Dr. Pepper 'Evolution Of Flavor' Ad Rankles Fundamentalist Christians On Facebook

Via HuffPo:

Controversy has erupted over the latest Dr. Pepper ad dubbed "The Evolution of Flavor," with a small, but vocal minority of commenters on Facebook posting complaints about the ad's evolution motif. 

The comments began after the ad appeared on the soft drink's official Facebook page Thursday afternoon. 

"I love Dr. Pepper but hate this photo," wrote Kara Duran, "Forget evolution... Jesus all the way!" 

"Well, there goes my support for this company," Jolynn Danae Pilapil wrote.

One of the most recent comments on the Facebook page this morning:

"Another lot going crazy over cartoons rather than when people are killed in the name of their religion.."

Creation Museum Scientists Challenge Bill Nye To Evolution Debate

The scientists from The Creation Museum have challenged Bill Nye to a debate. If there's a god, I pray that he makes this happen. On live prime time television.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware that Bill Nye angered quite a few Creationists with a video he made for Big Think, in which he stated that Creationism is indoctrination and inappropriate for children.

Faster than you could say "Adam's rib," the folks at Answers In Genesis (the creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum and the forthcoming Ark Encounter) responded with a facepalm-inducing rebuttal of Nye's comments.

Bill Nye then responded to Answers in Genesis with the following comments:

"When I see reasoning like this, I often feel that we educators have failed to convey a fundamental idea in evolution. We humans, who design and build things, or who plant crops according to a calendar, think in what would be top-down style or method of design. Evolution works the other way; it's bottom-up design. The only designs that we observe in nature exist, because they have been successful from generation to generation."

""Creation Science" is not useful, because it can make no successful predictions about nature or the universe. So, it is reasonable to say the expression is an oxymoron, or simply: it's not science. It has no process of observation, hypothesis, experiment, then predicted outcome. A useful theory about time and organisms would make no distinction between "observational" and "historical" science.
In terms of critical thinking, its claims are completely refutable. When creationists assert that the Earth is 6,000 years old. That claim can be evaluated and shown to be untrue or simply wrong. If creationists claim that ancient dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, that can be shown to be false. Judge John E. Jones in Dover, Pennsylvania used the expression "breathtaking inanity" to describe creationists' arguments, i.e. claims so silly that they took his breath away."

"My concern again is that we cannot afford to raise a substantial fraction of the next generation of students, who do not have the skills to think scientifically. We are at a crossroads in the history of the U.S. Without scientifically literate kids, we will fall behind other countries as inventors and innovators. We will lose our edge."

Ken Ham of AiG seems a bit pessimistic on whether Nye will accept the debate challenge:

Well, we’ve already seen a lot of web chatter by secularists saying that they don’t debate creationists. They claim creation has nothing to do with science and that Christians like Dr. Purdom (with aPhD in Molecular Genetics from Ohio State) can’t be real scientists if they are creationists.

They argue that there is no debate because evolution is fact. In other words, these secularists use every excuse they can put forward because ultimately, they do not want to debate creationists. They don’t want the public watching such a debate. They realize that when the public hears the creationist information that has been censored from them and learn how they’ve been brainwashed, they will definitely question evolution.

...The secular media by and large support Bill Nye’s false statements about evolution and science, the mainstream media would not want the general public to hear anything else. It’s almost always this way. Most in the secular media aren’t out to report news—most of them have a very liberal anti-God agenda. But we are used to that.

Bill, please accept the challenge. We will get the popcorn ready.

Richard Dawkins Speaks to CNN About Scientific Literacy, Morality & Creationism

CNN has a nice in-depth video interview with writer/biologist Richard Dawkins. It's definitely worth your time if you care about scientific literacy.

A few highlights:

On whether or not evolution should be taught to young children:

You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose - and that means evolution. So I would teach evolution very early in childhood. I don't think it's all that difficult to do. It's a very simple idea. One could do it with the aid of computer games and things like that.

