https://theconversation.com/why-creationism-bears-all-the-hallmarks-of-a-conspiracy-theory-153831
https://theconversation.com/how-to-slam-dunk-creationists-when-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581
Showing posts with label Liars for Jeebus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liars for Jeebus. Show all posts
Friday, March 26, 2021
Thursday, February 4, 2021
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
This is about anti-science god-soaked assholes in Texas.
A Creationist is Angry He Can’t Get a Grad School Degree in Creationism
BY HEMANT MEHTA
JANUARY 12, 2021
In 2007, the Institute for Creation Research — yes, that’s really a place — wanted to offer a Master of Science degree with a major in Science Education in the state of Texas. In order for that degree to have more value than a sheet of toilet paper, however, a school needs proper accreditation.
They didn’t get it because they didn’t meet basic science standards. How could they? They don’t teach science. They make up stories that align with their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and pass it off as science.
ICR then filed a lawsuit against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board claiming they were victims of religious discrimination. They lost that case in 2010.
It didn’t take long for ICR to close its grad school. It still offers a Master of Christian Education degree through its School of Biblical Apologetics (because the state doesn’t regulate how Christian schools teach Christian myth).
The year all that drama went down, a man named Chris Ashcroft wrote an article for Creation Ministries International’s Journal of Creation in which he complained about how his attempt to get a graduate degree in Creationism was hampered by Texas refusing to grant accreditation to the school.
The recent court ruling (against the ICRGS) that Biblically based science does not qualify to be called “science” is nothing short of religious discrimination. With similar rulings against Christian institutions being seen around the globe, it is clear that we will soon see the end of Christian education if people do not act.
It’s been a decade since he published that article, and Ashcroft just recycled it for a local website called AllOnGeorgia. Even the citations haven’t been updated… which is just *chef’s kiss* for something written by a Creationist. Why bother updating the story with new information when you’re stuck in an old way of thinking?
In any case, to answer the question at the top of his article — “Is there a future for Christian education?” — of course there is. There’s value in learning about Christianity. But there’s no educational value in treating fiction as fact, or pretending that religious mythology is a valid substitute for science.
No one deserves credit for getting a degree in bullshit.
BY HEMANT MEHTA
JANUARY 12, 2021
In 2007, the Institute for Creation Research — yes, that’s really a place — wanted to offer a Master of Science degree with a major in Science Education in the state of Texas. In order for that degree to have more value than a sheet of toilet paper, however, a school needs proper accreditation.
They didn’t get it because they didn’t meet basic science standards. How could they? They don’t teach science. They make up stories that align with their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and pass it off as science.
ICR then filed a lawsuit against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board claiming they were victims of religious discrimination. They lost that case in 2010.
It didn’t take long for ICR to close its grad school. It still offers a Master of Christian Education degree through its School of Biblical Apologetics (because the state doesn’t regulate how Christian schools teach Christian myth).
The year all that drama went down, a man named Chris Ashcroft wrote an article for Creation Ministries International’s Journal of Creation in which he complained about how his attempt to get a graduate degree in Creationism was hampered by Texas refusing to grant accreditation to the school.
The recent court ruling (against the ICRGS) that Biblically based science does not qualify to be called “science” is nothing short of religious discrimination. With similar rulings against Christian institutions being seen around the globe, it is clear that we will soon see the end of Christian education if people do not act.
It’s been a decade since he published that article, and Ashcroft just recycled it for a local website called AllOnGeorgia. Even the citations haven’t been updated… which is just *chef’s kiss* for something written by a Creationist. Why bother updating the story with new information when you’re stuck in an old way of thinking?
In any case, to answer the question at the top of his article — “Is there a future for Christian education?” — of course there is. There’s value in learning about Christianity. But there’s no educational value in treating fiction as fact, or pretending that religious mythology is a valid substitute for science.
No one deserves credit for getting a degree in bullshit.
Wednesday, January 6, 2021
Some Idiot America bullshit.
This Short Film About Ark Encounter Functions as an Unintentional Advertisement
JANUARY 6, 2021
The New York Times just published a brief 12-minute documentary on Ark Encounter, the supposed Noah’s Ark “replica” in Kentucky that has long been a glaring tribute to Creationism in America. It’s part of their long-running “op-docs” series meant to be a “forum for short, opinionated documentaries by independent filmmakers.”
Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert doesn’t give us much of a deep dive here — Ken Ham doesn’t even make an appearance — but that’s not necessarily his goal. He’s really just introducing viewers to the fact that this place exists. There’s no opinion offered about the Bible story, or Creationism, or how the $100 million travesty has hurt the local community, or how Answers in Genesis discriminates in hiring.
We hear from one local business owner who appreciates the Ark because “Williamstown was finally getting something. Because all of our businesses in Williamstown closed.” That belief can’t be discounted, but a more thorough film could have included commentary on what Williamstown lost in the long-term in exchange for that short-term boost.
Ultimately, it functions as an unintentional advertisement for the Ark precisely because there’s nothing critical about it in the film. It’s like Republican senators appearing on a Sunday morning talk show; unless the host directly calls them out on their bullshit, it’s another opportunity for them to pretend like they’re normal politicians.
It would be bad for viewers if they came away from this short movie thinking Ark Encounter was just this nifty attraction in Kentucky — Look! Zip lines! And ice skating rink! — and not a symbol of Christian ignorance, wasted money, and poor government decision-making. Much like Ham’s debate with Bill Nye, you can bet Creationists will treat the film itself as a win for them, telling potential donors that they have received positive attention from a mainstream publication.
That may not have been Seifert’s goal, but that may well be the end result.
JANUARY 6, 2021
The New York Times just published a brief 12-minute documentary on Ark Encounter, the supposed Noah’s Ark “replica” in Kentucky that has long been a glaring tribute to Creationism in America. It’s part of their long-running “op-docs” series meant to be a “forum for short, opinionated documentaries by independent filmmakers.”
Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert doesn’t give us much of a deep dive here — Ken Ham doesn’t even make an appearance — but that’s not necessarily his goal. He’s really just introducing viewers to the fact that this place exists. There’s no opinion offered about the Bible story, or Creationism, or how the $100 million travesty has hurt the local community, or how Answers in Genesis discriminates in hiring.
We hear from one local business owner who appreciates the Ark because “Williamstown was finally getting something. Because all of our businesses in Williamstown closed.” That belief can’t be discounted, but a more thorough film could have included commentary on what Williamstown lost in the long-term in exchange for that short-term boost.
Ultimately, it functions as an unintentional advertisement for the Ark precisely because there’s nothing critical about it in the film. It’s like Republican senators appearing on a Sunday morning talk show; unless the host directly calls them out on their bullshit, it’s another opportunity for them to pretend like they’re normal politicians.
It would be bad for viewers if they came away from this short movie thinking Ark Encounter was just this nifty attraction in Kentucky — Look! Zip lines! And ice skating rink! — and not a symbol of Christian ignorance, wasted money, and poor government decision-making. Much like Ham’s debate with Bill Nye, you can bet Creationists will treat the film itself as a win for them, telling potential donors that they have received positive attention from a mainstream publication.
That may not have been Seifert’s goal, but that may well be the end result.
Thursday, December 31, 2020
This is what I wrote at the Wall Street Journal for a stupid fucking asshole who wants to throw out science because evolution makes this moron for Jeebus cry. This is more "Idiot America" stuff. Americans are just plain fucking stupid.
The asshole for Jeebus wrote this bullshit:
David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, And David Gelernter have recent books on the mathematics and the impossibility of Darwin's creation theories.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is what I wrote for the know-nothing god-soaked retard:
Stephen Meyer is a member of the Christian Creationist Discovery Institute which has never discovered anything. It's an anti-science organization. Biologists call it "Crackpot Central". Evolution makes them cry. They have a long history of dishonesty. Also, they are trying to suppress the teaching of evolution in public schools.
You will never learn anything about science from crackpots.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is what I wanted to write for the moron:
Grow up and educate yourself you fucking retard.
