Karl Giberson: 2014 Revenge of the Creationists

Karl Giberson has written a post for the Daily Beast called “Revenge of the Creationists,” in which he outlines all of the recent developments in the land of young-earth creationism, although he lumps in climate change as well, a related and often correlative movement.  Aside: I am currently working on a post involving the examination of young earth creationism as a natural theology-based heresy.  Anyway, back to Giberson.  Of course, leading the charge is Ken Ham.  Giberson writes:

America’s leading science denialist is Ken Ham, head of the Answers in Genesis organization that built the infamous $30 million Creation Museum in Kentucky. He also put up a billboard in Times Square to raise funds for an even more ambitious Noah’s Ark Theme Park. Ham’s wacky ideas went primetime in February when he debated Bill Nye. An estimated three million viewers watched Ham claim that the earth is 10,000 years old, the Big Bang never happened, and Darwinian evolution is a hoax. His greatest howler, however—and my top anti-science salvo of 2014—would have to be his wholesale dismissal of the entire scientific enterprise as an atheistic missionary effort: “Science has been hijacked by secularists,” he claimed, who seek to indoctrinate us with “the religion of naturalism.”

It is quite clear from his writings that Ham has absolutely no idea how science actually operates and, as further evidence of his bad judgment in this area, relies on writers who know little to nothing of the areas in which they write.  This creates a two-fer-one bad science punch, giving your average scientist (and even most reasonably educated people) yet another reason to think Christianity is stupid. 

I differ from Giberson in his analysis of his point number four:

Climate change is arguably the most serious form of science denial. Creationism may be wrong, but embracing it won’t wreck the planet.  The last few years have seen many howlers on climate change including Senator Inhofe’s claim that humans cannot possibly influence the climate because “God’s still up there." 

There are plenty of examples of people who have embraced the young earth model who believe that the climate will be just fine because all of the changes recorded in the geological record are only six thousand years old.  The corollary to this is that, because earth is only six thousand years old, God must be returning soon, so why should we care how we treat the environment?  I saw that argument made a few years back (cannot find the post at the moment).  Albert Mohler gets a spot, as well as the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer, for this skewed analysis of the Cambrian explosion.  The only people missing are Kirk Cameron and Banana Ray Comfort.  Read the whole thing.  His tone is dismissive, but he is largely correct in his assessments.

Bill Nye Thinks Creationism is "Raising A Generation Of Young People Who Can't Think"

Bill Nye has been interviewed on Newsmax TV, and, in his customary blunt way, argues that:

“Religion is one thing. People get tremendous comfort and community with their religions," Nye said. "But whatever you believe, whatever deity or higher power you might believe in, the Earth is not 6,000 years old.”

Here is the video:

Nye has a very peculiar view of religion. When he is asked why the whole debate is so vexing, he argues that it all boils down to a fear of death and that we just don't want to die. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that, after death, if you accept Jesus as your savior, you go to heaven. When death comes, despite the desire to live life to the fullest and to hang on to life (not inconsistent with Christianity, by the way), we accept it, because we know that heaven awaits.  That is faith.  His response almost comes from a complete ignorance of religious knowledge or history. 

His assessment of how creationists view scripture is largely correct, in that they want to use the Bible as a science textbook.  It is not clear that this debate extends into the realms of physics and chemistry, however.  Otherwise, you would not have so many scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwin" petition.  The catch is that, when you get into the realm of the earth sciences, the knowledge gaps become pronounced and arguments that promote the young earth fall short.  That is why there are so few earth scientists that have signed the document.  They make up less than 1% of practicing earth scientists.

The sad thing here is that he is right about the view of scripture that creationists have but does Christianity no favors.  In his view, religious sentiment is okay, as far as it goes.  How many people will he reach that agree with that?  This is one of the reasons that I fear that the leaders of the young earth movement will drive people away from God.  If it is just fairy tales, then why bother?

You Knew This Was Coming...

Kentucky.com is reporting that Ken Ham and AiG are fighting the Kentucky Tourism Board's decision to rescind the tax credits for the Ark Encounter.  Linda Blackford writes:

On Thursday, Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham accused the government of discriminating against a religious organization after state officials notified Answers in Genesis, the parent organization of the Ark Encounter park, that it could not receive state incentives because its hiring practices would discriminate against non-Christians.

