kind of lawsuit you would expect from the kind of minds who think the world is 6,000 years old.

The NCSE has been posting videos of events at the Texas Board of Education — they are very informative and well worth spending some time watching.

Here’s an example of the bad guys: Don Patton preening smarmily and accusing Darwinism of failing because a ‘prediction’ had failed. The ‘prediction’, as he presents it, is that the fossil record would disgorge a complete accounting of all of evolution…and he can quote biologists from Darwin to Eldredge saying that such a complete series has not been found. He ignores the fact that the actual scientific prediction that the fossil record would always be spotty and incomplete, and most importantly, that there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the idea.

To counter that, here’s historian Abigail Lustig. Notice that right off the bat what she does is point out the distinction between common descent and the mechanism of natural selection, and that more than fossils were involved: biogeography, sysematics, comparative anatomy, etc.

This is also something to emphasize: she’s a historian. The creationist assault on education is not confined to just biology—they have targeted every discipline that challenges their claim of Christian superiority and the infallibility of religious belief.

A while back, the Institute for Creation Research tried to get approval to issue degrees in the state of Texas — they would have used this authority to churn out science teachers whose knowledge would have been derived entirely from the Bible and young earth creationist tracts. Fortunately, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board flatly turned them down, one of the smart moves in which Texas can take some pride.

Now, however, the ICR is now suing the THECB. Seriously. Even better, the lawsuit is a dense compendium of concentrated hilarity.

The sixty-seven-page complaint teems with various factual claims and legal arguments, leading a blogger for the Dallas Observer (April 20, 2009) to quip that it “reads kind of like stereo instructions.” It also teems with unabashed creationist rhetoric, citing articles from the ICR’s publication Acts and Facts along with case law, explaining that Paredes — born as he was in 1942 — was not a witness to the Big Bang, asserting that discussions about the origin of life and the formation of the earth “do not become ’empirical science’ simply because those discussions emit from the oral cavities of ‘scientists'” (p. 33), and insisting that the Big Bang “should not be confused with the ‘great noise’ mentioned in 2nd Peter 3:10” (p. 21).

I find it heartwarming that the creationists are once again demonstrating their profound legal acumen on top of their mastery of logic and science. Those of you who find amusement in outré and hysterical legal documents can read the whole of the complaint online.

Sometimes I get requests for assistance with creationists. Usually, it’s because some unwarrantedly confident ignoramus has been lying his butt off. Here’s a perfect example:

I have a quick question concerning an encounter I had with a man last night who claimed he was a scientist (although, foolishly, I didn’t ask him what field).

He made the claim that the majority of biologist do not “believe” in evolution. (He also pulled out the standard canards of “no macro biology” and “evolution requires faith”; I’m not wasting my time or your with this.) He claimed he has a “list” of all the biologist who “disbelieve” in evolution. and the many books he has read show this to be true.

I know this false. I told him so, but really didn’t want to get into this. He claimed the media made it seem as if biologists accepted evolution.

I cannot for the life me understand exactly where he is coming from. Do you know anything about some “list” circulating apologists of biologist who supposedly don’t accept the theory of evolution. I know a few do, but isn’t the scientific consensus something on the lines of 95%?

I’m curious if you’ve heard similar claims before and what you make of them. Next time I see this made I would like to be able to simply, flatly explain to him that he is wrong. (When a “scientist” tells me that evolution is random chance, my BS meter goes off like you wouldn’t believe. But since I’m not a scientist, he can try to claim some sort of argument from authority over me, and I don’t want to be hypocrite and claim my own argument from authority.)

Of course I’ve heard of this list: it’s the infamous Discovery Institute list of “scientists who dissent from Darwinism”, parodied by the Project Steve list, and which contains a few hundred names, many of whom are not scientists — the list leans towards dentists and engineers and such. It is a tiny number of people…if the majority of scientists rejected evolution, it would be rather easy to get tremendous numbers of names signed on, don’t you think?

Even easier, though, pick a biology department, any department anywhere. Go in and ask the faculty what they think of evolution. You’ll discover impressive unanimity — virtually 100% of every department will tell you that evolution is true and useful. You will find an occasional exception, though: the Lehigh University biology department comes to mind, and even there, they post a disclaimer stating that Michael Behe is the sole dissenter who rejects their unequivocal support of evolutionary theory.

My correspondent’s mysterious “scientist” was that extremely common phenomenon among creationists, the guy who has no evidence and relies on blustering falsehoods, a complete fraud.

Speaking of creationist liars…how about Casey Luskin? The primary reason so many biologists accept evolution is that it simply works: it’s a useful theoretical tool that guides research successfully, and helps scientists get work done and published. If the ID crowd actually had a model that helped us understand the world better, we’d be flocking to it. In an email debate, a fellow named Rhiggs engaged Luskin on just this topic, asking for sources to positive evidence and experiments backing design. Luskin tosses out the usual creationist handwaving, and attempts to hijack the work of legitimate, non-creationist scientists as supporting ID…but completely fails to produce any of that primary research literature that Rhiggs is asking for.

There are quite lengthy exchanges going on there, with Luskin always evading the main point (I could have said this was a futile effort: Luskin is no scientist, and his ignorance is legendary). Finally, though, he gives an excuse:

I assure you that I don’t ignore arguments. You don’t know me and I am not that kind of person. In fact, I’ve been traveling a lot for work lately, but in the last week over the course of 2 long plane flights I’ve managed to find time to work on replying to you. I’m nearly done with the reply and I hope to finish it on another flight I have later this week. FYI, my reply is already over 5000 words, and it begins by saying, “Greetings after an undesired delay on my part. I appreciate the time you took in your extensive reply. Because you put in so much time, you deserve a reply. I apologize that it took a while to reply–I’ve been busy a lot over the past couple weeks, including much traveling, and in fact I’m finally getting some free time now that I’m on a flight.” Thanks again–I hope you will hear from me soon.

“Soon” is 13 months ago. Maybe I’ll have to post reminders to him on Paul Nelson Day — this is becoming expected behavior from that gang of propagandists.

Stop the presses! I was sent a better, more accurate, and more informative timeline for Intelligent Design creationism. Use this one.

You can see why this one is better. It goes into the future.

I hand out a geological timeline in my introductory biology course, and I expect the students to learn it. It’s a busy little sheet of paper. But have you ever wondered what the old earth creationist timeline would look like?

[Read more…]