David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, And David Gelernter have recent books on the mathematics and the impossibility of Darwin's creation theories.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is what I wrote for the know-nothing god-soaked retard:
Stephen Meyer is a member of the Christian Creationist Discovery Institute which has never discovered anything. It's an anti-science organization. Biologists call it "Crackpot Central". Evolution makes them cry. They have a long history of dishonesty. Also, they are trying to suppress the teaching of evolution in public schools.
You will never learn anything about science from crackpots.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is what I wanted to write for the moron:
Grow up and educate yourself you fucking retard.
Thursday, December 24, 2020
Idiot America has millions of these anti-science Christian assholes. The overwhelming stupid, it burns out of control.
This stupid fucking asshole lives in Morrison County. "A county in the East Central part of the U.S. state of Minnesota. As of the 2010 United States Census, the population was 33,198. Its county seat is Little Falls. Camp Ripley Military Reservation occupies a significant area in north-central Morrison County." Wikipedia
This is what the stupid fucking asshole wrote. Evolution makes this dishonest know-nothing Christian asshole cry. The science teachers in this fucktard town are probably science deniers, which is typical in Idiot America. I'm not making this up. Most of America's biology teachers don't know anything about biology. The country is fucked up and it will always be fucked up. There is no cure for Idiot America stupidity. This asshole calls evolution "evolutionism". What a stupid fucking asshole. And he advertises his favorite Bible websites. What a fucking retard.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
To the Editor:
I’m writing this in response to West Words on “Reconciling Faith and Evolution at Christmas.” He needs to do some more homework.
Evolution is going the way of the dinosaur due to modern scientific evidence. More and more scientists in every field are becoming Creationists as the outdated “evidence” of evolution is overshadowed by modern discoveries that reveal The Theory (yes, theory, not law) of Evolution to be what it truly is: a desperate (and not very tenable) attempt to prove that there is no God and that there is no need for a God.
Evolutionism was a valid theory in Darwin’s time, but if he had the evidence available to him that we have today, Darwin himself would probably not believe in Darwinian evolution.
I don’t have space here to even scratch the surface, but I’ll point to where you can learn more about Creationism. Check out one of these websites, pick a topic and start reading: www.answersingenesis.org or www.icr.org. Or just step outside and take a close look at the world. Random chance? All from some primordial slime? I think not.
This is what the stupid fucking asshole wrote. Evolution makes this dishonest know-nothing Christian asshole cry. The science teachers in this fucktard town are probably science deniers, which is typical in Idiot America. I'm not making this up. Most of America's biology teachers don't know anything about biology. The country is fucked up and it will always be fucked up. There is no cure for Idiot America stupidity. This asshole calls evolution "evolutionism". What a stupid fucking asshole. And he advertises his favorite Bible websites. What a fucking retard.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
To the Editor:
I’m writing this in response to West Words on “Reconciling Faith and Evolution at Christmas.” He needs to do some more homework.
Evolution is going the way of the dinosaur due to modern scientific evidence. More and more scientists in every field are becoming Creationists as the outdated “evidence” of evolution is overshadowed by modern discoveries that reveal The Theory (yes, theory, not law) of Evolution to be what it truly is: a desperate (and not very tenable) attempt to prove that there is no God and that there is no need for a God.
Evolutionism was a valid theory in Darwin’s time, but if he had the evidence available to him that we have today, Darwin himself would probably not believe in Darwinian evolution.
I don’t have space here to even scratch the surface, but I’ll point to where you can learn more about Creationism. Check out one of these websites, pick a topic and start reading: www.answersingenesis.org or www.icr.org. Or just step outside and take a close look at the world. Random chance? All from some primordial slime? I think not.
Saturday, November 7, 2020
Jerry Coyne wrote this 9 years ago but nothing has changed since then. Idiot America is still infested with stupid fucking assholes for Jeebus. Evolution makes these professional morons cry.
Review of: Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
in Nature, 410, (2001) 745-46
Creationism by Stealth
By Jerry Coyne
In 1976, Jonathan Wells a student in Moon's seminary, answered his leader's call. Wells writes, "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." The University of California supplied Wells with his weapon, a PhD in biology and, with Icons of Evolution, Wells has fired the latest salvo in the eternal religious assault on Charles Darwin.
This personal history, taken from the Unification Church website (http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm), is conspicuously missing from the author's biography in Icons. The book, aimed at the non-specialist, masquerades as a scientific critique of classic examples of evolution, but is actually a polemic intelligently designed to please Father Moon. Icons is a work of stealth creationism, and strives to debunk darwinism using the familiar rhetoric of biblical creationists, including scientific quotations out of context, incomplete summaries of research, and muddled arguments. But because Wells has scientific credentials, studiously avoids mentioning religion or God (who appears only under the alias "intelligent design"), and presents his book as an objective critique (complete with 70 pages of references and research notes), it is easy for the non-scientist to be taken in. Icons has been embraced with glee by anti-evolutionists, who want it included in the American school science curriculum.
Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: hence, textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction. The second premise is not generally true, and even if it were, the conclusion would not follow. To compound the absurdity, Wells concludes that a cabal of evil scientists, "the Darwinian establishment", uses fraud and distortion to buttress the crumbling edifice of evolution. Wells' final chapter urges his readers to lobby the US government to eliminate research funding for evolutionary biology.
To see his argument at work, let's look at development, which Wells has referred to elsewhere as "the Achilles' heel of Darwinism". As Darwin first realized, some aspects of vertebrate development — especially transitory features — provide strong evidence for common ancestry and evolution. Embryos of different vertebrates tend to resemble one another in early stages, but diverge as development proceeds, with more closely related species diverging less widely. This conclusion has been supported by 150 years of research.
Wells tries to refute this mountain of work by noting that, in 1891, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel published illustrations of vertebrate embryos that exaggerated their similarity, and that some biology textbooks still display these doctored drawings. This embroidery, however, was first reported by the British zoologist Adam Sedgwick in 1894, and has repeatedly been used to show the failings not of darwinism, but of Haeckel (see, for example, Nature 410, 144; 2001).
Despite Wells's arguments, one does not need Haeckel's wishful pencil to draw copious evidence for evolution from developmental biology. Human embryos, for example, have pharyngeal pouches, a tail and six aortic arches — all features found in embryonic fish. But our pouches become glands and ducts instead of gill slits, our tail disappears, and our aortic arches (which remain six in some fish) either disappear or are transformed into carotid, systemic and pulmonary arteries. In our first trimester we develop the lanugo, a coat of hair that is shed before birth.
Are these patterns mere whims of the Intelligent Designer, or evidence of our common ancestry with fish and furry primates? Embryos of whales and some snakes develop hindlimb buds that regress before birth; embryos of baleen whales possess teeth that later disappear; and horse embryos have three well-developed toes, with the outer two shrinking to leave the single-digit hoof. Such examples abound, but you won't find them in Icons.
Wells also notes that the earliest vertebrate embryos (mere balls of cells) are often less similar to one another than they are at subsequent stages when they possess more complex features. According to Wells, this counts as evidence against biological evolution, which supposedly predicts that the similarities among groups will be strongest at the very first stages of development. But darwinism makes no such prediction. Darwin himself noted that embryos must adapt to the conditions of their existence, and the earliest stages of vertebrate embryos show adaptation to widely varying amounts of yolk in their eggs. Wells repeatedly fails to grasp the evidential value of phenomena that can be understood only as the result of a historical process, even if the results were not predictable. Perhaps an observer in the early Cenozoic could not have predicted that a lineage of ungulates would lose their hindlimbs as they became aquatic, but the development of the hindlimb in embryonic whales can be understood only as a result of descent with modification from a four-legged ancestor.
When discussing other 'icons', Wells uses the same tactic of selective omission to distort a body of literature he pretends to review. Nowhere is this more visible than in his chapter on human evolution. Faced with a series of hominid fossils showing transitions from ape-like to modern human traits over 4 million years, Wells can only mumble about the Piltdown Man hoax, and imply that the vigorous scientific debate about the course of human evolution proves that humans did not evolve.
