We Will Continue To Speak the Truth about Intelligent Design!

The Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views site has a new post, it's from davey 'klingy' klinghoffer and it sounds as if he's pissed!  "Say What You Want About Intelligent Design"  Davey is repeating a common theme, he doesn't like what people say about Intelligent Design (ID).  Poor davey!

"Literally, say whatever the hell you want. You can say things that are true. Or you can say things that are false. Either is fine, but with most mainstream media outlets, false is likely preferable.Writing at the slick science magazine Nautilus, Brian Gallagher demonstrates yet again that there is no accountability when criticizing ID is on the agenda. He tries to draw a line connecting last month’s story about Turkey eliminating evolution from 9th grade science class, with “fundamentalist” Christianity, with creationism, with intelligent design, and with academic freedom legislation."

I haven't yet read the article that offended davey so deeply, I will, but for now I wanted to focus in on his complaints.  One of the things we have discussed often is how the DI doesn't like you much unless you agree completely with their agenda and parrot their own words often.  For example, they don't like Wikipedia much because Wikipedia insists on not allowing them to define Intelligent Design as science.  They don't like the United Methodist Church because they refused to give into the DI's demand for a propaganda table at the UMC's general meeting.  They didn't like the "March for Science" because they didn't invite the DI, and when they tried to invite themselves, the March for Science folks reminded the DI that they were not a scientific organization.  I don't think they like the Vatican very much because they didn't get invited to a Vatican-sponsored conference on Darwin back in 2009.  The basic bottom line seems to be either you are on their side, or you are the enemy.  Well I guess they found another enemy.

So is Nature reporting things that are not true?  I don't believe so.  The moniker of 'false news' has become very popular lately, but just declaring, or insinuating, something is false news doesn't mean it actually is false.  Just read most of a certain hamster-haired serial misogynist and liar's tweets about all news organizations except for the extreme right and you will understand that calling something 'false news' really means they wrote something you didn't like -- not that their news is actually false!

One of davey's whine is how ID is defined, but the definition keeps changing, as noted in "Surprise! The definition of ID has 'evolved'"  It seems that one of the tactics that the DI uses is to complain about how ID is characterized -- even though they have yet to establish a formal definition and explanation of ID.  It's like they refuse to allow themselves to be pinned down, and therefore can complain about someone anytime they say something that isn't immediately supportive and positive.

Do you think a line can be drawn between Turkey dropping Evolution from their school curriculum and the activities of fundamentalist Christians, what I usually call Evangelical Christians, who are trying to do the exact same thing?  Of course you can!  Religious groups in Turkey are doing what people like kennie ham, Texas' Don McLeroy, Ohio's Deborah Owens Fink, and South Carolina's Kristin Maguire would love to do -- remake the entire school curriculum, from pre-school through college, in the conservative Christian image -- regardless of your actual religious beliefs, or lack of them.  Destroy science, history, and any subject that fails to put their version of God as the correct answer to any and all questions.  You can agree or disagree, but when you look at the facts of the actions these folks -- and others -- have taken, that is exactly what they want.

OK, so we have two points, can we extend that line to Creationism?  I believe so.

Who have been ardent supporters of their religion being the basis for education in this country?  Who have been arguing against any subject, particularly evolution, that they claim undermines their religious beliefs?  If you look at folks like McLeroy, Owens Fink, and Maguire you will find they are Creationists.  They were pushing for the addition of Creationism for years and only switched to ID as a tactic.  It's not just them, it was the school board in Dover PA which lead to the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover School Board trial which was so devastating to the ID movement.  It was groups that led up to many, if not all, of the lawsuits that results in religion being removed from the science classroom, at least in public schools.  'Creationist' is the modern term, but there have been other names for them.  What it boils down to is the actions, and their actions are to impose their religious beliefs on any and all students regardless of whether those beliefs are shared or even if those beliefs mean anything.  Think I am stretching here, well then tell me how science works when all you have to rely on is your religious beliefs?  How many diseases have been cured, how many scientific breakthroughs have been accomplished through religious beliefs?  Doesn't look like any of them, does it?