I think it needs serious attention, that children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started, why it's there, why there's such diversity of it, why it looks designed. These are all things that can easily be explained to a pretty young child. I'd start at the age of about 7 or 8.

There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact.

On the source of morality:

We have very big and complicated brains, and all sorts of things come from those brains, which are loosely and indirectly associated with our biological past. And morality is among them, together with things like philosophy and music and mathematics. Morality, I think, does have roots in our evolutionary past. There are good reasons, Darwinian reasons, why we are good to, altruistic towards, cooperative with, moral in our behavior toward our fellow species members, and indeed toward other species as well, perhaps.

There are evolutionary roots to morality, but they’ve been refined and perfected through thousands of years of human culture. I certainly do not think that we ought to get our morals from religion because if we do that, then we either get them through Scripture – people who think you should get your morals from the Old Testament haven’t read the Old Testament – so we shouldn’t get our morals from there.

Nor should we get our morals from a kind of fear that if we don’t please God he’ll punish us, or a kind of desire to apple polish (to suck up to) a God. There are much more noble reasons for being moral than constantly looking over your shoulder to see whether God approves of what you do.

Where do we get our morals from? We get our morals from a very complicated process of discussion, of law-making, writing, moral philosophy, it’s a complicated cultural process which changes – not just over the centuries, but over the decades. Our moral attitudes today in 2012 are very different form what they would have been 50 or 100 years ago. And even more different from what they would have been 300 years ago or 500 years ago. We don’t believe in slavery now. We treat women as equal to men. All sorts of things have changed in our moral attitudes.

Watch:

Answers In Genesis Responds To Bill Nye's Anti-Creationism Rant

*sigh*


Of course, comments are disabled on YouTube.

Bill Nye's original post here.

Bill Nye: Don't Indoctrinate Your Children With Creationism -- The Future Needs Them

So many times, when discussing evolution, creationists will say, "Why do you care what I believe?"

Bill Nye answers the question.

"When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in [Evolution] it holds everybody back," Nye says. "Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates."

"[I]f you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them," Nye says. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people...engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."

"In another couple of centuries that world view [Creationism]...just won't exist. There's no evidence for it."

Watch:

American Idiots: 46% Of Americans Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

If the recent political climate has you feeling that not much has changed in the past 30 years, the latest Gallup poll will come as no surprise.

According to Gallup:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question.

It's amazing, right? Despite the oceans of data supporting evolution, nearly half of all Americans believe humans were created in their present form. If Gallop had dug a little deeper, we would have learned that these folks believe that men were molded out of dirt, and that women were an afterthought, fashioned from Adam's rib.

Half of all Americans believe that National Geographic, The Smithsonian, The Science Channel, the Discovery Channel, and PBS are all part of a vast secular conspiracy (along with an overwhelming majority of scientists and every major US scientific organization).

Denial is a powerful drug.

We shouldn't be surprised, then, to learn that "the more religious the American, the more likely he or she is to choose the creationist viewpoint."

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

Now, if I were to ask you whether Republicans or Democrats were more likely to be creationists -- that's a no-brainer, right? Right.

"58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."

Now, before you start laughing at the Republicans' ignorance, get this: "39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree [that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.]"

We have a serious problem in America. It's a phenomenon unlike anything else in the world.

We are a different animal altogether.

All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

Pat Robertson: Scientists "Can't Speculate About The Origins Of Life Because They Weren't There"

Pat Robertson doesn't think scientists can speculate about the origins of life 'because they weren't there.' In the same breath, he also says it's okay to believe a 'geologist who tells you something existed 300 million years ago.'

Come again, Pat?

And, of course, it's also okay to believe the Genesis origin story that was written by guys who weren't there.

Watch:

Ken Ham: The Battle Over Genesis, Literal Adam & Eve, Really Heating Up

Ken Ham claims there's a war on Adam & Eve. As the founder of Answers In Genesis and the man behind the Creation Museum, you kind of expect him to say that. His livelihood, after all, depends on it.

