WE learned about this from a post at the National Center for Science Education: New videos of Eugenie C. Scott on-line.

This one is Barbara Forrest talking about the creationism law in Louisiana. The other two videos at that link — listed in the right margin — are also good, but we couldn’t find Scott on the first video, so this one is our favorite. [Addendum: They may have fixed the link to the first video -- Scott's talk is there, starting at 7:00, after an astounding 2-minute introduction.]

Barbara provides a great deal of background and historical context which is essential to understanding Louisiana’s anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism “Academic Freedom” bill, now known as the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which permits unspecified “supplemental materials” — wink, wink — to be used in science classes.

This one, the third at that link, is Kenneth Miller. He talks about the history of the intelligent design movement. Good stuff! After you’ve seen him and Forrest speak, you’ll understand why the creationists were so outclassed in Dover. The last half of it is a panel discussion, and that’s where you’ll see Scott.

This is the other video with Eugenie Scott — you’ll have to scroll down to find it: In the Beginning – Explanations from Science and Religion . It’s about the science vs. religion topic generally. All the speakers are pro-science, some being atheists, some not.

The whole video is good. It’s a panel discussion, and it lasts an hour. If you want to be selective, Eugenie Scott’s first brief talk starts at 4:30. And again at 16:40. Again at 22:20. And 29:10. “We don’t teach in history that Lee surrendered to Grant, and Grant surrendered to Lee, and then let the students decide.” And 39:00. And 42:30. “Just because you can explain something with natural causes doesn’t mean there’s no god.” And 53:00. “Science has to inform theology about the real world.”

Lots of good weekend viewing here.

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

IF this new research holds up, there may be some tweaking of the molecular clock technique.

At the ScienceDaily website we read Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts About Accuracy Of Genetic Dating Techniques. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have provided extraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy of traditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approaches have been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to 600 percent.

In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal.

Here’s the abstract: High mitogenomic evolutionary rates and time dependency. Let’s read more from ScienceDaily:

The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.

[...]

“The observations in this report appear to be fundamental and should extend to most animal species,” [said Dee Denver, an evolutionary biologist with the Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing at Oregon State University]. “We believe that traditional DNA dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, and that the rates of evolution are in fact much faster than conventional technologies have led us to believe.”

Faster? If a specimen is older than previously thought, then wouldn’t the changes have occurred over more time? This could be a journalism problem, or maybe we’re not reading this right. Anyway …

You know what the creationists will do with this. It doesn’t matter that scientists are improving their methods. Creationists will be shouting from the rooftops that “Darwinism” is collapsing. But what does this research really mean?

The findings, researchers say, are primarily a challenge to the techniques used to determine the age of a sample by genetic analysis alone, rather than by other observations about fossils. In particular, they may force a widespread re-examination of determinations about when one species split off from another, if that determination was based largely on genetic evidence.

So it’s possible that the Tree of Life will require some adjustments regarding the lengths of the branches and twigs. Fine. The more accuracy we can achieve, the better we like it.

There’s lots more information in the article. Check it out if this research concerns you. We’ll give you one last excerpt:

Aside from raising doubts about the accuracy of many specimens dated with conventional approaches, the study may give researchers tools to improve their future dating estimates, Denver said.

The techniques of science keep improving, and the creationists keep getting crazier. That’s how it goes.

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

WE should have seen this one coming. In his ceaseless efforts to malign Charles Darwin and his work, David Klinghoffer has written bizarre essays attempting to link Darwin to Hitler, to communism, to Stalin, and even the Columbine shootings. Most recently, he’s added Charles Manson to his fantasy account of Darwin’s legacy.

And now, perhaps inspired by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s maxim: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” Klinghoffer has incorporated the Ft. Hood murders into his anti-evolution crusade.

Who is Klinghoffer? If you already know, you can skip the next paragraph:

David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow (i.e., “full-blown creationist”) among the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). David also operates his own blog, Kingdom of Priests, a part of Beliefnet. What Klinghoffer writes at Beliefnet sometimes shows up at the Discoveroids’ blog, so we regard each blog as an extension of the other, and each reveals the depths of creationst depravity.

Brace yourself, dear reader, as we give you some excerpts from Klinghoffer’s latest creationist adventure: Do Ideas Have Consequences Only When They’re Associated with Radical Islam?, which appears at his Beliefnet blog. The bold font was added by us:

Why do so many writers who insist on emphasizing the consequences of radical Muslim belief tend to ignore the social consequences of other belief systems — for example, Darwinism?

