Vomit Opportunity from Answers in Genesis

Vomit

We keep getting letters saying: “Hey, Curmy, you haven’t given us a good vomit opportunity lately. How about it?” That’s unfair criticism. We had one a few months ago — see Massive Morning Vomit Opportunity.

But if you’re looking for a really good, let ‘er rip, heavy-duty, all-at-once, mighty heave from way down deep, then you’re right. We haven’t had one of those since Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom.

All right, Vomiteers, we’ve found what you’re looking for. It’s from Georgia Purdom, who received a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. She’s a creation scientist on the staff of Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s online ministry. Here’s her bio page at AIG’s website — Dr. Georgia Purdom.

Georgia’s new essay, which begins with a great photo of her, is “Professionally Unethical” to Confuse Observational and Historical Science. Whoa — professionally unethical? This is serious stuff! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A few weeks ago one of our staff members sent me an email reply she received from a scientist she had contacted. She had asked him for permission to use a photo he had taken for one of our publications. Here was his reply:

[The alleged reply:] Although I do license my images to some organizations, I will have to politely decline your request. As a scientist and in particular as a biologist, it would be professionally unethical to have my name associated with an organization that is so vehemently anti-science. The stance against evolution is particularly appalling: for me to support this stand would be like asking a physicist to deny gravity, for a chemist to not believe in atoms, or for a mathematician to disavow integers. Needless to say, these are all absurd. And as a further note, if I could in fact provide strong evidence to counter our understanding of evolution, this would make my career as a scientist. But as with searching for evidence that atoms don’t exist, this would be a profound waste of time.

Nice reply! But Georgia found it not only offensive, it was also “professionally unethical.” Here’s what she says:

As one of several scientists working for AiG, I always chuckle when people claim we are “anti-science.” Their accusation stems from the fact that they fail to define science properly. There are two categories of science: observational/experimental and historical/origins.

We’ve seen that claim dozens of times from AIG. They don’t like science that discovers things in the past because such discoveries always make Genesis look ridiculous. We’ve discussed their bizarre dichotomy in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, so we won’t waste any time on it.

However, we’re inspired to invent a dichotomy of our own. Did you realize that there is more than one human species living on this planet? You know about Homo sapiens, which means “wise (or reasoning) man.” Those wretched, hell-bound evolutionists claim that H. sapiens is the only human species now alive, but they’re wrong. There’s another human species, dear reader — Homo insipiens, or foolish man. Virtually all creationists are of this other species, and your Curmudgeon now declares that it is professionally unethical to deny it. Okay, back to Georgia’s essay:

This scientist [whose reply Georgia quoted] is clearly mixing the two types of science and what he is actually opposed to is using the truth of God’s Word as a starting point for knowing about the past instead of his own ideas.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

Although he claims that finding “evidence” to counter evolution would make his career as a scientist, it would actually end it, at least as far as the secular world is concerned. Over and over and over again the evidence has been clearly shown to be absolutely consistent with and to confirm the historical science based on God’s Word.

Throwing up yet? Of course you are. And we’re not finished. Ignoring Georgia’s link to an AIG article about “correct scientific predictions” made with creation science, she says:

Yet when scientists such as myself attempt to publish such information in secular scientific journals, speak at secular scientific conferences, or get jobs at secular universities, we are typically prohibited not because of the observational science we have accomplished but because it supports and confirms the historical science based on God’s Word. (Fortunately, creation scientists do have places to publish peer-reviewed scientific research like the Answers Research Journal and others.)

It must be deeply satisfying to be published in Hambo’s own “peer-reviewed” journal. At the end, Georgia refers us to a video of the debate between ol’ Hambo and Bill Nye, and that’s all she has to say. But it was enough for our purposes. You wanted a vomit opportunity, and we gave you one. We are pleased to have provided this service.

Copyright © 2014. 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

58 responses to “Vomit Opportunity from Answers in Genesis

  1. Our Curmudgeon notes

    It must be deeply satisfying to be published in Hambo’s own “peer-reviewed” journal.

    But why the scare quotes around ‘peer-reviewed’? Articles for Hambo’s journal are indeed reviewed by peers of the contributors, i.e., fellow H. insipiens.

  2. Oopsie yet again–a faulty html tag in above post. Apologies, O Great Celestial Fixer of Our Human Falibility!

    [*Voice from above*] As you wish.

  3. “Their accusation stems from the fact that they fail to define science properly.”

    So we need to define “science” as the process of spreading childish lies in order to be in harmony with G.P.’s misshapen logic?

    Today is the first time I’ve ever laughed while vomiting.

