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.

So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II

So once again we can see that there is nothing religious when it comes to the Discovery Institute and intelligent Design, right? Sure and one of their new bloggers is living proof. She's a hard-hitting science type with no interest in religion? Guess again.

Josh Rosenau noticed this right off and posted a terrific post about it on his blog "Thoughts from Kansas". Here is how they introduced her:

"[NOTE: Today we welcome a new contributing writer to Evolution News & Views, Heather Zeiger. Ms. Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials.]"

However Josh found a slightly more detailed description that seemed to leave a few parts out:

"Heather Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials. She interned at Probe Ministries prior to graduate school and now serves with Probe as a Research Associate. Her interests involve science and culture issues, including bioethics, origins, and the environment. She is currently working on a M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International University. She is married to David, another former Probe intern and teacher at Trinity Christian Academy. "

Notice how the Probe Ministries and Trinity Christian Academy just happened to not be mentioned by the Discovery Institute.

I suppose we could give Heather the benefit of the doubt -- but that's not going to happen. She testified in Texas and bragged about it. No, Miss Heather is not interested in science much. Here are a few select quotes from her blog: (links provided so you can see the whole quote in context)

• "our mission at Probe, essentially helping people think biblically" (Mar 2009)
• "hopefully we can discuss the Christian worldview on stem cells." and "This is part of our ministry of "having a defense for the hope that you have in Christ." (April 2009)
• "I am working on a book review on Signature in the Cell. The review will be published soon. I was contacted to write this review because of my chemistry and apologetics background - I'm not sure how much of this was their enthusiasm over my "awesome writing skills" or the fact that there aren't that many Christian apologists that are chemists. (August 2009)
• "I gave one talk on Wednesday and will be giving another one for a Sunday School class this Sunday on the Evidences for the Existence of God." (November 2009)

That's just a few. In fact I pulled those quotes on the ONLY 4 pages I looked at. It's not like I had to dig hard to find them. I think the only good thing about her is she seems to be honest about her beliefs. You can't say that about the majority of the folks at the DI.

I especially like the book review of Stephen C. Meyer's 'epic'. Now why would there not be many Christian Apologetics that are chemists? Plus her link takes us to the Amazon page and there doesn't seem to be any review by her on their pages. I also wonder who 'asked' her to do a review. I guess the book can't stand on it's own when you have to scare up apologetics to write reviews. Having read the book, yea, it needs all the propping up it can get. It certainly cannot stand on it's own legs based on any included science. Oh well back to Miss Heather.

I hope you can see what I see. We have yet another apologetic posting on the Discovery Institute blog . . . and yet they still claim that ID has nothing to do with religion. That little deception has worn paper thin! I have one small hope. I hope that Miss Heather continues to represent her beliefs in the forefront of her posts for the DI. I am not particularly hopeful because in her first post, in my opinion she screws things up. A the end of the third paragraph she has this gem:

"So while the biologists are discussing how natural selection acting on random mutations will produce new species and evolution is good because it produces more fit species, the geneticists and the engineers are looking for ways to overpower Nature and take the reins of our own evolutionary advancement."

Is Evolution 'good'? No, evolution simple 'is'. There is no good or bad about it. It's an explanation of how nature works, nothing more. Are geneticists and engineers looking for ways to improve upon nature? Of course they are. Look at the things they have already produced. Isn't that what we have done in every scientific discipline? Well we shall see what her posts are like. But I doubt she will be as open as she was at Probe Ministries, I don't think the DI won't allow that to happen!

Is Biologics part of the DI?

Someone dropped me a line to tell me that the Biologics Institute is a separate organization from the Discovery Institute and that implying differently wasn't fair.

So I guess this line from their own about page (http://biologicinstitute.org/about/) was just my imagination:

"Its founding was made possible by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and
Culture, which continues to support its ongoing work."