So we've stretched a line from Turkey through Fundamentalist Christianity to Creationism, next stop Intelligent Design. Anyone remember this post: "Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?".  How about a few highlights:

• A 'Teacher Training Program' as part of the DI's 'Publicity and Opinion-making' phase. ( (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase II, page 6)" 
• "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory in public school science curricula. (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase III, page 7)" 
• "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center . . . to promoting intelligent design theory . . . among students, educators, . . . and anyone else interested.
• Our primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses to expand the dialogue over intelligent design" (IDEA Club Website) 
• In Texas where they were 'advising' the Creationist head of the state school board on public school curricula and textbooks. 
• To their own website with: 
• Education Curricula -- They have written educational material for teaching Intelligent Design! 
• Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members
• The failed Santorum Amendment

Yes, we can connect all of this into one long line and ending at their current activities, what they like to call their Academic Freedom bills, bills which have absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom.  Here is how those bills are described in Wikipedia:

"A number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001. Purporting to support academic freedom, supporters have contended that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution. An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred."

Anti-evolution, purported to support academic freedom, asking for protection against actions that have never happened.  Just another tactic of deceit from the DI.  Look at each and evey action they claim is a form of intimidation and you will find a teacher failing to do their job.  Look for yourself, but avoid the DI's propaganda machine.  The ones they mention most often are:

• Crocker's contract was up and she was not re-hired partly because she was failing to teach the subject she was hired to teach -- science. 
• Gonzalez was not given tenure because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor with graduate students after 7 years in the job. Seven years and only one completed graduate student and hardly any research funding. Very poor showing for a tenure seeking professor! But he was not fired. 
• Sternberg was the already outgoing editor of a minor biological journal who, on his way out the door, violated the journals review procedure to publish one of his friend's ID paper, and now he works for that same friend at the DI. 
• Freshwater was fired for a number of things including failing to do his job, lying to investigators, trying to get his students to lie for him, and burning crosses into kids arms. He tried to take his case all the way to the US Supreme Court, after failing at all the other levels. It didn't work. 
• Coppedge was simply downsized and tried to turn it into a religious discrimination suit and failed. Of course he looked pretty bad when all the evidence showed that he was a poor employee (there were complaints), liked to preach his religion to his co-workers (there were more complaints), and refused to keep his skills current.

It is not intimidation to hold people accountable for the job they were hired to do!  Those so-called 'academic freedom' bills are designed to not allow schools to hold them accountable.  Imagine a school who cannot fire a teacher who was hired to teach biology and is found to be teaching religion instead?  Such bills will prevent schools from taking action . . . we have real problems in our education system, protecting those failing to perform is not going to help!

One last quote from davey:

"He repeats the myth about ID as “rebranded” creationism. Hardly. One is an inference from science, the other from the Bible. That’s a big difference. One regards the great age of the Earth, reckoned in billions of years, with equanimity and is open to the idea of common descent. The other doesn’t and isn’t."

Here is where davey plays a little redefinition with Creationism.  He tends to forget that not all Creationists are what are called Young Earth Creationists (YEC), but that's one of his criteria trying to convince people that ID isn't Creationism.  But the age of the Earth and common descent are not the common theme that connects Creationism, regardless of what specific strain you might follow.  Here's a common definition:

"Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes." (Wikipedia: Creationism)

Anything in there on common descent or the age of the Earth?  Nope!  There are many varieties of Creationism, but they all share this belief that everything originated through the actions of a deity and not natural processes.  For comparison, ID proponents claim that:

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design)

Notice anything similar?  Without offering any evidence, they make a claim that natural processes couldn't be responsible.  The only difference is that they hide their references to a deity.  This is a tactic, and their own guiding document, the Wedge Document, also called the Wedge Strategy.  It's the game plan used by ID proponents and it specifically calls for:

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

That's in the opening paragraph.  So while ID proponents like to hide their allegiance to a deity, they don't hide it very well.  So in reality, it's not Brian Gallagher who is repeating a myth about ID being 'rebranded Creationism', but davey himself that is telling the myth, the myth that ID is not the same thing as Creationism!