It is telling that, although Wells repeatedly attacks evolution, he gives no hint of his own ideas about the origin and development of life. There is good reason for this. As one learns from his website sermon, Evolution by Design, Wells believes that "the human species was planned before life began, and that the history of life is the record of how this plan was implemented". To Wells, the fossil record does not represent a continuum of ancestry, but a succession of creations by the Intelligent Designer, with each species carefully devised to nurture the next product of creation up to the final goal, humans.
But this argument is blasphemous, for its logical consequence is that the pinnacle of evolution is not Homo sapiens but our ectoparasite Pediculus humanus, the body louse. It also turns the Great Designer into a Great Deceiver, who, in the manner of Satan, put fossils in the rocks — and tails on embryos — to mislead biologists of the future.
Finally, Wells's main theme about the collusion of evolutionary biologists is simply wrong. Authors of some biology texts may occasionally be sloppy, or slow to incorporate new research, but they are not duplicitous. And, far from representing a conspiracy, it is invariably evolutionists (including myself) who have noted problems with some classic icons of evolution. Wells has it backwards. It is creationists like him who are conspiring to purge evolution from American education. They hide their own differences about issues such as the fossil record and the age of the Earth, they pretend to be disinterested seekers after truth, they fail to do their own scientific research, and, like Wells, they avoid at all costs revealing their own theories about the history of life. Icons is exactly as even-handed and intellectually honest as one would expect from someone whose "prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism".
in Nature, 410, (2001) 745-46
Creationism by Stealth
By Jerry Coyne
In 1976, Jonathan Wells a student in Moon's seminary, answered his leader's call. Wells writes, "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." The University of California supplied Wells with his weapon, a PhD in biology and, with Icons of Evolution, Wells has fired the latest salvo in the eternal religious assault on Charles Darwin.
This personal history, taken from the Unification Church website (http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm), is conspicuously missing from the author's biography in Icons. The book, aimed at the non-specialist, masquerades as a scientific critique of classic examples of evolution, but is actually a polemic intelligently designed to please Father Moon. Icons is a work of stealth creationism, and strives to debunk darwinism using the familiar rhetoric of biblical creationists, including scientific quotations out of context, incomplete summaries of research, and muddled arguments. But because Wells has scientific credentials, studiously avoids mentioning religion or God (who appears only under the alias "intelligent design"), and presents his book as an objective critique (complete with 70 pages of references and research notes), it is easy for the non-scientist to be taken in. Icons has been embraced with glee by anti-evolutionists, who want it included in the American school science curriculum.
Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: hence, textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction. The second premise is not generally true, and even if it were, the conclusion would not follow. To compound the absurdity, Wells concludes that a cabal of evil scientists, "the Darwinian establishment", uses fraud and distortion to buttress the crumbling edifice of evolution. Wells' final chapter urges his readers to lobby the US government to eliminate research funding for evolutionary biology.
To see his argument at work, let's look at development, which Wells has referred to elsewhere as "the Achilles' heel of Darwinism". As Darwin first realized, some aspects of vertebrate development — especially transitory features — provide strong evidence for common ancestry and evolution. Embryos of different vertebrates tend to resemble one another in early stages, but diverge as development proceeds, with more closely related species diverging less widely. This conclusion has been supported by 150 years of research.
Wells tries to refute this mountain of work by noting that, in 1891, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel published illustrations of vertebrate embryos that exaggerated their similarity, and that some biology textbooks still display these doctored drawings. This embroidery, however, was first reported by the British zoologist Adam Sedgwick in 1894, and has repeatedly been used to show the failings not of darwinism, but of Haeckel (see, for example, Nature 410, 144; 2001).
Despite Wells's arguments, one does not need Haeckel's wishful pencil to draw copious evidence for evolution from developmental biology. Human embryos, for example, have pharyngeal pouches, a tail and six aortic arches — all features found in embryonic fish. But our pouches become glands and ducts instead of gill slits, our tail disappears, and our aortic arches (which remain six in some fish) either disappear or are transformed into carotid, systemic and pulmonary arteries. In our first trimester we develop the lanugo, a coat of hair that is shed before birth.
Are these patterns mere whims of the Intelligent Designer, or evidence of our common ancestry with fish and furry primates? Embryos of whales and some snakes develop hindlimb buds that regress before birth; embryos of baleen whales possess teeth that later disappear; and horse embryos have three well-developed toes, with the outer two shrinking to leave the single-digit hoof. Such examples abound, but you won't find them in Icons.
Wells also notes that the earliest vertebrate embryos (mere balls of cells) are often less similar to one another than they are at subsequent stages when they possess more complex features. According to Wells, this counts as evidence against biological evolution, which supposedly predicts that the similarities among groups will be strongest at the very first stages of development. But darwinism makes no such prediction. Darwin himself noted that embryos must adapt to the conditions of their existence, and the earliest stages of vertebrate embryos show adaptation to widely varying amounts of yolk in their eggs. Wells repeatedly fails to grasp the evidential value of phenomena that can be understood only as the result of a historical process, even if the results were not predictable. Perhaps an observer in the early Cenozoic could not have predicted that a lineage of ungulates would lose their hindlimbs as they became aquatic, but the development of the hindlimb in embryonic whales can be understood only as a result of descent with modification from a four-legged ancestor.
When discussing other 'icons', Wells uses the same tactic of selective omission to distort a body of literature he pretends to review. Nowhere is this more visible than in his chapter on human evolution. Faced with a series of hominid fossils showing transitions from ape-like to modern human traits over 4 million years, Wells can only mumble about the Piltdown Man hoax, and imply that the vigorous scientific debate about the course of human evolution proves that humans did not evolve.
It is telling that, although Wells repeatedly attacks evolution, he gives no hint of his own ideas about the origin and development of life. There is good reason for this. As one learns from his website sermon, Evolution by Design, Wells believes that "the human species was planned before life began, and that the history of life is the record of how this plan was implemented". To Wells, the fossil record does not represent a continuum of ancestry, but a succession of creations by the Intelligent Designer, with each species carefully devised to nurture the next product of creation up to the final goal, humans.
But this argument is blasphemous, for its logical consequence is that the pinnacle of evolution is not Homo sapiens but our ectoparasite Pediculus humanus, the body louse. It also turns the Great Designer into a Great Deceiver, who, in the manner of Satan, put fossils in the rocks — and tails on embryos — to mislead biologists of the future.
Finally, Wells's main theme about the collusion of evolutionary biologists is simply wrong. Authors of some biology texts may occasionally be sloppy, or slow to incorporate new research, but they are not duplicitous. And, far from representing a conspiracy, it is invariably evolutionists (including myself) who have noted problems with some classic icons of evolution. Wells has it backwards. It is creationists like him who are conspiring to purge evolution from American education. They hide their own differences about issues such as the fossil record and the age of the Earth, they pretend to be disinterested seekers after truth, they fail to do their own scientific research, and, like Wells, they avoid at all costs revealing their own theories about the history of life. Icons is exactly as even-handed and intellectually honest as one would expect from someone whose "prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism".
Saturday, October 24, 2020
Prescott, Arizona is a beautiful place. Unfortunately it's infested with know-nothing anti-science Christian assholes.
Google:
Prescott is a city in central Arizona. Downtown, historic Whiskey Row is known for its bars and live music venues. The Sharlot Hall Museum documents the region’s pioneer-era history. The Smoki Museum exhibits artifacts from indigenous peoples of the Southwest. To the northeast, Watson Lake is home to hundreds of bird species, and a circuit of trails runs among the granite boulders dotting its shore.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A professional asshole for Jeebus is selling his magical creationism fantasy. He calls his magical fantasy "creation science". The fucktard asshole doesn't know what science is. This is typical Idiot America stuff.
Here is the whole disgusting thing. The stupid, it burns.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Creation Science in Prescott This Sunday, October 25, 2020
By David McNabb, Host of The Creation Corner
October 24, 2020
A Creation Science event sponsored by the Prescott Creation Science Association will feature Dr. Kevin Anderson, a microbiologist and professor of biology at the Arizona Christian University in Glendale. Dr. Anderson will speak on the topic, “Why I am a Creationist”. As a microbiologist and academic, Dr. Anderson will examine the scientific principles underlying creation science, e.g. life only from life, problems with the dating methods on which evolutionary theory is based, and the lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record.