And here is another one from their contacts page (http://biologicinstitute.org/contact/):

Contact
Press inquiries should be directed to:
Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute
206.292.0401 x107
rob@discovery.org

All other inquiries can be made to:
Biologic Institute\
16310 NE 80th Street
Redmond, WA 98052 USA
425.296.4400
info@biologicinstitute.org

I am just imagining this, right? Anyone else remember how Doug Axe, the current director of the BI, was featured in the Wedge Strategy Document? The playbook of the Discovery Institute? And how the his 'work' was featured in The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, and Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer. If those names look familiar, look over at the DI website and their list of folks.

Their information on ID is identical to the DI, including a link to the DI's own Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture's Intelligent Design website (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php).

So on paper the two organizations may be different, and I am sure they are separate on the tax paperwork. But the DI handles their PR and funds them. In my opinion a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design?

So when "Scientists Converge on SMU to Discuss Death of Darwin's Theory" has nothing to do with religion.

OK, So that means SMU -- Southern Methodist University -- has nothing to do with religion.

"The event, sponsored and organized by PULSE and Victory Campus Ministries"

has nothing to do with religion. I guess 'Ministries' might give it away. Oh don't you know what PULSE is? It's a weekly gathering for . . . wait for it . . . Victory Campus Ministries. So in fact the talk is sponsored by the Victory Campus Ministries and the Victory Campus Ministries.

So, in other words, the audience that best accepts Discovery Institute propaganda are religion ones. Well this isn't something terrible new. But it certainly accents the relationship between Creationism and Intelligent Design. They can't seem to escape it.

Oh they do use their built-in excuse. Bobbie Crowther, also of the DI,

"At that event some of the faculty and other Darwin activists around Dallas said that such a discussion has no place on an academic campus and tried to shut down the event"

Gee, scientists who think a pseudo-scientific subject that has been ruled religion has no place on an academic campus. Of course I haven't seen a single article critical of this particular gathering -- but stuff like facts don't bother the DI. They want an audience that will be less critical in a setting where their ideas are partially already accepted, and where they can do their wink-wink at the identity of the designer. Always nice to play to receptive audience.

Yes, and if you thought the press release was a little . . . antagonistic . . . towards The Theory of Evolution, please note that the presenters and members mentioned in the article are from the Discovery Institute and the Biologics Institute -- which is just a sub-organization of the . . . wait for it . . . the DI. So you can say the attendees are from the Discovery Institute and the Discovery Institute.

Also note who was the source of the press release -- yup, the Discovery Institute. So that pretty well explains things. Wonder who is paying for this particular road trip?

Viewpoint Discrimination?

After I posted my latest concerning ICR (ICR admits defeat . . . sort of) I re-read back through my earlier posts and realized I had jotted down a post about the subject of ICR's suit against the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board (THECB) and promptly forgot about it. What ICR sued for, in addition to religious discrimination is something called 'viewpoint discrimination' and that's the phrase that caught my eye. Is there such a thing as viewpoint discrimination?

I did learn there was, as evidenced in Rosenbuger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia(1995) considered whether or not a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold funding from student religious publications, that also is provided to secular student publications.

But after trying to follow the thinking that ruled against UVA, I tried to understand how THECB withholding their permission for MS degrees in science education and I failed to see the parallels. While I am not sure I completely agree with the Rosenbuger decision, it doesn't seem to apply in this case. The glaring difference I see is that the UVA was talking about financially supporting an independent publication by a non-secular student group. The ICR was claiming that the THECB saying

"1) that ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program meets
acceptable standards of science and science education; and
2) that the proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules which require the accurate labeling or designation of programs ... Since the proposed degree program inadequately covers key areas of science, it cannot be properly designated
either as 'science' or 'science education".

was a form of viewpoint discrimination? Let me get this straight, the ICR asked for permission to award science degrees and when the organization in Texas responsible for overseeing such things looks under the hood they find . . . not much . . .. How is this an issue with differing viewpoints? If their program had met acceptable standards of science and science education or if the degree request was in line with the labeling they wanted, they might have received a favorable consideration.