So just looking at davey's whine doesn't seem to much  any sense.  It's just the usual vitriol aimed at something who calls them, not only like they see them, but like they are.  Nature and Brian Gallagher are simply telling the truth, but it's a truth that the DI has been trying to hide for years.

Cherry-Picking, the new Normal? I, for One, Hope Not!

Interesting post over on the Patheos Blog Unsystematic Theology: "A Big Problem with Intelligent Design: “Don’t Look at My Bad Side”"  It reminded me of people who prefer to cherry-pick rather than look at a complete picture.

The idea of cherry-picking is to only pick the things you like, or want, and ignore the rest.  It's a logical fallacy called 'fallacy of incomplete evidence' and, more specifically, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.  Sound familiar?  Between the pseudo-news services of Fox and Breitbart and the hamster-haired lying misogynist we certainly see examples of cherry-picking on a daily basis.  Although since ol' hamster-hair creates his own 'facts' out of thin air, he might not be guilty of cherry-picking as often as folks like Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter.

The shame is that it's a fairly common practice and one I've found many Creationists employ, especially when discussing their faith.  Take a look at the Old Testament.  When you read the Bible you read a lot of serious stuff, including slavery, genocide, murder, prostitution . . . you know the things Christians like to say they are against.  The New Testament shows most things in a much rosier light, sort of like the Old Testament God created marijuana.  But do most Christians pay much attention to the darker side of their holy book?  No, they cherry-pick the stuff they like and try and ignore the rest.  Some Christian religions even argue that people shouldn't read the Bible, but only hear about it through views filtered through their various clergy.

Creationists of the Intelligent Design (ID) stripe do something identical.  They look at biology and marvel at the complexity, the beauty, and the functionality and claim that such things could not have occurred naturally.  But they ignore, or rationalize away, the simplicity, the ugliness, and the non-functional that also exists -- like I said -- cherry-picking.  They also like to ignore actual scientific evidence that doesn't support their ideas -- which is currently all scientific evidence -- while twisting science to try and make it sound supportive of Creationism.

Questions like 'why is there sin, cancer, evil, or even carnivores?' tend to rationalized away by most theists using stories involving human failure, sin, and Adam (of Adam & Eve fame, not Levine).  ID proponents simply ignore them.  They like to claim they are focused on biology, and yet their guiding document says that one of its goals is:

"To see design theory application in specific fields including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics, and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology. ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities, to see its influence in the fine arts." (Wedge Strategy Document, page 4)

So while ID proponents like to avoid conversations that bring up the darker-side of their belief set -- because they are 'focused on biology' -- their objectives go far beyond biology.  They want to be firmly entrenched in biology before opening other conversations about things they would rather ignore, including minor details like the identity of their design and the age of the Earth.

We discussed the issue with identifying the designer just recently ("Why Won't ID Proponents Identify Their Designer?"), but forgot to mention this quote:

"ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." (Philip E. Johnson, Inteview Citizen's Magazine (1999))

Johnson is considered the 'Daddy Rabbit' of the modern ID movement.  He also formulated their 'big-tent' approach.  Here is a brief explanation of that example of cherry-picking:

"Intelligent design has been described by its proponents as a 'big tent' belief, one in which all theists united by having some kind of creationist belief (but of differing opinions as regards details) can support. If successfully promoted, it would reinstate creationism in the teaching of science, after which debates regarding details could resume." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design Movement)

So theist groups are supposed to ignore their matters of faith until such time science is pretty much trashed and then 'let the debates begin'.  I can see why many religious organizations dismiss ID, especially after the cavalier way ID proponents dismiss their beliefs, calling them 'differing opinions'.  So we have both avoiding identifying their designer and ignoring the many differences between religious beliefs in order to attack actual science.  Some serious cherry-picking there!