This event will be held on Sunday, October 25th, at the Alliance Bible Church, 2601 W Iron Springs Road, in Prescott, beginning at 11:30 AM. An extensive collection of books and DVD’s on Creation Science will be on display.
A second Creation Science event is scheduled for Sunday afternoon. The Yavapai chapter of the Arizona Origin Science Association (AZOSA) has announced that chapter vice president, Joe Sebeny , will be speaking on creationism and the Book of Job, which many Bible scholars believe to be among the oldest scriptural writings in existence. Creationists argue for a much younger earth than theorized by modern science and dispute the dating systems and time lines which are foundational to the various theories of evolution. Although those theories are widely taught in high school and college textbooks, Creation Scientists argue that they remain theories unsupported by key principles of science. In short, creation science brings the scientific method to bear in their critique of evolutionary theory.
The presenter, Joe Sebeny, is an aerospace engineer and rocket scientist with 2 BS degrees from The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a MS degree from the University of New Hampshire. He is also an expert in creation science apologetics which argues that the complex design of the Universe and the existence of human life is unexplained by science alone.
The Book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Hebrew scriptures. The events described occur in the far away land of Uz in what is referred to as the patriarchal period—a period before Moses and priestly law.
Job is described as a righteous man. Yet God allows his faith to be tested thru great suffering and loss. Many commentators think that the purpose of the book of Job is about suffering, but it is not. Mr. Sebeny’s talk will focus on evidence for creationism, incredible scientific insights, and God’s sovereignty within the Book of Job.
The talk will be presented Sunday afternoon, at 4:30 PM, at the Liberty Baptist Church, 3100 Williamson Valley Road, Prescott, Arizona.
For those who are new to Creation Science or just curious to learn what it’s about, these two events are excellent opportunities to hear about the science underlying creationism. Contrary to the arguments of secularists that creation science is anti-science and a form of anti-intellectualism, those holding creationist views include many credentialed professional scientists, often holding advanced degrees from accredited universities. They accept modern principles of science. However, in doing so, they bring the scientific method to bear on the assumptions of evolutionary theory.
Both of these events are free and open to the public. Dr. Anderson and Mr. Sebeny will both take questions at the end of their talks. Skeptics, agnostics, students and seekers of truth are cordially invited to attend.
CREATION SCIENCE, CREATIONIST VIEWS, LECTURES, THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Prescott is a city in central Arizona. Downtown, historic Whiskey Row is known for its bars and live music venues. The Sharlot Hall Museum documents the region’s pioneer-era history. The Smoki Museum exhibits artifacts from indigenous peoples of the Southwest. To the northeast, Watson Lake is home to hundreds of bird species, and a circuit of trails runs among the granite boulders dotting its shore.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A professional asshole for Jeebus is selling his magical creationism fantasy. He calls his magical fantasy "creation science". The fucktard asshole doesn't know what science is. This is typical Idiot America stuff.
Here is the whole disgusting thing. The stupid, it burns.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Creation Science in Prescott This Sunday, October 25, 2020
By David McNabb, Host of The Creation Corner
October 24, 2020
A Creation Science event sponsored by the Prescott Creation Science Association will feature Dr. Kevin Anderson, a microbiologist and professor of biology at the Arizona Christian University in Glendale. Dr. Anderson will speak on the topic, “Why I am a Creationist”. As a microbiologist and academic, Dr. Anderson will examine the scientific principles underlying creation science, e.g. life only from life, problems with the dating methods on which evolutionary theory is based, and the lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record.
This event will be held on Sunday, October 25th, at the Alliance Bible Church, 2601 W Iron Springs Road, in Prescott, beginning at 11:30 AM. An extensive collection of books and DVD’s on Creation Science will be on display.
A second Creation Science event is scheduled for Sunday afternoon. The Yavapai chapter of the Arizona Origin Science Association (AZOSA) has announced that chapter vice president, Joe Sebeny , will be speaking on creationism and the Book of Job, which many Bible scholars believe to be among the oldest scriptural writings in existence. Creationists argue for a much younger earth than theorized by modern science and dispute the dating systems and time lines which are foundational to the various theories of evolution. Although those theories are widely taught in high school and college textbooks, Creation Scientists argue that they remain theories unsupported by key principles of science. In short, creation science brings the scientific method to bear in their critique of evolutionary theory.
The presenter, Joe Sebeny, is an aerospace engineer and rocket scientist with 2 BS degrees from The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a MS degree from the University of New Hampshire. He is also an expert in creation science apologetics which argues that the complex design of the Universe and the existence of human life is unexplained by science alone.
The Book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Hebrew scriptures. The events described occur in the far away land of Uz in what is referred to as the patriarchal period—a period before Moses and priestly law.
Job is described as a righteous man. Yet God allows his faith to be tested thru great suffering and loss. Many commentators think that the purpose of the book of Job is about suffering, but it is not. Mr. Sebeny’s talk will focus on evidence for creationism, incredible scientific insights, and God’s sovereignty within the Book of Job.
The talk will be presented Sunday afternoon, at 4:30 PM, at the Liberty Baptist Church, 3100 Williamson Valley Road, Prescott, Arizona.
For those who are new to Creation Science or just curious to learn what it’s about, these two events are excellent opportunities to hear about the science underlying creationism. Contrary to the arguments of secularists that creation science is anti-science and a form of anti-intellectualism, those holding creationist views include many credentialed professional scientists, often holding advanced degrees from accredited universities. They accept modern principles of science. However, in doing so, they bring the scientific method to bear on the assumptions of evolutionary theory.
Both of these events are free and open to the public. Dr. Anderson and Mr. Sebeny will both take questions at the end of their talks. Skeptics, agnostics, students and seekers of truth are cordially invited to attend.
CREATION SCIENCE, CREATIONIST VIEWS, LECTURES, THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Sunday, October 4, 2020
I never met a Christian who wasn't an uneducated moron.
A fucktard asked this ridiculous question: "Did Charles Darwin hate God?"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I wrote this for the fucking idiot, and I wrote more stuff for other fucking idiots.
Charles Darwin threw the ridiculous god fantasy and the moronic Christian cult in the garbage. He called himself an agnostic but he was really an atheist.
The idiot who wrote "Darwin was a Christian" is a liar.
Another idiot wrote "a bad theory". The stupid, it burns.
Mr. Idiot, evolution is the strongest fact of science. Look it up you fucking retard.
Another asshole wrote, "He thought his evolutionary theory was an explanation of how God made so many different plants and animals."
Bullshit. Darwin was an atheist you fucking liar.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I wrote this for the fucking idiot, and I wrote more stuff for other fucking idiots.
Charles Darwin threw the ridiculous god fantasy and the moronic Christian cult in the garbage. He called himself an agnostic but he was really an atheist.
The idiot who wrote "Darwin was a Christian" is a liar.
Another idiot wrote "a bad theory". The stupid, it burns.
Mr. Idiot, evolution is the strongest fact of science. Look it up you fucking retard.
Another asshole wrote, "He thought his evolutionary theory was an explanation of how God made so many different plants and animals."
Bullshit. Darwin was an atheist you fucking liar.
Saturday, October 3, 2020
Christians are stupid fucking assholes.
Fucktard: "Should we start arresting people who teach evolution again?"
What I wrote:
For example thousands of biology teachers.
Are you joking or are you an asshole?
Another moron for Jeebus wrote "Darwinian evolution has been proven false."
The stupidity of Christians is overwhelming.
Evolution is called evolution. Only a brain dead Christian asshole would call it "Darwinian".
I never met a Christian who wasn't a fucking retard.
By the way, evolution has countless thousands of evidences from DNA sequencing and numerous other branches of science. Evolution is the strongest fact of science.
You Christian morons, keep advertising your stupidity. You are the best advertisement for atheism there is.
Another liar wrote "A Christian named Darwin". Darwin threw out your moronic cult, you fucking asshole.
What I wrote:
For example thousands of biology teachers.
Are you joking or are you an asshole?
Another moron for Jeebus wrote "Darwinian evolution has been proven false."
