When One Idea Doesn't Work, Change the Name and Do It Again

Ever bother to read the label on your shampoo bottle?  If it's like mine it's pretty simple:

• Lather
• Rinse
• Repeat

It seems the Discovery Institute is trying something similar, only in their case it more:

• Fail
• Change the Name
• Repeat

A few examples:

• First off, I can't blame this on just the DI, but look at Intelligent Design.  It was originally known as Creationism.  When efforts to keep it in the science classroom failed, Creationists changed the name to "Creation Science" and kept on pushing.  When that one failed, they changed the name to "Intelligent Design".  So far that one isn't making much headway either, so expect a name change in the near future.
• How about Intelligent Design Journals?  
• The first was the  Origins & Design (ISSN 0748- 9919), produced by the Access Research Network which ceased publishing in 1999.  
• The next was from a DI homeboy, WIld Bill Dembski (who is no longer one of their members).  He founded the  International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design which published Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (ISSN 1555-5089) which hasn't been heard form since 2005.
• The on-line Journal of Evolutionary Informatics (no ISSN) was sponsored by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, a project of Dembski and Robert Marks, which became defunct before managing to publish a single issue.  
• The current one is called Bio-Complexity (ISSN 2151- 7444), and it's put out by the DI's pet lab 'The Biologics Institute', a lab that is funded by and has a public contact point at the DI itself.
• So my latest example: Clubs
• Do you remember the Discovery Institute's IDEA clubs?  This was the brainchild of the former DI publicist little casey luskin and a few others dating back to 1999.  You might remember casey as the guy with both a law degree and a biology degree who was relegated to handing out pamphlets during the Dover trail.  Well, casey was heading up this idea [pun intended] for building student-based clubs as high schools and colleges all over the country.  Here is the link from the DI's site, and here's a screenshot in case they finally notice it's still up and decide to take it down:

Even though the pages are still up, it's been pretty dead since 2008.  In fact:

In December 2008, biologist Allen MacNeill stated, on the basis of analysis of the webpages of the national organization and local chapters, that it appeared that the organization is moribund.(The "Intelligent Design" Movement on College and University Campuses is Dead)

So, another dead idea.  So in true DI tradition, let's change the name and try again.  This time they are called: "Science and Culture Network (SCN)".  Currently they have two chapters Houston and Colorado:

They not only share the moniker of 'SCN' but they also have something else in common.  I circled it in red, it reads: 

"This program has no upcoming events"

SO they have opened two chapters of this new club, but nothing is going on.  It does make you wonder.  I mean court cases caused the name change, failure to produce science killed the journals, and nothing happening might have been the reason the IDEA clubs died off. Are they repeating themselves again?

I do have to point out one more 'little' thing.  While they also hold meetings, look at where Houston holds their's: 

"We meet monthly in various churches across the greater Houston area on a rotating basis. "

Yes, we meet monthly in various churches . . . and yet what is the mantra of the DI?  How they are a scientific organization and not a religious one?  Is there anyone who actually believes that who isn't on the DI payroll or a member of one of their 'chapters'? Colorado doesn't have anything more specific other than they plan to hold meetings, but no location.

But do you see the tactics, or in the case 'strategy' might be a better word.  When one method fails, change the name and try to same routine over again.  As they say "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", only in these cases 'sweet' might not be the smell these things give off.  Think about it, if Intelligent Design was such a worthwhile endeavor, then aren't there be IDEA clubs all over the place?  Wouldn't there be multiple ID journals instead of one after another going defunct?  I mean how many scientific journals are there?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  And Creationists certainly wouldn't have had to keep changing the name if there was any actual merit to their claims, would they?  And by 'merit' I am talking scientific merit -- you know things supported by actual evidence.

You guys and gals might try real science instead of pseudo-science next time.  If that fails you might really give that some thought, instead of simply repackaging it and having a go again.  What's that definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  You really should think about that while you are at it.

Another example of Cherry-Picking

It has been long been theorized that North America was originally populated by people coming over a land-bridge across what is now the Bering Sea.  Evidence of such migration has been presented often and little disputes it.  There are disputes over the exact dates, number, and duration of such migrations, in other words some of the details, but the basic theory is well supported.