  4. I wonder when the last time Georgia actually attempted to publish a paper in a science journal actually was? Notice the hedge”typically.”

    One of Georgia’s peers at the Creation Science Association (not sure if I should put quotes around the whole thing or just the word science), lectured me that revelation is actually a much better method for understanding the pre-human past than is science. So when Georgia says that the evidence is consistent with God’s word, she actually means the evidence is God’s word.

  5. Still, all’s well that ends well, I’d say:

    At the end, Georgia refers us to a video of the debate between ol’ Hambo and Bill Nye

    That’d be the one where Nye wipes the floor with every creationist argument, wouldn’t it?

  6. Well, Curmy has opened the door on creative relabeling of the scientific name of modern hominids. I’ve been coming up with new ones for years (or hearing them from others), usually after I’ve been irritated by disruptive or idiotic behavior by said hominids.
    Homo stupus
    Homo ineptus
    Homo disgustus
    Homo anacephalus
    Homo microcephalus
    Homo destructivans
    Homo incessant-babblensis
    Many of these apply to creationists and other science haters & reality deniers (& most politicians). But I don’t have sufficient right-brain power to come up with cool, creative, creationist-specific examples. Any takers on that?

  7. Google Translate would suggest Homo aetatis mittant might be appropriate, although still not specific.

  8. Kennard Walter

    How about Oogitus therefore Boogitus being adopted as the (ILL)Logical Absolute for all of Creation Minded Hominoids?

  9. The Dr. Purdom,Ph.D. bio is fun.

    Dr. Purdom’s scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations. She seeks to understand the original, created, “very good” roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world.

    So bacteria were all “good” before the flood. Shouldn’t she be asking why some bacteria “went bad” and some stayed “good”? Or why some like E. coli can be both “good” and “bad”? This may be keeping me awake tonight.

  10. The stance against evolution is particularly appalling: for me to support this stand would be like asking a physicist to deny gravity, for a chemist to not believe in atoms, or for a mathematician to disavow integers.

    In the nineteenth century, there were respectable scientists who were skeptical of the physical existence of atoms, which they considered a mere mathematical convenience. In the same year in which he published his special theory of relativity, however, Albert Einstein published another paper, on so-called “Brownian motion,” which established that that phenomenon indicated the real existence of atoms.

    “As one of several scientists working for AiG, I always chuckle when people claim we are “anti-science.” Their accusation stems from the fact that they fail to define science properly. There are two categories of science: observational/experimental and historical/origins.”

    Guess what? The “historical/origins” sciences are heavily dependent on “observation,” in the form of physical findings of one sort or another. But not, it seems, for creationists: they feel free to just dream stuff up, in the worst tradition of medieval natural philosophy. As long as it supports the Bible, that’s all they need to know.

  11. That mean old scientist is just that – a big fat meanie. He should know that “anti-science” is just barbaric.

    I think we should use less hateful, more neutral terminology, like:
    – she is struggling with religion dependence; or
    – she is scientifically confused; or perhaps
    – she is rationally challenged; and lastly
    – she has a science-proof brain container

  12. If there is to be a difference to be drawn, with one part being observational
    If, then the different side is not “historical”, but rather remote.
    Things are not subject to “immediate” observation (and repeatability), not only by their being in the past, but also because their distance puts them out of immediate reach. And also things which are too small, too large, too fast, too slow, invisible to our unaided senses, etc. etc. etc.

    Moreover, the irony is that one could argue that the real interest, beauty, productivity and power of science is in remote science. We don’t need a meteorologist to report the current weather. We need quantum mechanics to tell us about the behavior of electrons in semiconductors. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton told us about the behavior of things which were beyond their reach or power to manipulate. Who were those who rejected those epitomes of modern science, saying, “How do you know? Where you there?”

    But there is no true value in such a distinction, as can be seen by the paradigm of evolutionary biology, which spans the alleged difference by telling us how the past influences the present, how the present tells us about the past, and makes predictions (oh, I forgot to include that explicitly in the “etc.”) about the future, as well as studies what can be directly observed and repeated.

  13. Refute AiG nonsense claims with science – and then you will find out whether they are anti-science as charged.

  14. Holding The Line In Florida

    I have never heard such a load of buffalo piles in my life. My 7th Graders have a bigger grasp of reality than this “PHD” once I finish with them. What a joke!

  15. From Purdom’s bio (thanks to michaelfugate):

    “She seeks to understand the original, created, “very good” roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world.”

    Hmm. Sounds like “historical” science to me. “How would she know? Was she there??”

