Herman Cummings Ignored by Barbara Cargill

The last time we posted about Herman Cummings was here: Herman Cummings Challenges the Universe. Herman is the only person on our growing list of Self-Published Geniuses about whom we’ve written more than once. At that link you can find them all.

Herman describes himself as “the leading expert on the book of Genesis.” He’s the author (using the pen-name “Ephriam”) of Moses Didn’t Write About Creation! We have diligently reported on his long struggle for recognition, including the numerous intellectual challenges he’s issued — all of which have been unanswered. Yet he perseveres.

Herman’s latest article is about the defeat of the creationists on the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), now under the leadership of Barbara Cargill. Our last post about that was Texas Creationist Freak Show: Epilogue. The SBOE’s problem, according to Herman, is that they didn’t listen to him.

You can read all about it in The Truth of Genesis: An Open Letter to Texas State Board of Education. For a while, Herman was posting at a site named ThyBlackMan, but apparently that didn’t work out too well, so he’s back at iNewp — the People’s Press. Herman says, with bold font added by us:

In various news articles, it has been said (in so many words) that “creationism loses, evolution wins in Texas”, concerning the vote that was recently taken. My response to that is, “How can you vote on something which you don’t understand, and don’t have the facts about?”

Forget about teaching creationism. I know that it was not an option that you were considering, but first, no school system anywhere has anyone that is qualified to teach creationism. Second, contrary to what most non-legal professionals think, it is perfectly legal to teach creationism in public schools. … Thirdly, current creationism is both false, and foolish. It misrepresents the book of Genesis, which I am the leading expert on. There is no “close second”.

Yeah, okay. Let’s read on:

What you are doing is indoctrinating students into the belief system of Atheism. Yes, you are teaching “religion” in schools, using public funds, which is evil, wrong, and unconstitutional. I’d like to participate in a court case on this, if any entity files a lawsuit (in another state).

Herman wants to be a player — but no one will play with him. We continue:

The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Moses”. It correctly conveys what Moses saw and wrote in Genesis chapter one. The worlds of Creationism and Theology have no clue to what Genesis chapter one is about. They teach that it’s a description of Creation Week. That is false.

Only Herman knows what Genesis means. We’ve written about that before, so we’ll skip it this time. Here’s more:

That is why I sent a presentation sample to Barbara Cargill, but she didn’t have the decency to respond.

Wow! Even Barbara Cargill — the latest successor to Don McLeroy — won’t respond to Herman. What’s wrong with that woman?

At this point, Herman appears to be directly addressing Cargill and her creationist colleagues on the Texas SBOE:

It is known that evolution is a fictitious, unsupportable scenario, embraced by atheists, that is both unsound, and illogical. Creationism is a fairytale. Evolution is a lie. That is why you all must see the “Observations of Moses” presentation, which proves both evolution, and Creationism, to be in error.

He concludes with this:

So before making further decisions, invite me there so that I can show you the truth. The presentation is 62 minutes long. It takes that length of time because you are shown over 4 billion years of Earth history, as defined by God, conveyed to Moses.

Why won’t Cargill listen to Herman? We suspect it’s because she can’t handle The Truth™.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Discovery Institute: Breivik a “Social Darwinist”

It was only a few days ago that we posted WND: Norwegian Terrorist Was “Darwinian”, in which we discussed the crazed allegation of WorldNetDaily (WND) that Anders Behring Breivik. the Norwedian terrorist, was a “Darwinian.” WND had quote-mined Breivik’s 1,500 page manifesto and produced nothing to support their bizarre claim. We didn’t think anyone else would attempt to blame Darwin for this terrorist’s actions, but we were wrong.

As we should have expected, when there’s creationist madness in the blogosphere, right in the middle of it you’re likely to find the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

At the Discoveroids’ creationist blog we see this new article: Fundamentalist Christian or Deranged Social Darwinist? It’s written by John West. Most of you know who he is (we affectionately call him “Westie”). It’s in his honor that we have adorned this post with our jolly Buffoon logo, because he’s a winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award. Westie is Associate Director of the Discoveroids’ creationist “think tank,” which consumes almost half of the Discovery Institute’s’ $4 million budget (see Their 2007 Tax Return). That makes him one of the chief Keepers of their wedge strategy.