Well, I caught a new headline from The Christian Times from my Google Alerts.  I know, I know, it's not exactly an authoritative source for much of anything, but it does support something I have said often -- creation pseudo-scientists are perfectly willing to accept some science, providing they can cherry-pick only certain parts of it and discard anything that disagrees with their religious beliefs.  Here's the story: "Discovery of ancient DNA in Alaska supports Tower of Babel account, creationists say".

"A team of researchers . . . sequenced the infant's DNA and compared it to that of modern Native Americans as well as to other ancient and living people across Eurasia and the Americas . . . The team believes that the infant's group and modern Native Americans shared common ancestry with people who crossed from Asia to North America through a land bridge called Beringia some 25,000 years ago."

OK, a study in Nature provides more evidence supporting the Bering Land Bridge.  That's fine in and of itself.  But then a creation pseudo-scientist who works for little kennie ham at Answers in Genesis (AiG) claims that this does support the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel's migration -- however the dating is flawed because it couldn't possible have happened some 25,000 years ago, kennie and his Hamians at AiG doesn't believe the Earth is that old.

So . . . according to kennie and co. when God messed with the people building the Tower and changed all their languages so they could not communicate and continue building a tower that would reach God's front door, they traveled from the Middle East, through all of Asia, crossed the Bering Land Bridge and settled North America all at once.  At the same time they migrated across Europe, Africa, Australia, and all the other islands of the world.  Hmmm, no stretching credibility there.

Of course, there isn't any real support for the Tower of Babel story, it's an origin myth to explain why there are so many human cultures and languages.  But notice how the AiG guy takes part of an actual scientific discovery and spins it to support his religious beliefs -- and yet dismisses other parts of the discovery because of those same religious beliefs:

"Nathaniel Jeanson, a Harvard-trained research biologist with Answers in Genesis (AiG), believes that the dating of the infant girl's DNA was not accurate. However, he said that the other details of the discovery support the Genesis 11 account of mass human migration after the attempt to build the Tower of Babel."

Does anyone really wonder why no one takes creation pseudo-scientists seriously?  AiG's Jeanson is joined by another pseudo-scientist:

"Kurt Wise, a Southern Baptist and Harvard-trained paleontologist, suggested that the 11,500 "radiocarbon years" cited in the study "amount to many fewer true (chronological) years (probably closer to 4,000-4,100 years).""

Were either of these two researchers on the team that made this discovery?  No!  They are simply taking other peoples work, cherry picking some of it, tossing aside the rest and declaring some sort of religious victory.  Have either of them provided evidence that the dating techniques are wrong?  No, they simply wave the Bible and use something called 'biblical chronology', which is somewhat interesting because there is no clear understanding of such a chronology, since it seems to change from sect to sect.  But details like that matter little to the dedicated pseudo-scientist!

Just to be clear, I am not using The Christian Times as an authoritative source, just as an example of how real science is cherry-picked by armchair pseudo-scientists.  I love how they work in that these two are Harvard-trained, like the education they may have been exposed to at Harvard means anything at all to them.  I would be very surprised if they were honest with their beliefs system or their planned use of their education while they were at Harvard.  In my opinion, these are two more examples in the 'Liars for Jesus' club.  Like so many others who misrepresented themselves for the purpose of having an assumed credibility based on their education.  

  I've written about Jeanson before "It's Late, but Answers in Genesis might be joining the 20th century . . . finally!"  I don't recall Wise, but I am sure his name will come up again.  He's a consultant at AiG as well as working at a private Christian college.  Well if that doesn't work out for them in their current positions, maybe the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Access Research Network (ARN), or Liberty University is looking for help.

Can Creation Scientists do Real Science?

You might be surprised by my answer, which is 'Yes!', but with certain qualifications.  This is something I have said before, and believe it to be true.  Just because you have a particular religious tradition does not disqualify you from being a 'real' scientist.  It's not your belief set that may disqualify you, but the application of that belief set.

OK, let me clear that up a bit.  In a recent post little kennie ham whined that his pet stable of creation scientists weren't being taken seriously as scientists "Can Creation Scientists Do Real Science?"  Little kennie quoted one of his pet 'scientists, Danny Faulkner, who brought up the fact that Issac Newton was a theist.  Danny said:

"The person who literally wrote the book on physics and astronomy, and who invented calculus, was Sir Isaac Newton. And he wrote ten times more on theology and the Bible than he did on math and science. So if you are going to take that approach, you just kicked one of the greatest scientists of all time to the curb because he can’t be a scientist."

