Texas 2023 Creationism Bills — Dead

There’s good news today, dear reader. Another creationist bill has gone down in defeat. We first wrote about it back in January: More Crazy Legislation — This Time in Texas.

Today’s news comes from our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), written by Glenn Branch, their Deputy Director. His post is titled “Strengths and weaknesses” bills die in Texas. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

When the Texas state legislature adjourned sine die on May 29, 2023, a pair of identical bills that would have harmed science education, House Bill 1804 and Senate Bill 2089, died in committee. If enacted, the bills would have amended the state education code to require that instructional material adopted by the state board of education “present a scientific theory in an objective educational manner that: (i) clearly distinguishes the theory from fact; and (ii) includes evidence for both the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory.”

Nice going — the dumb things just died in committee. Glenn says:

Clause (i) appears to reflect a common misconception about facts and theories. “In scientific terms, ‘theory’ does not mean ‘guess’ or ‘hunch’ as it does in everyday usage,” as the National Academy of Science explained in its publication Science and Creationism, second edition (1999). “Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. … [S]cientists can also use [“fact”] to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact.”

Well, you can’t expect creationist to know what they’re legislating about. Glenn also tells us:

Clause (ii) betrays the intention of the bills. As The New York Times editorialized of the phrase “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” in 2008, “This is code for teaching creationism.” Employed by proponents of “creation science” and “intelligent design” alike, the phrase appears in antievolution laws enacted in Louisiana in 2008 and Tennessee in 2012.

Indeed — the legislation was hopelessly stupid from the start. Glenn’s post ends with this:

House Bill 1804 was sponsored by Terri Leo-Wilson (R-District 23), who previously served three terms on the state board of education (as Terri Leo) where she continually sought to undermine the treatment of evolution in the state science standards and in textbooks submitted for state adoption [obviously a genius]; Senate Bill 2089 was sponsored by Brandon Creighton (R-District 4). Both bills received committee hearings, during which public comment was heard and amendments were proposed, but neither bill came to a committee vote.

That’s pretty much the whole story for state legislation this year. But there are legislatures still in session, and there’s no shortage of idiotic legislators. One never knows what might happen tomorrow, so stay tuned to this blog!

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Why We’ve Ignored the Discoveroids All Month

You’ve been wondering, haven’t you, about why we haven’t posted lately about the Discoveroids. The answer is because we’ve found them to be intolerably boring.

Today at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute, we found a post that explains the situation. The thing is titled Film Festival 2023 — “The Origin of Life”, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

From May 9-30 [Almost the whole month!], the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute has been running a film festival [Yuk!] on YouTube to highlight some of our top videos. We’ve highlighted different videos throughout the month. [Blech, Blaargh, Gack!]

Now do you understand why we’ve been ignoring the Discoveroids? Then they say:

Would you help us make more videos by donating to our “Be a Movie Producer” campaign? [Link omitted!]

Go ahead, help ’em out! And now we come to the end:

For our final offering [Hooray!], we present the newest episode from our lighthearted and well-illustrated series “Long Story Short,” explaining the faulty reasoning behind claims for atheistic origin-of-life arguments. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!]

If you want to see the Discoveroids’ final offering, it’s embedded in their post. Just click on over there and have a ball!

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Hambo Explains Why We Haven’t Found Aliens

Once again, the only creationist website funny enough to be worth your time is the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His latest (well, it’s a week old) is titled Another Excuse from Evolutionists for Why Aliens Don’t Exist, and it was written by ol’ Hambo himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Why haven’t we found aliens yet? After all, we’ve spent millions and millions of dollars searching the skies for signs of life. And yet . . . nothing. But the reason we haven’t found aliens yet is because climate change killed all the aliens [link omitted]. No, wait, it’s because we were created in a laboratory [link omitted] by an advanced alien race. Oh no, sorry, we have found aliens because octopuses are actually alien lifeforms [link omitted]. No, wait, we haven’t found aliens because . . .

Well, that was an ark-load of nothing. Then he says:

“Humanity miss[ed] the party?” According to a new study [Advanced life should have already peaked billions of years ago, says paper] on black holes and their impact on the formation of stars, “we, as advanced life, might be relics from a bygone age in the universe.” The author claims “advanced life peaked billions of years ago.” Why? Because of the way black holes supposedly behave and influence star formation (which is itself an unproven hypothesis with a lot of problems).

Interesting conjecture. What can Hambo do with it? He tells us:

So, in other words, black holes mean that there’s far fewer habitable planets than we think (though currently there’s just one that is for sure habitable . . . and that’s our own planet!). In summary, “We may be late, but we aren’t necessarily alone. Other partygoers might be just arriving. We’re here, so it’s possible others are.”

Well, so what? He continues:

Yes, it’s another excuse (among many) for why we haven’t found alien life yet. You see, in the evolutionary worldview, there simply must be other intelligent life. We just can’t be that special. If life evolved here, it must have evolved elsewhere. And yet we can’t seem to find it no matter how hard we look.