But as it stood they were asking for the State's concurrence to award degrees in an area they are unfit to award! Imagine hiring a graduate of this program to teach science in a school near you? If the State of Texas had approved it, they would have been complicit in what amounts to a crime. Because awarding a degree without requiring the student learn the required material should be criminal. It makes an ineligible candidate appear, on paper at least, to be qualified. Imagine the waste if a school system hires one of these graduates and discovers well into a school year that they are unqualified to perform the duties required of them. Look at the legal fees being incurred by Woods-Hole Oceanographic Institute because it hired an evolutionary biologist who, after being hired, states that he can only do a small percentage of the job because he doesn't believe in Evolution. What a waste! He should have never been a candidate for the position. In my opinion Woods Hole should sue him for mis-representing himself.

It's not 'viewpoint discrimination' when the basis for the decision is not based on their viewpoint, but their inability to actually perform the job. ICR is woefully inadequate in teaching science, therefor the THECB was entirely in the right by denying their application to award MS degrees in science education.

ICR admits defeat, sort of . . .

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is reporting that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has apparently given up on their attempts to award a master's of Science Graduate degree in science education. In case you missed it, it is something I have blogged about a few times. (Texas scores a big win! , Texas on a different but related subject, Showdown in Texas, Hasn't Texas had enough, and Yea for Texas). Basically they were trying to award an MS graduate degree with, in my opinion, little science involved -- in particular evolution. In all honesty how can an organization award any type of science degree when everything they do is filtered through biblical colored glasses?

Unfortunately they will not be folding up their revival tent and going home, they plan to opening

". . . the ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics, which offers a Master of Christian Education degree; Creation Research is one of four minors. The ICR explains, "Due to the nature of ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics — a predominantly religious education school — it is exempt from licensing by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board [THECB]. Likewise, ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics is legally exempt from being required to be accredited by any secular or ecumenical or other type of accrediting association."

This does open the question is that if the THECB isn't going to license or otherwise certify their education program, who will? Will it become a unaccredited group like the Patriot Bible University , the group that 'awarded' Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino, his PhD? Will they seek alternative accreditation? My opinion is they will remain unaccredited as long as some number of people are willing to pay to attend their idea of education. After which they will discontinue their program, or rename it in the interest of suckering in a few more paying souls.

What I find most interesting is that they made a point about being unaccredited when there are several nationally recognized accreditation associations for non-secular schools, like

• Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools (AARTS)
• Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS) Commission on Accrediting
• Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE) Commission on Accreditation
• Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) Accreditation Commission

Yet the ICR isn't seeking them out. I wonder why? It does make one think why they do not take advantage of being accredited. Actually it doesn't make me wonder, but I know I won't be applying for a degree from them. I question whether it will be worth the paper it would be printed on!

New DI attack whine -- Science Funding

OK, we all know the Discovery Institute does not actually perform science. They write popular press books and articles, they market the hell out of themselves, they use disreputable tactics in all they do, they whine incessantly, and they tend to run away when things get warm.

In my opinion they do not even understand how science works. The reason I say this started with that stupid Stein mockumentary, which featured the DI, and this label he kept using 'Big Science'. Exactly what is 'Big Science'? Stein never explained -- because he wouldn't have been able to do so. There is no single organization controlling scientific work in this country or around the world. There is no single pipeline of grants and funds. There is no cabal that make decisions for the entire scientific community in some secret smoke-filled room. Scientists are affiliated with a wide variety of businesses, schools, museums, foundations . . .. Their funding sources are as diverse as can be imagined. While the Federal Government funds a great deal of science, even that funding comes from a wide variety of sources.

In other words while we refer to a 'Scientific Community' colloquially, there really is no large-scale organizations of scientists. There are a number of loose federations, you might say, of scientists who share the same discipline. There is no controlling entity -- there is no 'Big Science!'.