First of all, there is a subtle lie in Danny's comment.  Where is it said that someone who believes in any religious tradition cannot be a scientist?  It isn't!  That's a straw-man that folks like Danny and little kennie like to parade out regularly.  If you think it is carved in stone somewhere, tell me something . . . where is Newton's theology in his discoveries in physics and astronomy?  Even looking at calculus, where is the theology?  It isn't there, is it?  Newton is a prime example of a theist who refused to be blinded by his religious beliefs.

Like I said, this topic comes up often, just a couple of years ago little kennie also had this post, "A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  Basically he was bragging about a Creationist who does science.  I had a question for kennie then, and it's the same question as now:  "Just where in the scientific work of Raymond Damadian (he's the Creation Scientist kennie was bragging about)  do you see where God enters the process?"

I know little kennie misses my point, but hopefully you don't.  Whether you believe in one religious tradition or another doesn't matter when it comes to science.  Because at no point in actual scientific work do you use the concept of a deity.  Newton didn't, Damadian didn't either.  Whatever religious beliefs any scientist has does not become part of their scientific work.  If you disagree, show me where in the actual science does God do a part?  You cannot find what isn't there!

I know, little kennie will misdirect and say things like 'God's handiwork is present when two chemicals combine, or when gravity does this, or when fires are lit -- it's all part of God's Plan.  That's what is called a 'Rationalization', and while kennie will never admit it, the reality is that is nothing more than a rationalization.  Little kennie, and the like, want so desperately to see, to invoke, and pay homage to their deity that their rationalization is an absolute requirement.  They claim many things, but when you look at the science, you don't see the application of their religious beliefs.

When I see the handle of a 'creation scientist', I am not think about Newton, but someone much more like Answers in Genesis (AiG)'s Faulkner or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)'s Jason Lisle. While they have the same education as others in their field, they filter everything through their religious beliefs.  Creation scientists, like them, share certain traits that people like Newton and Damadian did not.  Folks like Faulkner and Lisle start their work with their religion, filter everything through their religion, and form their results based on their religion.  That is not the hallmark of a scientist!

The first thing is how much science gets dismissed by them.  For example they start with the presumption that the Earth is 6,000 years old, so when faced with any evidence it's older, they deny, prevaricate, and rationalize.  They 'know' the age of the Earth, so nothing can interfere with that belief.  This is what allows them to say things like "it's the same evidence, just different results" when faced with radiometric dating which concludes that the Earth is not 6,000 years old.

When faced with the speed of light, creation scientists come to the conclusion that the speed of light isn't the same everywhere or throughout history.  In fact one quote from Lisle:

"creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically" (You Tube:  Jason Lisle)

Regardless of the fact there is no evidence to support their conclusions, they glue themselves to the rationalizations because of their religious beliefs. When pushed they fall onto things like the above quote.  That is the hallmark of a 'Creation Scientist', not the fact they have a theistic belief set, but that belief set contaminates their efforts at science.

It doesn't matter what discoveries are made, they twist and rationalize an explanation to either force it into their religious view, or they ignore it completely.  When faced with criticisms, they pull the conspiracy card out, claiming they are being discriminated against, that schools refuse to recognize their 'scientific work' in awarding degrees and research funding.  However . . .

Both Danny Faulkner and Jason Lisle are also examples that contradict such an assertion.  Here's a quote from Lisle's bio from the RationalWiki:

"Although some creationists claim that a creationist would be unable to earn an advanced degree from a secular university because of institutional prejudice against their beliefs, Lisle's academic progress was not hindered by his creationism. While members of his Master's thesis and Ph.D.dissertation committees might have been aware of his young Earth beliefs, their evaluation of his work was based on his research and not his personal beliefs." (RationalWiki: Jason Lisle)

Faulkner has degrees from Clemson and Indiana University and even taught for a while at the University of South Carolina.  That is proof that it's not personal beliefs that cause problems being a scientist, but it's the application of those beliefs that can cause you to be labeled a 'Creation Scientist' and, as a result, not be taken seriously as a scientist. 