Ken Ham: founder, house of cards

Ham spoke to the Christian Post:

"One of the things that we see happening in the Christian culture is that the battle over Genesis – the literal Adam and Eve, the literal fall – is really heating up," said Ham, who leads what is considered the largest biblical apologetics ministry in the United States. "Not just the battle over the age of the earth, between creationists and evolutionists, but now it's gone onto a battle over literal Adam and Eve, their literal fall."

The opponents are "getting much more involved, and really challenging the Church to take a stand on God's way to Genesis," which he stressed as "the foundation for the rest of the Bible."

"That history is the foundation for every doctrine."

If there is no literal Adam and Eve, then why are men sinners, Ham asks. Where did sin come from? Why did Jesus die? "Once we reject Adam and Eve, the rest of the scriptures fall like dominoes," he added.

They sure do, Ken.

Well, they do if they read the Bible as a scientific and historical document, something that most people do not do. (Three in 10 Americans take the Bible literally -- still an unfortunate number of people.)

Ham believes that too many churches are teaching that Bible stories are just that -- stories.

When I teach children I tell them: 'The Bible is a very special book. It's the history book of the universe,'" he explained. "This is history, it's not just stories." Ham also sees the churches approach to teaching the Bible as stories as the reason for young people leaving church. They are being taught that church is not the "real stuff."

he outspoken apologist is a controversial figure, even within the Christian community. He has attracted criticism from other apologists for what many view as more extreme views. For example, Ham believes that the universe is relatively new and that it was created about 6,000 years ago. He also believes that dinosaurs co-existed with modern humans, which is illustrated at AiG's Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

Ham is also convinced that the animals carried on Noah's ark produced the biological diversity observed on Earth. To spread that idea he has embarked on a grand project of building a life-size ark in Williamstown, Ky., to serve a similar purpose as the museum – attracting visitors from across the nation and the world.

Ham's concern is certainly good news for rational people everywhere, for it shows us evolution in action. One day, if we want to hear about a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Noah's Ark, we won't be able to hear about it in a church. We'll have to visit a theme park or a tacky tourist trap instead.

Hi, I'm Rick Santorum, And I Have No Self-Awareness

Rick Santorum has been talking a lot about freedom since his trifecta on Tuesday.

Take a look at some of his official tweets following his big day:

"Freedom is at stake in this election. America needs a president who’ll listen to the voice of the people."

"Our freedoms are slowly being eroded by Obama Admn. I will fight to restore them."

A press release from yesterday announced Santorum was "the first and only candidate to sign the Presidential Pledge for Religious Freedom."

If you've been following Rick Santorum for any amount of time, you might be wondering if the man is completely devoid of any self-awareness.

Certainly Rick Santorum does not mean the freedom to wear a condom while having sex:

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Certainly he can't mean the freedom to have consensual sex with another adult in the privacy of your own home:

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."

And he can't mean the freedom for a doctor to practice his or her profession:

“I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would  advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”

Clearly, he doesn't mean the freedom to be brown in an airport:

"Obviously, Muslims would be someone you'd look at [in airport profiling]."

The freedom to stay married to the person you legally married? Nah.

When asked if he would make same-sex couples get divorced, Santorum responded, "Well their marriage would be invalid."

The freedom to not have religion shoved down your child's throat in public schools? Nope.

"It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."

The freedom to terminate a pregnancy under the care of a licensed doctor? Of course not. Santorum pines for the good ol' days of back alley abortions:

Look at what’s happened just in our tolerance for abortion. Fifty years ago…60 years ago, people who did abortions were in the shadows, people who were considered really bad doctors. Now, abortion is something to that is just accepted. [...] This is the erosion. And it happens in the medical profession. It happened very fast.

I'm really curious about the freedoms Rick Santorum believes he represents. It sure sounds like he wants nothing more than to establish a Christian Taliban.

Institute For Creation Research's 'That's A Fact!' Video Series Doesn't Contain Any

If, for some strange reason, you enjoy pounding your forehead into your desk, I have great news for you.