The stupidity of Christians is overwhelming.
Evolution is called evolution. Only a brain dead Christian asshole would call it "Darwinian".
I never met a Christian who wasn't a fucking retard.
By the way, evolution has countless thousands of evidences from DNA sequencing and numerous other branches of science. Evolution is the strongest fact of science.
You Christian morons, keep advertising your stupidity. You are the best advertisement for atheism there is.
Another liar wrote "A Christian named Darwin". Darwin threw out your moronic cult, you fucking asshole.
Saturday, September 12, 2020
One of the reason why millions of American morons prefer magic instead of science: The biology teachers are uneducated morons. It's a ridiculous disgraceful problem but it used to be much worse than it is now.
Scientific American
EVOLUTION
OPINION
Evolution Education in the U.S. Is Getting Better
The percentage of public school bio teachers who present it as the broad consensus view among scientists—without presenting the creationist “alternative”—has increased markedly since 2007.
By Glenn Branch and Ann Reid
September 12, 2020
Woo-hoo, d’oh, or meh? Which of these Simpsonian reactions is appropriate to the fact, revealed by a 2019 survey conducted by researchers at Penn State University and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), that about two in three—67 percent—of public high school biology teachers are presenting evolution forthrightly, emphasizing the broad scientific consensus on evolution while not giving any credence to creationism? Only in the context of the long and contentious history of evolution education in the United States is it clear what the most plausible answer is.
American teachers have not always been afforded the luxury of teaching evolution forthrightly. John Thomas Scopes, for example, was famously prosecuted for violating Tennessee’s ban on teaching evolution in 1925. Although his conviction was subsequently overturned, a national survey of high school biology teachers conducted in 1939–1940 revealed that only about half were teaching evolution as a central principle of biology. And bans on teaching evolution remained in place in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee until 1970.
New obstacles then emerged, particularly requirements to teach various forms of creationism as alternatives to evolution. As recently as 15 years ago, in Dover, Pennsylvania, the local school board attempted to require its high school biology teachers to read a statement to their ninth-grade students describing “Darwin’s theory of evolution” as “not a fact,” and commending “intelligent design”—then a trendy slogan for creationism—to their attention as a scientifically credible alternative. The teachers, to their credit, unanimously refused to comply.
But their refusal, together with the controversy surrounding the related trial over the constitutionality of the board’s actions, Kitzmiller v. Dover, intrigued two parents a hundred miles to the northwest, in State College, Pa. Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer were not just any concerned parents, though: they were political scientists at Penn State with a particular interest in education policy. What—they wondered—are high school biology teachers teaching about evolution, and what factors influence their teaching practices?
To satisfy their curiosity, Berkman and Plutzer conducted the first modern national survey of high school biology teachers in 2007. The results were dire. Only a slight majority, 51 percent, reported that they emphasized the broad scientific consensus on evolution while not giving any credence to creationism, as if to suggest no progress in the 67 years since the less rigorous survey of 1939–1940. That’s why the results of the 2019 survey—a collaboration between Plutzer and the NCSE—are so encouraging.
Between 2007 and 2019, there definitely was progress: from 51 percent of high school biology teachers reporting emphasizing evolution and not creationism in 2007 to 67 percent in 2019. It was matched by a drop from 23 to 12 percent of teachers who offer mixed messages by endorsing both evolution and creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, from 18 to 15 percent of teachers who endorse neither evolution nor creationism, and from 8.6 to 5.6 percent of teachers who endorse creationism while not endorsing evolution.
What accounts for the improvement? Did intelligent design’s crushing defeat in the Kitzmiller trial make the difference? Probably not. Science teachers are guided not by case law but by state science standards, which specify what students in the state’s public schools are expected to learn. Standards thus influence the content of textbooks, statewide testing, and coursework for pre-service and in-service teachers. Importantly, they also provide a shield for teachers facing misguided community pressure over socially contentious topics like evolution.
The results of the 2019 survey suggest that a concerted effort to improve state science standards helped to improve evolution education. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which debuted in 2013, include “Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity” as a disciplinary core idea of the life sciences at the middle and high school levels. By now, 20 states (plus the District of Columbia) have adopted the NGSS, and a further 24 states have adopted standards based on the same evolution-friendly framework on which the NGSS are based.
Were states that adopted the NGSS especially hospitable to the teaching of evolution? Not really: in 2007, their teachers were less likely to endorse evolution and not creationism than the national average. By 2019, they were more likely. While a variety of explanations are possible, teachers in NGSS states reported having taken more pre-service and in-service coursework in evolution than their colleagues elsewhere, suggesting that the increased expectations impelled both novice and veteran teachers to upgrade their content knowledge of evolution.
Despite the encouraging trend over a mere dozen years, there is still reason for concern: after all, more than one in six high school biology teachers, 17.6 percent, are still presenting creationism as a scientifically credible alternative to evolution. And almost as many high school biology teachers, 15 percent, are still failing to emphasize the broad scientific consensus on evolution, despite its general prevalence in state science standards and despite encouragement from professional organizations. D’oh!
With 13,500-odd local school districts having primary responsibility for curriculum and instruction, changes to science education are inevitably going to be slow, scattered and incremental. Still, with the aid of uncounted scientists, educators, policymakers, administrators and concerned citizens in general (and perhaps even a certain episode of The Simpsons), clear and convincing improvements for evolution education were demonstrably attained in just a dozen years. It is a victory worth not only celebrating—woo-hoo!—but also enlarging upon.
Glenn Branch and Ann Reid
Glenn Branch is deputy director and Ann Reid is executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that supports the accurate teaching of evolution and climate change.
EVOLUTION
OPINION
Evolution Education in the U.S. Is Getting Better
The percentage of public school bio teachers who present it as the broad consensus view among scientists—without presenting the creationist “alternative”—has increased markedly since 2007.
By Glenn Branch and Ann Reid
September 12, 2020
Woo-hoo, d’oh, or meh? Which of these Simpsonian reactions is appropriate to the fact, revealed by a 2019 survey conducted by researchers at Penn State University and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), that about two in three—67 percent—of public high school biology teachers are presenting evolution forthrightly, emphasizing the broad scientific consensus on evolution while not giving any credence to creationism? Only in the context of the long and contentious history of evolution education in the United States is it clear what the most plausible answer is.
American teachers have not always been afforded the luxury of teaching evolution forthrightly. John Thomas Scopes, for example, was famously prosecuted for violating Tennessee’s ban on teaching evolution in 1925. Although his conviction was subsequently overturned, a national survey of high school biology teachers conducted in 1939–1940 revealed that only about half were teaching evolution as a central principle of biology. And bans on teaching evolution remained in place in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee until 1970.
New obstacles then emerged, particularly requirements to teach various forms of creationism as alternatives to evolution. As recently as 15 years ago, in Dover, Pennsylvania, the local school board attempted to require its high school biology teachers to read a statement to their ninth-grade students describing “Darwin’s theory of evolution” as “not a fact,” and commending “intelligent design”—then a trendy slogan for creationism—to their attention as a scientifically credible alternative. The teachers, to their credit, unanimously refused to comply.
But their refusal, together with the controversy surrounding the related trial over the constitutionality of the board’s actions, Kitzmiller v. Dover, intrigued two parents a hundred miles to the northwest, in State College, Pa. Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer were not just any concerned parents, though: they were political scientists at Penn State with a particular interest in education policy. What—they wondered—are high school biology teachers teaching about evolution, and what factors influence their teaching practices?
To satisfy their curiosity, Berkman and Plutzer conducted the first modern national survey of high school biology teachers in 2007. The results were dire. Only a slight majority, 51 percent, reported that they emphasized the broad scientific consensus on evolution while not giving any credence to creationism, as if to suggest no progress in the 67 years since the less rigorous survey of 1939–1940. That’s why the results of the 2019 survey—a collaboration between Plutzer and the NCSE—are so encouraging.