I almost want ID proponents, and their 'big-tent' to win, just to see the carnage that follows in the ecumenical debates.  I know, I know, it wouldn't be worth it, but oh to have a bowl of popcorn to see a cage match between Stephen C. Meyer and little kennie ham!

I do so enjoy ID proponents who claim science is too unwilling to examine alternative views -- and yet how often are theists willing to look at alternatives? Let's ask Wild Bill Dembski, once the darling of the ID Movement, who was threatened with being fired if he failed to toe the theological line.  His own comments show how truly close-minded theists can be. Here's a small quote:

" . . . this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness." (Dembski: Disillusion with Fundamentalism)

Since then, he's left the fold and apparently resigned his senior fellowship at the DI. Theists do some serious cherry-picking, and if you pick the 'wrong' cherries, you will more than likely get kicked out of that particular theist club organized religious group.

So, you see, cherry-picking is a fairly common tactic and can be the result of a conscious decision or even an unconscious prejudice.  What's important, is not just to recognize when you are doing it, but try and avoid it.  

You might be asking yourself if scientists are ever guilty of cherry-picking, and the answer is  -- of course.  However, you have to remember that science is also a self-correcting activity.  What one scientist publishes, other scientists attempt to replicate.  Logical fallacies, such as cherry-picking, in data or methodology can't be hidden under such scrutiny (just ask the Cold Fusion guys: Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons).  

But what mechanism does theology have to correct its cherry-picking (and other logical fallacies)?  Looking at the evidence of folks like Ham and Meyer, there is none.  Meyer writes a book, get critiqued and then writes a second book claiming to address his critics and then fails to do so.  Little kennie says anything he wants and then cites the Bible and God as his source -- oh yea, lots of self-correcting there.  The cherry-picking is more the normal course of events than an exception.

Most Christians do not agree with AIG!

Interesting article in the Centre Daily Times from State College PA, "Noah's Ark theme park is impressive, but its ‘facts’ don’t hold water".  It's from Tom Eblen, a Christian, and it shows a point of view not mentioned often enough in the news.  There are hundreds, if not over a thousand different Christian denominations and they differ in many things, including doctrine and authority.  Little kennie ham speaks for very few.  What interested me the most is the Tom's description of kennie ham and his belief set [I added the underlines]:

"Answers in Genesis’ young-earth creationism is the product of a strain of evangelical Christianity only about a century old that now seems to thrive on authoritarianism, conservative politics and feelings of persecution."

Authoritarianism, conservative politics, and feelings of persecution!  Wow, did he hit the nail on the head or what?  Think about the authoritarian control kennie has on his followers.  If you don't toe the line, you can't even be hired . . . and his line is absolute!  Conservative politics . . . who pulled Kentucky out of the lawsuit over sales tax incentives?  The new Republican Governor, tea-partier Matt Belvin.  Who how many posts of kennie's do you need to read before you realize what a marketing point he's turned the perceived persecution of Christians into?  It's a common theme of his!  I do have to wonder if he really believe this persecution complex or is it just another tactics of his?

I did like his closing comment, and one I wish would make more news than it ever will.  

"Answers in Genesis has built an impressive ark, and those who believe its theology are welcome to it. For me, though, this pseudo-science doesn’t hold water."

The Ark is news, but the simple fact that most Christians don't agree with kennie on anything he represents to be science gets little mention. Every tactic he uses is designed to confuse and obfuscate the fact that he has nothing but he own belief set without any supporting evidence at all.

Push him hard enough and he falls on "Were you there?" argument against actual science. Well, kennie, were you there when Jesus was born, died, or there in the hundreds of years the Bible was written and re-written? We all know the answer, but he will never admit it.  You see to kennie, it doesn't matter that he wasn't there personally, after all God was there.  But when it comes to science, the fact a person wasn't personally there mean it can't possible be true.  Such a ridiculous rationalization, but one he uses . . . religiously.