  16. Eric Lipps makes a bright (and totally repeatable) observation:

    “The “historical/origins” sciences are heavily dependent on “observation,” in the form of physical findings of one sort or another.”
    Like radiometry on artifacts, which of course belongs to observational/ repeatable science. Georgia Purgia for some reason doesn’t talk about that subject.

  17. Ashley, are you serious? Darwin wiped out creationism in the 19th c. Then after the neo-creationists of the 20th, hundreds of books and journal articles were produced after the 70/80s trials. Once again, ID was critiqued in the 90s and into the 21st c. Their ideas have been thoroughly demolished by scientists. If you need some refs, please ask.

  18. Georgia Purdum is a frequent guest of Bible boy David Rives’ television show. I guess I’d sum up her outlook by starting with Biblical glasses, assume the Bible is true until evidence is provided (and put a blind eye to any that should present itself). Natural selection is true, but evolution is only loss of information (pulls out a reference an obscure paper about the golden age of evolution), therefore God created life to diversify, but only to lose from the well provided genomes of the past. The flood is real and instead of the tree of life we have the forest of life, different trees branching out from each kind. So limited evolution is true, so long as it is restrained by the Biblical narrative.
    Incidentally, she is wrong about everything, but it is interesting to see the cognitive dissidence in action to allow sincere belief in an educated person.

  19. RSG, great insight – I hadn’t thought of that.
    I am betting she will use revelation instead of historical science because, you know, God was there.

  20. Doctor Stochastic

    Evolution (like the rest of biology) is observational science. Theology is historical science (or perhaps better considered as a review of literature, clearly not littoral science). One should know the difference.

  21. @retiredsciguy
    Of course, typical response of the YEC to “Were you there?” is to say, “I have the unimpeachable testimony of One who was there”. “It’s in the Book.”
    However, in this particular case, she’s talking about bacteria, and there isn’t a hint about bacteria in the Bible. There is no room left for a day for creation of bacteria.

  22. Charles Deetz ;)

    Oh, the arrogance she spreads rebuking the correspondent’s definition of science. Because the answer she gave back is NOT an Answer found in Genesis. (ANFIG, can I claim coining the term?)

  23. The irony is that creationists like Georgia use observational science to describe the past all the time. For example, if discussing the Grand Canyon, creationists will point to and correctly identify the stripes in the walls as sedimentary layers. Of course, they will claim that they were deposited in a great flood, but still, they will agree that they are sedimentary in origin. The only reason we identify those layers as sedimentary is because we observe layers of sediment being deposited in the present day, and understand the mechanics of rock formation. We then extend our knowledge of present-day processes into the past.

    Likewise with fossils – creationists readily acknowledge their existence. How do they know that they are really bones, shells, etc.? Because scientists observe the same or similar bones and shells in modern-day animals, and extrapolate into the past. We understand mineralization of bones, based on our knowledge of chemistry and geological processes operating in the present day. Creationists never question that these are the remnants of once living beings and not peculiarly shaped naturally occuring rocks – yet that knowledge is completely based on modern observational science extended into the past. After all, none of us was there.

    They even conclude that there was an ice age – because, once again, the undeniable observable evidence exists in the modern world. They quibble about timing and duration, and assert there was only one, but they agree that an ice age occurred.

    So “historical science”, as in applying modern knowledge to the unknowable past, is not just something only secular scientists do, as Georgia asserts. Creationists do it too. What Georgia really means by “historical science” is science that results in conclusions that she is uncomfortable with, however that science is conducted. Anything creationists can accommodate, even if it occurred in the “unknowable past” – such as the existence of dinosaurs – ceases to be historical science or the product of man’s fallible ideas and becomes simple fact.

  24. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    michaelfugate

    “So bacteria were all “good” before the flood. Shouldn’t she be asking why some bacteria “went bad” and some stayed “good”? Or why some like E. coli can be both “good” and “bad”? This may be keeping me awake tonight.”

    Yeah, for those among us who are familiar with Dave Hawkins he’s over at TalkRational wondering and fumbling around with that exact idea re: the ebola outbreak. He’s of the opinion that “Darwinists” and their “paradigm” have it all wrong. He’s insisting they believe that all viruses and bacteria are bad and are fighting them all the wrong ways. The “Creationist paradigm” however will be more effective because Darwinists won’t look for why these bugs go bad, because usually they are our BFFs (as Jesus intended apparently.) If only we figure out what makes them go wild and attack us, Creationism will save the day. Or something. He also has a thread where he is currently [not] reviewing Prokaryotology by Sonea and Mathieu.

    Dave is as Dave does.

  25. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Oh,Oh !