Calm down, Hambo! It’s a big universe, and we’ve only begun to look. Ah well, let’s read on:

It’s all part of the search for the answer to the so-called great question, which asks, “Are we alone?” And despite the glaring lack of alien lifeforms, so many scientists firmly believe the answer is “No, we aren’t alone!” But they’re answering that question in the wrong way! No, we aren’t alone . . . but it isn’t aliens we should be looking for!

What? Here’s another excerpt:

Sadly, secular scientists look at the incredible splendor and order of the cosmos, the complex language system of DNA, and the complexity of life on earth, and say, “Hmm, there’s no God, no Creator, but I wonder if we’re alone?”

And now Hambo brilliantly solves the problem:

They aren’t alone, and they should be looking for and to God — God, our Creator, who exists outside of his creation, and he has plainly revealed himself through what he has made and through his perfect Word. Anyone who ignores his fingerprints is simply suppressing the truth . . . and many are placing their faith in aliens instead.

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Skipping a bible quote, we come at last to the end:

Yes, those who reject God are without excuse!

Are you without excuse, dear reader?

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Hambo Explains Why the Bible Is True Science

Once again, we find ourselves at the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. This one is titled Is the Bible a Science Textbook?, and it was written by ol’ Hambo himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

During a radio talk show, a caller once asked me, “Is the Bible a science textbook?” Of course, secularists would say the Bible is not a science textbook. They would claim it’s a book of mythology. So, how did I answer?

Well, dear reader, what would you expect from someone who insists that the Flood and Noah’s Ark were real? Hambo gives us his answer:

I said, “Well, I’m glad the Bible is not a science textbook like the ones they use in school, because those textbooks basically change each year. But the Bible doesn’t change. The Bible itself states, “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89).

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s better than a science book! Then he says:

In fact, there are many verses of Scripture to tell us that God’s infallible Word, unlike man’s fallible word, lasts forever. [Scripture quotes.] So, is the Bible a science textbook?

Well, is it or isn’t it? He tells us:

Well, first of all, we need to understand what the word science means. It is derived from the classical Latin scientia, meaning “to know.” The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.” In other words, the actual meaning of the word science is knowledge.

What can he do with that? He continues:

Now, words can be used in different ways. For instance, when people talk about doing chemistry experiments or studying cells under a microscope in biology, they will say they are studying science. But then, secular scientists studying the supposed evolution of life — when they weren’t there to see it happen — also call that “science.”

Ooooooooooooh! It’s called “science” when scientists don’t know what they’re talking about! Let’s read on:

That’s why when I debated Bill Nye “the Science Guy” in 2014 at the Creation Museum [link omitted], I said the first thing we needed to do was define our terms. I made sure people understood that science meant “knowledge.” To help people understand the different ways the word science is used, I wanted to make sure I taught them how to think — and not just what to think — about this topic. [Very important!] That’s rather radical for education these days! I explained that being able to observe and repeat experiments in the present is very different from discussing the topic of origins when humans weren’t there to observe what was happening.

Ooooooooooooh! The origin of humans isn’t science! Look what Hambo does with that brilliant insight:

Doing repeatable experiments in the present to gain knowledge is “observational” or “operational” science. But talking about the origins issue is a very different type of knowledge. We call that “historical science,” as we are talking about the past—trying to understand history. That’s a very different type of knowledge indeed. [Hee hee!]

Watch what Hambo does with that brilliant dichotomy:

Sadly, the same word science is used by secularists and others for observational science as well as historical science. So most students are brainwashed to think that because studying science put man on the moon, a marvelous technological feat, then we have to believe scientists when they say science proves evolution. They don’t realize there’s been a type of “bait and switch” to use the same word (science) to mean very different things.

This is really great stuff! Here’s another excerpt:

Students aren’t being taught how to think correctly about science. [Hambo’s bold font!] It’s one of the reasons they get easily brainwashed to believe evolution and millions of years are true (as have many church leaders and Christian academics for the same reason) — because they think science (and really scientists) have clearly shown this.

Here’s more:

When it comes to the Bible, we need to understand that it is primarily a book of history and spiritual and moral matters. It’s God’s history book to us. In a way, we could say it’s God’s textbook of historical science. The Bible also deals with geology, biology, astronomy, and so on. When it deals with these topics, we can trust it because it’s God’s Word. Unlike “science” textbooks in public schools, it never changes.

Ooooooooooooh! It never changes. And now we’re skipping some stuff to get to the end:

Because the historical science (the “earthly things”) in the Bible is true, the moral and spiritual teachings based in that history are true. Christianity is based on real history, the history God recorded for us in his Word — the Bible. Evolution and millions of years are false history.

There it is, dear — brilliant stuff from ol’ Hambo. Isn’t he great?

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.