”We have been working on this project with Kentucky for more than two years, so this just-received denial announcement is as disappointing as it is costly for our ministry without the expected rebate," Ham said. "Our construction has already begun at the Williamstown, Ky., site, and it must proceed. We are fully prepared to defend our fundamental rights in court if necessary, as this issue is of huge importance, not only to us, but to every religious organization.”

The legality of the hiring practices has gone around the houses and, after some thought, I think that it does not rest in Ham's favor. Ham fired back:

"The legal question here has already been answered unequivocally by the courts," said Mike Johnson, chief counsel of Freedom Guard. "No state is allowed to treat religious organizations less favorably than other organizations who seek to avail themselves of a facially neutral economic incentive program. Just because some state officials may not agree with the message of a Christian organization does not mean that organization and its members can be censored or treated as second-class citizens."

That is a smokescreen. Ham knows that the whole thing would never have even come up if it hadn't been for someone leaking the hiring practices.That is not the first time that Ham has obscured the real reasons for why some have questioned his actions.  This has the makings of a long drawn-out fight.

Ark Encounter Loses Tax Incentives

Reuters is reporting that the AiG-fronted Ark Encounter project has lost the tax incentives it so desperately wanted for the construction of the life-sized (but not necessarily biblically-based) Noah's Ark.  Steve Bittenbender writes:

Kentucky has pulled potential tax credits for a proposed Noah's Ark-based theme park, telling the developer on Wednesday that the plans had evolved from a tourist attraction into a ministry seeking to advance religion.

State tourism officials had given preliminary approval for tax incentives of potentially more than $18 million over 10 years for the Ark Encounter park slated to open in 2016, but later warned the park's parent company, Answers in Genesis, that it could lose them if it hired only people who believed in the biblical flood.

Nobody has yet been hired but it is pretty clear that the tourism board became uncomfortable when the hiring dust-up occurred and finally just got cold feet. Mike Zovath says that the project will continue but chief counsel Mike Johnson was quoted as saying this “will be a huge financial loss to the organization.” I can only guess that this decision, which the Ark Encounter may fight in court, will have a large effect on the sale of the junk bonds to finance the undertaking. This is a huge win for opponents of the project.

Ironically, this comes on the heels of a huge ad campaign to promote the project, including billboards in Times Square. Here is a YouTube video of the 15-second ad clip: 

Response to The Ignorance of Blind Faith

A.J. Castellitto wrote a piece for the site American Clarion called The Ignorance of Blind Faith, in which he (she?) writes (in the best David Klinghoffer or Cornelius Hunter fashion) the following critique of “evolutionism”:

Ultimately, the overall problem with blind evolution both in process and acceptance is the non-skeptical adherence to a contrived, ideologically-based foundation. Especially since a sinless, godless form of evolution is arguably a building block of communism, apathy and moral decay.

For many, evolution is a cherished and heavily defended concept that resembles religious dogma. The main exception is that most of the radical aspects of evolution proposed by man preclude God. On the contrary, the consideration and inclusion of Intelligent Design theories provide healthy skepticism and rational thought beside the explanatory limits of unguided materialism.

True science should leave no lasting place for unsupported assumptions, unfounded speculations and insurmountable barriers. Not surprisingly, long ago evolution entered the realm of ‘scientism.’ This is why the funding continues to follow the agenda.

Here is how I responded on the site:

The concept of biological evolution is a lot like the concept of atomic energy. When it became possible to use atomic energy to develop nuclear power plants, with their attendant cheap power and radioactive waste, many people decried its use, claiming that it would poison the environment, lead to meltdowns that would jeopardize the health of millions and so on. When it became possible to create the nuclear-based weapons of mass destruction, people decried their existence and use as an existential threat and lobbied to get their use eradicated and to have them destroyed. These were no less than globally moral issues. Underneath it all, uncaring, disinterested, sat the reality of nuclear power. It existed. It was there. It wasn't going to go away.

Evolution is, objectively, one of the most well-documented, supported scientific theories in existence. It just is. I have studied biological evolution for over thirty years. Over 99% of the naturalists out there that actually study the data are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it explains the present and past biodiversity of the planet. You might debate how it is used by those who would perpetrate abuse of their fellow humans. You might debate how it has affected the spiritual walks of the people who encounter it. You might debate how it has affected the globally moral questions we ask. But that won't make biological evolution go away. As humans, we need to ask how to answer those questions in light of evolution. Does it change them? If so, how?