OK, let's connect the two. Right now there is a Harvard Professor who apparently messed up. Harvard is dealing with it, as they should. Did he actually make mistakes, was it documentation errors or procedural errors -- are they correctable or not? Since he is affiliated with Harvard, Harvard gets the first crack at investigating him -- as they rightly should. Here is one source article from NPR "Harvard probes Claims of Scientific Misconduct".

So how does the Discovery Institute fit in? Bruce Chapman, yes the man who is busy running away from Louisiana. He blogged about the issue and says some pretty stupid things.

"Dr. Hauser probably can escape permanent damage to his employment prospects if he explains that his genes made him cheat. In the history of hominids, after all, shaking down taxpayers is a well-established behavior to enhance reproductive advantage."

Does that paragraph make any sense at all? Does Chapman understand anything? in my opinion, apparently not. But this is the line that killed me:

"And why does Big Science, alone among American institutions, get to police itself? "

First of all I object to the use of the word 'alone'. Is Chapman forgetting the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association? How about every Union in existence. How about the Catholic Church and their decades-old policies of self-policing pedophiles. These are a great many organizations that police themselves to a surprisingly autonomous degree, sometimes a shocking degree. So even if such an organization existed for all scientific research, the word 'alone' certainly would not apply.

My second issue, my real issue, relates to how I started this blog entry. What organization in 'Big Science' should be doing this policing Chapman is talking about? There isn't one! There isn't an organization to police! It's all in the mind of pseudo-scientists like Chapman who are looking for stuff to whine about.

Let's look more objectively at what happened.

• The scientist in question was reported by members of his own staff. Science:1 Chapman:0
• The organization he was working for investigated it. Science:2 Chapman:0
• They released their findings publicly. Science:3 Chapman:0
• They also sent their findings and evidence to the government organization who funded the research. Science:4 Chapman:0 If this was baseball I say Chapman took four swings to strike out!

It looks like everything that should have happened has happened. The scientist's future is still undecided, as is any action by the Government. It certainly looks like the scientific community started the ball rolling in policing themselves -- as they have for years. Remember Cold Fusion? It wasn't the Discovery Institute who discovered the problems with those experiments, but other scientists. How about the irregularities in the cloning experiments in South Korea? Other scientists yet again! Piltdown Man -- a favorite whine of Creationists -- yup, scientists announced the hoax nearly immediately!

So why am I concerned about anything Chapman has to say (while he continues distancing the DI from the problems they caused in Louisiana)? It's simple. Here we have an organization that doesn't seem to have a clue about how to do science claiming that someone outside of science should be monitoring and control science funding? Remember how the Discovery Institute operates, rather than science they politicize, they market, they whine -- they don't perform science. One of them posts something and a bunch of them jump on the bandwagon to make it look like there is an actual problem. Remember 'Teach the Controversy'? A controversy they tried to create out of a tempest in a teacup! How about their trying to tie Darwin to Hitler, another series of whines and posts that have no support. Lately their support of David Coppedge, the JPL employee who got demoted for harassing his co-workers. Their marketing schemes are certainly more successful than their efforts at science. Contrived and created for their own purposes!

Chapman's blog has already been picked up by . . . guess who? You got it, another Discovery Institute member, Wesley Smith and his blog "Do We Need Better Oversight On How Scientists Spend Public Money?" The attack on science funding is one we need to pay attention to because one of the last organizations on the face of the Earth that should have input to how scientists are using their research funding is the anti-science Discovery Institute!

Just out of curiosity, who polices the Discovery Institute? Well if they would actually publish in scientific journals the scientific community certainly would have input into their 'work'. But since they publish in the popular press, they really don't have to answer to anyone -- as long as they have their own funding. I wonder how many state and federal grants they have attempted to get over their existence? More interestingly would be how many have they received? Anyone have any ideas?

Omnicompetent, huh?