Maybe it’s because radical Islam does indeed have horrendous consequences, and Charles Darwin’s work has none? Let’s read on:

My own view is that when you are taking the measure of an idea — let’s say Islam, or Darwinism — it’s a good rule of thumb at least to consider the relationship between it and its consequences, judged by the behavior of people who espouse the idea and publicly proclaim themselves as acting upon it. … At the very least, you might think, an idea that has a record of persistently inspiring evil is worth a second, skeptical look, rather than your simply swallowing it because the prestige authorities around you say you should.

Did you catch that pairing of Islam and “Darwinism”? Not too subtle, was it? We continue:

I’ve expressed frustration about this in the past, as when the Darwinian musings of Columbine killer Eric Harris, or Holocaust Museum shooter James von Brunn, were studiously ignored.

We had forgotten that Klinghoffer also blamed the museum shooter on Darwin. Here’s more:

There’s a whole community of professional Islam-bashers out there, writing online and in books that sell pretty well, who have been riding the Hasan story full time since it broke, hammering home their habitual point that Islam is an evil religion and always has been, going back to the days when it original source texts were composed.

What does this have to do with Charles Darwin? Here it comes:

Islam doesn’t particularly interest me — any religion can be made to look inherently wicked by a selective quoting of sources — but this angle does.

As you probably guessed, and as you can explore in detail by reading Klinghoffer’s entire essay, “this angle” turns out to be “the social consequences of Darwin’s famous idea.”

Klinghoffer then recounts his earlier efforts to blame Darwin for the wickedness of Hitler, and how others have dismissed his rants as “a crude blame game.” But he’s not discouraged, as he proudly declares at the end of his horrid little essay:

“Crude”? I don’t see what’s crude about what I wrote. On the contrary, it seems transparently, obviously true. Anyway, the simple point bears repeating. Either ideas have consequences or they don’t. If they do, then ideas you happen to feel favorably disposed to shouldn’t get a free pass.

And so, dear reader, according to Klinghoffer, if you think the Ft. Hood murders carried out by Nidal Malik Hasan are a consequence of radical Islam, then you shouldn’t give Darwin a free pass regarding all the other evil in the world.

Isn’t creationism grand?

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

SURELY you remember Mark Souder, Creationist Congressman. Doesn’t ring a bell? Here’s some background:

The third winner of the Curmudgeon’s coveted Buffoon Award is Indiana congressman Mark Souder. As we reported here: Congressman Mark Souder: “Souder Delenda Est”, Souder had a bit part in Ben Stein’s shabby documentary, Expelled, and he regards it as the highlight of his year, because — in his own words, spoken in late December of 2008 — “I personally believe that there is no issue more important to our society than intelligent design.”

Although there are many contenders in both parties for the title of “biggest fool in congress,” Souder may fairly be said to have earned that distinction. Souder’s uncompromising support of intelligent design creationism makes him the unofficial representative of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids).

We have some good news for to you, dear reader. Here are some excerpts from Phil Troyer will challenge Souder in ’10 GOP primary, which appears in the Goshen News of Goshen, Indiana. The bold font was added by us:

Phil Troyer, a Fort Wayne attorney, stopped in Goshen Tuesday to announce his intention to challenge incumbent U.S. Rep. Mark Souder in the 2010 Republican primary election.

We know that Souder is a full-blown creationist nitwit, but what’s Troyer all about? Let’s read on:

“I have a great job and was not looking to change careers,” said Troyer. “However, when Congressman Souder voted in favor of the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, I decided someone needed to do something.”

Okay. What else? We continue:

Besides the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, Troyer said Souder supported a $2 million project for the City College of New York, $200,000 for a Maine lobster museum and $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California.

[...]

He claimed Souder “votes like a big-spending liberal when he is in Washington, D.C.”

[...]

“If elected, I will take my responsibility to the Constitution and to the people seriously.”

Here’s his campaign website: Troyer for Congress. Nothing there about creationism, so he’ll be a big improvement over Souder — almost anyone would.

But wait, there’s more! Souder has yet another challenger in the GOP primary. Here’s her campaign website: Rachel Grubb for Congress. No mention of creationism, but she’s very conservative. Gotta be an improvement over Souder.

In closing, we once again paraphrase Cato the Elder’s famous postscript, which he added to all his speeches in the Roman senate before the Third Punic War: Souder delenda est. Souder must be defeated!