An open question.

Bad News in Texas

Apparently, the Truth in Texas Textbooks push has won some major concessions to what kinds of education kids in Texas will get in the coming years.  And it happened in a not-so-above-board way.  Patrick Michels of the Texas Observer has this to report:

When they write the history books about the State Board of Education, last week’s drama over our new social studies textbooks probably won’t go down as a high point.

After punting on a preliminary vote Tuesday, the board approved the textbooks on Friday despite receiving hundreds of pages of revisions at the last minute, which many members hadn’t read. Those revisions came partly in response to 1,500 worried letters from the public that were still arriving just last week. Though the 10-5 vote split on party lines, members agreed that this year’s textbook approvals had been a mess.

But the process was a big win for at least one man, Roy White, and his fellow volunteer textbook watchdogs.

White’s year-old group Truth in Texas Textbooks made an impressive entrance into Texas’ ancient and ongoing fight over what children learn in school, with a recently-released 469-page review of this year’s social studies textbooks.

Unfortunately, the folks who are in charge of either voting up or down on the textbooks did not have the time to examine all of the complaints TTT made because at least the ones involving evolution and the age of the earth were completely bogus.This is not good because, often, where Texas goes, the rest of the nation goes.

Possible Mollusk Etching by Homo erectus

Science Magazine (and quite a few other outlets) is running a story involving the discovery of a 500, 000 year-old mollusk that shows some rudimentary carving.  Michael Balter writes:

In 2007, Stephen Munro got the shock of his life. The archaeology graduate student was studying mollusk shells gathered more than 100 years ago on the Indonesian island of Java, where an early human ancestor, Homo erectus, had roamed at least 1 million years ago. As he studied photographs of the shells, Munro spotted one apparently engraved with a pattern of zigzag lines. “I almost fell off my chair,” he says. That’s because the oldest known engravings date back 100,000 years and were made by modern humans—the only species thought to be capable of making abstract designs.

If this has been accurately interpreted, this suggests that Homo erectus was capable of considerably more cognition than is generally ascribed to this form. While there is evidence that Homo erectus controlled fire and, perhaps, had hafted tools, there has been, as of this point, no evidence of symbolic thought.

Some are not convinced:

Yet even if ancient humans engraved the shell, says Russell Ciochon, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, the team has not shown that H. erectus did it. Ciochon, who has spent many years working at sites in Java, agrees with criticisms that the shells have been taken out of context, because Trinil was not an occupation site where early humans actually lived. Rather, Ciochon argues, the human fossils found there (which include a skullcap widely agreed to be H. erectus and a thigh bone that could belong to either H. erectus or H. sapiens, a matter of sharp debate) were washed into the site by a powerful flood, and nothing found with them—including the shells—can be assumed to have been associated with them originally.

Here is the shell.

Another Professor in Hot Water Over Evolution

Inside Higher Ed is posting a story about a professor at Georgia Southern University, a state school in Statesboro, Georgia.  Quoth Colleen Flaherty:

Lecturing for a week about how “evolution could not have happened.” Offering extra credit for students to watch the film “God’s Not Dead.” Showing religious bias in exam questions. Student reviews saying he’ll try to “convert you.”

Those charges, among others, make up a complaint filed recently by two First Amendment watchdog groups against T. Emerson McMullen, an associate professor of history at Georgia Southern University. The institution says it’s now investigating the professor for allegedly using his classroom at the public university to promote his anti-evolution Christian beliefs.

Apparently the Freedom From Religion Foundation and The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science have become involved in this and have pushed for an investigation into the charges.  It strikes me that if he is a science professor, these are serious charges.  If, on the other hand, he is a history professor, then it is incumbent on him to get the history correct.  If he does that, then the sole focus should be on whether or not he is using his classroom as a pulpit.  Despite his insistence otherwise, enough of the student comments indicate that, at least to some degree, he is. 

When I teach Anthropology 110: Human Origins, I am open to speaking with students about the apparent conflicts between evolution and Christianity, but I do not openly discuss them in class or promote EC.  I also use established science.  To do otherwise, I believe, would hurt the cause of Christianity.  Wisely, the Discovery Institute has left this one alone. 