Can science answer every question there is? No! And no one thinks it will. Well other than Mary Midgley and her post over on the Guardian titled "Metaphysics and the limits of science". Here is the thing, scientists know this. Anyone with a working brain knows this. Science focuses on what happened, how it happened, what caused it, and what implications are there for the future. There are questions science will never be able to answer -- and we already know this. Can science tell me why I am here? That's a very popular philosophical question. Science can tell me how I got here. They can tell me what I am. They can even make lots of predictions like life expectancy, potential for catching certain diseases . . . lots of information. But they can't tell me why 'I' am here. The reason is simply, it's not an area that science addresses.

Here is the thing that Mary, and others, can't seem to understand. Science limits itself to nature, to the material world, to physical activities on the huge and tiny scale. I would go as far to say that if an occurrence -- no matter what it is -- happens in the material world, one day science will explain it. It's that limitation, if you want to call it that, that allows science to work, to produce results, to predict and be falsifiable. I prefer to think of that limitation as more of a framework of science. If it is within the framework, science will eventually address it. No, we don't have all the answers, but we answer more and more every day. That framework of science works out pretty well. Science is as tool, a process for providing explanations that we can reproduce and use. All of our engineering is based on science.

So along comes Mary and she raises a flag and builds a metaphysical strawman that she proceeds to tear apart because science does not address it. We already know this. This is not news, except maybe to Mary. There is no argument here. Let the philosophers go off and do what they do. Maybe someone can tell me why they think I am here. It makes little difference to me, since I think I make my own way and determine why I am here by my own actions. I know science will not be addressing it, and that works for me to. This is not a new idea, but maybe it is for Mary.

Now here is the real question that Mary fails to address is if not science, what else would do what science does for us? What other process would add to our knowledge of the world around us and provide us with results we can build on. She doesn't offer one. She doesn't even offer a process for addressing question science does not address. So there is no alternative in sight, what is she complaining about. Science doesn't address many things -- for example, the gorilla in the room -- Religion. Science does not address the issue of God.

Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God. What it will do is address specific natural phenomena that some people like to attribute to God. That is within the realm of science and that seems to be a really annoying point for some people. That particular question, as I see it, isn't science's issue -- but an issue for the people who claim to know what God may or may not have done. I mean look back in history. What is different about a Christian claiming God created Man and an ancient Greek claiming Zeus tosses around lightening bolts? At one time all natural phenomena has been attributed to one God or another. People still do this and then they get their feathers all ruffled when a scientist provides a better explanation. One that may not be philosophically acceptable to them, but one based on evidenciary support their philosophy is ill equipped to handle. It's not God's problem, it's not even a problem for scientists, it's a problem in how they insist on looking at the world.

Of course their insistence becomes our problem when they also insist that their philosophy is supposed to be ours. In other words current day Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. I mean look at what happened in Dover PA, Kansas, Ohio, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and other states. Look at what's going on in Louisiana. It isn't that science is wrong or has failed, it is one group of folks who are insisting their religious beliefs have to be everyone's religious beliefs and they keep trying to use science and scientific theories as their weapon of choice. The problem is their ideas are not scientific, so they have to resort to tactics their own religious beliefs claim are wrong to do so. Read the Dover testimony and you will see for yourself that self-professed Christians LIED under oath about their actions and the reasons for their actions. Read about the school board meeting in Livingston Parish La and listen how the members think Creationism can be taught as science legally, in spite of all the rulings against it. Read the Wedge Strategy document as see that while the Discovery Institute has been sounding so reasonable lately, they are not reasonable at all -- it's just another tactic.

Mary doesn't address this sort of stuff, she just seems to go on about stuff we already know. She describes science as 'omnicompetent', is that even a word? no, Mary, science cannot and will not answer every question. Some of us learned that in our first science class. I guess some of us never learn it.

(I caught the graphic off of Google Images and don't see a copyright or anything. I just liked it. Since I would rather not make you look at my own feeble artistic efforts, I thought that one was appropriate. If it is copyrighted, just pass me the word and I will remove it.)

