The Sensuous Curmudgeon

The Bitter Fruit of Evolution

9-July-2009 · 2 Comments

YOUR Curmudgeon has read so much creationist material that we fear our brain has become incurably corrupted. To show you what we mean, when we chanced upon a certain news item, we immediately started thinking how the creationist websites would play it. We’re not imagining things. See: Feasting on Death.

What follows is our prediction of what you’ll likely see somewhere in the creosphere (a term we coined last year). Here it comes:

Check this out: Evolution Limousine Services. Now think about it. Only a fundamentalist Darwinist would give such a name to his business. What kind of person would that be?

We get a clue from this news story in the Virginian Pilot: Beach man faces charges of sex with minors. The last paragraph of the article mentions that the accused man has …

… been operating Evolution Limousine Services based in Gates County …

That county is in North Carolina on the Virginia border, not far from Virginia Beach where the accused man is said to live. The business we located is probably the one mentioned in the article. Could there be another in that area with the same name? We even checked the area code for one of the website’s phone numbers (757) and it’s in the general region. If we’ve linked to the wrong business, we certainly regret the error, but we tried to get it right.

Anyway, we won’t give you any excerpts from the news article. Click over there and take a look. There’s a picture of the man who was arrested — typical evolutionist, it seems to us. Read about the deeds of which he’s accused. And then ponder the consequences of Mr. Darwin’s blasphemous theory.

After that, ponder the mental state into which maintaining this blog has driven your Curmudgeon.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

→ 2 CommentsCategories: Evolution · Intelligent Design

Spencer Iowa School Board Update (09 Jul ‘09)

9-July-2009 · Leave a Comment

ANOTHER quickie. The Des Moines Register has an editorial on the topic about which we’ve been reporting: Teaching religion can’t include pushing it.

The editorial is well done and comes to the correct position, but it’s oh-so-sensitive to all concerned. A helpful feature is that they give us a link to the Spencer school district’s draft policy on religion (Word document). We haven’t had time to read it yet, but we’ll get to it if this issue persists.

For convenience, we’ll repeat here what we added to yesterday’s post — a link to the website of the Spencer School Board. It has minutes of their meetings that can be downloaded.

Here are just a couple of excerpts from the Des Moines Register’s editorial, with bold added by us:

Give the Spencer School Board credit for boldly striding into a cultural and legal minefield by considering an aggressive approach to religion in public schools.

Yes, they can have credit for audacity — but only if they understand what they’re getting into. That’s an assumption we’re unwilling to grant.

Let’s skip over most of the editorial. For our readers, what’s said there won’t be news. Instead, we’ll jump right to their final paragraph:

Back to Spencer’s draft proposal: Its plans for “Religion in the Curriculum” do give us pause because the only proposed electives are a Bible course and a headlong confrontation of Darwinism. If the goal of its proposal is to accommodate any and all expressions of faith and to promote understanding of all religions, fine. If the goal is to endorse or advance one religious belief, then it will surely fail legal challenge. And it should.

That’s it for now, but look for the issue to heat up. We’ve all seen this sort of thing before.

[Our relevant articles can be found here: Anti-Science Activity: Iowa ‘09.]

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Evolution · Intelligent Design

Dear Mentor: Column 2

8-July-2009 · 3 Comments

BY popular demand, we continue with the feature we first introduced here: Dear Mentor: Column 1. As has become customary, we must first have a flourish of Mentor’s unique scrollwork, and then today’s column begins:

• 69696969 •

Question: Dear Mentor, I recently decided to have nothing but creationism in my life. So I asked my family doctor what he thought of evolution and I was shocked. Shocked! Now I’m looking for a good creationist doctor. Can you help me?

Answer: Unfortunately, the tragic fact is that there are none in this country. Dentists, yes — lots of them, but no physicians. I suggest that you travel to Haiti for all your medical needs.

• 69696969 •

Question: Dear Mentor, my son was exposed to evolution in a high school “science” class this year. Now he’s been arrested for dealing in crack and running a prostitution ring. I know that Darwin did this to him, but the public defender won’t use that as a defense. What should I do?

Answer: There’s nothing to be done at this stage, but it sounds like you’ll have a great appeal because your son was denied adequate counsel.