Head over to the Institute for Creation Research's Vimeo page and behold their new campaign entitled "That's a Fact!"

I'm not entirely sure what "facts" they're referring to here, as each video is the same old creationist nonsense, just served up Web 2.0-style.

Consider this entry in the series, entitled "Useless Body Parts," which discusses vestigiality.

The Institute for Creation Research states:

Body parts like tonsils and the appendix were once considered unnecessary organs left over from evolution. But scientists have discovered that these “unnecessary” organs are actually very useful.

The video states that scientists now know that the appendix is useful to our immune system, and that the gall bladder is now known to be useful for digesting fats.

With this information, the video draws the following conclusion:

"God doesn't create junk. When he made Adam and Eve, he declared them...very good! Their sin against god started the process of sickness, decay, and death even after God's judgment upon creation, he activated intricately designed backup systems, like the immune system, so that Adam and Eve, and all their descendants could survive after the fall."

I believe that by "facts," they mean "myths."

While their remarks on the appendix and the gall bladder are partly true, they leave out a lot of important information (this seems to happen a lot with creationist propaganda).

For instance, if a supreme being had designed the appendix as part of a human (a human which was designed and created in its current form), then the appendix would be kind of like the Ford Pinto's exploding gas tank. (OK, that's a bad example, you actually need a gas tank to operate a car, but you get the idea) Yes, the appendix may provide some minor functions in modern times, but it might also kill you. Brandon Miller wrote in LiveScience: "In 2000, in fact, there were nearly 300,000 appendectomies performed in the United States, and 371 deaths from appendicitis. Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured."

(Side bar: we have to stop looking at biological traits and features as having "purposes." A chameleon's camouflage mechanism doesn't have a "purpose" (i.e. hiding from prey), it is simply a mechanism that evolved because the chameleons who were less capable of camouflaging themselves died before they could reproduce.)

Regarding the coccyx, I'm not sure the Institute for Creation Research has a true understanding of atavism. Humans occasionally are born with tails.

There are numerous examples of vestigial limbs, organs, and other features: Hind leg bones in whales, male nipples, human wisdom teeth, goose bumps, and wings on flightless birds.

If a designer were hired to create efficient organisms, she would certainly be sent back to the drawing board for many of these useless and extraneous features. She certainly wouldn't be receiving praise for efficiency or conservation of building materials.

The kind of silliness we see in these Institution for Creation Studies videos are straight from the creationist propaganda playbook. The willful ignorance is astounding.

These organizations are so fixated on the mission of proving the Bible's inerrancy, that they are willing to completely ignore all evidence except for the few pieces of evidence that work in their favor. If they can blind their captive audience with just a little science, then they believe they have done enough and can then swoop in with their message of hope and salvation.

"Those silly evolutionists say X is true! But what about Y and Z? Wait! Look over there, it's Jesus and heaven and salvation forever! Amen!"

It's the same approach every single time.

Watch for yourself. Watch them all. Or save yourself the headache.

Bryan Fischer & The Creation Museum's Scientist Link Evolution To Hitler

Today, AFA spokesman and all-around horrible person, Bryan Fischer, had Dr. Georgia Purdom on his show.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Purdom, she is one of the actual scientists employed by the Creation Museum. In other words, she is a scientist who has found a way to completely ignore science in order to indoctrinate children with the idea that the earth is only several thousand years old, and that God created humans in their present form.

As I've mentioned before in these pages, evolution deniers like Bryan Fischer, Ray Comfort, and the crew at Answers in Genesis love to play the Hitler card in their attacks on evolution.

Take Fischer and Purdom from today's Focal Point (video segment is below)

FISCHER: So it seems like you could draw a straight line between Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, the eugenics movement, and Adolph Hitler. You have an unbroken line from the theory of evolution to Hitler's Germany. Is that an over-exaggeration?

PURDOM: No it's not.

What Fischer and Purdom are trying to do is sully Darwin's name, and his theory of evolution -- a theory which is considered to be a fact by most modern biologists -- by association.