What little kennie reminds me of, and this is also why I refer to him as little kennie, is a toddler throwing a tantrum.  I once watching a toddler throw an absolute fit because Mom wouldn't buy him candy.  She was very firm and them I watched this  . . . probably about 4 to 5 year old . . . throw a fit and announce to the world how mean his mommy was and how unfair it was . . . he actually used the word 'unfair' which surprised me.  Intelligently, Mom picked him up and took him out of the store.  I don't know what happened after that, but if it had been one of my daughters . . . they might be sitting gingerly for a while and candy would not have been on the foreseeable horizon.

But in all seriousness, that's what little kennie reminds me of.  Suggest public school shouldn't visit his church . . . and you get a tantrum with lots of name-calling.  Withhold tax money because he reneged on his promise to uphold non-discriminatory hiring practices and you get a tantrum and a lawsuit . . . the list is endless.  Anytime you disagree with kennie, you are anti-religious regardless of fact you might believe in a completely different religious tradition.  Little kennie doesn't care, you are either supporting him or he claims you are some sort of atheist anti-religious zealot, he's a toddler who uses the concept of a deity to get his way.

If you disagree with my comment as to most Christians disagree with kennie, just look up the Clergy Letter Project and see the various denominations supporting it.  Right there is one major area where kennie is way out of step with the clear majority of Christianity.  As the author put it, it's their theology . . . I would add that they are welcome to it, because I sure don't want it . . . but their pseudo-science doesn't hold water, and neither will their ark 'replica'.  [Quotes added because you cannot make a replica of something that never existed.]

He's Back! Not Ahhhhnold, but Dr. 'Dino' himself!

Yes, it looks like Kent Hovind was released from jail and he's back at it, trying to recapture some of his limelight as a  . . .  well I'm not exactly sure how you would describe him.  In case the name doesn't ring a bell let me tell you a little about him.

'Dr.' Kent first came to my attention a few years back.  I was looking up some information on 'diploma mills' and the name 'Patriot University' came up, an uncredited correspondence school.  From a Wikipedia page about it, which is currently called 'Patriot Bible University' I read a little about their most illustrious graduate, 'Dr' Kent Hovind, AKA Dr. Dino.  As I read it, I really couldn't believe it.  Here's the part that cracked me up [I underlined the funniest bits]:

"Critics have described Hovind's dissertation as incomplete, of low academic quality, poorly written, poor in spelling, and of ungrammatical style. The lack of quality was ascribed, in part, to the fact that "the pages are not numbered; there is no title; of sixteen or so chapters in the index only the first four are finished; misspellings are rampant ("Immerged" for "emerged", "epic" for "epoch", and "tentable" for "testable" are three examples); and the single illustration was apparently cut out of a science book with scissors and fastened to the thesis with glue or tape."  Hovind's dissertation was approved by one person, Wayne Knight, who was and remains president of Patriot. "

This is the dissertation that Kent uses to defend his right to be called 'Dr'.  Now you also know why I always use quotes when calling Kent a 'Dr.'

So Kent is a very public figure as a Creationist and with a diploma from a very questionable source.  Before his legal trouble he won renowned for being one of the few Creationists even Kennie Ham and Answers in Genesis repudiated regularly.  I was originally expecting to like Dr. Dino, I mean anyone that can annoy Kennie Ham has to have some things on his side.  But as I learned more, I did not become a fan.

