I subscribe to Acts and Facts, the ICR's monthly magazine. It always contains a piece by John D. Morris, the son of ICR founder, the late Henry Morris. This month's piece is called "What if Evolution Were True?"

Its hard to find more disinformation in any six paragraphs of creationist literature anywhere. I have commented in parentheses. He writes:

What if all life evolved from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes as Darwin suggested? What evidence would we expect to find? Certainly we would expect to find the fossilized remains of the myriads of ancestral creatures which lived and died over the millenia. (We have.) At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. (they were). Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still elude us. (No they don't.)

He continues:

We would also expect to discover a universal trend in science which leads to more complexity in nature, paving the way for an increase in genetic content. Instead we discover the universal second law of science, which invariable points toward a degradation of quality in every duplication of information, such as in reproduction and more randomness in every unguided process.

For the umpteenth time, the earth is not a closed system!!!!! John Derbeyshire is right. WHACK!!!

Steve Paulson of Salon.com has an interview with Ronald Numbers. In it, he points out something not well known, I don't think:

There's a stereotype that creationists just aren't that smart. I mean, how can you ignore the steady accumulation of scientific evidence for evolution? Is this a question of intelligence or education?

Not fundamentally. There is a slight skewing of anti-evolutionists toward lower levels of education. But it's not huge. One recent poll showed that a quarter of college graduates in America reject evolution. So it's not education itself that's doing this. There are really dumb creationists and there are really dumb evolutionists. Of the 10 founders of the Creation Research Society, five of them earned doctorates in the biological sciences from major universities. Another had a Ph.D. from Berkeley in biochemistry. Another had a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. These were not dumb, uneducated people. They rejected evolution for religious and, they would say, scientific reasons.

If you haven't read Numbers' book, The Creationists, I would highly recommend it. Its disappointing that he has not been able to reconcile his belief with his science.

Taner Edis, who teaches physics at Truman State University, has written a book titled The Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam. I plainly have too much to read.

I just picked up Harun Yahya's 750-page Atlas of Creation. You, too, can get yours here.

Sequencing the Neandertal DNA.

I hear the New York Times has a story on human origins by John Noble Wilford. I won't link it but if you do a search for it, it will probably come up.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has an entire section on the creationism museum here. Be sure to catch the second article involving the lawsuit that has been filed against Answers in Genesis by another creationist group. It is nothing short of surreal.

Creationism as a threat to human rights? Oddly, it seems that the focus is not against the Christian fundamentalist movement, however:

"All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude," it added, noting that Pope Benedict XVI stated in a recent book that the Catholic Church did not share the creationists' Biblical literalism. The report highlighted a recent Muslim creationist campaign by Turkish writer Harun Yahya, whose lavish 750-page "Atlas of Creation" has been distributed free to schools in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain.
The report cited University of Paris biologist Herve Le Guyader, who called the challenge from Islamic thinkers "much more dangerous than the previous creationist initiatives, which were often of Anglo-Saxon origin."

It is still silly to call it a threat to human rights.

Tom McNamee of the Chicao Sun Times has an editorial on the Field Museum's stance on evolution. He begins:

Right from the get-go, there on a sign at the entrance to the Evolution exhibit at the Field Museum, real science takes a stand: "Evolution is one of science's best-supported theories." Perfect. A profound truth flatly stated, without a hint of equivocation.

His article is highly critical of the ID creationism position but in it, he has a throw away line that is, perhaps, symptomatic of why the debate is so polarizing.

And then there was that debate on TV a couple of weeks ago among the nine men running for the Republican nomination for president. When the moderator asked them to raise their hands if they ''didn't believe in evolution," three hands went up -- Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

I was stunned. I was mortified.

I turned to my son and shook my head and said: "Jesus. ..."

The use of "Jesus" as a swear word shows contempt for all things Christian and just makes Christians dig in their heels. Anyone who takes their Christian faith seriously and was reading the editorial just got mad and turned the page. Also, as a Christian who supports the theory of evolution, it just makes my job a whole lot harder. If it seems as though I am focusing on something seemingly minute here, consider that the use of the word "Jesus" as a swear word causes the same sort of moral outrage in Christians that the Mohammed cartoons did for your average Muslim. No, we don't react violently because we are told not to, but the insult level is the same.

The Council of Europe has refused to debate a resolution on creationism. William Dembski doesn't like the resolution to begin with.

Robert Pringle and Paul Ehrlich have an editorial in the Sacramento Bee about Senator Sam Brownback's evolution stance. In response to Senator Brownback's assertion that no one has ever witnessed speciation, they have an interesting analogy:

Brownback's argument rests on the fact that no person has ever seen a species produced by a gradual process. Then again, no person has ever seen a giant redwood tree grow from a seed. But one can find redwood trees of all sizes and observe their incremental growth within years.

Good point.

Inherit the Wind is playing on Broadway with Christopher Plummer and Brian Dennehy. Now that would be a good show!!

Most of the time, I am a card-carrying Republican (although that is probably more because I disagree with just about all of the positions in the DNC platform than that I am happy with the current Republican leadership, which I am not). Sometimes I just plain break with the party, though.

Well, this sort of turns the forest fringe argument on its head. Bipedalism may not have been as unique as it is thought. From the Knoxville News Sentinel article:

Starting about 24 million years ago, the rain forests in East and Central Africa dwindled and became patchy. Apes that had spent almost their entire lives in the forest canopy had to walk from tree to tree.

Early human ancestors probably spent more time feeding on the forest floor, the researchers say. Compared to balancing on a springy branch, walking on the ground would have been easy.

The ancestors of chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, became more specialized at going up and down trees — holding on with both their hands and feet. They kept that same posture on the ground, which is why they often knuckle-walk, supporting their weight with their hands as well as their feet.

It has been long thought that humans evolved because they alone could exploit the forest fringe environment while the monkeys took over the savannah and the higher apes took over the forest.

Got the quiz to work. It is nothing short of astounding and is on a third grade level.

Great. When I go to get the ecards, it tells me i have an invalid email address.

ChristiaNet has a page of "Free Evolution Tracts." FORE!!

Here is a somewhat more in-depth article courtesy of the AP. Since it is from the AP, though, you never know how much to believe.

A huge flightless bird/dinosaur fossil has been unearthed in China. From the USA Today story by Calum MacLeod:

BEIJING — The dinosaur world's latest star had a toothless beak, waved feathered arms incapable of flight and may have hunted only plants. But if you met Gigantoraptor erlianensis in a Mongolian forest 70 million years ago, best to have given it a wide berth. At more than 16 feet tall and roughly 3,000 pounds, the beast could stand eyeball-to-eyeball with a tyrannosaur, Chinese researchers say.

According to the paper in Nature, this find remarkably resembles other finds where feathers are present, hence the designation. It is awfully big to have feathers, though.

There doesn't seem to be much going on in the news today but I will post something if it does turn up. In the meantime, perusal of just about any newspaper will turn up a letter about either the creation museum or a related topic.