Intelligent Design: For Entertainment Purposes Only!

I believe that John G. West, yes, that one, from the Discovery Institute (DI), has this form letter and all he has to do is fill in the name of any biologist/journalist/scientist, add a link to their article, and then have it posted on his website. Here check out "A Biologist Misunderstands Intelligent Design (Again)" if you wish, but if you have read any of the standard "They just don't understand ID" posts, you already know what it says. He even acknowledges it with his "(Again)" in the title. If it is so common, Johnny, why don't you get off your butt and publish some valid science that supports ID. then no one could mis-understand it. But that seems to be out of the question.



So what we see yet another biologist, this time Dr. Kathryn Applegate, affiliated with the Biologos Forum, being critical of intelligent design in her article "Self-Assembly of the Bacterial Flagellum: No Intelligence Required" and instead of actually addressing the shortfalls in intelligent design or the details of her critique, he would rather question the biologist's knowledge of ID. In all honesty how much do she need to know? I'm not being flippant, but if you read her article she goes through and explains how the bacterial flagellum, one of Michael Behe's poster children for irreducible complexity, forms through a natural process. ID proponents claim otherwise, including Behe's who's books she references.



So one side claims God-Did-It -- without naming the designer -- and Kathryn Applegate says not so fast. She supports her position with a nicely done explanation, so what's an ID proponent to do? Attack her understanding of ID -- something she doesn't really need to present the natural process by which bacterial flagellum form. Did he address the process she described? Did he address the experiments that developed her understanding of the process? Did he make a case for how the 'Designer' did it? No, that would be too much like work.



So apparently here are the rules -- post something positive about Intelligent Design or the DI will fill out West's 'form' letter and claim you don't understand Intelligent Design. It doesn't really matter what you say, if you aren't an ID proponent, then you must not understand ID. Makes perfect sense . . . in their delusional world.

I think Dr. Applegate understand all she needs to about ID. She doesn't need to read more material about it because it doesn't really matter. Anything she says that is critical will get the same response. Rather than educate, Johnny and his cronies would rather condemn. The entire world has been waiting for the DI to produce anything other than popular press books and articles -- books and articles that show an ever changing concept of what ID is supposed to be. It's like hitting a moving target and unless you kneel before the DI and proclaim their 'Designer' to be the end all of scientific knowledge, they will complain that you really don't understand it. So in other words over 99% of the biologists and scientists in the world all misunderstand the DI and their pet concept, Creationism's little brother. I think Johnny has been hanging around with his cronies too long and needs to get out more for some perspective. I thought the low was when Casey Luskin took on a Canadian Quilter about her award winning quilt "Myths of our time: Intelligent Design", but West hit a new low with his non-critique



I do love how he sneaks in the term "intelligent design theorist", as if they actual had a theory to study. So now they are creating what . . . job titles for imaginary positions? At best he should call them 'intelligent design conceptualizers' or in a fit of self-examination he could call them 'marketeers', but that level of honesty is too much to expect. I guess that would make Dr. Applegate an 'anti-ID theorist' and I am sure that is a title she would wear proudly!



Hmmm . . . so I guess that makes me . . . what exactly? An Anti-ID Blogger? Not really, but I doubt Johnny would understand. I am not against ID, I am not even anti-creationism -- as theology and philosophy. I am against anyone, or any group, who make scientific claims without having done the work. I am against anyone who uses disreputable tactics, lies, and misrepresentations of science in order to garner support for their personal religious beliefs.

If the DI would simply do the work and actually support their contentions with something resembling facts, I would be lobbying for their inclusion in science class. But they seem to be unwilling, or unable, to do so. As long as they remain unwilling or unable, then I will argue that they belong on the same shelf in the bookstore as Astrology, Phrenology, the Psychic Friends Network, and Tarot Cards. Just like the small print disclaimer on those psychic infomercials of a few years back, Intelligent Design is "For Entertainment Purposes Only!"