Now the reason his credentials got a close look was because he self-described himself as 'Dr Dino' in a website where he spouted off pretty typical creationist stuff, including a bunch of out-dated and discredited argument, which was what did in any relationship with Ham and his Answers in Genesis.  I mean they [Ham and Co.] prefer modern and up-to-date Creationist nonsense, not the old, outdated stuff Kent seemed to like.  But for some reason, when you self-identify yourself as a "Dr', the real people with actual doctorate level educational degrees tend to get annoyed.  You know, now that I think of it, I wonder if Kent signed the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", you know the petition where they misrepresented the qualifications of the people who signed (Since the "700" keeps coming up . . .)?  'Dr' Kent would have been a perfect fit.  To bad I don't have a copy of the original 700 who signed it.  The current list was modified after complaints about the education and affiliation inflation.  Oh well, that would have been hilarious!

Anyway, Kent found himself in legal trouble, lots of legal trouble and ran afoul of the IRS, among other government agencies.   He tried all sorts of tactics to avoid things like paying his taxes, obtaining building permits, and even tried to renounce his citizenship.  My favorite tactic of his was trying to claim that everything he owned belonged to God and therefore wasn't taxable.  Ken reminded me of an old joke:

Three ministers were talking over lunch and before long found themselves discussing how much of the weekly donations was appropriate to keep and how much to give to the Lord. The first minister says, “I just draw a line on the floor, put one foot on both sides, and throw the money into the air... whatever lands on the right side of the line is God’s and whatever lands on the left is mine.” The second minister notes that he uses a similar method, but “I use a small coffee table when I throw the money in the air and whatever lands on the table goes to the Lord and whatever lands on the floor is mine.” They both contemplate each other’s answer and finally turn to the third minister who is sitting there without saying anything. “Well, how do you do it?” asks the first to the third. “Well, I do as you both do and throw the money into the air, but I figure whatever the Lord wants, he’ll grab, and I keep whatever hits the floor.”

In any event, nothing worked and he went to jail.  Of course he didn't go quietly and his wife and son were even implicated, she also did a year in jail.  I think if Ken was born about 150 years ago, I can easily picture his with wagon going town to town preaching and selling one of those 'cure-all' tonics.

Well in any event, he's out of jail and apparently using the modern day equivalent of the traveling wagon, You Tube.  He's busy posting videos, spouting the same old silliness that got him called "an embarrassment to Young Earth Creationists."  There is the link if you need a good laugh.  Each one of his new ones runs over a half hour, so you might do one of them in small doses.  I personally was torn between laughter and vomiting at some of the more ridiculous things he said.  

I will say this, I doubt anyone from the science side will bother trying to refute his claims.  Here is someone Ken Ham can debate and it might actually do some good.  Think he'll try it?  There's a match-up "Dr. Dino vs little kennie ham", think that might sell a few tickets?  At least they would be well matched.

The Discovery Institute's Continued Persecution of Darwin

Once again Darwin is being blamed for things he had nothing to do with. And typically the culprit is the Discovery Institute, this time John West. FamilyNet will be airing a documentary featuring West waxing less than Poetic called "What Hath Darwin Wrought?" It also stars a couple of other Discovery Institute shills.

First things first, FamilyNet? Of course we continually hear about how the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design have nothing to do with religion. So of course their documentary is featured on a broadcast television network owned by ComStar Media Fund. It was founded in 1979 as the National Christian Network, and took the name FamilyNet in 1988 under the ownership of Jerry Falwell. The channel was acquired by InTouch Ministries in October 2007 from the Southern Baptist Convention. In December of 2009, FamilyNet was acquired by Robert A. Schuller's ComStar Media Fund.

So let's get this straight:

• National Christian Network
• Jerry Falwell
• Southern Baptist Convention
• InTouch Ministries
• Robert A. Schuller (Televangelist, in case you didn't know)

So the Discovery Institute is still playing to crowds of people already primed to accept their ideas and they still insist that they have nothing to do with religion or a religious perspective.

So "What has Darwin Wrought?" Well according to West

"If you're concerned about the devaluation of life -- for example, if you're concerned about the new atheists who claim that science somehow proves that God doesn't exist -- you need to be concerned about Darwin because a lot of those ideas came from him," West contends. "Darwin was a nice man personally, but his ideas were not so nice -- and they're not accurate, in fact. But they have tremendous repercussions for each and every one of us today."