Like WND, Westie doesn’t give any quotes from Breivik’s manifesto to seriously support his claim. He can’t, because there just aren’t any. But he does his best — which isn’t very good. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Since the horrific acts perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway last week, the newsmedia have been scrambling to uncover the worldview of Mr. Breivik. After initially speculating (wrongly) that the Oslo bombing and subsequent youth camp massacre were committed by a radical Muslim, establishment media outlets like CNN sought to depict Breivik as “a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.” Think Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson with a machine gun.

Westie is correct to dismiss those “Christian fundamentalist” claims. However, he can’t leave it at that. No, like a good creationist he’s compelled to blame Breivik’s behavior on Darwin. How does he do that, when Breivik’s manifesto doesn’t say that he was inspired by Darwin or his theory of evolution? Westie does it by mining several quotes from the manifesto in which Breivik says he wasn’t all that religious (albeit regarding himself as a cultural Christian). That’s really all there is, but it’s enough for Westie to claim that it’s all Darwin’s fault. You’ll see. Let’s read on:

To be sure, Breivik identifies himself as “100% Christian” in his manifesto (p. 1403), and he certainly talks incessantly about defending “Christian” civilization. But he also makes clear that his Christianity is a simply pose adopted for political reasons.

No, we’ve read the manifesto. Breivik’s identification with what he called Europe’s Christian civilization wasn’t a pose — that seems to be how he felt. He rejected Islam; he rejected Marxism, and what was left was the Christian West, which Breivik embraced as his culture. We continue, as Westie plucks a few quotes from the 1,500-page manifesto:

As for his own religious beliefs and practices, Breivik frankly admits: “I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment.”

Not particularly “Darwinian,” is it? Here’s more of Westie’s quote-mining:

[H]e adds that he has not yet actually prayed to God for strength, he expects that he may do so when he goes on his murderous rampage: “If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.” (p. 1345) Note the “if” in his statement about whether God exists. Breivik himself doesn’t even appear to believe in God. He frequently identifies himself as a “cultural Christian,” a term which he defines at one point as the same thing as a “Christian atheist.”

That doesn’t have anything to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Got anything else, Westie? No, he doesn’t, except a few more lame innuendos — for example:

Unsurprisingly, Breivik’s idea of “cultural Christianity” has little to do with Christianity as most people would understand that term. For example, Breivik makes clear that to join his movement for cultural Christianity “[i]t is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.”

Oh, the Darwinism! The next excerpt is as close as Westie gets to his central claim, and it’s merely a statement that Breivik respects science (which Discoveroids abhor). The bold font here was added by Westie::

Indeed, Breivik emphasizes that he wants a secular European state where “[t]he Church and church leaders will not be allowed to influence non-cultural political matters in any way. This includes science, research and development and all non-cultural areas which will benefit Europe in the future. This will also include all areas relating to procreation/birth/fertility policies and related issues of scientific importance (reprogenetics).” (p. 1137, emphasis added)

Westie takes that quote and runs with it, interpreting it as if he has special insight into the terrorist’s thinking:

As can be seen, Breivik harbors a special concern that Christians not be able to influence issues related to science and pubic policy “in any way.” Why?

Because he sees biological science–not traditional religion–as the ultimate savior of society. In his view, advances in biology will makes possible a vigorous new form of Social Darwinism that will save the Nordic race through positive eugenics.

That’s all there is. As you can see, it’s nothing. As we’ve pointed out before, Darwin specifically rejected eugenics (see Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin).

Westie concludes his silly post by promising yet another article which well tell us more about “Breivik’s frightening eugenics agenda.” We conclude by asking: Who cares? Anyway, nice try, Westie.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

How Did Life Begin on Land?

It was in the Ordovician period that plants other than algae began to live on land, according to this Wikipedia article, which says:

Evidence suggests that an algal scum formed on the land 1,200 million years ago, but it was not until the Ordovician Period, around 450 million years ago, that land plants appeared.

That was, clearly, a key event in evolution. Tiktaalik appeared about 100 million years later. But without the presence of plants that had been evolving and flourishing all over the landscape, and of course the insects they sustained, our ancestor wouldn’t have left the water. So how did plants appear on land?

Evidence is scanty. There are fossilized specimens of early land plants, and they reveal some structural details — stems, roots, etc. Still, there is much to be known, and it was once believed that we could never know such things. Creationists embrace such gaps as “evidence” for their supernatural claims — supremely confident that the gaps will never be plugged.

Science functions differently. Thanks to DNA, organisms today contain within them a great deal of evidence inherited from their distant ancestors. The problem is finding just the right needle in a haystack the size of a city block that contains billions of needles.