I guess the idea is that if they keep repeating over and over that "evolution = Hitler," the poor souls who pay attention to these loons (over 200 radio stations and over 1 million visitors to the Creation Museum) will simply say, "Welp, Hitler was evil, so evolution has to be a lie!"

Here's the thing:

Evolution doesn't care. Evolution happens, has happened, and will happen, regardless of who embraces it, or who mirrors its mechanisms for whatever nefarious purpose.

It doesn't matter if Mother Theresa, Pope Benedict, or Adolf Hitler embraced the theory of evolution. It doesn't change anything. Because change is always occurring, and it doesn't give a shit about you, politics, religion, or Bryan Fischer.

Next thing you know, Fischer and Purdom will be bad-mouthing Sir Isaac Newton and his theory of gravitation because of the millions who have died by falling.

Get Your Crayons Ready! It's The Creation Museum Dinosaur Coloring Contest!

The folks over at Kentucky's Creation Museum have announced a fun way to get your children on their way to needing remedial instruction in science.

Can you draw a saddle and a human?

The Creationist Disneyland, as NCSE director Eugenie Scott likes to call it, will give your child $5 off their admission for coloring a picture of their friendly dinosaur. (The dinosaur was created by God on day 6, it says on the page.)

Or, if your child likes to draw, they can turn in a drawing of their favorite dinosaur. If a child were to go this route, I imagine they might get bonus points for drawing Adam & Eve, perhaps saddled atop the dinosaur on a romantic ride through Eden.

The contest will be judged in four age groups: preschool, 5–7 year olds, 8–11 year olds, and 12–14 year olds.

While the Creation Museum is a bit vague about what exactly kids might win, they have confirmed that "prizes will be awarded."

One can be fairly certain that science education is not among the prizes.

Here's what some smart people have had to say about the museum:

British scientist, doctor, and professor Robert Winston:

It was alarming to see so much time, money and effort being spent on making a mockery of hard won scientific knowledge. And the fact that it was being done with such obvious sincerity, somehow made it all the worse.

The National Center For Science Education received over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the museum (Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement:

We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis.

Lisa Park, professor of paleontology at University of Akron, and an Elder in the Presbyterian Church:

I think it's very bad science and even worse theology... and the theology is far more offensive to me. I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public.

British writer A.A. Gill:

A breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul...This place doesn't just take on evolution—it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology.

I think they owe thousands of childen an ap-ology.

Protestant Pastors Overwhelmingly Believe God Did Not Use Evolution, Adam & Eve Were Literal People

Protestant pastors overwhelmingly believe that God did not use evolution to create humans, and believe that Adam and Eve were literal people. They are, however, evenly split on whether the earth is only thousands of years old.

This is according to a survey of 1,000 American Protestant pastors released on January 9 by LifeWay Research.

Via Baptist Press:

When asked to respond to the statement, "I believe God used evolution to create people," 73 percent of pastors disagree, with 64 percent strongly disagreeing and 8 percent somewhat disagreeing. Twelve percent each somewhat agree and strongly agree. Four percent are not sure.

In response to the statement, "I believe Adam and Eve were literal people," 74 percent strongly agree and 8 percent somewhat agree. Six percent somewhat disagree, 11 percent strongly disagree and 1 percent are not sure.

Of course, Lifeway is in the business of selling bibles, so I'm not so sure how seriously we should take this survey. Regardless, those numbers are not terribly encouraging.

However, there are several telling (and fairly obvious) findings from the survey:

• Evolution denial is significantly less-prominent in the Northeast, where we also find lower overall rates of religiosity.

• Mainline Protestant pastors were more likely to accept evolution (25%) than their Evangelical peers (8%).

• Evangelicals were more likely than Mainline Protestants to strongly agree that Adam and Eve were literal people (82% vs. 50%).

• Pastors with graduate degrees were more likely to disagree that Adam & Eve were literal people, compared to those with a bachelor's degree (16% vs. 2%).