So is West ever right? Nothing he has produced has shown me he knows anything about the subject he spouts off about. And this article calls him a scholar! In my opinion he does not deserve to be considered a scholar.

• So What about Darwin's work devalued life? Nothing!
• What does Darwin have to do with "New Atheists"? Nothing!
• What has been proven inaccurate about Darwin's work? Nothing! Oh yes there were things he didn't know and some details he didn't get complete, but his core ideas have been well supported and continue to be well supported by the evidence even today!

In other words this is nothing but a typical marketing film. marketed to religious folks, by folks who are trying to demonize Darwin in an effort to discredit the science of evolution. Of course since the Discovery Institute hasn't been able to discredit the science itself, they attack one man who has done little but explain the world around us.

Yes, that is ALL Darwin did. The questions he offered answers to had been asked for decades, even centuries. His observations, and those of the many who came after him, have done nothing but explain natural events that happen on a daily basis. The problem is West and his cronies don't like the explanation. They prefer one that puts God ahead of anything else (Stated pretty clearly in the Wedge Document). And they spend marketing money to attack a man who is safely dead!

Wells, who claims his prayers as a member of the Unification Church lead him to spend his life destroying Darwinism. We have yet another connection to religion. And we have also another unsupported attack on a man who did nothing wrong. A man who offered an explanation of what is actually going on. And it's being offered by a man who has a huge chip on his shoulder, who belongs to an organization who cannot attack the evidence or the science so they market and sell -- primarily to religious audiences. Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. Anyone who buys into this is already primed against science anyway. Bet the reception by anyone outside of the targeted FamilyNet audience gives it the same credence as 2008's "Expelled:" mockumentary?

Someone else with a working brain visited the Creation 'Museum'

The write up is hilarious! "Kentucky Fried Creation"is a masterpiece. I especially loved one of his summary lines

"the only difference between a 21 million dollar Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY and people who consult astrologers is budget"

Pseudo-science is pseudo-science regarldess of what other labels you want to put on it.

Fun stuff suggested by the NCSE

Note from the NCSE: "Fascinating, funny, and frightening--Daily Show writer Daniel Radosh delightfully dissects creationism. Download the chapter from his book, "Rapture Ready!"

http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Excerpt--formatted--footnotes--FB.pdf

Without a doubt, great read! Complete with interviews with little kennie ham. This guy is really scary. I love the first part when he says he's not bashing evolution . . . then does . . . then claims it's not bashing. You know if kennie ham loses Pascal's Wager, he's in for a hot time!

Noah's Ark

Most of us are familiar with the tale of Noah's Ark and how one small family built a ship longer than a football field capable of carrying two of every life form while the rest of the world was covered in water and all other life eradicated. It's a common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) myth and like most of their beliefs there is not one shred of evidence.

YEC'ers are also one of the more vocal evangelical groups opposing things like evolution for religious reasons. One of the more lunatic YEC'ers is a favorite target of opportunity named little kennie ham who rips folks off every day by feeding their beliefs.

Well little kennie is probably jumping for joy because Noah's Ark has been found . . . again. Another evangelical group, called by some strange coincidence the Noah's Ark Ministries International, claims to have found it in some mountains in Turkey. Now normally I wouldn't pay much attention to such announcements but something really funny caught my eye. How do they 'know' it's Noah's Ark? Well they do claim not to be 100% certain, only 99.9%. So why are they so sure? Carbon dating!

Does this strike your funny bone the way it struck mine? OK, just in case I am just being my usual weird self let me explain. What is one of the most common methods for dating fossils and other geological evidence that goes completely against YEC'ers main contention that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? Yup, Radiological dating. They love to complain that it's inaccurate, misleading, and impossible to use reliably.

Now do you get it? One of the methods used most often by science to disprove their ideas is OK to use as long as it supports their preconceived notions. Gotta love double-standards.