Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

darwin

International Darwin Day Petition

Jan 28th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

I’m not a big fan of web-based petitions. They’re generally pretty worthless when it comes to actually getting things done, but they also make participation really, really easy. So, in the spirit of supporting the federal recognition of Darwin Day in the United States, I signed this petition put forth by the International Darwin Day Foundation.

In part, it says…

Dear President Obama,

As an American who values scientific inquiry and integrity, I urge you to issue a presidential proclamation recognizing Darwin Day on February 12. Darwin Day is celebrated every year on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday in 1809, and is a day in which people gather together to commemorate his life and work. Charles Darwin was the first to propose the groundbreaking scientific theory of evolution by natural selection—a theory that has done more to unify and bring understanding to the life sciences than any other—and Darwin Day is a celebration of this discovery and of scientific progress.

I believe that issuing this proclamation will send a powerful message that scientific discovery and integrity in our society are top priorities—priorities that are needed now more than ever as extremists with narrow ideological agendas are attempting to undermine science in our schools.

Please stand with me and countless others who value science and discovery by issuing the following or a similar proclamation on Darwin Day.

Feel free to jump on that bandwagon.

Nova-What Darwin Never Knew

Jan 6th, 2010
by Craig Woods.
No comments yet

Just a quick post to suggest a fantastic program. I watched this and was mezmorized. The last episode of NOVA (on PBS) was called, “What Darwin Never Knew”.  It delved into the genetics that Darwin could never have been aware of, yet reinforced his theories. The program illustrated just how brilliant Darwin’s theories were, considering he had no access to modern genetic research.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

Ray and Kirk find an appropriate audience

Nov 16th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
2 comments

In recognition of the “Origin of Species” giveaway promoted by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, Atheist Cartoons has put up this little gem so I thought I’d share it.

Atheist Cartoons - Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron

If you get a chance (and can stomach it), read the introduction (pdf) that Ray Comfort has written for the book. It’s got the standard creationist nonsense with Comfort’s simple-minded proselytizing.

Casey Luskin cries censorship

Oct 15th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Darwin's Dilemma Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute is all up in arms about censorship because, he claims, the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center cancelled its screening of the “documentary” Darwin’s Dilemma when it found out that the film was promoting intelligent design. While I agree that censorship is generally not good, Luskin seems to (again) misunderstand that a science center doesn’t want to promote unscientific ideas and that intelligent design is an unscientific idea. That’s been firmly established time and time and time and time again, but Luskin and his compatriots at the Discovery Institute can’t seem to wrap their heads around it.

Says Luskin…

As soon as word of the screening went public the Darwinian thought police started complaining about a government-supported science center renting its facilities to a group showing a film that challenges Darwinian evolution.

Why the outrage? Isn’t there academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary “consensus”?

Yes, Luskin. There is academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary consensus. The key word is “scientific,” however. Intelligent design is not scientific, no matter how badly you want it to be.

Luskin (and the film) attempt to use the Cambrian explosion as evidence for intelligent design, claiming that it poses a problem for evolutionary theory. I don’t want to ruin the ending, but… it doesn’t. Luskin, in true form, sets up a false dichotomy by saying that there are “two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion” and lists them as follows.

A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution.

B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject.

Strangely enough, neither option is correct… or accurate… or honest. The Cambrian explosion is not a dilemma and the reason it’s not is that it hasn’t been swept under the rug, but has been openly (and repeatedly) addressed and shown to fit easily and neatly within the bounds of evolutionary theory. Evidently word hasn’t filtered down to Luskin yet.

The other concept that hasn’t reached Luskin yet is that even if science hasn’t discovered the answer for something yet, it doesn’t mean that simply asserting an “intelligent designer” is a valid answer. It’s certainly not even remotely scientific.

Luskin goes on to complain about “Darwinian elites” (envy much?), censorship, harassment, and Carl Sagan. His claims are nonsensical, including the one about a 2004 “pro-ID peer reviewed scientific article by Stephen Meyer (seriously?) and one about Richard Sternberg experiencing “retaliation” for being pro-ID (seriously?).

What it boils down to is the fact that Luskin just can’t accept the fact that intelligent design is not science… hence it shouldn’t be presented as science at science-based institutions. It’s not censorship any more than refusing to promote astrology as an alternative to astronomy is censorship.

Luskin’s closing paragraphs are where he glaringly makes my point that he just doesn’t get it.

Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints.

Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?

