Creationist to Give Invocation at Inauguration is a blog entry at Panda's Thumb. Matt Young notes that President-Elect Barack Obama has chosen Pastor and author Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation. Young identifies Warren as a creationist and quotes Warren as stating the following:

If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest[,] then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn’t reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that [sic] homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.

Young then goes on to add his own take on Obama's decision with respect to Warren:

Read the rest of this entry »

In a recent post , I took issue for several reasons the following comment on Wesley Elsberry's blog that were specifically about me:

I pointed out that the mammalian middle ear ossicular chain is an IC system providing an impedance-matching function, and that the impedance-matching goes away if you remove any of the parts. Nelson tried to deny that this qualified as IC, at least in part because the fossil record is clear that the system evolved.

Wesley Elsberry has since admitted that the last part is unsubstantiated:

at least in part because the fossil record is clear that the system evolved.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have previously demonstrated that it is more accurate to label Michael Behe as a theistic evolutionist than a creationist. Since then, the words of philosopher Fodor have worked to corroborate my position and even some critics seem to be finally coming around to this truth. Nevertheless, because of its propagandistic utility, many critics still insist on painting with the broad brush of creationism. As such, the propagandists often engage in post hoc rationalization for their chosen label, invariably terminating in the Creationist Fabrication.

I now offer a perfect visual demonstration of what the critics mean when they use the term "˜creationist' or "˜creationism.'

Read the rest of this entry »

Does this post suggest that the critics are finally starting to realize what we've been saying for a long time: that there is a difference between an intelligent design creationist and an intelligent design evolutionist?

Answer: Probably not, since the post is labeled "humor."

Joy posted the blog entry Stop the Presses! It's all Over! citing questionable news coverage of a paper published by researchers at the University of Manchester. The university's press release titled St Bernard study casts doubt on creationism contains two paragraphs which I'll quote and comment on. The first:

Read the rest of this entry »

Let me pick out a little appetizer from Fodor's essay to further confirm one of the points I have argued:

What used to rile Darwin's critics most was his account of the phylogeny of our species. They didn't like our being just one branch among many in the evolutionary tree; and they liked still less having baboons among their family relations. The story of the consequent fracas is legendary, but that argument is over now.

Fodor nails the very reason why so many people are creationists. In fact, I'd bet that most creationists would be willing to embrace abiogenesis, invertebrate-to-vertebrate transitions, fish-to-amphibian transitions, and even reptile-to-mammal transitions, as long as the same science also made it clear that humans did not evolve; that there are no baboons among our family relations.

This is also why the critics are intellectually sloppy when they insist that someone who accepts human evolution is also a creationist.

Well"¦'sloppy' is a nice way of putting it.

Related reading.

Over at the Panda's Thumb, PZ Myers declared that the human appendix was useless:

Here's an excellent and useful summary of the appendix from a surgeon's perspective. Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges. Sid Schwab has cut out a lot of appendices, and backs up its non-utility with evidence.

Yet it now looks like both Myers and Schwab are wrong:

Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut. That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week"¦.. But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

This hypothesis is also built on an interesting observation:

In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said.

He said the appendix may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system.

So where did Myers go wrong?

Read the rest of this entry »

Should it be a surprise to anyone that it took European bureaucrats to come up with an 11,700-word document to say that science is good, creationism is bad, and thus creationism should be kept out of the science classroom?

Not surprisingly, the bureaucrats think ID = creationism (yet complain creationism is contradictory because ID accepts evolution) and represents a threat to democracy:

the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

Borrowing a page from George Bush's war strategy, the champions for human rights declare a preemptive strike:

Investigation of the creationists' growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council's parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

Thank goodness they acted before it was "too late," as that ever growing Creationist Threat(iness) is always on the constant march.

But this made me wonder if the Champions for Science and Civilization had written at least 10% the number of words warning about the threat from extreme animal rights groups. After all, it is in a European country where construction workers must hide their identity because they dare build a science lab. So I did some Googling and couldn't find where the Council of Europe has defended science against the animal rights extremists.

But hey, I did find this.

Many critics insist on labeling Michael Behe a creationist. But in doing so, the critics, as a community, end up sending a confused double message, that I highlighted by noting, "Combine the logic of the two scientists and we find that acceptance of the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish is transparent creationism." The critics, who find it important to label Behe a creationist, are thus put in the awkward position of looking for ways to explain why it is that someone who accepts human evolution is a creationist. To accomplish this, the critic invariably ends up promoting the creationist fabrication. And it is at this point that we should consult the wisdom of George Orwell:

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable""¦.Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearers to think he means something quite different. - George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," from Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays (Harcourt, 1950), p. 83.

To make their political word stick, the critics typically have to water down the definition of "˜creationist' and employ guilt-by-association. What they never do is factor the way the term "˜creationist' is commonly understood. And this, according to Orwell, is dishonest.

Read the rest of this entry »

While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the creationists themselves do not consider ID proponents to be fellow creationists. No less than John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, comments as follows:

The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.

Of course, the critics still confuse themselves and others by trying to have it both ways. I was reading Behe's Amazon blog and noted the following assertion from Jerry Coyne:

it's palpably clear from Jones's written opinion that he saw right through Behe and his transparent creationism. (emphasis added)

Okay, but Richard Dawkins tells us differently:

Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as "trivial" the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?

Combine the logic of the two scientists and we find that acceptance of the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish is transparent creationism. Which, I suppose, should not be surprising since the critics have also accused Ken Miller and Chris Mooney of being creationists.