Even working in a  place like AiG or ICR you can continue to perform actual science, but  . . . when you submit to actual scientific journals, if your work is steeped in your religious beliefs, it will more than likely be dismissed . . . as it should be.  Besides, imagine if Danny Faulkner tried to publish something that contradicted his boss' religious belief set!  Don't forget who owns AiG, little kennie ham, and don't forget you have to sign a Statement of Faith that basically tells you to suspend rational thought and buy into the belief set or go home.  I don't believe that Danny will ever make a discovery that will contradict his beliefs, he won't allow himself that much freedom of thought.   Remember what happened to Wild Bill Dembski when his bosses, at the time, thought he was contradicting the Bible?  He was an actual casualty of these cultural wars, not an imagined one.

Going back to my original question, where in all of Newton's science and mathematical work do you find preconceptions formed by his religious beliefs?  You don't!  When a scientist starts with a set of per-conditions that causes them to reject evidence, they tend to not be scientists for much longer.  To paraphrase Dembski, 'Theological Correctness' is much more highly regarded than science in such Evangelical circles like AiG and ICR.

I May Have Spoken Too Soon . . .

Just last week I said in a post:

"Rep Butler [R-AL] is using teachers as a kind of scapegoat to justify his actions.  Let's not forget that this same politician tried a similar bill (which failed) and did manage to get a Student Religious Freedom bill passed just last year.  God forbid a politician be honest in his motivations." (An Alabama State Representative Shows His Ignorance)

Rather than hide in the shadows, this State representative (Mary Bentley, R - AR) is sponsoring a bill that states very clearly:

"HB2050 - TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CODE TO ALLOW PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS TO TEACH CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS THEORIES ALONGSIDE THE TEACHING OF THE ORIGINS OF THE EARTH AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."

With the failure of so many so-called 'academic freedom' bills, you know the bills that have absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom, I guess one politician got tired of trying to sneak their religion into the classroom through the backdoor.  While I disagree with her, I have to respect her honesty!  

Normally, I would say her bill doesn't stand a prayer [pun intended], but then I didn't think America was foolish enough to elect a hamster-haired misogynistic liar for President.  But isn't Arkansas the same state where their law to make teaching of evolution illegal was overturned in the 1960's (Epperson v. Arkansas) and also their effort to teach  a 'Balanced Treatment', that is teaching Creationism (renamed Creation Science at the time) and Evolution side-by-side and on equal terms -- got dumped as well in the 1980's (McLean v. Arkansas)?  

So, again while I do applaud her honesty, I have to question why she wants her religion to be taught in the classroom as if it were science.  Does she also want Numerology in math class or Astrology in Astronomy?  If not, why not?  I also have to ask the people in Arkansas why they keep electing politicians who seem to spend more time focusing on preaching religion than dealing with other issues facing the State.  Let's see, how does Arkansas rank in a few areas?

• Education - Arkansas ranks 43rd lowest out of the 50 states in HS graduation rate, 48th in Bachelor degrees and 49th in Advanced degrees. (Wikipedia: source)
• Violent Crime - 9th highest rank in violent crimes (World Atlas: source)
• Teen Pregnancy - 4th highest rate of teen pregnancy (LiveScience: source)
• Unemployment - Actually not bad, 13th lowest (BLS: source)

Well, it looks like to me Rep Bentley needs to ask herself a few questions.  the first is simple: "Why does she insist on inflicting her religious beliefs on the rest of the State in violation of the US Constitution?" and second is "Doesn't she have any real problems to deal with?"  I guess a third question, and maybe the only one that matters might be "Why does she think teaching religion in science class is going to help any of the real problems facing Arkansas?"Does she actually believe dumbing down science will improve education?  And of course everyone knows theists never commit violent crimes (please add a sarcastic snort after that sentence).  And theists never get pregnant at a young age, seriously?  Check this out:

"With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception." (BioMed Central: source)

Similar things have been reported in many sources including Live Science, the New York Times, and the Christian Science Monitor.  Not only are they less likely to use contraception, but their sex education is generally lacking.