    (if anyone cares) Dave is currently living in a blue-tarp A-frame hut on some undeveloped property outside of town attempting to figure out how to life on his land with little to no input. (see his thread on it) He’s going all in, immediately, with about as much pre-planning and study as one would typically guess of Dave. He’s just now figuring out how to get ready and get through winter. He’s totally got a rocket stove and a solar panel or two though ! According to Dave his mission is to develop a method that other “permies” (who I generally take no issue with) will follow him and build “communities.” Go Dave.

  26. Silly scientist. Why don’t these people ‘doing’ science realize that their degrees, PhDs, tenured positions in academic institutions, peer reviewed publications, conference talks, research work and results, all these are useless unless they start with a book of ancient fairy tales written more than 2000 years ago?

  27. By Jawgia Purdim/Kanny Humbug’s contrived historical/observational separation of science, wouldn’t a literature survey or review constitute historical science, and therefore be instantly dismissible? Because, after all, you weren’t there when the author(s) did their experiments and analyses, so you only have a second-hand account. The further implication is that all science done in the past is instantly questionable, even if it was done just five seconds ago. Or does it only remain valid while those who did it are still alive and remember it?

    I don’t envy them AiGsters having to defend this ludicrous position. Still, it does make for some clever comedy.

  28. Charles Deetz introduces a useful neologism and asks

    can I claim coining the term?

    Sure! We don’t give an ANFIG about it!

  29. Our Curmudgeon ponders

    Shouldn’t she be asking why some bacteria “went bad” and some stayed “good”? Or why some like E. coli can be both “good” and “bad”? This may be keeping me awake tonight.

    Infections from E. coli can certainly keep one awake all night–whether the individal infectors were ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

  30. Megalonyx has a memory lapse and says:

    Our Curmudgeon ponders: “Shouldn’t she be asking why …”

    It wasn’t me. That comment seems to have come from Rikki_Tikki_Taalik.

  31. The whole truth

    James asked: “Any takers on that?”

    Here are some suggestions of mine:

    Homo christofacisticans
    Homo biblethumperensis
    Homo christodominionist
    Homo yhwh-is-my-sky-daddy-tardensis
    Homo godboticus
    Homo creotardia (or creatardia)
    Homo islamotard (or islamoturd)

  32. Time to quote the “holy” bible:
    “Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.’ [2 Peter 2:22]

  33. “Molecules-to-man evolution and creation by God’s spoken command are not observable, testable, or repeatable.”

    Then how can she accept the “word of God”? She wasn’t there.

  34. Aaarrrrggggghhhh! Our Cumudgeon is correct that the quote I attributed to him is not in fact his–but he’s also wrong in attributing it to Rikki_Tikki_Taalik instead of its actualy source, michaelfugate.

    Such a batch of memory errors and other such brain f*rts are surely another fell symptom of the Fall of Man.

    Mea culpa maxima….

  35. Wait, wait! I know this story! Ummm, about a year ago, reported on the Panda’s Thumb or Coyne’s site. I think it was a geology picture. Calling Mr. Holmes …

  36. There are no scientists working at AiG. People with advanced degrees, like our vomit-mistress, but she like the other AiG “scientists” signed a goofy statement of faith required of all who shuffle about in Hamboland.
    Hambo’s coterie of kooks appear to be only third-rate apologists who have abandoned science in favor of dazzling their knuckle-dragging creation “museum” goers. Her proclivity for stupidity and lying to children about the nature and findings of science deserves only contempt and ridicule.

  37. Ed: “…discussing the Grand Canyon, creationists will point to and correctly identify the stripes in the walls as sedimentary layers. Of course, they will claim that they were deposited in a great flood, but still, they will agree that they are sedimentary in origin.”

    I’m not going to go wading through steaming piles of creationist literature to find out, but I wonder how creationists try to explain 1) the cross-bedded layers of sandstone that are clearly deposited by wind; 2) the thick layers of limestone that were certainly not deposited by flood; and 3) the metamorphic schist at the bottom of the canyon. The schist is metamorphosed sedimentary rock that, as evidenced by its folded and upturned layering, was squeezed to form the roots of an ancient mountain range by the convergence of crustal plates. It took a vast amount of time for that ancient mountain range to weather and erode down to a flat, sea level plain, allowing the subsequent sedimentary layers to form on top.

    “Oh, what a tangled web [they] weave, when first [they] practice to deceive!”

  38. @waldteufel: Hear, hear!

  39. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    @docbill

    You triggered me on that one. Year and a half ago, same note, different bell.

    It was a shot of the Burgess Shale taken by Prof. Callan Bentley that the Dishonesty Institute came begging for. Meyer had a young flunky email Bentley and offer him a measly “$100 and a complimentary copy” for permission to use it in Meyer’s “systematic failure of scholarship,” Darwin’s Doubt.