• 69696969 •

Question: Dear Mentor, I am a virtuous woman. I don’t have much education or talent, so I have always regarded chastity as my most important attribute. Last night I went to a debate about evolution at my church. I was very surprised to find that the Darwinist sounded quite reasonable — much better, actually, than the creationist. Now I’m confused and very worried. Will doubting creationism turn me into a nymphomaniac?

Answer: There is certainly that danger. I recommend that you immediately obtain a copy of Ben Stein’s Expelled and watch it six times. That should protect you. If not, then all is lost.

• 69696969 •

That’s it for this installment, Mentor fans. Keep thinking about your questions, and Mentor will receive your thoughts. If you are pure of heart, and your question is worthy, he will answer.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

→ 3 CommentsCategories: Evolution · Intelligent Design

Spencer Iowa School Board Update (08 Jul ‘09)

8-July-2009 · 7 Comments

THIS is a quickie to let you know that the situation we reported on here: Iowa School Board and Michael Behe is still very much alive.

The Des Moines Register has this story: Spencer school district shapes policy on religion. It’s long, but not all that informative.

It seems that the preacher and the pharmacist are well on their way to establishing some kind of religious program in their local schools. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Public school students in Spencer will get to study the Bible and pray at graduation if school district leaders approve a proposed “religious liberties” policy, the first of its kind in Iowa.

The plan calls for elective classes such as “Critic of Darwinism,” which includes arguments against the theory of evolution, and “The Bible in History and Literature.”

Sounds great! It’s not sufficient for the kiddies to hear about Noah’s Ark at home, in church, and in Sunday school. In Spencer, they’ve got to be exposed to it 24/7. It’s the only way to save them from a life of Darwinian degradation.

Here’s more:

Spencer officials say they are the first in Iowa to spell out religious freedoms in schools, a concept more popular in Southern states such as Georgia and Texas. The district has not received complaints, but school board member Barb Van Wyk said confusion about religion’s place in schools has created a gag effect.

Van Wyk, an Assemblies of God pastor who co-wrote the religious liberties policy, said her son’s junior high classmates told him it was illegal to read the Bible at school in his free time. “A lot of times students and teachers feel they have to check their faith at the door,” she said. “That is not what the Constitution says.”

Now look, we don’t know what will happen in Spencer. Maybe it’s all going to be fine and constitutional. But even if not, maybe no one will object. Should it work out like that, with everyone happy, then we’re not concerned.

Surprised at our indifference? Are you wondering: Have you no principles, Curmudgeon? Sure we do, but just as we don’t want to ride in with a militia outfit to “rescue” the Amish from their voluntary ways, so too are we willing to leave the good folk of Spencer to follow their own folkways. If they all want to use Jack Chick comics for science texts, it’s up to them.

Unlike some of the others who blog about “the controversy,” our big issue isn’t religion, or even science — it’s freedom. Without that, nothing matters.

One more excerpt:

Spencer’s proposed policy says schools must let students talk about their faith, pray on their own and distribute religious materials if they want to.

This should be interesting. If things go postal, just remember that you heard it here first.

Addendum: Here’s the website of the Spencer School Board. We haven’t looked at anything, but it appears that they have minutes that can be downloaded.

[Our relevant articles can be found here: Anti-Science Activity: Iowa ‘09.]

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

→ 7 CommentsCategories: Evolution · Intelligent Design

Creationism and Science

7-July-2009 · 5 Comments

YOUR Curmudgeon once again brings you the view from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom. They have a mind-numbing new article at their website: Science or the Bible? We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold added by us.

The article has two authors — Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson. Ken Ham, as you know, is the creationist entrepreneur who runs AIG. We’ve discussed Mortenson earlier. Here we go.

The Bible’s account of beginnings cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular scientists — and even some Christians — believe it is not science and must be classified as religion.

Secular scientists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in a laboratory, so their view is scientific. For instance, they point to mutated fruit flies or speciation observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes or fish).

But this is where many people are confused — what is meant by “science” or “scientific.”