• Younger pastors were the least likely to strongly disagree that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

• Pastors with a graduate degree were more likely to strongly disagree that the earth is 6,000 years old than pastors with a bachelor's degree(42% vs. 18%).

So, even if LifeWay is looking to sell us bibles, their survey shows us that if young Protestants get a college degree and move to an area that is not saturated with religious ideology, they have a decent chance of escaping the ignorance they were born into.

Metta World Peace (Ron Artest) On God's Design Of Baby Teeth

In case you missed it, Los Angeles Laker Ron Artest has changed his name to Metta World Peace.

For real.

Anyway, Metta, who wears the number 37 in honor of Michael Jackson, has become quite spiritual (duh).

Here is World Peace, discussing the beauty of God's design, which allows us to lose our baby teeth when we're young, rather than later in life:


While Ron/Metta has a lot to learn about the evolutionary reasons for deciduous teeth, I can at least appreciate the name change.

Are You A Young Earth Creationist? Take The Quiz!

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? In case you're unsure, you may want to answer the 9 questions below, which Creation Ministries International put together to help "ascertain whether your future pastor, youth group leader or Bible College principal takes a straightforward view of Genesis."

You wouldn't want your child to learn actual facts would you? Heavens, no.

From the introduction to the quiz:

CMI periodically receives requests for us to identify Bible colleges/seminaries that believe/teach a straightforward reading of Genesis. We also know of pastoral search committees lamenting that they would not have selected certain candidates if only they had known in advance of their compromise (long-age, or theistic evolutionary) stance on Genesis.

For a number of reasons, CMI does not provide a list of ‘young-earth’ theological colleges, nor do we get involved in church staffing matters. However, in response to such enquiries we have prepared the following questionnaire to meet an evident need.

Please feel free to reference CMI's explanatory notes for each question.

Good luck!

1. SIX DAYS 

Do you believe that God created the earth and universe in six ordinary-length (earth-rotation) days?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

2. AGE OF THE WORLD 

Do you believe that the earth and universe are only thousands (not millions or billions) of years old, as measured by Earth time?

☐  Yes

☐  No

___________________________________________________________________

3. THE FIRST HUMANS 

Do you believe that Adam and his wife Eve were the literal, historic ancestors of all (other) people who have ever lived?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

4. ADAM AND EVE’S ORIGINS 

Do you believe that Adam and Eve had no physical parents, but were created directly by God; Adam from the actual dust, and Eve from the actual flesh and bone of Adam’s side?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

5. HUMAN DEATH 

Do you believe that human physical death began only after Adam sinned?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

6. CARNIVORY 

Do you believe that all animals were originally created vegetarian?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

7. SUFFERING IN THE FOSSIL RECORD 

Do you believe that fossils showing evidence of bloodshed and suffering (e.g. half-eaten prey, dinosaur cancers,) could not have been formed before Adam’s Fall led to the Curse?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

8. GLOBAL FLOOD

Do you believe that the Flood of Noah covered the whole globe? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

9. THE SUPERNATURAL POWER OF JESUS

Do you believe that after Lazarus was physically dead for days, Jesus miraculously caused him to regain physical life? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

If you answered 'No' to any of the above questions, you have nothing to worry about. Wait -- I mean, you failed.

Ken Ham & Answers In Genesis Refute Evolution With 3-Minute Video

Stop the presses! Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have refuted evolution with a 3-minute video.

A still from AiG's 'Check This Out' DVD series

From AiG:

We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true.

Yes, Ken, it's exactly like that. A "strange Darwinian chant" from atheist blogs and secular universities.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from the world's largest scientific society, with over 130,000 members, and over 262 affiliated societies comprised of over 10 million individuals.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from pretty much every scientist (97%).

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 90 educational organizations, over 30 religious organizations, and over 100 scientific and scholarly organizations.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 1170 scientists named Steve (Steves make up approximately 1% of all scientists).

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 12,000 American Christian clergy.

What is so explosive about the information in Ken's video that he believes disproves the theory that serves as "the foundation of modern biology?" The video states, "What the bible reveals makes sense of what we see and understand. Evolution does not. 'Nuff said."