One of my Readers Pointed Out...

That my dad was quite an accomplished scholar who lived a long and varied life.  It is difficult to overstate the importance he played in my life and how much fun it was to be his son.  He taught me many things and, later in life, especially after I had kids of my own, his advice was golden and his friendship was a great joy.  I will comment more on his passing and his role in my life when there is some distance and I can do it and still see the keyboard at the same time.  In the meantime, here is an obituary of him. 

Dr. J. Edward Kidder Jr. 6/24/1922 - 11/30/2014

Rest in Peace, Dad.  We love you and we miss you.

More Trouble in Texas

Io9 is reporting on a movement afoot to censor the textbooks in Texas of what it considers “Pro-Muslim” bias.

Science groups have been working to prevent the Texas State Board of Education from adopting controversial textbooks that misrepresent climate change. But now another organization has joined the fray, demanding extensive edits in science, geography and history textbooks to purge them of "pro-Muslim" bias.

Six months ago, a self-described grassroots group called Truth in Texas Textbooks (TTT) began mobilizing "volunteer scholars" to conduct a sentence-by-sentence assessment of 32 textbooks being used in the state's schools. They've just published a 469-page review of their research, declaring that they found a pattern of factual omissions motivated by a pernicious leftwing bias.

TTT, which has gotten high marks for its efforts from right wing sites like Breitbart, was, in fact, founded by members of Act! For America.

Act! is a group that is, according to the story, dedicated to defending against radical Islam.  Sure looks like they are just against good science.  One can see the shadow of Don McLeroy looming large.  For example, in the report they make the following notes:

What the textbook says: "Fossils, or preserved remains, found on Java suggest that human life existed there as early as 1.7 million years ago."

What TTT says: Other scientists do not believe the earth is millions of years old. Evolution is a theory not a fact. Students need to be given both theories, creation and evolution.

What the textbook says: "Fossil fuels are formed by buried plants and animals that have been dead for millions of years."

What TTT says: Many scientists do not believe the earth is millions of years old. A growing list of scientists consider young earth creationism (YEC) a fact and evolution as bunk.

In fact, the only scientists that think that the earth is not millions of years old are those that have no education or training in dealing with this record.  These are the same people that claim there are no transitional fossils and the present cannot be used to interpret the past.

But looking at the report, that is not what got me.  What got me was the complete lack of professionalism in listing the complaints, or at least the ones relating to evolution and the age of the earth.  For example, here is the section on the age of the earth:

• Many scientists do not believe the earth is millions of years old.
• Growing list of scientists who consider young earth creationism (YEC) a fact and evolution as bunk http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk
• Young Earth Creationism http://www.conservapedia.com/Young-Earth-Creationism

An examination of the first page on the growing list of scientists reveals a page with a truly horrible, low-resolution graphic that takes up so much space that one has to scroll way down to get beyond it.  Beyond this is a homegrown page of “biographies” of scientists who reject evolution. The links for the first three don't work. The rest are self-professed creationists and most of the links go directly to biographies on the site of Answers in Genesis, an organization not known for its academic rigor.  The reason for this is, of course, that the nice folks at TTT haven't read any actual science, only the twisted form coming out of AiG. The other section dealing with the age of the earth and evolution reads thus:

• Other scientists do not believe the earth is millions of years old. Evolution is a theory not a fact. Students need to be given both theories, creation and evolution.
• Evidence for a Young Earth (that’s not billions of years old) by Bob Dutko, www.toptenproofs.com
• Billions, Millions, or Thousands—Does it Matter? by Kenneth Ham, http://www.icr.org/article/billions-millions-or-thousands-does-it-matter/

The first link, the Bob Dutko page, puts you, after some hunting, to this page: Evidence for a Young Earth (that\\\\\\\'s not billions of years old) That is not a typo. That is what the title looks like.  It has information like this:

I remember one day back in 2004 I was on my way to a speaking engagement when I stopped into a Detroit area science store to browse, and I noticed a fossilized bone sitting on the shelf for sale. The sign said it was “50 million years old”, so I asked the clerk how she knew it was 50 million years old. She said “let me get the owner, he\\\'s a retired scientist”. The owner came out and I politely asked him how he knew the bone was 50 million years old. He said it had been dated to be that. When I reminded him that you can\\\'t radiometrically date organic material to an age in the millions, he said “well, yes, that\\\'s true. It\\\'s dated according to the age of the rocks it was found in”. I thought about bringing up the fact that evolutionary scientists also happen to date the rocks according to how old the fossils are that are found in them, but I didn\\\'t have time to get into that debate. (In the Top Ten Proofs for a Young Earth – 2 CD Set, it explains about the circular reasoning that is actually used to date rocks and fossils by using the so-called “dates” of each other to “date” each other).

Aside from the naked plug for his “2 CD set,” this is mostly nonsense and has been easily refuted. Dating is not circular, and there are plenty of arguments put forth by professional geologists that show that dating is very reliable.  That TTT would be using these sites as authoritative, scientific refutations of material in the textbooks is astounding.  It is difficult to understand why anyone would take these people seriously

Kurt Warner on Evolution: Is Ben Roethlisberger Evolved?

Inquistr recounts the episode of Kurt Warner waxing on the theory of evolution in his live NFL show.  First, I thought it was pretty funny.  I also think the reaction is way overblown.  Here is what he said:

“I’m not fully buying the evolutionary theory where one species transforms into another,” he said. “But if we’re talking about the idea that every species has the ability to adapt over time, well then I’m all in. As a matter of fact, I’ve actually seen this happen in a group I’ve been studying for years: NFL quarterbacks. And the subject of my latest evidence is that man right there: big Ben Ben Roethlisberger.”

It is obvious that Kurt Warner knows next to nothing about evolutionary theory and his mention of it in passing is silly but he is making a point about the mental transformation of Ben Roethlisberger, who is a much better quarterback than when he first entered the league.  He is following the same path that Brett Favre traveled.  Favre, if you will remember, in his early career, would throw any pass, no matter how ill-advised.  As he matured (evolved, if you will) he got better at passing and more discerning. 

All that needs to happen at this point is to politely point out to Kurt Warner that he got the basics of the theory of evolution wrong and move on.  This episode speaks to the larger issue of bad science education but is, in no way, on the level of the nonsense that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort promote every chance they get.  This flame war is unnecessary. 

More Criminal Charges for Kent Hovind?

According to an article in Forbes, Kent Hovind, the former Dr. Dino and, at one point, a big player in young earth creationist circles, is in trouble with the law again.  Peter J. Reilly writes:

The latest criminal charge relates to the efforts that the IRS has been making to collect from Kent Hovind. Real property in Pensacola had been forfeited to the government. In 2012, there was an injunction against Creation Science Evangelism and its representative and agents from seeking to file liens on the forfeited property. Nonetheless, a lien was filed – a lis pendens.

Reilly thinks that this is a bogus filing.  It is somewhat complex but the idea is that Hovind has been filing suits against the government for what he feels to be a suppression of evidence against him and this lien was just one more such suit.  The government is, now, turning around and charging him with criminal contempt.  Reilly suggests that this is a poor use of government funds.  I am inclined to agree.

Hat Tip to Panda's Thumb.

"At This Point, It looks Like They Just Dropped down Out of the Sky."

That is what a prominent palaeontologist once said about ichthyosaurs a few years back because their appearance in the fossil record gave little indication of where they had come from.  That has changed.  The Washington Post, in provocative fashion, has an article titled: Newly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists. Rachel Feltman writes

Researchers report that they've found the missing link between an ancient aquatic predator and its ancestors on land. Ichthyosaurs, the dolphin-like reptiles that lived in the sea during the time of the dinosaurs, evolved from terrestrial creatures that made their way back into the water over time.

But the fossil record for the lineage has been spotty, without a clear link between land-based reptiles and the aquatic ichthyosaurs scientists know came after. Now, researchers report in Nature that they've found that link — an amphibious ancestor of the swimming ichthyosaurs named  Cartorhynchus lenticarpus.

How is this a problem for creationists?

"Many creationists have tried to portray ichthyosaurs as being contrary to evolution," said lead author Ryosuke Motani, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California Davis. "We knew based on their bone structure that they were reptiles, and that their ancestors lived on land at some time, but they were fully adapted to life in the water. So creationists would say, well, they couldn't have evolved from those reptiles, because where's the link?"