I doubt she will ever answer any of these questions, after all she is more than likely just 'pandering' for votes.  Oh, I am sure she's a church-goer and holds a set of religious beliefs, but being elected does not give her the right to force those beliefs onto other people!  But sponsoring such bills will probably have the affect of gaining her some votes.  Sorta like a certain hamster-haired politician holding up the Bible, a book I doubt he has ever opened up . . . of course that is strictly my opinion, but has anyone ever seen him actually use it for most than a speech prop?

OK, one last time, I do respect her honesty, but I certainly do not support her efforts.  Intelligent Design and Creationism are religious concepts that do not belong in science class.  No matter how you dress them up, there are standards within science and neither of those ideas meet any of them.  The nearest they come to actual science is being  defined as:

" . . . claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method"  (Wikipedia: pseudo-science)

A Discovery Institute Post that Makes Less Sense Than Normal

My mail beeped and I had a Google Alert for this: "Darwinists and the Fossil Record: Missing a Few Marbles" and instead of making me laugh, it had me scratching my head.  Not because it was something making me think, but more just trying to figure out what they were trying to get across.  Here's a small quote:

"Neo-Darwinism leads us to expect more than just change over time in the fossil record. It anticipates a fossil pattern of very, very gradual evolution of new forms -- evolution by tiny steps. On Darwinian grounds we should expect to find this pattern even given our highly incomplete fossil record."

But . . . isn't that a lot of what we see?  For example, take a look at this:

Paleontologists take the fossils that are found and build a picture.  Yes the fossil record is incomplete, and as we find more and more fossils, the picture changes.  But none of that is unexpected.  What was also discovered was that Evolution isn't always tiny incremental changes, but larger scale changes over a shorter period of time.  The author of the Discovery Institute's (DI) silly piece is Jonathan Witt, he mentions this (Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge's Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium) but Witt dismisses it.  Which is one of the strange things, but pretty typical of the DI and their talking heads.  They take a valid and well supported scientific theory and dismiss it, offering nothing in return.

Well that's not exactly true, Witt offers the usual "Intelligence did it" argument the DI has been making for 20 years.  But Witt makes the same mistake the rest of the DI makes, he fails to support it.  It's nothing but conjecture.  Where is the evidence, where is the support, where is any sort of validation for an intelligent agent?  What mechanism did this 'intelligence' use?  These and many other questions are ignored because the intelligence Witt and the DI are talking about is their religious belief in a deity.  They keep claiming 'intelligence' to try and make people forget they are talking about the Christian God.

Don't believe me, well how about this definitely not DI review of Douglas Axe's "Undeniable".  Axe runs the DI's pet lab, the Biologics Institute and periodically writes and posts various Intelligent Design (ID) missives.  His latest, "Undeniable" is . . . well let me not put words in Jason Rosenhouse's review:

"For one thing, the book is openly evangelistic. The creator is the Christian God. Period. No subterfuge about the possibility of intelligent aliens or anything like that."

It does make me wonder how long Doug will be associated with the DI.  You might remember that Doug is the second director at Biologics.  The original one, George Weber, was interviewed by the New Scientist, and shortly thereafter left the Board.  Weber stated:

"We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design" and "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." (New Scientist)

Axe was the one who explained Weber's departure in an email to New Scientist as

 [Weber] "was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it."(Wikipedia: Biologics Institute)

So Weber is pretty clear on the purpose the DI opened their pet lab and ends up leaving.  After years of denying the religion base of Intelligent Design, Doug publishes a book that is opening evangelistic. My guess is if Doug's book doesn't do well and start helping the fund raising, he might find himself leaving as well. 

The majority of Witt's post is a long attempt at an analogy, but in reality it's more of a strawman.  I mean where are the mechanisms analogous to natural selection?  It reminds me of a restatement of another common analogy, a monkey and a typewrite will eventually write a Shakespearean play.  We discuss how inadequate that analogy is back in 2008 (Arguments XIII - The 747 or a Shakespearean monkey).