Here’s the tale of how one such needle was found. At the website of the University of Haifa we read: The key to life on land. We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A chance discovery of a genetic mutation in wild barley that grows in Israel’s Judean Desert, in the course of a doctoral study at the University of Haifa, has led to an international study deciphering evolution of life on land. The study has been published in the prestigious journal PNAS.

Here’s the abstract of that article: An ATP-binding cassette subfamily G full transporter is essential for the retention of leaf water in both wild barley and rice. According to Professor Eviatar Nevo of the Institute of Evolution of the University of Haifa, an author of that paper:

Life on Earth began in the water, and in order for plants to rise above water to live on land, they had to develop a cuticle membrane that would protect them from uncontrolled evaporation and dehydration. In our study we discovered a completely new gene that along with other genes contributes to the formation of this cuticle.

How was that discovery made? Let’s read on:

In the course of doctoral research carried out by Guoxiong Chen, which began at the University of Haifa in 2000 under the supervision of Prof. Nevo, the Chinese doctoral student found a mutation of wild barley in the Judean Desert that was significantly smaller than regular wild barley. It was found that this mutation causes an abnormal increase in water loss because of a disruption in the production of the plant’s cutin that is secreted from the epidermal cells and is a component in the plant’s cuticle that reduces water loss and prevents the plant’s dehydration.

That’s neat! It’s matter-of-factly stated in the paper that Chen noticed a barley mutation that was doing a poor job of retaining water. Most people would have thought “bad barley,” then shrugged and moved on; but that’s not what Chen did, and that’s the real story. The paper says the team compared the genome of that plant to related varieties that were doing it “right,” and in that way the water-preserving mechanism was revealed. Very nice work! We continue:

After about eight years of research, this team discovered a new gene that contributes to the production of cutin, which is found in all land plants but is either nonexistent or present in tiny amounts in aquatic plants. Chen called this new gene Eibi1, in honor of his supervisor, Prof. Nevo.

One last excerpt:

“This is one of the genes that contributed to the actual eventuality of life on land as we know it today. It is a key element in the adaptation process that aquatic plants underwent in order to live on land,” explained Prof. Nevo.

There’s more in the university’s article, and the published paper is freely available online, so you can read it all if you find this interesting.

We’re curious to see how the creationists deal with this. One of their precious gaps has disappeared, but this is an opportunity for them to claim that they’re not surprised. Their unseen miracle worker was responsible for this essential mutation — he planned it from the beginning.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Discovery Institute: “Stop Calling Us Creationists!”

This one is about a silly little post that just appeared on the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

It’s titled Reuters Gets It Wrong: Intelligent Design Isn’t Creationism. You know from the title what it’s all about, but we’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Reuters made a basic mistake in their recent coverage of the Texas brouhaha over evolution education: they conflated intelligent design and creationism. To wit:

[Warning, this is a creationist quote and we haven't checked it:] Intelligent design and creationism are theories that life on earth was created essentially the way it is described in the Bible’s Book of Genesis – not by evolution, but by a ‘creative intelligence’ generally considered to be the Christian God.

Almost three years ago we wrote about a similar incident: “Don’t Call Us Creationists!” — that one involved Casey’s complaining when Tom Brokaw made the same “mistake.” And yet, after all their propaganda about the “scientific theory” of intelligent design, news people still think the Discoveroids are a pack of flaming creationists. This is an outrage! Let’s read on:

The plain fact of the matter is that intelligent design, unlike creationism, has nothing to do with Genesis and everything to do with what the scientific evidence tells us.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We continue:

[T]he defining feature of intelligent design … is merely the claim that certain features of our universe and living things are best explained as the result of design rather than blind, unguided processes such as Darwinian evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No creationism there! Here’s more:

In order to set the record straight, we contacted Reuters and asked for a correction. They responded by saying they didn’t think the “issues” we brought up “merited a correction for the story,” but they thanked us for the helpful “background information” (also known as “research the reporter should have done”).

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In other words: “Buzz off, creationists!” Here’s the end of the Discoveroid post:

Reuters should take note: Misreporting an issue by misdefining your terms misses the picture — and undermines your credibility as an objective outlet doing serious journalism.

Don’t you love it? A Discoveroid is warning someone else that misreporting undermines credibility. Wait — what’s that noise? Oh, it’s the sound of thousands of irony meters simultaneously exploding.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article