Now the link has been found.

According to the researchers, this animal had larger bones and flippers, flexible wrists and a shorter snout, all which would have been a decided disadvantage in deep ocean water but are much more in keeping with the morphology of coastal animals. Of this transition, Feltman writes:

When other vertebrates have evolved from land to sea living, they've gone through stages where they're amphibious and heavy. Their thick bones probably allowed them to fight the power of strong coastal waves and stay grounded in shallow waters. Sure enough, this new fossil has much thicker bones than previously examined ichthyosaurs.

Another piece of the puzzle and one less argument for young-earth creationists to use.

Meanwhile, In Scotland...

On November 11, a hearing will take place in Glasgow to air a petition that will call for official guidelines that would bar teaching of creationism and ID in Scottish schools.  A local organization, C4ID (Centre for Intelligent Design) has responded to this petition.  The Scotland Herald writes:

The petition, to be heard on November 11, calls for official guidance to be issued in schools barring the presentation of creationist and Young Earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the science of evolution.

It has been backed by three Nobel-winning British scientists - Sir Harold Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir John Sulston.

Alastair Noble, director of C4ID, said his organisation believed the petition was based on imposing a "particular world view".

He ­acknowledged the idea of teaching "for and against" evolution would be controversial, but claimed it was consistent with scientific method.

But Paul Braterman, an honorary senior research fellow in chemistry at Glasgow University and committee member of the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE), a campaign to keep religion out of science classes, said C4ID was using "tired" arguments that were "merely a stalking horse for creationism".

Spencer Fildes, chairman of the Scottish Secular Society, said its concerns were about protecting science. "If you are in religious and moral education, then by all means you can philosophise about this," he said. "Students and children are welcome to discuss it, as long as it is contextual.

"Unfortunately, this does not happen, hence the reason why we have raised the petition."

This is more the David Klinghoffer arm of the ID argument, than the Stephen Meyer arm—and it tends not to carry as much traction because it specifically relies on the morality argument, which carries no weight in the science classroom.  This argument seems to regard science as some sort of "truth," to be compared to religious truth and it is nothing of the sort. 

HuffPo: Anti-Evolution Republicans

HuffPo has a post on notable Republicans that are notably anti-evolution, some of which i have profiled.  One such induhvidual is Paul Broun, of Georgia.  Of Broun, Paige Lavender writes:

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) is one of the most vocal evolution critics in Congress. In October 2012, Broun -- a doctor who serves as chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee's subcommittee on oversight -- said the teachings of evolution, embryology and the big-bang theory are based on "lies straight from the pit of hell."

...Broun won't be returning to Congress in 2015, but his likely replacement -- Republican radio host Jody Hice -- has similarly pro-creationist views. In July 2014, Hice said mass shootings like those at the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater; Virginia Tech; and Columbine High take place because "we promote the concept of evolution" in American schools.

She continues:

Aaron Miller, who ran in the 2014 GOP primary for Congress in Minnesota, said a big reason he ran for Congress was to end classroom instruction on evolution. Miller lost that primary, despite nabbing the endorsement of former state Rep. Allen Quist (R), who once said he believes dinosaurs coexisted with man.

There are anti-evolution democrats, to be sure.  HuffPo could not be be bothered to find them, of course.  Nonetheless, these are high-profile republicans who drag the party down.

The Pope Has Spoken (and He Sounds Like the Last Couple of Popes)

Pope Francis has, according to CNN, taken a stand against creationism. Heidi Schlumpf writes:

Liberal American Catholics greet almost anything uttered by Pope Francis with glee, but his latest pronouncement has them scratching their heads. Headlines proclaiming "Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real" could have been written in 1950.

That's when Pope Pius XII announced that Catholic doctrine and evolution could be compatible, an attitude endorsed--and even expanded upon--by Pope John Paul II, who said evolution is "more than a hypothesis" and "effectively proven fact." Pope Francis is just following in those footsteps.

"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the creator who brought everything to life," the Pope said Monday in an address to a gathering on "Evolving Concepts of Nature," hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of things that evolve."