Glenn Beck-erhead is wrong -- what a shock!

I caught part of a Glen beck episode mainly by accident. Now Beck, like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are pundits. I do not care for pundits in general -- Certain ones in particular. Now you might ask why I dislike pundits, it's easy. They say little and mean less. They are pseudo-journalists without any accountability for their actions. There are no ethics for pundits, they are actors playing a role, and the role means a loud, obnoxious mouth saying anything in order to gather an audience and inflame them. One important thing to remember is that pundits are NOT journalists. There are no ethical considerations. they can be as rude and pretty well say anything they want and get away with it.

Glenn Beck is a prime example. He recently was 'discussing' the relationship of Government, Religion, Science, and Commerce from a historical perspective. Of course then he admits to not being a history teacher! Well he sure proved that without a doubt. But my main complaint is his tactics. Just before one break he drops a bomb and then does what pundits do and walked away. Here watch it for yourself and identify the bomb and then wait for the follow-up -- like me you would still be waiting. Glenn Beck Part II. Watch the next part as well and you still won't hear him support his accusations. Why? Because he's a pundit and he doesn't have to.

He discusses Abolitionists, Josiah Wedgewood, and then mentions that two generations later, Wedgewood's great-grandson, Charles Darwin, is the father of modern racism. Aside from the obvious issues with math (two generations is not a great-grandson) but he drops his bomb and then walks away. He takes a commercial break and when he comes back, he fails to support his words. He says it, and then fails to support it. Plainly put Glenn Beck is wrong in typical pundit style.

Aside from his whining, there is no truth to Darwin being a Racist. There is no truth to Racism, eugenics, or Nazi-ism being caused or started by Charles Darwin or his scientific theories. To make a statement like that and then walk away just shows you what pundits are -- nothing! They try to inflame, but never explain. They don't care if the majority of the people who might have heard it know better -- they only care with their core audience, the ones who are making them wealthy, pay attention and nod their little ditto-heads.

Need more? When someone is discriminating what are they doing? They are making a judgment. They have made a decision that someone else is less than they are. Whether they are talking race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, religion . . it's all about judging, making a decision. Whether you are talking to a loud-mouth bigot or an ethnic cleanser -- it's all about judgment -- a decision. Someone decides that one group is somehow superior to another and then act on it. It doesn't matter what their rationale is, it's still a human being passing judgment.

Now where in all of Charles Darwin's work does he say evolution involved making a judgment on the superiority of one group over another? Look hard because you will not find it! The Theory of Evolution, and particularly Darwin's contributions, do not factor in any form of human judgment. It's not there, it's not even implied. Beck-erhead isn't the first to make this argument, He, little kennie ham, and even smaller-minded david klinghoffer should get together and pat each others back. But they all make the same mistake. They are lying to us, one and all. Here is what a few others are saying as well.

Glenn Beck on Darwin, the Dispersal of Darwin Blog
Glenn Beck on Darwin and Racism, The Sensuous Curmudgeon Blog
Glenn Beck Wrong on Darwin, Michael Zimmerman, Huffington Post

Glenn Beck does live up to his role as a pundit. He says little and means less. He really doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks as long as some people buy his books, watch him on TV and listen to him on the Radio. He has his fans, and I certainly am not numbered as one of them. It would be nice if he would get educated on a subject before ranting about it, but that is much to much to expect. Besides, he would lose his audience . . . and his income.

I'll leave you with two of the quotes of Darwin:

"As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews (sic) us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow creatures." The Descent of Man

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." On Origin of Species

Remember that last one is the one misused by bennie stein when he tried this same disreputable tactic in his mockumentary "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed" He strung together a few sentences from this complete quote to imply a very different message. Just another lie! I talked about Stein when I discussed Quote Mining. Beck finds himself in pretty poor company.