Well I guess I can close with wishing Witt wouldn't take the DI and their writings so seriously, but seeing as he's a 'Senior Fellow', whatever that now means, my guess is he'll keep peddling the party line until he either gets bored or the funding dries up.  As an English Major, he might try a bit harder to make a bit more sense.  This post isn't going to help him land his next writing job.  Johnny, you have to keep an eye out for the future, isn't ID's time limited?  You don't think so?  I might caution you with a reminder about 'Creationism" and "Creation Science" and what happened to them after losing court cases.  Yes, they were replaced and the DI and their version of religion, ID, hasn't been doing too well.  Here's one last thought for you, from Jason Rosenhouse again:

"How does ID makes sense of the fossil record, which shows a clear progression from simpler, ancient organisms to more complex, modern organisms? Why did God do His creating over billions of years, and why did He do so in the one sequence that would later suggest evolution to so many? Why did he just watch the unicellular organisms for a billion years or whatever before getting on with the show? What was the point of the millions of years of bloodsport taking place among creatures with enough brainpower to know they were suffering and miserable, but not enough to enter into a relationship with God? What are mass extinctions all about? How is this consistent with the idea that life was designed for a purpose?"

You might do a little critical thinking  . . . not the DI variety, but actual critical thinking before your next post.  You won't, but I can always hope.

Is Creationism Harmful to Children

I have said on a couple of occasions that I don't consider Creationism Child Abuse, an example is my post "Is Creationism a form of Child Abuse?"  I still stand by that, but an article about the Ark Park certainly made me think. Recently the Boston Globe paid a visit to little kennie ham's ark ministry, the article is "Noah’s Ark, dinosaurs, and a theme park".  It's loaded with the usual contrasts between what kennie and his 'Hamians' say and what the real world says.  I did enjoy a couple of small points, for example:

". . . the Ark Encounter will host between 1.4 million and 2.2 million visitors in its first year . . ." 

Why I find this enjoyable is simple.  Since the announcement of the ark park the visitor estimate has been bounced all over the place.  Now, logically, and this was true for kennie's Creation 'Museum', the first few years usually the highest attendance.  After that it tends to slowly, or in some cases not so slowly, reduce down.  In fact in recent years the Creation 'Museum' is said to be in financial difficulties due to low attendance. (Kentucky’s ‘Creation Museum’ in Financial Trouble Due to Declining Attendance (VIDEO)).  So since the most recent estimates from kennie say about 1.2 million annually, other estimates, from people without a vested interest in the ark park (Hunden Strategic Partners in Chicago), said:

"estimated in the first year the park would receive roughly 325,000, with a peak attendance in the third year around 425,000, declining to 275,000 after that." (Source)

Which is roughly in the neighborhood of the Creation 'Museum' which took one month shy of three years to reach 1 million visitors.  I wish I knew what kennie's original estimates for his 'museum' were, I wonder if those estimates were as inflated as his ones for the ark ministry seem to be.  Another interesting point is:

"Science educators likely see that low and steadily decreasing number [of Creationists who follow little kennie's line] as good news. Ham isn’t so happy with this trend, which he blames on “evolutionary indoctrination through the public education system, secular museums, and much of the media.”
Ham sees AiG’s role as stopping the downward spiral. He wants to show people that all of the seeming impossibilities of Scripture can be scientifically reconciled with a little creativity." 

"With a little creativity" is such a fascinating phrase.  On the one hand you have what kennie and his followers calls the ultimate authority, and yet he needs to use creativity to get people to accept his version.  Do those two seem diametrically opposed to you?  They do so to me.  Which is why I do not consider kennie to be a Biblical Literalist, but a Biblical Revisionist.  He cherry pics from the Bible stories he likes and then he embellishes them to the point of unrecognizability.  For example, here is a photo from my visit to the Creation 'Museum':

Little kennie, in a effort to justify his position that humans and dinosaurs co-existed had to explain what dinosaurs ate.  So this little gem, they were all vegetarians.  Of course there is no evidence to support any of this, but kennie can't leave a question unanswered.  A couple other favorites is his rationalization of where Cain's wife came from and how animals were geographically dispersed after the ark landed.  Here is the explanation why Cain was able to marry his sister:

 All the Bible says about Cain's wife is a mention of the Land of Nod, east of Eden.  Little kennie took it from there and concocted this explanation.  As for biological geodiversity, that is how similar organisms exist in many part of the world, he dreamed up log rafts:

Doesn't he have a great imagination?  See why I refer to him as a Biblical Revisionist more than a Literalist?  He's not interested in what the Bible says, he's much more interested in what he claims it says.

