Watch. Laugh. Cry at its reality. [H/T Stefano S.]
I am going to copy and paste a very normal article from Science Daily here. Nothing special. Just your bog-standard scientific journal publication press release. This one is about a fossilised horse which has had its genome mapped.
What I want people like JohnM, a regular commenter here, to do is to explain all of the aspects of this articles in terms of their Creationist framework. What I mean by this, is they (he) needs to take every claim in this article (most aren’t claims, but are simply givens) and produce a non ad hoc explanation which explains this evidence BETTER than evolution and naturalism. In order to be true, the explanation must have that explanatory power.
Having attended a fascinating talk by James Williams (a science educator) last night at Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub, I thought I would post about it. The talk was called Insidious Creationism and concerned Creationism within an educational context.
Wow. So, thanks to Andrew Marburger who tweeted me the link to this absolute corker. People actually believe that dragons existed because they appear to be mentioned in a 2000 year-old holy book. Answers in Genesis (AiG), your one-stop link to ridiculousness and science denialism seems to posit the notion that “dragon accounts aren’t easy to dismiss as mere fantasy.” Yes they are. They are very easy to dismiss. They are fantasy. The article is terrible. Dragon fire-breathing, it concedes, could be an embellishment. It seems to overlook the idea of such a heavy animal flying with those wings would be ridiculous.
Joe G´s shenanigans continue
I´m skeptical that anyone is still interested in seeing more of Joe G´s shenanigans (if you missed the story, it´s the Cdesign proponentsist that challenged me to a $10,000 bet, lost, and then chickened out ). If you are bored of this guy, leave now ;-).
So, complexity is supposedly a tough one for ‘evolutionists’. Well, it’s not really, if you have ever read around the subject. Incremental steps, such as is evidence with the eye in all its various complexities throughout the natural world, seem to do the trick.
There has been a mammoth conversation going on over on another post, Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution. Regular IDist commenter, JoeG, a major proponent of pseudoscientific unguided evolution. That means to say he broadly agrees to evolution, but claims there is no evidence it is unguided and plenty of evidence it is guided. Apart from the fact that he neglects to ever provide any of this evidence whilst at the same time demanding that we provide positive evidence that evolution is unguided.
Biased political statements in Accelerated Christian Education schools’ curriculum may be incompatible with new standardsAn Ace English test question. The ‘correct’ answer is b.
The Accelerated Christian Education (Ace) group of fundamentalist schools has gone largely unnoticed by academic researchers and the mainstream media. Recent changes to legislation could mean the education they provide does not meet new standards.
I wonder what our very own Andy Schueler thinks of this, as an molecular evolutionary biologist! The Guardian reports:
Creator of Literal Genesis Trial believes people who argue in favor of evolution are at a scientific disadvantage
So meteorites aren’t the sole culprits. I guess the question is, how do Creationists rationalise this entire gamut of evidence…
This is a fascinating article. It amazes me that parents can torture their children with AIG inspired textbooks. This is an albeit small step in the right direction:
No need to write a commentary about this. Just read it. Shit me.
From the website Answers in Genesis (AiG), we have learned that one of the most influential Young Earth Creationists (YEC) of the…
This is a post from Paul Jenkins, a friend of mine form Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub who has a blog Notes from an Evil Burnee, and who also runs the Skepticule podcast on which I do a counter-apologetics segment. Recently I had written on my experience with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Paul has also posted on this. I repost his offering with kind permission:
Oh shit. UPDATE: On February 19, HB1674 passed through the Oklahoma Common Education committee on a 9-8 vote. In biology class, public…
Here is a concise synopsis from Smilodon’s Retreat, here at SIN. I am fascinated with endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). It seems that they are simply not adequately explained on a creationism thesis. This usually entails trying to debunk them since they have no other answer!
Oh dear. The Guardian reports:
Four US states are considering new legislation about teaching science in schools, allowing pupils to to be taught religious versions of how life on earth developed in what critics say would establish a backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution.
Sorry, /i know I have posted a lot of news articles recently, but this one from the British Humanist Association has made…
Jonathan recently posted some excerpts from young earth creationist teaching materials. Have a look at this example:
Virtually every single sentence on this page is misleading or a straight out lie. But one passage that particularly stuck out to me was this one:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raised eyebrows Monday when he told GQ he couldn’t answer a question about the age of the earth because “I’m not a scientist, man.”
Having a top prospect for the 2016 presidential nomination say the age of the planet is “one of the great mysteries” comes at an awkward time for a party attempting to rebuild from its Nov. 6 drubbing at the hands of voters turned off by the GOP’s embrace of social conservatives. But Rubio is hardly alone among potential Republican presidential contenders. Other big names for 2016 have weighed in publicly at various times over the years to position themselves as supportive of creationism proponents.