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

THE Controversy between evolution and creationism provoked a man to violence in Northern Ireland. We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Derry man “does not want to work with non-christians”, which appears at the website of Highland Radio, “Ireland’s No. 1 Local Radio Station.” The bold font was added by us:

A Derry man who told probation that he did not want to work with non Christans [sic] has been sentenced to community service and ordered to work with whoever he was told to.

Derry man? Udderly ridiculous! Let’s read on:

36 year-old Paul Del Pinto of Meadowbank House admitted assaulting a man on August 27 last year after a discussion on Darwinism and Creationism became heated.

These things have been known to happen. We continue:

Derry Crown Court was told that several men were drinking in the injured party’s flat when the discussion turned to religion. It was said that this caused a change in the atmosphere and an argument started although the court was told this was not sectarian but more to do with religious principles, Darwinism and creationism.

Not sectarian, but about religious principles? Okay. Here’s more:

Del Pinto was asked to leave the flat but as he was being escorted out he punched the injured party injuring him on the mouth and nose.

How horrible! But who was the creationist in this brawl? We’ll try to figure it out:

The court was told that Del Pinto had apologised and that it was a one off incident.

Good defense — “Your Honor, my client acted alone. He was engaged in a one-off beating.” Another excerpt:

However, Judge Piers Grant said he had a problem with a statement in the pre-sentence report where Del Pinto said he did wish to do community service, but he did not want to work with non-Christians. Judge Grant said this struck him as ‘absolutism and extemism.’

We’re only guessing here, but our strong suspicion is that the one-off beater is the creationist. Here’s the end of the article:

However, Del Pinto went into the witness box and assured the court he would work with anyone, although he preferred to work with Christians.

We hope this deeply religious fellow gets his wish.

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Evolution not the answer, which appears in the Patterson Irrigator. That’s a twice-a-week newspaper from Patterson, California — population around 12,000, and known as the “Apricot Capital of the World”.

We’re skipping the first paragraph because it’s unrelated to the rest of the letter. Otherwise, we’ll copy today’s letter in its entirety, omitting only the writer’s name and city, and adding our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. The bold font was added for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

Despite its influence, evolution in our culture is in a state of collapse. There are many influential scientists who support intelligent design and back their beliefs with scientific fact, and the number is growing.

The number is growing. Growing! Let’s read on:

Still, evolution remains the theory in power whose impact is meant to move society away from moral boundaries. For those who only hear one side of the debate — that is, most public high school students — it is a compelling, seductive and often liberating feeling that helps to justify immoral, illegal and sexual tendencies.

Sexual tendencies? Egad! We continue:

Sir Julian Huxley — grandson of Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his support of evolution — was asked why evolution caught on so quickly. His response was: “I suppose the reason we all jumped at ‘Origin of Species’ was because God interfered with our sexual morals.”

We’ve seen some really odd criticisms of evolution, but this is extreme. It’s not Darwin being quoted, nor is it even Thomas Huxley. It’s Huxley’s grandson! It would mean nothing even if he were he accurately quoted, but a bit of Googling indicates that the quote may be creationist fiction. We’re not vouching for this, but we found THE JULIAN HUXLEY LIE, which says the “quote” comes from Henry Morris, godfather of quote miners, and was then repeated by James Kennedy, the vicious creationist propagandist who said: “To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler.”

We have no idea whether the Julian Huxley “quote” is accurate, nor do we care. Here’s more from today’s letter:

What an honest and accurate answer [Huxley gave] to support the true reason the evolution theory is popular among certain age and cultural groups. Grim social consequences have followed since having embraced the evolution theory.

Yes, an “honest and accurate answer.” It explains why Darwin was such a notorious libertine and ladies’ man. Moving along:

It is ludicrous to believe that man is nothing but an advanced form of life. All of Mr. McKinley’s [columnist who sparked today's letter] claims can be refuted. The fossil record offers no support for Darwin’s claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. Intermediate fossils that show the transitions from one life form to another are not to be found.

Ludicrous, refuted, no evidence, no transitionals. We’ve been fooled!

And now we come to the letter’s end:

Evidence from the heavens, the earth, life and man all point to Genesis 1:1 — “In the beginning. God created the heavens and the earth.” What we all observe every day all around us speaks plainly and boldly of a design and a designer. And that is no whimsical theory!

[Writer's name and city can be seen in the original.]

So there you are, dear reader. You have no evidence, and your theory is all about sex. So give it up!

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article