No one claims that “beginnings” — or rather, historical science like evolution — can be tested in a lab, except in limited ways. There are other methods, which we’ll discuss later. But with that flawed statement as AIG’s introduction, the issue is presented. Let’s read on:

Before we get caught up in a debate about whether the Bible or evolution is scientific, we have learned to ask, “Could you please define what you mean by science?” The answer usually reveals where the real problem lies.

The AIG method of defining science — as you may have guessed — avoids the way that term is used by scientists. For example, this simple yet serviceable definition comes from the National Academy of Sciences, which we found here:

Science: The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.

AIG, however, prefers to consult a dictionary:

[M]ost dictionaries give the following meaning of the word: “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.”

That “definition” — which equates science with “knowledge” — is so broad that it’s useless. That, of course, is exactly the reason AIG is using it. With that meaningless definition as a guide, the AIG article continues:

But over the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific Revolution, the word science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth. Moreover, many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth.

Did you like their “so-called Scientific Revolution”? Anyway, they grudgingly acknowledge that something has been happening to affect the meaning of science in recent years. However, they introduce a glaring ambiguity — that modern science is about discovering “truth.”

We don’t want to imitate Pontius Pilate, but what’s truth? The word has a number of meanings. There is spiritual truth, which is one kind of thing; and then there is the truth of statements that are verifiable by observations of the objective world. For example, on 22 July 2009, there will be a total solar eclipse that starts in India, runs through China, and then continues into the Pacific. That’s the truth, but there’s nothing spiritual about it. What kind of “truth” is AIG talking about? Or do they just want to toss the word around to mislead their readers? Here’s more:

To help people clear up the confusion, we have found it helpful to distinguish between two types of modern science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth:

Oh goody — they’re going to be helpful. Let’s see how they do that:

1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.

Yes, the “so-called” scientific method. Hey, why do they invent the expression “operation science”? There are well-established terms for what they’re struggling with. More on that later. Let’s go on with AIG’s attempt to be helpful:

2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.

What they’re getting at is the well-known fact that some sciences are known as “historical sciences” because they study past events. There are many historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, climatology, plate tectonics, anthropology, paleontology, and of course evolution. This is in contrast to the “experimental sciences” like chemistry, that can be mostly conducted with lab experiments. The key to understanding this is that although historical events can’t be re-created in the lab, historical sciences are indeed scientific, because they’re based on verifiable observations and they produce theories are testable. You’ll see; but you have to stay with us.

Moving along, we come to a concrete application of AIG’s clumsy definitions:

So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.

See? It’s “secular assumptions” and “biblical assumptions.” One set of assumptions is just as good as another, right? Now they come to the point:

Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.

[...]

Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead, it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.

The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true, “big picture” starting assumptions for origin science.

That’s the general idea. It’s what happens if one shamelessly (and “helpfully”) tries to control the dialogue by adopting such a vague definition of “science” that it refers only to undifferentiated “knowledge” and a quest for undefined “truth,” which — with respect to past events that can’t be recreated in the laboratory — must be based entirely on secular (i.e., trashy) assumptions.

There’s much more to the AIG article. Read it all if you like. It’s not worth much, because their predictable conclusion is built right into their ridiculous definitions. Still, this is worth refuting. How shall we do that?

Our problem is this: How do we explain to an open-minded creationist (if such exists) that the scientific approach to learning about the past has actual scientific value — the results of which are far more “true” (i.e., objectively verifiable) than some account that rests upon mere assumptions?

Aside from wandering through what will probably be a fruitless discussion of the relative merits of natural versus supernatural explanations, there is yet another method of explaining the merit of a scientific explanation of the past — cross-confirmation by independent lines of evidence.

Consider the theory of evolution: Originally, Darwin had only his observations of living organisms and a few fossils. Later the science of genetics became known, and it’s entirely consistent with evolution. Finally we have the discovery of DNA, and what’s been learned as a result is strikingly consistent with evolution. It’s highly unlikely that several independent lines of evidence would all converge to support one theory if that theory weren’t an accurate description of reality.

Or consider the theory of continental drift — originally based only on the shape of the continents, but later confirmed by the discovery of undersea evidence of seafloor spreading like the mid-Atlantic ridge. And finally there are extremely precise satellite measurements that confirm the motion of continents. Further, there are similar plant and animal fossils that are found at the same geological level along once-connected continental shores, indicating that those continents at one time were an unbroken habitat.

