Thursday, April 12, 2012

K is for Kidding...

as in, "Are you fucking kidding me?"

Here is a bit of news out of Tennessee where they are boldly going to the 19th century.

"Tennessee Governor Allows Creationism Bill To Become Law"

So in Tennessee teachers are now required to mention a "debate" that doesn't even exist in science.
People will argue about "teaching the controversy" but there is none.  No one with any bit of scientific background that isn't blinded by faith thinks there is any other plausable theory other than evolution.

It is not because scientists are closed minded or because there is a vast scientific conspiracy but because no other theory fits the data better.

Yet these bozos in public office keep trying to shove their Dark Ages beliefs down the throats of students because they are in power.  You know who else is like that?  The Taliban.

Any time someone places religion above science in our schools we all lose.  But none more than the children.

I could go on and on about these idiots we have in public office. But here are a few news clips and blog posts: (not a public official, but funny)

These are all just from April.

Look. If we are to move forward as a nation and as a species then we need to keep this crap out of our schools.


  1. It truly is disheartening. My basic instinct is that humans are good, reasonable people, but I have been proven wrong so many times that I now fluctuate between hiding out for the next 15-20 years (about what I have left) and standing on street corners (or FB pages) and screaming at the top of my voice to people to come to their fucking senses, quit being used by money grubbing assholes, etc.


  2. Jim, and you are a perfect example that Southerners are not all dumb, hicks. Most are not in fact.

    I agree with you, this bothers me because I think we are capable of so much more, but we are collectively held back by the actions a closed minded minority.

    Who knows where we could be today.

  3. Sad sad sad. I remember my biology teacher in 7th grade telling us how ridiculous this was. Theories have things called evidence.

    Good luck with the challenge!

    Dianna Fielding

  4. OK Tim, I'll bite.
    I don't fit into the category of your typical follower (the comments above mine). I take issue with the kind of wide brush painting you did with this line:

    People will argue about "teaching the controversy" but there is none. No one with any bit of scientific background that isn't blinded by faith thinks there is any other plausable theory other than evolution.

    Of course there is great controversy, and it is created by those on both sides having much scientific background and mountains of facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that must be understood and judged well.

    I have my BS in Geology from the U of Wisconsin. I know the strength of evidence for evolution that was 'forced down my throat' and it isn't very impressive. It consists of a few tidbits of facts ("a lot of animals have 5 bones in their forelimbs")and a whole series of assumptions connected by implausible guesses ("this means they evolved from each other")
    The line-up of facts supporting a recent creation is much more scientifically supportable. For example, a sudden supernatural creation of life does not violate the long held LAW of biogenesis as evolutionary theory does.

    Dianna Fielding said; theories have evidence. Evidence by itself is only part of the issue. Evidence regarding something that is unrepeatable and was unobserved by man(like our beginnings)is far from proof. Every bit of real life evidence must fit into a worthy theory for it to stand. Contraindicating evidence must therefore demand that the theory be modified, and that without eliminating any other bit of evidence from the new theory.

    I recommend this book that I reviewed on my blog for its feat of addressing just about every physical fact you can name in its theory (yes, just a theory). The scientific facts we all know (and love?) exclude the possibility of evolutionary, naturalistic origins. Some people of a different 'faith' seem to resent this factual claim, but they must deal with it as rationally as possible.

    By the way, the whole book, in its 8th edition now, is available online.

    Take a look, unless you really must not admit that there is credible science behind creationism.

  5. PS. I used my comment here as my 'K' post also. Maybe it will bring you some more traffic.

  6. Mike,

    Thanks for coming by and posting your thought out response that is the sort of thing I look forward to with this blog.

    Ok let's for a moment ignore the fossil record, put it aside if it is contentious (which I don't think it is, but that is fine).

    What about all the evidence in biology? Tracing mitochondrial DNA for example, or taking genetic sequences from close related species. This goes beyond physical similarities. In fact sharks, dolphins and ichthyosaurs all share a similar pattern, but no one suggests they were evolved from each other.
    And this not even getting into embryonic development.

    We can see the evidence of change in our own DNA on our chromosomes. Chromosome 2 in humans for example. The theory has grown with the data. Darwin had no concept of DNA or genetic sequencing, but he did know traits were passed on. As did the Augustian Friar Gregor Mendel.

    As an aside, your understand what a "theory" really means right? Theory like the Theory of Gravity or the Wave Theory of Light or Quanta Theory of Light (take your pick there!).

