In Kirk Cameron’s stunted imagination, “if evolution were true”, we ought to see “one animal transitioning into another”; for example, an individual crocodile literally transforming into a bird, with the intermediate being a Crocoduck, a perfect half-and-half creature, like a decimal half way between two integers. Well, tucked away in my childhood, toy depository, I have just such a creature. No, I have three such creatures. Welcome to the Kirk Cameron Zoo.
Behold, the magnificent Chickow
Recoil before the teetering Giraffant
Gaze upon the creepy Catogator.
The tragedy of Kirk Cameron is that he’s fixated on a definition of evolution that doesn’t exist in the real world, the adult world. Kirk, here’s a bit of advice from your own medicine cabinet –the Bible.
Corinthians 13:11 — “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
Anyone interested in paleontology, rational thought, or the scourge of creationism might want to read the transcript of an interview with Per Ahlberg, Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. His straight talk and wit are refreshing. Here’s a sample:
I think mainstream science has a duty and a responsibility to expose creationism and ID for the pseudoscientific frauds that they are. This is something quite different from engaging them in debate, the way you would do with adherents of an opposing but conceptually sound scientific viewpoint. Scientists must expose them simply because they are frauds, and it won’t do to have large parts of the population bamboozled by the lies and misrepresentations of charlatans… Note that there is an important point here: creationists and ID proponents by necessity attempt to befuddle their audience, not just about the evidence for evolution, but about the nature of scientific enquiry in general. They have to, because it is their only way of concealing the threadbare nature of their own claims. (His emphasis)
From this, it should be clear why I have chosen to take part; though you can add the fact that I enjoy talking to people and presenting my ideas to popular audiences. Money, fame and hot chicks would be welcome but have not been forthcoming so far…
Per Ahlberg is known for his work with fossil tetrapods. His latest contribution is as co-author of a paper about 395-million-year-old tetrapod trackways that were found in Poland. (Here’s a summary of the find by PZ Myers at Pharyngula). And a short video about the find is available on the Journal Nature website. Enjoy!
A lot of criticism has been justly piled onto Expelled:The Movie, the creationist “documentary” starring Ben Stein, which blatantly promotes Intelligent Design. To be contrary, I’ve decided to address some of the comments in favor of the movie and ID. Perhaps, by doing so, we can gain some insight into the creationist mind. But I doubt it.
First, there’s a comment from Steven on blog called www.HeLives.com:
There are insurmountable failures of evolutionary science called Abiogenesis. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to “violate the very objectivity of science itself”.
This is the standard argument from ignorant creationists. First, evolutionary biology is about the origin of new species, not life itself. Biochemists, who are the ones who study the question of life’s origins, have many good hypotheses as to how life on earth began. The fact the question has not been answered fully is certainly NOT an argument for a creator. If I lose a sock, does it mean that magical pixies have stolen it? It’s silly to abandon a natural world explanation in favor of a supernatural one, just because the answer is not currently available. This is why scientists do something called research, to answer questions. Second, if a design requires a designer, then who designed the designer? Get back to me on that one, Steven, and then I’ll take you and other creationists seriously. I won’t hold my breath.
Oo La La! Miss November is here, and she’s a hot mama. She looks like a skanky Las Vegas cocktail waitress, and she has a voice like sandpaper. She’s conservative author Ann Coulter. In fairness, Ann should have been Miss October, because Halloween seems more like her Holiday. And not because she reminds us of a witch. It’s because she’s a major bitch, especially when she calls liberals traitors. If the Salem witch trials were on today, we think Ann would accuse half the town of witchcraft. Ann does seem to love governmental authority and intrusive religion.
But we’re here to dicuss her creationist views. If you have the stomach watch the video below to 4:18, Ann talks at the end about her views on atheists and Darwinism. Skip to the end if you can. No one should have to listen to Ken Ham.
If that weren’t horrible enough let’s read from Ann’s book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God’s special creatures.
The bizarre bird [Archaeopteryx] is just an odd creation that came out of nowhere and went nowhere, much like Air America Radio.
No one disputes that a monkey looks like a human, especially in the case of Al Franken.
[Evolution is] a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record.
[There’s] absolutely nothing in the fossil record to support it [evolution].
I couldn’t have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski, all of whom are fabulous at translating complex ideas, unlike liberal arts types, who constantly force me to the dictionary to relearn the meaning of quotidian.
When a best-selling writer like Ann cannot separate politics and religion from science for the purposes of a book, our society is in deep doo doo. And to use Behe and Dembski as “scientific” sources is just sad. Clearly, she didn’t have the intention of writing a serious chapter on evolution. She just wanted to brainwash the people stupid enough to buy her pathetic book. The sad part is that some of her readers will actually walk away thinking they’ve read about evolution. Way to go, Ann, in keeping the uneducated uneducated.