Creationism in Northern Ireland Inspires Humor

THE situation we described in Creationism in Northern Ireland is being widely discussed on the internet. Northern Ireland’s culture minister, Nelson McCausland, wants the Ulster Museum to include information about creationism and intelligent design. He says that the inclusion of anti-Darwinian theories in the museum is “a human rights issue.”

When a politician makes a world-class jackass of himself, it’s only natural that there should be a rollicking response. McCausland has made himself a target, so now he’ll have to bear the inevitable barrage of mockery he has provoked.

We found an intelligent column with some especially amusing commentary, so we’ll bring a few excerpts to your attention. It’s titled Could Nelson’s idea be the start of something?, by Malachi O’Doherty, a journalist, author, and broadcaster in Northern Ireland. It appears in the Belfast Telegraph. The bold font was added by us:

In short, if Mr McCausland wants the museum to offer discussion of intelligent design theory, let them do it. There are a lot of people among us who believe that religion can still hold out against scientific discovery. They would have been on the side of the Pope against Galileo and they still think they can refute Darwin.

Presumably, what follows is about the “fine tuning” argument that claims the universe is designed:

If they are hopeful that intelligent design restores the Christian explanation of the Universe to them, then they may be well-served by having the full case and its implications laid out for them.

The problem for creationists is that their argument, if won, might only establish that an intelligence initiated the big bang. For all they know, that intelligent being might have been killed in the blast.

Hey, that’s funny! The author continues to discuss the cosmic fine tuner:

He, she or it may reside still in another universe and have lost all interest in this one. There are no grounds for supposing that that being knows about us, or has benign intentions towards us.

There are no grounds even for supposing that it is an infinite deity. There may be another universe in which children spark off big bangs with their chemistry sets. They may not even know that they are doing it.

They will live in a different timeframe, so our whole span of existence in this universe may be just a blink to them. The problem for intelligent design freaks is that they don’t read enough science fiction.

Those are the best lines, in our humble opinion. But the whole thing is worth a read. Click over there and check it out.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationists React to Venter’s Breakthrough, Part 5

THIS is another follow-up to Craig Venter‘s announcement that his lab has created a bacterial cell with a synthetic genome. For earlier creationist reactions see Part 1 and Part 2, and then Part 3, and lastly Part 4.

Our little series wouldn’t be complete without a response from Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite among the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). The Discoveroid blog offers this: “Artificial Life” Or Intelligently Designed Plagiarism? Casey says, with bold font added by us:

As Jonathan Wells recently observed, it’s being widely reported on internet news sites that biotech guru Craig Venter and his team have created “artificial life.”

[...]

To be sure, this work is a technical accomplishment — with the potential to lead to applications in medical, pharmaceutical, and biological research. But did they really create “artificial life”?

This is starting out to be the mother of all straw-man arguments. Is Casey really going to belittle Venter’s work by beating up on a phrase used by the media? It looks that way. Let’s read on:

Venter and his team showed they can successfully identify the code necessary for a living bacterial cell. They sequenced the code, imported the code into a computer, and then outputted it. But we still don’t even understand how all the parts of a bacterial cell work. …

[...]

Learning how to import the right code from a bacterial chromosome into a new bacterial chromosome doesn’t mean we fully understand all aspects of the code or the proteins and structures it encodes.

Casey is a demanding taskmaster. Venter hasn’t satisfied him. All Venter did was synthesize a bacterium’s DNA, insert it into an empty and lifeless bacterial shell, and then the newly created cell lived — and reproduced. Casey isn’t impressed. Venter never attempted to explain the entire universe to Casey’s satisfaction, but that “failure” is what Casey is complaining about. We continue:

And note also that they had to import the code into a pre-existing bacterial cell. That means that any epigenetic information that exists outside of the DNA was borrowed from the bacterial cell that they inserted the chromosome into — not created from scratch.

[...]

Even Craig Venter acknowledges, “We didn’t create life from scratch.” That’s an understatement.

Golly! Venter actually confessed — he confessed! — that he didn’t create life from scratch. That proves Casey’s point! This is big news, dear reader. Casey has actually succeeded in beating up a straw-man. The Discoveroids should be sending out press releases.

Here’s more:

So now that intelligent agents have synthesized the DNA-based “software” necessary for life, another question arises: What, in our experience is the sole known cause of this software? William Dembski and Jonathan Witt think they have the answer in Intelligent Design Uncensored: “[T]here remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs — intelligent design.”

Aha! Venter’s work vindicates Dembski — at least Casey says it does. Isn’t that amazing? Get ready now, because Casey’s last sentence is really crushing:

It seems to me that rather than creating “artificial life,” what they did was figure out how to plagiarize the intelligent designer’s programming.

The technique should be clear by now — regardless of what science learns or does, the creationists’ response will always be the same: We were right all along! Except, of course, they’ve never been right about anything.

Next update: See Creationists React to Venter’s Breakthrough, Part 6.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationism and Morality, Part 2

WE thought we had exhausted this topic a year ago when we wrote Creationism and Morality. That was about a strange article from Answers in Genesis (AIG) which claimed that:

Even though most people do not acknowledge it, the morality and rules that most humans adhere to have their basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal history of Genesis.

In response, we said: “Fascinating. Even Confucius got his morality from Genesis. Who knew?” Later that same month we wrote: Morality, Evolution, and Darwin, in which we argued that morality is independent of scripture.

We thought we were done with the subject, but today we find ourselves befuddled by a new creationist article on the same topic. We’re accustomed to disagreements between young-earth creationists and the other types, and we’re well acquainted with the pretended disdain that intelligent design promoters profess regarding their more forthright, openly religious creationist brethren. But now we have what seems to be a clash between two young-earth creationist outfits. See what you can make of it.