It’s the same with geology and cosmology. This post is already too long, but you can easily learn that those historical sciences have also been confirmed and strengthened by discoveries from independent lines of evidence.

Now let’s put it all together in one grand package: Consider the discovery of Tiktaalik, the fossil of a transitional species midway between finned fish and four-footed land animals. It wasn’t an accidental discovery. It was found by predicting that such a transition occurred approximately 363 million years ago, before which, according to the fossil record, there were no four-legged vertebrates living on land. Relying on geology, an appropriately aged and conveniently exposed rock stratum was located in the Canadian Arctic that had once been an ancient shoreline. That’s where the search commenced.

Are you following this? Testing a prediction based on both evolution and geology, the scientists searched for the fossil of a transitional creature that — according to the theory of evolution — must have once existed in a place and time like the one geologists said they were searching. After five years of effort their search was spectacularly successful — simultaneously confirming the validity of both geology and evolution theory. That’s why historical science is scientific, even if it doesn’t happen in a laboratory.

So there’s a bit more to historical science than just conjuring up a fanciful tale based on one’s worldview. Does AIG know this? Maybe, but maybe not. It doesn’t matter. Whether they’re intentionally misleading their followers, or whether they’re totally ignorant, the result is the same.

Finally, as a reward for having plowed through this post, if you want to see the AIG methodology in its fullest application, check out: The Scientific Case Against Craterism.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

→ 5 CommentsCategories: Evolution · Intelligent Design

Edwin Poots: Creationist Minister in Northern Ireland

7-July-2009 · 7 Comments

WE recognize how unfair we’ve been to creationists all over the world, because we give US creationism most of our attention. Therefore, we are delighted to present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from a news item that appeared on 24 June in the Belfast Telegraph, a conservative newspaper published in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It’s titled: Creationist beliefs won’t affect new role: Poots. The bold font was added by us:

Incoming Environment Minister Edwin Poots has insisted his creationist religious beliefs will not stand in the way of doing a good job.

Edwin Poots has a modest entry in Wikipedia. Let’s read some more from the Belfast Telegraph:

Mr Poots said he believes the Earth was created by God around 4,000BC, according to the genealogical information outlined in the Bible.

“I am a Bible-believing Christian and I do not see that will impact in any way, shape or form on my role as Environment Minister,” he told the Belfast Telegraph.

Sounds like a fine man. We continue:

Mr Poots said he did not believe there was scientific evidence to back up the theory that the Earth is billions of years old.

But someone disputes the opinion of Mr. Poots (a little rhyme there) as this next excerpt reveals:

Mr McClinton [Brian McClinton, a director of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland] said Mr Poots’s view was derived from the theory of the 17th century Archbishop Ussher, who believed the universe was created on October 23, 4004BC, after basing his calculations on the genealogical information outlined in the Old Testament. “It’s all nonsense really. Fossil evidence points to a much older earth than that,” he said.

Okay, that appeared in the paper a couple of weeks ago. Today, also in the Belfast Telegraph, we read this letter-to-the-editor: No need to ridicule creationist beliefs:

Respecting other people’s views is of great importance. Mr Poots should be respected too. In actual fact he speaks the views of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.

I do think he was very frank and polite with regards to biblical fundamentalism or creationism. It is very disrespectful [of Brian McClinton, presumably] to say “it’s all nonsense really”.

This chap might be in cahoots with Mr. Poots (another Curmudgeonly rhyme). The letter continues:

It it suffice [sic] to say even non-Christians have not obtained satisfactory answers from evolutionists and humanists with regards to what they call “scientific proof of Earth’s beginnings”.

He’s gotcha there! Another excerpt:

Without entering the whole debate of fossil evidence, carbon dating or real science, we do agree that there is something beyond our comprehension in these matters.

This is very disappointing. We were hoping to find some interesting commentary by overseas creationists. Anyway, here’s the rest of the letter:

Whether it’s the term created (made, born) or it’s recreated (made again, born again) there is really something supernatural about it. We can sit and talk amicably, no need to ridicule each other!

So there you are. Everything’s up to date in Northern Ireland.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

→ 7 CommentsCategories: Evolution · Intelligent Design