Between 2007 and 2019, there definitely was progress: from 51 percent of high school biology teachers reporting emphasizing evolution and not creationism in 2007 to 67 percent in 2019. It was matched by a drop from 23 to 12 percent of teachers who offer mixed messages by endorsing both evolution and creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, from 18 to 15 percent of teachers who endorse neither evolution nor creationism, and from 8.6 to 5.6 percent of teachers who endorse creationism while not endorsing evolution.
What accounts for the improvement? Did intelligent design’s crushing defeat in the Kitzmiller trial make the difference? Probably not. Science teachers are guided not by case law but by state science standards, which specify what students in the state’s public schools are expected to learn. Standards thus influence the content of textbooks, statewide testing, and coursework for pre-service and in-service teachers. Importantly, they also provide a shield for teachers facing misguided community pressure over socially contentious topics like evolution.
The results of the 2019 survey suggest that a concerted effort to improve state science standards helped to improve evolution education. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which debuted in 2013, include “Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity” as a disciplinary core idea of the life sciences at the middle and high school levels. By now, 20 states (plus the District of Columbia) have adopted the NGSS, and a further 24 states have adopted standards based on the same evolution-friendly framework on which the NGSS are based.
Were states that adopted the NGSS especially hospitable to the teaching of evolution? Not really: in 2007, their teachers were less likely to endorse evolution and not creationism than the national average. By 2019, they were more likely. While a variety of explanations are possible, teachers in NGSS states reported having taken more pre-service and in-service coursework in evolution than their colleagues elsewhere, suggesting that the increased expectations impelled both novice and veteran teachers to upgrade their content knowledge of evolution.
Despite the encouraging trend over a mere dozen years, there is still reason for concern: after all, more than one in six high school biology teachers, 17.6 percent, are still presenting creationism as a scientifically credible alternative to evolution. And almost as many high school biology teachers, 15 percent, are still failing to emphasize the broad scientific consensus on evolution, despite its general prevalence in state science standards and despite encouragement from professional organizations. D’oh!
With 13,500-odd local school districts having primary responsibility for curriculum and instruction, changes to science education are inevitably going to be slow, scattered and incremental. Still, with the aid of uncounted scientists, educators, policymakers, administrators and concerned citizens in general (and perhaps even a certain episode of The Simpsons), clear and convincing improvements for evolution education were demonstrably attained in just a dozen years. It is a victory worth not only celebrating—woo-hoo!—but also enlarging upon.
Glenn Branch and Ann Reid
Glenn Branch is deputy director and Ann Reid is executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that supports the accurate teaching of evolution and climate change.
Thursday, September 10, 2020
Thursday, August 27, 2020
Ken Ham has made brainwashing children his career. The stupid fucking asshole belongs in prison.
Christian Post - Ark Encounter opens virtual reality experience taking people 'back in time' to Noah's Ark
The creationist theme park Ark Encounter in northern Kentucky has launched a $3 million virtual reality experience that aims to show visitors what it would be like to travel back to see Noah’s Ark and the Genesis flood.
The park, owned by young earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis, officially opened its first virtual reality theatre called “Truth Traveler” to the public on Monday with the showing of its first virtual reality show titled “A Flood of Reality.”
“It is a very high-tech experience,” said Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham, a Christian apologist and author, in an interview with The Christian Post.
The creationist theme park Ark Encounter in northern Kentucky has launched a $3 million virtual reality experience that aims to show visitors what it would be like to travel back to see Noah’s Ark and the Genesis flood.
The park, owned by young earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis, officially opened its first virtual reality theatre called “Truth Traveler” to the public on Monday with the showing of its first virtual reality show titled “A Flood of Reality.”
“It is a very high-tech experience,” said Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham, a Christian apologist and author, in an interview with The Christian Post.
I found a ton of anti-science Christian bullshit. Evolution makes these uneducated morons cry. This is where Idiot America's morons go to learn something about why every biologist in the world knows nothing about biology. This insanity is incurable. Stupid can't be fixed.
Reading this bullshit would be a waste of time unless you're interested in extreme stupidity.
Apologetics Press
Creation Vs Evolution
"Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!”
"Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!”
by Jeff Miller, Ph.D. (This fucktard went to a bible college.)
“Everybody’s doin’ it. So, you should, too,” the little boy’s classmate says. After giving in and engaging in the inappropriate behavior and getting caught, what does the little boy’s mother say? “If everybody jumps off a cliff, are you going to jump with them?” We’ve all likely heard sound reasoning like that from an authority, and yet the truth of such logic must not have “sunk in” with many in the evolutionary community.
Recently, we received an e-mail at Apologetics Press responding to an article we posted a few weeks back titled, “Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy” (Miller, 2012a). The gentleman’s comments were not atypical of many of the comments we receive from the evolutionary community, but one line of reasoning, in particular, is representative of the mindset of many. Thus, we felt it was worth a formal, public response. The argument this individual based his contention on was that the scientific consensus on a subject—whatever it may be—should be ultimately accepted (i.e., considered as “gospel”), and any further scientific investigation and/or discovery should be viewed in light of the veracity of the scientific consensus on that subject. Specifically, he applied the concept to the idea that belief in Darwinian evolution is the scientific consensus today and therefore, should be accepted—not resisted, as we do at Apologetics Press. This gentleman is hardly the only one who espouses such a view. So, it is worthy of consideration to see if it holds up under scrutiny.
Perhaps the first objection one should have to such a mindset is that it falls into the category of logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority (Archie, 2012). The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true” (Archie). In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like macroevolution), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition. Just because bloodletting was “the most common procedure performed by surgeons for almost two thousand years,” that should not have made it an acceptable idea, though it carried the weight of consensus behind it (“Bloodletting,” 2012). Just because the consensus in medicine in the recent past, before the discovery of germs, was not to worry about cleanliness in operating rooms, that does not mean that such entrenched practices should not be questioned. Just because the consensus over millennia was that life could arise spontaneously from non-life (Balme, 1962)—a belief held even as late as 300 years ago when Francesco Redi conducted his experiments that began casting doubt on that idea—that does not mean that such a preposterous idea should have continued to exist. Just because the “consensus” in certain evolutionary circles only 100 years ago was that certain races should be considered inferior in the evolutionary chain (cf. Darwin, 1859; Stein and Miller, 2008), did that mean that everyone should have accepted the “consensus” and taken part in eliminating those deemed “weaker” or “less fit” by evolutionists?
“Majority rule” is hardly a suitable mindset for scientific investigation. Scientific breakthroughs are not made by the majority—but rather, by innovative individuals thinking outside the box, not thinking in the same way the majority thinks. In fact, the “consensus” view is often times the very viewpoint that is wrong because of the “herd mentality” humanity tends to have—the same mentality that Moses warned against in Exodus 23:2. Just because there is a consensus in this country among the rank and file Americans that evolution is false (cf. Miller, 2012b), that should not be taken as evidence for or against evolution—whether or not the population is deemed “scientific” enough in the minds of the science community’s self-promoting “credentials police.” There exists an overwhelming consensus (84%) in the world that some kind of god(s) exists (cf. “Major Religions of the World…,” 2007), and yet one can be assured that the atheistic evolutionary community would not want to appeal to the “consensus” argument in that case. Consider further: even if it is now the scientific consensus among the biology community that Darwinian evolution is true, what about before evolution had become consensus in that field? Should the “consensus rule” have been applied then, disallowing the spread of evolutionary theory? If so, then the biology community is in error for breaking their own rules and needs to go back to the old viewpoint in order to be consistent.
In truth, accepting the consensus view on a theory is a dangerous practice. Scientific theories are not “bad guys.” Theories are important in order to make scientific progress. However, a theory (like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory), by its very definition, is not known as absolute, but rather, as a possible explanation of something. A theory tacitly acknowledges the potential that it may be incorrect and that there may be other theories that fit the facts better, that will one day be proven as legitimate. This makes accepting the consensus view on a scientific theory a dangerous practice, since the theory may be wrong. A scientific law, however, is not based on “consensus” or speculation, but on the evidence—the facts. Therefore, there should be “consensus” about the laws of nature, even if there isn’t. However, what makes them valid should not be, and is not, based on “consensus.” The goal of science should be the pursuit of truth—not consensus; truth—not what’s popular. That is what has and will lead to further scientific progress in this country and in the world.
