They’re talking about the stunningly stupid bill working its way through the Indiana Senate, about which we last wrote a couple of days ago (see Indiana Creationism Bill Moves Forward).

First they discuss some other bills in the legislature, and then they say:

The Republican-controlled Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 Wednesday to allow creationism to be taught in the state’s public schools. The bill now goes to the full Senate.

What does the esteemed editorial board think of that? Here are some excerpts from the editorial, with bold font added by us:

Opponents will argue this bill chips away at the separation of church and state and brings an unwelcome mixing of theocracy and scientific theory into the classroom. Not necessarily.

Oh really? Let’s read on:

Much would depend on how teachers handle the origins of life in a biology or science class. And there is no provision in the bill that states creationism must be taught as a science subject. Courts have ruled that using the Bible as an educational tool is permissible. We see nothing that would change that here, and note the bill stresses “theories” on the origins of life.

How can they say that creationism won’t be taught as a science subject when the proposed law — Senate Bill 0089 — provides:

The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

Where else will “theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science” be taught — in algebra class? And the editorial mentions that the bill stresses “theories” on the origins of life. Do the esteemed editors know what a scientific theory is? Apparently not. We continue:

The march down the slippery slope occurs when theories are presented as facts.

Scientific theories are just that, and they should be taught as theories — which are both testable and supported by facts. Creationism isn’t a theory — it’s a religious doctrine supported by faith. There’s nothing scientific about it. Here’s more:

This bill could act as a safeguard against an educator mentioning creationism, and then possibly getting sued for promoting religion in the classroom.

Indeed. That’s why it’s a bad bill. Moving along:

Certainly, there is much empirical scientific evidence to support evolution, and some pretty good philosophical arguments to support creationism. It’s unfortunate, though, that the latter has to be tagged as a science.

What are these people saying? No one in his right mind says a philosophy is a science. Well, there’s that stuff called social science, but that’s a different topic. Here’s another excerpt:

We think a thorough education exposes students to different theories, and if schools have done a good job of developing a student’s critical thinking skills, there is no harm done.

We think the editorial board of this newspaper is totally lacking in critical thinking skills, and there’s a great deal of harm being done as a result. One more excerpt from the editorial:

Presenting theories in an educational setting is not an endorsement of religion, but an acknowledgment there are other ways of looking at an issue.

Again, it’s obvious that these journalists haven’t a clue as to the meaning of “theory” in science. Indeed, it’s apparent to us that they haven’t a clue about anything.

People of Muncie, heed the Curmudgeon: Your newspaper is written by fools!

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

In one brief article, Man Was Created Distinct from Apes, ICR’s creation scientists have finally resolved one of humanity’s most urgent problems. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Decisive evidence has accumulated that refutes the evolutionary concept that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

Wow — they have “decisive evidence”! We know you can’t wait to see what it is, so here we go:

For example, all candidate intermediate forms are disputed by evolutionary paleontologists. A fossil thought by some evolutionists to represent a “pre-human” is often interpreted by others as an extinct primate.

Some fossils are extinct primates? But … aren’t all simians (including monkeys, apes and humans) primates? Let’s read on:

Also, none of the proposed transitional forms possess features that show any “halfway” structures. Instead, the features are all already fully formed and suited for the individual’s overall mode of life, whether that of living in trees or dwelling on the ground.

Ah yes, as you review what is known about human evolution, or stroll through the American Museum of Natural History’s Hall of Human Ancestors you’ll notice that there are no “half and half” transitional forms — like Piltdown Man. Every ancestral candidate was fully-formed! That doesn’t surprise us — a half-formed creature couldn’t survive long enough to be anyone’s ancestor. And that means evolution is impossible! We continue:

Further, nobody has demonstrated step by step how any ape-like set of features could have transmutated into any of the long list of specifically human traits, including skeletal arrangements that enable mankind’s peculiar and efficient “knees pointed forward” manner of walking.

There’s no “step by step” proof. So until the whole family tree is discovered, with a fossil specimen from every generation, evolution is a failed concept. Here’s more:

The Creator of all life said in His Word that He created mankind specially and in His image, and the fossil evidence bears this out.

Okay, that’s good evidence. And here’s the end:

Some fossils are not informative enough to accurately identify. Thus, any given “hominin” fossil is either unknown, or from a human, or from an ape.

So there you are. With decisive evidence like that, you can be assured that you ain’t no kin to no monkey.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Casey has been on a number of crusades, none of which has accomplished anything other than to fulfill his blogging quota. For a few examples of his hopeless campaigns, there’s his endless war on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (see Casey and Kitzmiller — the Case He “Forgot”), and also his war on the meaning of science: Intelligent Designer or Zeus?, and also his war on junk DNA: Junk DNA Dismay, and also his war on the Miller-Urey experiment: Casey and the Miller-Urey Experiment, #2, and also his war against Tiktaalik: Tiktaalik — a “Fraudulent” Transitional Fossil, and also his war against Nature magazine’s 15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS (see Casey Luskin vs. Reality: The Thundering Climax).

There have been more crusades, but that’s enough to give you the general idea. Casey is at war with literally everything that demonstrates evolution, and now he’s taken on a new foe. At the Discoveroids’ blog we read Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change.