Evolutionary scientists welcome contrary scientific viewpoints. They actually debate the fine points of evolution constantly and review new scientific ideas. Dissention is welcomed, but the key word (again… and still) is “scientific.” That’s where Luskin and his Discovery Institute peers get left in the dust. They’re not scientific. Intelligent design is not science. As much as they want to believe it, saying it over and over again does not make it true and the more they do it, the more they make a mockery of themselves.

…which is something, it seems, they do on a regular basis.

Ray “The Banana Man” Comfort -VS- …The Vatican?

Mar 3rd, 2009
by Craig Woods.
1 comment

ray-bananaThere is an article on The Living Waters website about “The Banana Man’s” (hereafter referred to as BM) disagreement with the Vatican’s “endorsement” of evolution.  Yes, in February the Vatican officially endorsed the notion that Darwinian evolution is compatible with the Bible’s account of Genesis. BM decided to take the gloves off and evoke the written testimony of non other than…wait for it…JESUS! Yes, I said Jesus. BM actually said:

Ray Comfort, author of the hottest Christian book on Amazon, “You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can’t Make Him Think,” points out Jesus himself backed up the Genesis account of Creation when he said, “In the beginning God created them male and female.”

 Well, that seals the deal! I didn’t know Jesus said it. I think BM was serious too. BM would make a great prosecuting attorney, “Your Honor, allow me to call forward my next witness to this terrible homicide…the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy herself was hovering above the house of the victim and will back up the prosecution’s account of how the murder took place”. Calling forth Jesus as a witness to the validity of creation is like verifying the existence of Santa’s workshop by …asking Santa. I can’t understand why anyone even listens to BM. Every time I hear or read anything he says I find myself confounded by his sophomoric ramblings. Here is BM’s next revelation:

“But the Vatican has chosen to officially believe Darwin rather than Jesus,” added Comfort. “That belief reveals a shallow understanding of the claims of atheistic evolution. God gave us six senses, and the sixth one is common sense. That one doesn’t get used when it comes to Darwin’s theory. And that’s the problem – its devoted believers don’t think too deeply. That’s why I wrote the book. It shows that Darwin’s theory is a fantasy – a ridiculous and unscientific fairy tale for grownups.”

BM suggests (in his support of Genesis) that Darwin’s theories are, “fantasy – a ridiculous and unscientific fairy tale for grownups.” Yes, one of the biggest evangelical proponents of creationism (Adam’s “rib”+ God =Woman) believes that Darwin’s theories are a, “…fairy tale for grownups”.  Truly boggles the mind.

The story ends with a commercial to promote the sale of BM’s books. He has written over sixty. Nice little business BM has going. Remember what Jesus said BM, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” I know it’s true because Jesus said so!

Some of Us Are Closer to Primates Than Others…

Feb 27th, 2009
by Craig Woods.
No comments yet

monkey-0214-12

I couldn’t possibly count on all of “God’s” appendages how many crazy fundie opinions I have read or heard through the years,  but this one might take the cake.

Sean McDowell at WorldViewTimes.com has written a brilliant article on the recent “Monkey Attack” in Connecticut. His article  ingeniously illustrates why Charles Darwin was directly responsible for this animals savagery.

Allow me to quote Sean:

Nevertheless, we need to ask a basic question: How could something like this happen? How is it that we live in a culture where people think it’s safe to have a chimpanzee as a pet? Where do people get the idea that we ought to take a wild animal and treat it like a human being? The chimp owner treated the animal like a son who ate at her table, slept in her house, and even drove her car.

Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, there is one culprit for the idea that human beings and chimps are really not that different and should be treated that way: Darwinism.

Yep, Darwinism!  Sean’s article seemed silly enough so as not to even deserve rebuttal… but I couldn’t help it.  Sean is right about one thing. Ideas don’t exist in a vacuum. Blind faith exists in a vacuum. To blame a scientific theory (Darwinism) for an animal attack is silly, but to suggest that this theory alone makes the case that we are similar to chimps is insulting. Darwinism, by itself, doesn’t suggest we are similar to apes. It is evidenced by our own DNA! We share 95% of our DNA sequence and 99% of the coding of DNA sequences with primates. Sean continues:

Yet, ironically, this week we witness a brutal act that seems to logically follow from Darwin’s ideas. You may be wondering how I can possibly link Darwin to this atrocious event. But think about it, if humans are deeply related to chimps then why not expect them to act that way?

