Ken Ham: Dinosaurs and the Flood

This is a good one from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Will Jurassic Park Be Reality Someday? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

This week the newest installment of the Jurassic Park series, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, will show in US theaters (be watching for a review of this film on [Yeah, right!] This upcoming theatrical spectacle prompted an article in Scientific American titled Jurassic World: Can We Really Resurrect Dinosaurs?. The short answer the authors gave to that question was no — and we don’t need to, the article claims, because birds are dinosaurs. [Gasp!] Yes, they actually wrote that — birds are dinosaurs. Remember that the next time you put out your dinosaur (bird) feeders in your backyard!

Great beginning! Then he says:

The authors argue that reconstructing ancient DNA is no simple task, if you can even find such DNA. Since they believe dinosaurs died out around 66 million years ago [the Fools!], they don’t think there’s much of a chance we will ever find more than just fragmentary dinosaur DNA. Of course, evolutionists weren’t expecting to find any soft tissue preserved in dinosaur fossils, yet it has been found. [Groan!] This is because dinosaurs didn’t die out 66 million years ago. The fossils we have today are probably from the global flood of Noah’s day just 4,350 years ago.

Ah yes, the Flood. Then he tells us:

But the authors do mention that they believe they now have “the overall genomic structure of dinosaurs,” despite not having any dinosaur DNA. This is because they supposedly worked “out the most likely genomic structure of the bird-turtle ancestor, before tracing any changes that occurred from then to the present day.”


They don’t mention, however, that there is no known naturalistic process that adds brand-new genetic information into DNA. [Hee hee!] Yet they need massive amounts of additional information for new structures and functions for some kind of bird-turtle ancestor to eventually give rise to dinosaurs that then evolved into modern birds.

This is great — it’s not only about the Flood, but Hambo also throws in the magic pixie dust of information. He continues:

Will Jurassic Park become a reality? Probably not. DNA is highly complex, and even if some DNA has survived since the flood of Noah’s time, it’s likely far too degraded (even in just a few thousand years) to reconstruct a complete genome.

Jeepers — no DNA after only 4,350 years. Let’s read on:

But from a biblical perspective, we don’t view dinosaurs as mysterious creatures that inhabited a world now long gone. They were particular kinds of land animals that were created on the same day as Adam and Eve and the other land animals (on day six of creation week) — and we now refer to those in these groups as dinosaurs (the word was first coined in 1841).

But if they were around that recently, where are they? Hambo explains that in his last paragraph (before he promotes one of his books and his various creationist tourist attractions):

Two of every kind of dinosaur were taken on the ark with Noah, and, after the flood, all dinosaurs (as far as we know) eventually died out for the same reasons creatures die out today (lack of resources, shrinking habitat, climate change, humans killing them, and so on).

Humans killed off the dinosaurs. Yes, that explains it. And so, dear reader, what did we learn? Only this: Noah could have saved a lot of space on the Ark if he didn’t bother saving the dinosaurs. Why wasn’t he told that they would soon go extinct?

Copyright © 2018. 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

Collier County, Florida Science Book Battle

Last year we reported Florida School Board Harassment Bill Is Now Law, and said:

The bill allows either parents of students in the local schools, or residents of the county where the school board functions, to complain to the school board about instructional materials or books in the library, and the board has to conduct a hearing on the complaints. In other words, any creationist drooler can harass his local school board merely for having a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species in the library. However, after giving the drooler a hearing, the decision of the school board is final.

Today in the Naples Daily News, the primary newspaper of Naples, Florida and all of Collier County, we discovered this happy headline: Evolution, climate change skeptics lose battle over science textbooks, and they have a comments feature. Here are some excerpts from the news story, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Collier County School Board members voted Monday to adopt a new batch of science textbooks, more than a dozen of which were the subject of official objections from Naples residents who cited issues ranging from unbalanced views of evolution and climate change to inaccurate racial depictions of science experts. Erika Donalds and Kelly Lichter [droolers] voted against adopting the disputed textbooks while board chair Roy Terry and members Stephanie Lucarelli and Erick Carter voted in favor.

The Collier County school board is divided 3 to 2. Their meetings must be fun! The newspaper says:

Since the slate of instructional materials was unanimously approved for adoption at the May 8 board meeting, four people submitted 220 objections to content within 18 textbooks. The overall theme of the objections was a lack of balance and context when referencing evolution and climate change and the treating of those topics as fact rather than theory.