As Schlumpf notes, Benedict appeared to waffle some on evolution initially before concluding that, yes, it was a good, sound theory.  Not so with Francis.  While this is, not necessarily new news, that Francis is getting the position out into the open is a good thing and a needed counter to organizations like AiG.  

Fred Clark on Croco-Ducks, Kirk Cameron, Creationism and Spinosaurus

Fred Clark, over at Patheos has an interesting post in which he notes the discovery of Spinosaurus, a dinosaur from Hell that was 50 feet long with six-foot spines, and has been called a "half duck, half crocodile."  This has produced a good deal of amusement on the part of a number of commentators who remember the idiotic statement on Fox News made by Kirk Cameron (under the tutelage of Banana Ray) that evolution could not possibly be true because he had never seen a Crocoduck.  Now we actually have one and the world is waiting for his response. We might be waiting a long time.  Clark has this to say:

What’s really amazing about this video isn’t Cameron’s unintentional Nostradamus-like evolution prediction skills, it’s what’s going to happen next.

Nothing.

Despite the damning evidence, we won’t see any creationist anywhere budge for their deeply entrenched position of denial.

You see, to any logical person not bound blindly to ideology it is clear that this is yet one more nail in the coffin of creationism. Probably, the most ironic nail of all.

But I’m betting we won’t hear a peep out of Cameron’s camp.

Why?

Because arrogance and denial are the foundation of fundamentalism.

You see, they had no problem arrogantly denouncing evolution in their ridiculous video because that’s what fundamentalism is built upon – the arrogance of ignorance.

The reason for this is something that I have danced around for some time but never come right out and accused the leaders of modern day creationism of: straight-up dishonesty. He continues:

Poor Kirk Cameron is a willing, but not an able, spokesman for “scientific creationism.” What he’s shooting for here is the young-Earth creationists’ claim that the fossil record is full of missing links — that transitional fossils have never been found.

The professional scientific creationists — the folks who are well-versed in this stuff and make their living promoting it — know that’s a lie. And because they know it to be a lie, they understand how the lie is meant to work, and thus they’re able to tell that lie much better than Cameron. He believes it, but he clearly has no idea what it is he believes. So he goes for the “croco-duck,” which demonstrates about the same level of understanding as the ever-popular, “Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys? Hah!” argument.

If you repeat a lie long enough, more people will believe it. But that does not make it any less of a lie.

Freshwater Out of Appeals

The Columbus Dispatch reports that former Mt. Vernon school teacher John Freshwater was, correctly, dismissed from his job:

A silent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday puts the weight of the nation’s highest court behind what Ohio’s high court already found: that former Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater was rightly fired in 2008 for refusing a direct order to remove religious materials from his science classroom.

This puts a merciful end to Freshwater’s slog through an administrative appeal that dragged out over two years and cost the district’s taxpayers nearly $1 million, followed by an unsuccessful appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and on to the nation’s high court.

Finally.

Tyler Francke: The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all

I hate it when I discover a resource that I should have known about all along.  I just ran across Tyler Francke's blog God of Evolution.  He has written a post titled: The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all. His opening point is one that I made in the last post about Ken Ham and have reiterated numerous times on this blog:

1. You think “it hasn’t been observed” is a good argument against it.
Popularized most recently by Ray Comfort’s mind-bendingly bad, gospel-poisoning movie, “Evolution vs. God,” this claim generally betrays not only a misunderstanding of evolution, but science in general. If the idea (that “scientific evidence must be both observable and repeatable”) were carried to its logical conclusion, it would cripple not only the study of evolution, but every line of historical inquiry. We would, in fact, be prohibited from exploring most matters that cannot be brought inside or recreated within a laboratory, whether they be large (the composition and origin of stars, for example) or small (like the forensic recreation of a crime scene).

Making viable conclusions based on inferences from the available evidence is not at all unscientific, and it is this reasoning that has compelled us toward the theory of evolution. Interestingly, evolution is observable and repeatable in the sense that scientists can make and test predictions of the theory, and this is exactly what they have been doing for more than a century.

Throughout the rest of the post, he hits on every single one of the myths of evolution , many of which I have heard uttered by some of my friends (well, all except the Pokemon one). It is a litany of anti-evolution positions held by most of the general public with concise rebuttals.

And anybody who refers to Ray Comfort as “Banana Ray” gets my vote.