The consensus in this country that has existed since its inception—that Creation is true and Darwinian evolution is false—has no doubt played a role in the scientific breakthroughs that individual scientists have made that have led to our nation’s success. Such breakthroughs are to be expected according to the biblical model. In this area, it is clear that following the “consensus” has been a good thing. It seems evident, based on God’s dealings with nations in the Bible, that He views the spiritual state of a nation by its consensus views on various matters, and He responds accordingly with blessings or punishments. In the past, God has showered this nation with blessings—scientifically, economically, militarily, and in many other ways—in large part due to the “consensus” of Americans that the God of the Bible is the one true God (cf. Miller, 2008). Sadly, the consensus is changing, and we should expect God’s blessings to diminish accordingly. May we encourage you always in your pursuit to boldly speak “the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), doing your part to make the American consensus one that believes in and seeks to obey the one true God of the Universe.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This blog has 1,617 posts about Idiot America at Idiot America.
Apologetics Press
Creation Vs Evolution
"Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!”
"Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!”
by Jeff Miller, Ph.D. (This fucktard went to a bible college.)
“Everybody’s doin’ it. So, you should, too,” the little boy’s classmate says. After giving in and engaging in the inappropriate behavior and getting caught, what does the little boy’s mother say? “If everybody jumps off a cliff, are you going to jump with them?” We’ve all likely heard sound reasoning like that from an authority, and yet the truth of such logic must not have “sunk in” with many in the evolutionary community.
Recently, we received an e-mail at Apologetics Press responding to an article we posted a few weeks back titled, “Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy” (Miller, 2012a). The gentleman’s comments were not atypical of many of the comments we receive from the evolutionary community, but one line of reasoning, in particular, is representative of the mindset of many. Thus, we felt it was worth a formal, public response. The argument this individual based his contention on was that the scientific consensus on a subject—whatever it may be—should be ultimately accepted (i.e., considered as “gospel”), and any further scientific investigation and/or discovery should be viewed in light of the veracity of the scientific consensus on that subject. Specifically, he applied the concept to the idea that belief in Darwinian evolution is the scientific consensus today and therefore, should be accepted—not resisted, as we do at Apologetics Press. This gentleman is hardly the only one who espouses such a view. So, it is worthy of consideration to see if it holds up under scrutiny.
Perhaps the first objection one should have to such a mindset is that it falls into the category of logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority (Archie, 2012). The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true” (Archie). In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like macroevolution), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition. Just because bloodletting was “the most common procedure performed by surgeons for almost two thousand years,” that should not have made it an acceptable idea, though it carried the weight of consensus behind it (“Bloodletting,” 2012). Just because the consensus in medicine in the recent past, before the discovery of germs, was not to worry about cleanliness in operating rooms, that does not mean that such entrenched practices should not be questioned. Just because the consensus over millennia was that life could arise spontaneously from non-life (Balme, 1962)—a belief held even as late as 300 years ago when Francesco Redi conducted his experiments that began casting doubt on that idea—that does not mean that such a preposterous idea should have continued to exist. Just because the “consensus” in certain evolutionary circles only 100 years ago was that certain races should be considered inferior in the evolutionary chain (cf. Darwin, 1859; Stein and Miller, 2008), did that mean that everyone should have accepted the “consensus” and taken part in eliminating those deemed “weaker” or “less fit” by evolutionists?
“Majority rule” is hardly a suitable mindset for scientific investigation. Scientific breakthroughs are not made by the majority—but rather, by innovative individuals thinking outside the box, not thinking in the same way the majority thinks. In fact, the “consensus” view is often times the very viewpoint that is wrong because of the “herd mentality” humanity tends to have—the same mentality that Moses warned against in Exodus 23:2. Just because there is a consensus in this country among the rank and file Americans that evolution is false (cf. Miller, 2012b), that should not be taken as evidence for or against evolution—whether or not the population is deemed “scientific” enough in the minds of the science community’s self-promoting “credentials police.” There exists an overwhelming consensus (84%) in the world that some kind of god(s) exists (cf. “Major Religions of the World…,” 2007), and yet one can be assured that the atheistic evolutionary community would not want to appeal to the “consensus” argument in that case. Consider further: even if it is now the scientific consensus among the biology community that Darwinian evolution is true, what about before evolution had become consensus in that field? Should the “consensus rule” have been applied then, disallowing the spread of evolutionary theory? If so, then the biology community is in error for breaking their own rules and needs to go back to the old viewpoint in order to be consistent.
In truth, accepting the consensus view on a theory is a dangerous practice. Scientific theories are not “bad guys.” Theories are important in order to make scientific progress. However, a theory (like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory), by its very definition, is not known as absolute, but rather, as a possible explanation of something. A theory tacitly acknowledges the potential that it may be incorrect and that there may be other theories that fit the facts better, that will one day be proven as legitimate. This makes accepting the consensus view on a scientific theory a dangerous practice, since the theory may be wrong. A scientific law, however, is not based on “consensus” or speculation, but on the evidence—the facts. Therefore, there should be “consensus” about the laws of nature, even if there isn’t. However, what makes them valid should not be, and is not, based on “consensus.” The goal of science should be the pursuit of truth—not consensus; truth—not what’s popular. That is what has and will lead to further scientific progress in this country and in the world.
The consensus in this country that has existed since its inception—that Creation is true and Darwinian evolution is false—has no doubt played a role in the scientific breakthroughs that individual scientists have made that have led to our nation’s success. Such breakthroughs are to be expected according to the biblical model. In this area, it is clear that following the “consensus” has been a good thing. It seems evident, based on God’s dealings with nations in the Bible, that He views the spiritual state of a nation by its consensus views on various matters, and He responds accordingly with blessings or punishments. In the past, God has showered this nation with blessings—scientifically, economically, militarily, and in many other ways—in large part due to the “consensus” of Americans that the God of the Bible is the one true God (cf. Miller, 2008). Sadly, the consensus is changing, and we should expect God’s blessings to diminish accordingly. May we encourage you always in your pursuit to boldly speak “the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), doing your part to make the American consensus one that believes in and seeks to obey the one true God of the Universe.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This blog has 1,617 posts about Idiot America at Idiot America.
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
I asked some anti-science Christian assholes a question.
A question for creationists who teach their children about creationism: How do you prevent them from looking things up about evolution?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The creationists who wrote an answer, they're just fucking stupid. The best answers were written by normal people, aka atheists.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Basically, creationists tell their kids god "was always there" thus always right. And science is not to be trusted because it's just another belief. Which is not only dumb, but dangerous. God is just a myth created by men who lived before the scientific revolution. I think deep down Christian creationists know science disproves God, which is why they are so against it.
-- Internet name: God
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The best solution is to make them fear eternal torment if they doubt any religious thing taught them.
-- Anonymous
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Meh... programme a kid with enough FEAR and he'll never doubt his masters.
-- Everard
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I think they usually threaten them with hell for listening to anything a scientist says.
-- gillie
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
You might not be able to prevent them unless you don't give them a computer.
-- Pearl L
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
My comment: If these victims go to a real university they're going to find out their parents are fucking retards.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The creationists who wrote an answer, they're just fucking stupid. The best answers were written by normal people, aka atheists.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Basically, creationists tell their kids god "was always there" thus always right. And science is not to be trusted because it's just another belief. Which is not only dumb, but dangerous. God is just a myth created by men who lived before the scientific revolution. I think deep down Christian creationists know science disproves God, which is why they are so against it.
-- Internet name: God
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The best solution is to make them fear eternal torment if they doubt any religious thing taught them.
-- Anonymous
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Meh... programme a kid with enough FEAR and he'll never doubt his masters.
-- Everard
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I think they usually threaten them with hell for listening to anything a scientist says.
-- gillie
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
You might not be able to prevent them unless you don't give them a computer.
-- Pearl L
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
My comment: If these victims go to a real university they're going to find out their parents are fucking retards.
I'm adding this to my list of favorite quotes. It's about the science deniers of Idiot America.