Casey’s post, by the way, was originally adorned with an illustration of Noah’s Ark. It’s presence wasn’t explained, but we understood it quite well. It’s a natural part of the Discoveroids’ worldview. But upon performing a pre-publishing check of our links, we observed that Noah’s Ark has been replaced with a bumblebee. There’s no explanation of that either, but the sudden take-down of the Ark is most amusing. This is Casey’s lost ark (he used the same illustration that accompanies Wikipedia’s article on Noah’s Ark):

Noah's Ark (by Edward Hicks, 1846)

Anyway, with or without the Ark, here are some excerpts from Casey’s latest, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:

For years, Internet Darwin activists have cited the TalkOrigins Speciation FAQ, titled “Observed Instances of Speciation,” citing its claim that it “discusses several instances where speciation has been observed.” This Speciation FAQ (for “Frequently Asked Questions”) has long been a cornerstone citation for many pro-Darwin internet debaters, who claim it demonstrates that Darwinian evolution is capable of producing significant biological change.

Casey is talking about Observed Instances of Speciation. Your Curmudgeon is one of those “Internet Darwin activists” who have cited that article from time to time. It’s excellent, albeit somewhat dated, but Casey doesn’t like it. On with his article:

Over the last few months, I’ve received a few of inquiries about this FAQ [the TalkOrigins article] and decided to write a response (the full response can be found here) [link in the original]. After analyzing a large portion of the technical literature cited in the FAQ, my review finds that the FAQ’s claims are incorrect.

We know you’re thrilled to learn of Casey’s monumental work, so you’ll undoubtedly be clicking over to Casey’s post to find the link to his world-shaking article. We’ll ignore it, however, just as the educated world has ignored Casey’s other crusades. Let’s continue with his latest post, as he gives a few examples from his glorious refutation:

NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. [Caps and underlining by Casey.]

Large scale? Like from sponge to mammal? Good point, Casey! But the TalkOrigins article only speaks of speciation, not “large scale” change, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Let’s read another of Casey’s examples:

The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a “species” is defined by the standard definition of a “reproductively isolated population.”

The TalkOrigins article explains at great length the various definitions of “species,” and it doesn’t use Casey’s simplistic definition. Further, TalkOrigins explains that as speciation is occurring, there is not necessarily a barrier to interbreeding. We continue, as Casey says:

I should note from the outset that my purpose is not to deny that speciation can occur in nature, especially when it is defined merely as a reproductively isolated population. When trying to assess the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism, that definition is trivial.

It sounds like Casey is falling back on the micro-macro maneuver — a favorite among creationists. Sorry, that won’t work (see Common Creationist Claims Confuted). Casey concludes his post with this:

People who believe this FAQ [the TalkOrigins article] demonstrates that Darwinian processes can produce large-scale biological change have been badly misled. As we’ll see in some subsequent articles, the examples in the FAQ are ultimately used to make inaccurate claims, and the FAQ’s title, “Observed Instances of Speciation,” is unwarranted.

Oh goodie — Casey says there will be “subsequent articles” on this topic. We plan to ignore them.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Eagerly we visited the WND website and were directed to a new video by none other than the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. The last time we brought you a David Rives video was Evolution — The Most Foolish Notion Ever!

Today’s video may be Rives’ best ever. It’s only two and a half minutes long, but in that brief period Rives manages to totally demolish the theory of evolution. How does he do it? Simple — he hits us at our weakest point — Piltdown Man! We’ve written about that fossil before (see Piltdown Man: The Creationists’ Savior), but nothing can match Rives’ presentation.

Okay, we know you can’t wait, so we won’t detain you any longer. Click over to WND and Discover the hoax at heart of evolution. It’ll amaze you!

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

You remember the bill they’re talking about. We recently posted Creationist Legislation for Indiana in 2012?, describing the bill filed by Senator Dennis Kruse, an auctioneer. His gift to the people of Indiana is Senate Bill 0089. It provides:

The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

The thing is so flamingly ridiculous that we thought it would just die in committee, but the lawmakers of Indiana have surprised us. The radio station’s writeup is rather brief. It says, with bold font added by us:

A controversial bill that would allow school boards to require the teaching of “creation science” is endorsed by a state Senate Committee. The Senate Education Committee Wednesday voted 8-2 to advance the legislation after hearing testimony from both sides of the issue.

M’god! The vote was 8 to 2. Could there be that many fools in the Indiana Senate? Apparently there are. One more excerpt:

[C]ritics, including Episcopalian Chaplain Charles Allen, call it an ill-advised attempt to bring Christianity into the classroom. The say it violates the U.S. Constitution by blurring the separation of church and state.

“Courts have already ruled that creation science is a disguised attempt to promote a religious world view in science classrooms, and I agree with those rulings,” Allen said.

Well, the thing cleared one committee. It still has to get introduced into the House and make some progress there. It may get as far as the infamous Indiana Pi Bill did a century ago, which actually passed in the House before dying in the Senate.

We can follow the creationism bill’s progress at this page of the legislature’s website. There doesn’t seem to be a companion bill in the House — at least not yet, but the Senate bill has picked up some supporters. Senator Holdman has been added as second author, and Senators Delph, Banks and Schneider were added as coauthors. That’s a lot of Senators eager to be associated with compulsory creationism.

The legislative session is scheduled to expire on 14 March, so there’s plenty of time. Anything can happen. Stay tuned to this blog.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article