    The trouble is a book like "In the Beginning" (and I have read books like it before) all share the same damning fallacy. They are all working from A Priori conclusions; they assume that there is a god that created everything and are looking for the data to justify that point of view. Which as statistician I can tell you is never done in science because you can find anything. It violates the basic math in which these things work.

    The theory of evolution has evolved itself to change with the data at hand. That is not a bad thing, that is good science. A theory predicts and describes. While we will not be around personally to see where evolution takes us, we can make predictions on what it has done in the past and when new data shows up it should be able to account for it. Evolution does this. It does it very well.

    Oh yeah and then there is the fossil record too. It's the icing on the cake.

    I have been reading about this for 30 years. It takes a while to really read and critically analyze the science. I am not an expert in all areas, but I do know bad data when I see it.

  7. Hi Tim,

    You are giving me so much ammunition here, that I don't have time to debate (it seems though, that there now IS a debate) it all, so I'll just address the 'icing on the cake' because if that can not stand, then certainly the whole cake will fall right?

    Whatever you have been reading has done a poor job of informing you about the fossil record.

    Did you know...
    -that the dates given the strata in the supposed geologic column(no where on earth is the whole theoretical thing found) were all based on the fossils?
    -The dates of the fossils were all placed in relative order and spaced sufficiently apart simply to fit the theory of evolution?
    -There is no other way to date sedimentary rocks?
    -Darwin lamented the fact that the fossils found had not shown any of the millions and millions of 'missing links' that should have been there?
    -Darwin predicted that as research progressed, they would be found by the millions?
    -That NONE have been found since, when there should be many millions?

    There are all kinds of problems with the fossil record that should awaken doubt of the claims made about it. Here is a quote from a Prof who was the non-creationist head of the paleontology dept at the British Museum of Natural History:

    *Colin Patterson spent a lifetime, first searching for fossils and later managing the fossil (paleontology) department of one of the largest fossil museums in the world, the British Museum of Natural History. Eventually, he admitted to himself that he had been self-deceived all his life. During a 1981 keynote address at a convention of fossil experts at the American Museum of Natural History, in New York City, he said this:

    "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I knew there was nothing wrong with me, so for the last few years I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

    "Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History [in Chicago], and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time; and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—that it ought not to be taught in high school.’ "—*Colin Patterson, address at American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981.

    But at least it only took him 20 years!

    If you want to continue a dialogue about these things, I suggest that we pick one small claim or idea and see if we can agree on the validity of its particular scientific worth.


  8. Quote mining a paleontologist from the early 80s is a favored tactic of creationists.

    To be blunt we have discovered more fossils in the last 20 years than the previous 50.

    But even then, we can completely ignore the fossil record if you like and the evidence is still there.

    So if we were to choose one claim, then how about the data from the chromosomal record. In particular human chromosome 2. Maybe not the most elegant bit of data, but I am curious how it gets explained without evolution.

  9. Ignoring the point of a quote is...significant.

    Using a baseball bat to score a run is favored by most professional ballplayers too, but a confident opponent still has to throw past the swing.

    As long as there is digging, there will be fossils found. But where are the missing links that should theoretically abound in this myriad of new fossils?

    So we will ignore that line then.

    Chromosome 2:
    How was the conclusion, that the two Ape chromosomes fused into the one man chromosome, reached except by the following method, that a generally intelligent friend of mine described:

    "They are all working from A Priori conclusions; they assume that there is NO god that created everything and are looking for the data to justify that point of view." [note: I changed one word of your statement from 'a' to 'NO'

    There is no need to 'explain' a simple fact of nature to ward of a claim that this proves evolution! If I have explain a supposed fusion then you would have to explain these following chromosome counts, as to why they are not in line with the evolutionary ladder:

    cosmarium (an algae)has 40, and 120 in another species of the same
    bacillus (fungi) 1
    saccarmyces (another fungi) 45
    chrysanthemum 18 in some, 36,and 198 in other 'species'
    agalena (an arachnid) 44
    hemidactylus (a gecko) has 48 like the apes
    as does the passer (sparrow), the erinaceus (hedgehog), the peromyscus (deer mouse)and the ovis (a sheep)

    Man, that was a lot of work just to show that there is no correspondence between number of chromosomes and the evolutionary scheme. If the posit is that the ape's chr. fused and formed man, then the corollary would be that there should be an unbroken chain of such fusing up the ladder.

    By the way, if the ape started out with 48 and two fused to form man, then shouldn't we have 47?