The attack, “logically follows Darwin’s ideas?!?” Crazy person says what? This last statement almost sounds crazier than the rantings of The Banana Man himself, Ray Comfort (Monkey story = Banana Reference).  Sean wants to know why, if we are so “deeply related,” chimps don’t act more human? We need to first identify which humans Sean is referencing. I guess Sean “disremembered” these world class examples of God’s work:

  • David Berkowitzz – aka “Son of Sam” and “The .44 Caliber Killer”; convicted of six murders in New York
  • Bloody Benders – family who killed guests at their inn in Labette County, Kansas in 1872
  • Robert Berdella – convicted of killing six men in 1988 in Kansas City, Missouri; sexually tortured and dismembered his victims
  • Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, Jr. – aka the “Hillside Strangler”; killers of 13 women and possibly involved in three other killings
  • Richard Biegenwald – convicted of killing five people in the early 1980s in the Asbury Park, New Jersey area; suspected in at least  six  other murders
  • Arthur Gary Bishop – Utah man who murdered five young boys; executed in 1988
  • Terry Blair – Kansas City serial killer and rapist; active 1982–2004
  • William Bonin– aka “The Freeway Killer”; with several accomplices, claimed the lives of 20 boys in California
  • Robert Charles Browne – convicted of two murders in Colorado; confessed to 48 murders
  • Jerry Brudos – aka “The Lust Killer” and “Shoe Fetish Slayer”; killed at least five women in Oregon
  • Ted Bundy-law student who raped and murdered more than 35 women in six states

These are just the B listers from the United States.  Did Sean forget that even humans are capable of “animal like” savagery? Sean’s expedition into the absurd ends with a condemnation of “Darwinism” being wrong (a little presumptive) and corrosive (unlike Christianity, which in all of it’s history never hurt anyone… *wink*… *wink*). Considering some of the humans God saw fit to include in his plan for the earth, I think Sean owes all chimps an apology for comparing them to mankind.

Poor Ray Comfort

Feb 13th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Ray Comfort in FlamesAnyone who’s seen Ray Comfort speak or has read anything he’s written knows pretty well that he’s a couple bananas short of a bunch. Aside from the mind-dizzying irrationality of his assertions, he moves firmly into the land of untruth when it comes to speaking about the Theory of Evolution. So far so, that according to Ray’s own preaching, he’s going to Hell.

You’ve heard his shtick. It’s the same one that Kirk Cameron uses. He’ll approach someone and ask him if he’s a good person. Then he’ll proceed to ask if the mark has ever lied, stolen, taken the Lord’s name in vain, or committed adultery (based on his biblical definition). Of course, then he’ll tell the mark that he’s a lying, blaspheming, adulterous thief and is going to Hell… unless… and then Ray gives the whole Jesus solution.

I recently watched a YouTube video of Ray doing some open-air preaching in what might be Huntington Beach (he preaches there a lot, evidently). After the regular bit mentioned above and some of his classic religion-based drivel, he starts talking about evolution and goes way off into the realm of grand liars.

(more…)

A little bit of humor

Feb 13th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

I was talking to a friend a couple days ago about some new books I’d just received from Amazon. I got Only a Theory by Kenneth Miller and Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. He doesn’t really follow all the “Intelligent Design” shenanigans, so when I told him that one of the books was a sort of thrashing of ID.

He said, “Man… isn’t that horse deader than SeaBiscuit?”

I replied that sadly, it was not.

He said, “Maybe it got resurrected. It died, lay in a cave for three days, and then came back out.”

Laughter ensued.

Photo Op!

Feb 7th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet
Click to embiggen

Click to embiggen

Today, I went to visit the new Dover, PA “Praise Darwin” billboard with Craig, my co-writer on this site, to take a few pictures. It took us a bit longer than we expected to find it because we were heading north and the billboard is viewable for south-bound drivers. I kept looking, but when driving north, it’s hidden behind a grove of trees, so I missed it, but it was easy to spot on the way back.

It’s actually very unobtrusive (much to our dismay!), but is very tasteful. It makes the complaints by area residents seem all the more silly considering you’d have a good chance of missing it if you weren’t actually looking for it.

So that’s me on the left and Craig on the right. Later this month, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is going to organize a larger group photo with as many area members as they can muster, so perhaps I’ll have another photo to post after that takes place. It should be good fun meeting other members in person!

‘Praise Darwin’: Creationism proponents have not ‘moved on’

Feb 6th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Newspaper Op-Ed

My aforementioned letter to the editor of my local paper was way over the word limit for letters, so someone from the paper called me to tell me that they were goint to run it as a guest Op-Ed piece instead. I was delighted!

It’s in the paper today (and in the online version, obviously).

The comment area is enabled at the newspaper’s site, so feel free to leave comments there (or here!). I’m very excited that my response made publication… even if it is just a local paper.