OK, back to the Globe article.  This is the part that had me thinking about whether or not Creationism is harmful to kids:

"But is creationism is harmful to children? Compared to the risk of anti-vaccination pseudoscience in causing physical harm, the answer is no. More worrisome is the harm to children’s intellectual growth. Everyone at AiG was incredibly kind and seemed well-meaning, and the same goes for many creationists — but even people with the best intentions can end up, well, harming children who are paying attention.
Pete Enns, biblical scholar and author of “The Evolution of Adam,” sees creationism as harmful because it sets children up either to experience a crisis of faith or to become unflinchingly rigid about their own faith and closed off to their own human development. Both are tragic, he says."

There are more ways to harm children than what is considered abuse.  I had discussed how Creationism is a poor basis for many careers.  I mean aside from places like little kennie's Answers in Genesis (AiG) or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), how many places are willing to hire an astrophysicist who insists the speed of light is a variable so we really have no way of knowing how far something is from Earth.  The article mentioned that little kennie likes to bring up the fact he has hired some people who hold PhD's, but in reality, how much actual scientific knowledge have those PhD's managed to pass on?  Has anyone seen a single actual scientific paper referenced from places like AiG and ICR!  As the writer said:

"People at my evangelical church used to talk the same way [as kennie and his pet PhD's] about celebrities who became born again — as if people of such caliber somehow legitimized everything we believed."

I know there will always be some who get their education and then turn on the subject to support their religious beliefs, but they will never be in the majority or even mainstream within those fields. The fact they have a degree in no way legitimizes their belief set.

What I hadn't considered was the inevitable reaction once they start learning the reality of the world around them.  They might have some sort of crisis in faith, or they might become so rigid they become a caricature of a theist, like little kennie.  I'm not sure I agree with the article that the crisis in faith is a tragedy for most folks.  I think whether or not it is a tragedy depends on the person more than anything else.  As we mature we discover many things that were told to us by authority figures that were later found to be untrue.  From childish things like the truth about Santa or even how your life will go.  Think about what you were told as a child about how your life was going to go?  Even as a teenager in HS or an adult in college.  How has that all worked out?

If you are like most people, things haven't followed any pre-explained path.  I never expected to serve 20 years in the AF, get into IT, or end up living in Ohio.  What I am trying to say is that you LIVE your life, you deal with things as they change, no matter what they are.  What was it John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you are making other plans."  If a 'crisis' in your faith cripples you, then my only suggestion is don't subject any other child to the beliefs that hurt you!  But in all honesty, you have to get over it eventually.  I'm not sure you can consider discovering the faith you were raised in wasn't what you were taught it was as a reason for PTSD, but even that degree of a problem can be overcome.

As for the other reaction, the significant rigidity that can result.  I can't consider them tragic figures.  But I do feel a level of pity for the people they come into contact with or, God forbid :-), any children they might become responsible for.  But they do have to freedom to shut down the functioning parts of their brain.  My only objection is that they do not have the right to force me to belief as they do.  Which is why I object to pretty much everything little kennie does.  As I have said before, his idea of religious freedom is to let him believe as he wishes and let him force everyone else to believe as he does as well.  That's not religious freedom, that's more a form of religious tyranny. 

You really should consider how long various religions have had control over people's lives and how all that turned out.  Look at history . . . not the history kennie and any of his pet 'creation historians' try and sell you in the Creation 'Museum' Gift Shop, but actual history.  Religious tyranny is not some panacea that will solve all the world's problems! 

So there we have it, yes, creationism can be harmful to both adults and children, but how harmful is really up to the individual.  Without a doubt it damages potential career paths, at least until the individual overcomes their belief system, like the many theists who made incredible scientific advances.  Theists are capable of great things, but they simply have further to go because of that extra hurdle they have to overcome.  Little kennie sees that hurdle as an absolute limit, luckily most folks don't accept that.

Practical vs Impractical . . . or Evolution's utility vs Creationism!

One of the questions I have dived into several times discusses the impracticality of Creationism. More specifically the question I ask is what part of any scientific theory, or scientific advancement uses Creationism?  To date the answer to that question has been silence, and it continues to be silence.  No one has been able to point to anything that shows an actual use of Creationism in science.