This article is from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Baby Morality Defies Evolution. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

It is fascinating how quickly human babies learn about the world around them. But how soon can they distinguish “good” from “bad”? Some Yale psychologists wanted to find out, and their research results fly in the face of Freud and other evolutionary humanists.

We have no idea what Freud has to do with evolution and creationism, but neither does ICR, and it’s not important anyway. Let’s read on:

Yale professor Paul Bloom and his team tested infants and toddlers by using puppets to portray “naughty” and “nice” actions. They found that from the age of six months, babies differentiated good from bad by overwhelmingly choosing to hold the nice puppet over the mean one. Where did this sensibility come from, and why is it so evident at such a young age?

Now, dear reader, you see the problem. Although AIG claims that all morality comes from Genesis, this ICR article makes it obvious that — at least in the case of babies — morality doesn’t come from bible study. We’re so confused by these conflicting creationist claims! Nevertheless, we’ll continue with the ICR article:

[E]volutionary humanists asserted that babies are “amoral animals” upon which society stamps its own particular moral guidelines. But this came from their belief that humans are merely “naked apes” obsessed with God, or that in early life humans reflect their primate origins, not from observations or careful study.

Okay, whatever that means. Here’s more:

Instead, humans are evidently born with an innate moral sense that is not dependent on external affirmation. For example, “even a 4-year-old knows not only that unprovoked hitting is wrong but also that it would continue to be wrong even if a teacher said that it was O.K.”

What does ICR make of this non-scriptural yet moral behavior? Let’s find out:

Universal morals actually make no evolutionary sense. For one thing, morals are not physical. They are not composed of DNA, nor are they body parts or features of body parts. They are therefore not selectable by nature. However, this research adds to prior data showing unequivocally that humans are wired for morality, a fact that evolution cannot explain.

Wow! ICR announces that morals aren’t physical — a brilliant insight. Therefore, they conclude that they’re “not selectable by nature.” Really? Natural selection can’t filter out individuals who exhibit deleterious behavior? Jeepers, then the only possible explanation for toddler morality is … Oogity Boogity!

But what about our inborn fear of falling? Fear isn’t physical, so is that supernatural too? Is being oblivious to falling not selectable by nature? Hey, how about our inherent desire for — gasp! — sex? Like morality and fear, desire isn’t physical, so presumably that’s not selectable by nature either.

But stay with us. We’re confident that ICR’s creation scientists will clear everything up. Here’s another excerpt:

Also, people possess not only the knowledge of right and wrong, but also the ability to choose right or wrong. …

Moreover, these immaterial aspects work in concert with each other, along with specialized capacities to learn. How much more do humans fit the image of a powerful (volitional), good (moral), and wise (cognitive) God, rather than representing the product of some imaginary selective environments?

But if there are no “imaginary” selective factors, then how can babies — with no knowledge of scripture — be born moral? We wish ICR would get with AIG to clarify this situation. Without evidence for these conflicting claims, it’s impossible to know which website is right. When gurus disagree, their flocks are distressed.

Anyway, this is how ICR ends their article:

When it comes to a comprehensive explanation for the origins of unique human behavior and ability, the best source is the Word of the One who created that humanity.

But … but … the AIG-ICR conflict is unresolved. Anyway, ICR says that toddler morality defies evolution and provides evidence of Oogity Boogity. Hey — that’s all anyone needs to know, right? We are content.

Update: See A Secular Source of Morality.

Update: See Creationism and Morality, Part 3.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationism in Northern Ireland

FOR our American readers who may be geographically challenged, Northern Ireland is one of the four countries that comprise the United Kingdom — the others being England, Scotland, and Wales. Now that we know where this news comes from, we can read some excerpts from Northern Ireland minister calls on Ulster Museum to promote creationism which appears in the Guardian (formerly the Manchester Guardian). The bold font was added by us:

Northern Ireland’s born-again Christian culture minister has called on the Ulster Museum to put on exhibits reflecting the view that the world was made by God only several thousand years ago.

American creationists can take comfort in knowing that their cousins across the ocean are just as daft as they are — perhaps worse. There’s at least one other nut-case in that government. Last year we wrote Edwin Poots: Creationist Minister in Northern Ireland.

Let’s read on:

Nelson McCausland, who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel, has written to the museum’s board of trustees urging them to reflect creationist and intelligent design theories of the universe’s origins.

Who is that guy? This is what Wikipedia says about Nelson McCausland, which isn’t very informative. The Guardian‘s article links to this: McCausland has been appointed Minister for Culture.

What else does McCausland have to say? Let’s see:

The Democratic Unionist minister said the inclusion of anti-Darwinian theories in the museum was “a human rights issue”.

A human rights issue! That’s glorious — this goes way beyond the “academic freedom” slogan of the American creationists. We continue:

McCausland defended a letter he wrote to the trustees calling for anti-evolution exhibitions at the museum. He claimed that around one third of Northern Ireland’s population believed either in intelligent design or the creationist view that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago.

Only a third? Maybe there’s hope for that country. Here’s more:

His call was condemned by the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, who said: “If the museum was to go down that road then perhaps they should bring in the stork theory of where babies come from. Or perhaps the museum should introduce the flat earth theory.”

Dawkins said it was irrelevant if a large number of people in Northern Ireland refused to believe in evolution. “Scientific evidence can’t be democratically decided,” Dawkins said.

There’s more in the Guardian‘s article. Click over there to read it all. And be comforted that the US isn’t the only place to be suffering from this kind of lunacy. It seems to be everywhere. The whole world is crazy. Aren’t you glad?

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article