Four people! We’re not told until later if they have kids in the school system. Spoiler alert — three of them don’t. The law requires only that that they be residents of the county, so any drooler can object to textbooks. The newspaper then quotes from the one objector who is a parent:

Evolution and natural selection are “a total indoctrination of liberal ideas,” wrote Collier parent Melissa Pind in her complaint. “Very disgusting and disappointing that this is included and no other viewpoint is even mentioned! What a shame that kids’ minds aren’t opened up to other possibilities.”

Disgusting indeed! The newspaper continues:

Keith Flaugh, co-director of the Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group that’s suing the school district over social studies textbooks adopted last year, wrote in his objection that there are “many very credible scientists” who have proven [Hee hee!] the impossibility of evolution.

Yeah, they’re credible. Let’s read on:

Michael Mogil, a meteorologist, objected to images of polar bears [What?], which he wrote were “the ‘poster child’ of human-caused climate change proponents.” Repeated references to climate change, he said, “brainwashes” students. Several of Mogil’s complaints were aimed at images of science experts within the textbooks, which he said inaccurately represented the racial makeup of society’s expertise in science. “Why would I wind up with four black males and no white males,” he asked board members Monday. “It just doesn’t look right.”

No comment. Here’s another excerpt:

Naples resident Joseph Doyle took aim at passages that addressed overpopulation, which he said is “an exaggerated, unproven concern.” “This is a slippery slope implying the need to kill humans — i.e. abortion, euthanasia,” he wrote.


Brandon Haught, a high school biology and environmental science teacher in Orange City, . and founding member of Florida Citizens for Science, a group focused on defending against attacks on science education, advised the board to be weary of the hundreds of objections filed. … The objectors’ strategy, he said, “is to overwhelm you by so many facts that it makes you think, ‘Oh, maybe there’s something to it. If you actually take a look at each individual fact you’ll find that they’re hollow,” he said. “They’re based on misinterpretations and wishful thinking and religion.”

Several people, including Haught and some board members, noted the unconstitutionality of teaching religion in public schools. Board member Erika Donalds [one of the board’s droolers] disagreed, arguing creationism has a place in science classrooms. “The theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution can be taught alongside each other without violating the constitution,” she said.

Erika never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Here’s one last excerpt:

The meeting lasted five hours, the vast majority of which was spent hearing from objectors Mogil, Flaugh and Doyle, none of whom have children attending Collier public schools.

Five hours? Try to imagine the mindless horror of that event! Anyway, the good guys won and the droolers went home defeated. A happy result indeed.

Copyright © 2018. 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

Klinghoffer Defends ‘Information’

You know about the magical phenomon the Discovery Institute refers to as information. We discussed it in Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Ol’ Hambo likes it — see AIG: Information and the Micro-Macro Mambo — but he attributes it to Yahweh, not the Discoveroids’ designer. Yahweh and the designer are the same, of course, but the Discoveroids claim their designer — blessed be he! — is something different, revealed to them by their peculiar science.

Anyway, the Discoveroids are defending their “science” today in Is There Information in Saturn’s Rings? It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this].

Referring to the question in his title he begins:

Or in a rock? Or a snowflake? This is a common contention from ID critics — that natural, physical objects like these contain information, and they require no recourse to an explanation involving intelligent design. So that means the information in DNA can be explained as the product of purely physical processes, too.

We’ve raised the same objection, so it’ll be interesting to see how Klinghoffer handles this. He says:

In fact I heard this point again in reviewing the Meyer-Krauss-Lamoureux debate in Toronto, referred to the other day by Evolution News [link to the Discoveroids’ blog omitted]. In one of the dramatic debate’s more ho-hum moments, atheist Lawrence Krauss tried to fight back against Stephen Meyer by pointing to the information in snowflakes. Was he correct to do?

Watch carefully, dear reader, as Klinghoffer skillfully deals with the issue. He tells us:

On a new ID the Future episode [Whoopie!], engineer Eric Anderson talks with host and science historian Mike Keas about the challenge. They consider the example of the Saturn and its rings. To describe the rings would entail a great deal of information. Right? Anderson makes the great point that design critics habitually conflate two kinds of information. There is information about a physical object – which an astronomer or astronaut could generate with his instruments and observations. And there is information contained within an object, as in DNA, or a newspaper, book, or other carefully composed or coded text.