The best some have tried to do is claim credit for some scientific advancement because the scientist who made the breakthrough was a theist of one form or another.  My response to that is usually "So what!"  Just because Newton believed in God, show me where God had a hand in Newton's theories? Show me the part of any theory where you identify and categorize the actions on any particular deity? No one has been able to, not once!

So since Creationism is pretty much useless, then Creationists must show that Evolution is also useless.  After all, isn't it logical to infer that if evolution is useless, then Creationism must be the only answer there is?  I know, not to me, and not to anyone with a working brain.  Even if you manage to convince someone that Evolution is useless, that doesn't automatically imply that Creationism suddenly has value.

But you know they have to try, and one of my favorite Creationists, the homophobic and Biblical-revisionist - little kennie ham - had one of his pet 'scientists' give it a go.  He's tried it before, remember just last year it was "A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  Of course this was nothing but an example of a theist who managed to develop some very cutting edge science regardless of his religious beliefs.  As usual, no one can point to any part of the theories behind magnetic imaging and say "and here is where God did such-and-such." But since he is a Creationists, little kennie uses him as a poster-boy for Creation Science.

I will repeat something I have said over and over again.  Being a Creationist doesn't mean you cannot think . . . it's just that being a Creationist, most tend not to think, particular when someone like little kennie is telling you that thinking certain things goes against his religious beliefs.  Well, this time kennie has a pet medical doctor who makes this claim: "Evolution Has "Absolutely No Effect" on Medical Practice".  To which I can only reply "Bullshit!"

Apparently Tommy Mitchell has forgotten much of what he learned in preparation for his medical career.  Many of the medicines and treatments he used were tested out on various animals.  Why is that?  It's because they react much in the same way humans do.  Why would that be?  Of course the Creationist would say that maybe they were placed on this Earth for the purpose of medical testing. But the evidence shows that such testing works because of the evolutionary relationship we have with those animals.  Here is a quote from little kennie that he says he got from Dr. Tommy:

"When Grandma’s in the ICU and her kidneys are not working, you’re not sitting there thinking, “Well, her kidney’s evolved.” No, you just care that Grandma’s kidneys don’t work, and you want them to work again. So, operationally, evolution had zero effect on anything I did as a physician"

So where did the treatment and medications Tommy must have used come from?  Let me guess a quick prayer and they just pop into existence on Grandma's nightstand?  Tommy might be disingenuous, but the majority of the medical field knows the impact of evolution on medicine!

How about pesticide/drug resistance?  Does Creationism have an answer why individuals and groups develop a resistance to certain pesticides/medications over time?  Evolution explains it quite handily and that is something medical research doctors take into account regularly.  But I guess Tommy wasn't one of those.

One of the most telling evidences that support evolutionary theory is genetics.  But maybe Tommy slept through that part of his education.  Phylogenetic analysis, ribotyping, and parasite virulence are a few other examples where Evolution has impacted medicine.  I have to thank Talk Origins for these examples, there are many more at "The Claim that the theory of evolution is useless, without practical application."

It seems Tommy has been operating a medical license without appreciating the underlying knowledge and information that supported everything he did as a medical doctor.  I really don't care that Tommy is a theist, but I don't appreciate it when he denigrates the science behind his own education.   Which is what he did when he said this:

"Actually, taking care of Grandma today in the hospital has nothing to do with accepting evolution"

Again, denying everything that went into the development of Grandma's medicines and treatments!  I did have to check and see if he got his medical education at Liberty University (Falwell's Lament), but no, he did go to one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country.  Just goes to show you that Creationists are capable of insane level of denial!  No wonder he and kennie get along so well.

So Tommy has his say, I wonder if he will now list all the times Creationism was used in the development of medicines and medical treatments?  But I think if he were capable of addressing that, he would have lead off with it instead of trying to backdoor evolution.  I almost wish Tommy had been one of my granddaughter's doctors during a recent medical issue.  I would have loved to see him blubber through a creationist explanation of her treatment.  While it might be humorous to consider, I wouldn't have wished her to receive treatments from someone who can so glibly deny the science behind such treatments.  Luckily for his career as a doctor, science works whether you 'accept' evolution or not.