Rank and file creationists pretty much have little or no intellectual curiosity; more than that though, they display profound, willful ignorance, which makes them ideal gullible followers --they simply parrot what they've been fed by their creationist "influencers"--of whom there are two basic types: 1) opportunistic capitalists, who can pull in big bucks with their creationist museums and Ark Encounters and their book deals and movies, and 2) the cynical, ambitious ideologues, whose aim is political power.
For the latter, organized creationism is not about learning anything--about nature, science, or even religion. It's an ideological movement whose main interest is control over the education system, as well as the larger society. It has now been incorporated into a larger dominionist movement, aimed at replacing the Constitution with the fundamentalist evangelicals' own perverted version of Sharia-like law. They want to take us back to the 14th Century.
-- Ted K
-- Ted K
Monday, August 3, 2020
Teaching evolution in Idiot America. There has been some progress but most American biology teachers still need to be fired because they're uneducated morons.
Yet, the report said there's still room for improvement. A sizable number of teachers "continue to either avoid evolution altogether or communicate mixed messages that can serve to legitimize non-scientific alternatives in the minds of their students," the researchers wrote. "Such teachers 'fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments, even if unintentionally.'" Those individuals "may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists," the report stated.
The rest of it is here:
U.S. Teachers Evolving on Science of Evolution
The rest of it is here:
U.S. Teachers Evolving on Science of Evolution
Monday, July 20, 2020
I asked some Christian assholes why are they so fucking stupid.
We share an ancestor with chimpanzees apes. Here we are in the 21st century and there are still people who deny this fact. What's their problem?
Are they afraid to google "Wikipedia evidence for evolution"? Why do they get all their information about science from bible websites or other anti-science websites like the dishonest moronic Christian Creationist Discovery Institute? Do real scientists make them cry?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
Are they afraid to google "Wikipedia evidence for evolution"? Why do they get all their information about science from bible websites or other anti-science websites like the dishonest moronic Christian Creationist Discovery Institute? Do real scientists make them cry?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
Saturday, July 18, 2020
This is something I wrote for a dishonest Christian creationist asshole. I never met a Christian who wasn't a fucking retard.
"Intelligent Design" are code words that mean "The Magic Man did it." It's childish, anti-science, and impossible. Everything else you wrote was ridiculous and dishonest.
"Evolutionnews.org is an ID website (there's a difference)." It's a creationist website and you're a liar.
Nobody uses the words "molecules-to-man evolution" unless they are know-nothing creationist morons.
CASEY LUSKIN is not a scientist. He's an uneducated moron and he is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.
Everyone in your Christian Creationist Discovery Institute is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.
You wrote "Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is overwhelming.”
Only creationist morons use the word "Evolutionist". Biologists are called "biologists". The evidence for evolution is way beyond overwhelming. Google "wikipedia evidence for evolution" and get to work.
Do your homework. Don't be afraid of real science websites. Educate yourself or STFU.
"Evolutionnews.org is an ID website (there's a difference)." It's a creationist website and you're a liar.
Nobody uses the words "molecules-to-man evolution" unless they are know-nothing creationist morons.
CASEY LUSKIN is not a scientist. He's an uneducated moron and he is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.
Everyone in your Christian Creationist Discovery Institute is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.
You wrote "Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is overwhelming.”
Only creationist morons use the word "Evolutionist". Biologists are called "biologists". The evidence for evolution is way beyond overwhelming. Google "wikipedia evidence for evolution" and get to work.
Do your homework. Don't be afraid of real science websites. Educate yourself or STFU.
Friday, July 17, 2020
Fucktard for Jeebus
This is what I wrote for a Christian asshole and his fucktard Christian Creationist Discovery Institute:
"Intelligent Design" are code words that mean "The Magic Man did it." It's childish, anti-science, and impossible. Everything else you wrote was ridiculous and dishonest.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is his bullshit. He called biologists "Darwinists". He uses all the same anti-science bullshit that's been used for many years. For example "molecules-to-man evolution". Nobody says that unless they're a know-nothing creationist asshole.
The asshole gets all his information about science from the most anti-science website in the world, the Christian Creationist Discovery Institute.
One of his links was written by CASEY LUSKIN. He is not a scientist. He's an uneducated moron and he is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Everyone who works for the Christian Creationist Discovery Institute is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.
This bullshit is typical in Idiot America. The stupid is overwhelming. Here it is, the whole disgusting thing:
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes (they would butcher it, and then there’s the argument about all the other creation stories being taught). What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution (chemical and biological evolution) to be taught with all its warts—in many states, they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light. And we want Intelligent Design to at least be mentioned (with teachers free to discuss it without fear of being sacked). Unlike alchemy, storks bringing babies, a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax-paying) population believes in ID (which is agnostic regarding the source of design and encompasses every "creation" story).
According to a nationwide survey in January 2016, 81% of American adults believe that “when teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution, biology teachers should cover both scientific evidence that supports the theory and scientific evidence critical of the theory” (SurveyMonkey).
As Dr. John West put it, “Those who are trying to put a gag order on teachers and students to insulate Darwin's theory from critical inquiry are the real extremists” (evolutionnews.org).
Whenever someone mentions this kind of stuff, Darwinists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. At the moment, educators are in the interesting position of not teaching students, but instead conditioning them to recite the “correct” answers without a second thought to other possible explanations. Today’s science education does not sufficiently emphasize inquiry-based learning.
What are the Darwinists afraid of? A little critical analysis never hurt anyone who had the evidence on their side. The Darwinists “worship” their idol but don’t listen to him. He said, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question...” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species).
Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is “overwhelming.” But they ACT as if they know the evidence is so shaky that the slightest whiff of open discussion will topple the theory. And if high school students are capable of understanding the arguments and evidence FOR modern evolutionary theory, then they should be able to understand (and rationally discuss) scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory.
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041
Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Blunders-Frauds-...
Bacteria to Beethoven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOIbcOoaxuY
"Intelligent Design" are code words that mean "The Magic Man did it." It's childish, anti-science, and impossible. Everything else you wrote was ridiculous and dishonest.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is his bullshit. He called biologists "Darwinists". He uses all the same anti-science bullshit that's been used for many years. For example "molecules-to-man evolution". Nobody says that unless they're a know-nothing creationist asshole.
The asshole gets all his information about science from the most anti-science website in the world, the Christian Creationist Discovery Institute.
One of his links was written by CASEY LUSKIN. He is not a scientist. He's an uneducated moron and he is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Everyone who works for the Christian Creationist Discovery Institute is in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.
This bullshit is typical in Idiot America. The stupid is overwhelming. Here it is, the whole disgusting thing:
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes (they would butcher it, and then there’s the argument about all the other creation stories being taught). What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution (chemical and biological evolution) to be taught with all its warts—in many states, they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light. And we want Intelligent Design to at least be mentioned (with teachers free to discuss it without fear of being sacked). Unlike alchemy, storks bringing babies, a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax-paying) population believes in ID (which is agnostic regarding the source of design and encompasses every "creation" story).
According to a nationwide survey in January 2016, 81% of American adults believe that “when teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution, biology teachers should cover both scientific evidence that supports the theory and scientific evidence critical of the theory” (SurveyMonkey).
As Dr. John West put it, “Those who are trying to put a gag order on teachers and students to insulate Darwin's theory from critical inquiry are the real extremists” (evolutionnews.org).
Whenever someone mentions this kind of stuff, Darwinists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. At the moment, educators are in the interesting position of not teaching students, but instead conditioning them to recite the “correct” answers without a second thought to other possible explanations. Today’s science education does not sufficiently emphasize inquiry-based learning.
What are the Darwinists afraid of? A little critical analysis never hurt anyone who had the evidence on their side. The Darwinists “worship” their idol but don’t listen to him. He said, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question...” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species).
Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is “overwhelming.” But they ACT as if they know the evidence is so shaky that the slightest whiff of open discussion will topple the theory. And if high school students are capable of understanding the arguments and evidence FOR modern evolutionary theory, then they should be able to understand (and rationally discuss) scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory.
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041
Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Blunders-Frauds-...
Bacteria to Beethoven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOIbcOoaxuY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)