Did you follow that? There are two kinds of information — that which we observe about an object and that which is miraculously embedded within an object. Wow — this is complicated! He elaborates:

These are different things. The information about Saturn’s rings does not exist until someone, with his intelligence and intelligently designed instruments, comes along and generates it. By contrast, the information residing in DNA was already there before anyone knew a thing about it. Good conversation. You can listen to it here [link omitted].

Someone needs to explain to your Curmudgeon how the information we observe about Saturn’s rings wasn’t already present within those rings before we observed it. Anyway, let’s read on:

As a side point, this makes me think of something else. I just reread the Arthur C. Clarke novel 2001: A Space Odyssey …The alien monolith that is their object, on one of Saturn’s moons, makes a thought-provoking contrast with the planet’s spectacular rings. … As soon it’s found [the monolith], everyone understands at once that it’s not a naturally occurring thing. No one thinks the same of Saturn’s rings … . There is no information there. The point is that, in this imaginative story, we immediately understand the difference between the designed monolith and the undersigned rings.

[*Groan*] Klinghoffer’s post dribbles on a bit, but he doesn’t say much else. So what did we learn? You may see it differently, but it seems to us that the Discoveroids are in a state of total intellectual collapse. If we missed something, let us know.

Copyright © 2018. 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

Intelligent Design in the News!

The Discovery Institute’s “theory” of intelligent design is often the subject of dismissive laughter. You too, dear reader, have probably been contemptuous of their work. But how wrong you are!

We found two news items of which you were probably unaware. We’ll give you some excerpts from each, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

First, take a look at Plans for West Bridgford dementia care home extension revealed which appears at the website West Bridgford Wire, located in West Bridgford, of Nottinghamshire, England. They say:

Plans for an extension to Church Farm at Skylarks have been revealed. Nottingham’s Leonard Design Architects, is behind the design which proposes extensions to both the ground and first floor of the existing Church Farm at Skylarks home in West Bridgford. … Multiple elements of intelligent architecture, led by Leonard Design’s Becky Smith and driven by the innovative approach of ‘Church Farm Care’ owner Patrick Atkinson, will create a care environment that is supportive and nurturing to those with dementia.

Here comes the intelligent design:

Becky Smith, Leonard Design Architects’ dementia care expert, said: “The over 65s population is projected to increase by nearly 60% in the next 25 years so the development of more private care homes is essential. … By looking at the Dutch approach to care home design, specifically visiting first-hand the pioneering Hogeweyk ‘dementia village’ in the Netherlands, it’s clear there are real health benefits to intelligent design. [Ooooooooooooh!] It’s exciting that Nottingham may soon have an innovative and forward-thinking care home to give a different option to local people with dementia.”

There are real health benefits to intelligent design!

That’s enough from the first story. Next we have a press release: Cowry creates groundbreaking kitchen design app leveraging AI and Big Data to the advantage of the construction and renovation industry, which informs us:

AI and Big Data are the talk of the town since last year, but the construction and renovation industry has yet to see the benefits of these new technologies. The amount of data required to create intelligent design software [Ooooooooooooh!] has proven an obstacle to the implementation of AI technology to applications like home remodels. Most home renovation companies simply don’t have the resources to acquire enough data to successfully create smart design software. Until now.

Cowry Cabinets, a manufacturer and dealer of high-quality cabinetry, is launching an ingenious app that will allow users to shop for, design and purchase a kitchen all through one easy-to-use, smart AI platform. Cowry’s goal is simple: extend the benefits of AI and Big Data to the renovation industry, and in the process, provide its customers with an easier, more affordable way to design and build kitchens. The AI Kitchen Designer app delivers on this goal in three key ways:

Only the first of those interests us. Here it is:

Patented Advanced Intelligent Design Software – The design process is simplified to the extent that anybody from a first-time renovator to a no-nonsense contractor could download the app and design a kitchen in a matter of minutes. It’s as easy as entering your space measurements and selecting your cabinet and hardware styles. Cowry’s 3D rendering technology will use this information to instantly generate a visual representation of your kitchen design.

Impressive, huh? And remember — we found both of these items on the same day! So while you, in your smug, Darwinist way, laugh at the Discovery Institute and their “theory” of intelligent design, it’s time you opened you eyes. From homes for the demented to modern kitchen renovation, intelligent design is everywhere! The Discoveroids must be very proud.

Copyright © 2018. 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