    I swear up and down it was at Panda’s myself, but my lazy search didn’t find it. Off to the Der Google and here be Bentley’s very own blog post discussing their exchange. His response began thusly (entire mail exchange at the link) …

    “Hello Andrew,

    Thanks for your interest.

    I hold the Discovery Institute in the lowest regard, and it sounds like the new book will be a further perversion of reason in the name of pseudoscience. As a science educator, I could never support such an effort! I will not grant reproduction rights to any of my photos or drawings to any creationist effort such as the one you describe here.

    Best wishes for your good health, and the speedy demise of the sham institution that employs you.”

    Callan Bentley

    The Discovery Institute feels sorry for my students

  40. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    @michaelfugate @Curmy

    I noticed your response to Ashley up above. Ashley is one of our own but you wouldn’t know it because this …

    Ashley Haworth-roberts | 16-September-2014 at 8:28 pm |

    Refute AiG nonsense claims with science – and then you will find out whether they are anti-science as charged.

    … is completely out of character for Ashley. I suspect she’s picked up a troll who’s played sockpuppet with her info. I base this conjecture on this exchange over at Eye on the ICR along with a little back tracking on Ashley’s link there.

    She always uses the same FB link in her nym, perhaps the Curmudgeonous one could check what was entered as “email” for that comment for a match against an older entry? This of course assumes she is reserved with that bit of info.

  41. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    whoa, heyoo, can ya spare a brother a ?

    [*Voice from above*] Okay, this one time, but henceforth thou shalt not address me as “heyoo.”

  42. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Rikki_Tikki_Taalik! Bentley’s piece has made my morning!

  43. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    *sigh* closing tag

    All kinds of wang-dang-doodle up in this thread. WordPress better get on some sort of preview feature or I’m gonna hafta to hold my breath and affect absolutely nothing.

  44. RTT – thanks; it seemed odd.

  45. Georgia Purdom… Living proof that a degree alone doesn’t make one a scientist…

  46. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik requests: “perhaps the Curmudgeonous one could check what was entered as “email” for that comment for a match against an older entry?”

    Looks the same to me.

  47. @RTT

    Yep, that was it. Meyer’s book. Same thing. Photo request and told to [edited out] you. And the horse you rode in on.

    Was the horse named Frau Blücher … or Georgia!

    Neigh-hay-hay-hay-hay!

  48. I thought it was spelled “Purdumb”.

  49. I thought it was spelled “Purdumb”.

    Now, now. That’s a bit ad dumbinem . . .

  50. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    @Curm

    Thanks Curm. It’s possible I’m reading too much into it as there’s not much context there. I mean, it’s not as if the comment is technically wrong. No matter who the argument is coming from one should debunk it appropriately, on the other hand we’ve all known this particular assertion is bull hockey for quite some time.

    *shrug* Perhaps I’ve made much ado about nothing.

  51. MichaelFugate
    I was entirely serious and I agree with your comments.

  52. Rikki
    Like Michael, I think you need to RE-READ my words – since you appear to have misunderstood them somehow. I am also male by the way.
    I simply made the point that YECs reject scientific debunkings of their claims – thus showing that they are indeed anti-science. I simply do not understand your comments above about my words.
    Ashley

  53. @Ashley

    since you appear to have misunderstood them somehow

    I misunderstood them too. I do see now what you were trying to say, but, er . . . 🙂

  54. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Ashley, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

    When I read your comment I “heard” a slight emphasis on the “nonsense claims” part in conjunction with the last line. I freely admit there is no emphasis present in your text and it was only in my own mind it happened, but if you read it that way it sounds like a snarky challenge from a YEC viewpoint. I can’t speak for him, but I think michaelfugate read it the same way.

    It hadn’t occurred to me until just now that you’re from the UK, correct ? In the US the name Ashley was once in frequent use for males but has become increasingly rare over the last several generations. It’s also become a “thing” to hyphenate your last name with your husbands instead of simply taking on his in the traditional manner. Some time ago I took on the assumption you were female and hadn’t read anything that challenged that. I allowed my cultural view to interpret too much. Sorry ’bout that. 😦

  55. Mea culpa Ashley – I obviously read it as use science instead of snark as if it hadn’t been tried before.

  56. Apologies that I was not as clear as I could have been. I think I can see how my words may have sounded like a pro-YEC challenge.

  57. Yes – I’m in the UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland …).

  58. I am going to rename my bathroom the Vomitorium. Excuse me while I christen my new receptacle. Ugh…..arrrgghh…. Rowwwllfff.