Ham's refutation centers on the following two statements:

1. Life has never been observed to come from non-life. 
2. There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. 

Let's have a look:

 

Let's address the first refutation. First of all, the theory of evolution does not depend on how life began. Abiogenesis is another matter altogether, and proof or dis-proof of abiogenesis would not affect evolution in the least. Evolution is defined as "the gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms." As long as there is life, there is evolution. Saying that evolution cannot exist without proof of abiogenesis is like saying the germ theory of disease does not work without first understanding how bacteria first originated.

Secondly, just because science has not observed abiogenesis does not mean that God created all life in its present form. This is a 'God of the Gaps' argument and it's silly. It is true that we have not replicated abiogenesis, but there are many models to describe how life may have originated, and we are learning more and more each day. There was a time when we could not explain where lightning came from, and so we attributed it to the gods. We later gained the knowledge to explain how lightning works, and the gods explanation faded away. Abiogenesis is a little more complex, and may or may not be replicated in my lifetime, but that does not mean that it cannot be explained. Science is closing in on it. This is how science works.

Now on to Ham's 2nd refutation: "There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism." This is, quite simply, a flat out lie. Although creationists never seem to be able to define exactly what they mean by "information," It appears that they keep this definition rather loose, so that they can exclude whatever evidence is put in front of them. Regardless, new genetic information is indeed routinely added to biological systems through various evolutionary mechanisms. You just need to look at the evidence, which is overwhelming. You just won't find it in Creationist sources. 

John Rennie writes in Scientific American:

Biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. 

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. 

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

Nice try, Ken. Sadly, however, there are many parents and churches who will plop their kids in front of your DVDs, and no new factual information will be added to the child's brain. Most of these kids will eventually have evolution explained to them properly. However, some kids will inevitably grow up to be the next Ken Ham.

It's like some strange Creationist chant.

Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth: Why Does The US Not Fit The Trend?

via Calamities of Nature:

The United States is an odd bird, clearly. This graph reminded me of a post on PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog in which he discussed an international poll showing the US as being near dead last in acceptance of evolution (just above Turkey, another country with a distinct fundamentalism/modernism issues).

What, pray tell, could cause the US to remain such an outlier?

Well, first there is religiosity:

The total effect of fundamentalist religious beliefs on attitude toward evolution (using a standardized metric) was nearly twice as much in the United States as in the nine European countries (path coefficients of -0.42 and -0.24, respectively), which indicates that individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views.

And then there's this:

Second, the evolution issue has been politicized and incorporated into the current partisan division in the United States in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan. In the second half of the 20th century, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has adopted creationism as a part of a platform designed to consolidate their support in southern and Midwestern states—the "red" states. In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in seven states included explicit demands for the teaching of "creation science". There is no major political party in Europe or Japan that uses opposition to evolution as a part of its political platform.

As Myers noted, the paper ends on a sad note:

The politicization of science in the name of religion and political partisanship is not new to the United States, but transformation of traditional geographically and economically based political parties into religiously oriented ideological coalitions marks the beginning of a new era for science policy. The broad public acceptance of the benefits of science and technology in the second half of the 20th century allowed science to develop a nonpartisan identification that largely protected it from overt partisanship. That era appears to have closed.

Nigel Barber, in Psychology Today, asks if Atheism will eventually replace religion, as research shows that atheism "blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure."

He writes:

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion. Hence my finding of belief in God being higher in countries with a heavy load of infectious diseases.

These findings are not surprising, but his piece does not acknowledge the fact that the US, a developed country where most have access to shelter, healthcare, and education, remains extremely religious (and relatively anti-evolution). Unfortunately, in the US, there appears to be no level of affluence and comfort capable of decoupling religion and politics, despite constitutional assurances explicitly requiring it.

The Batshit Files: News Roundup | 7.14.11

Is it the heat, or the stupidity?

• Michele Bachmann's church says the Pope is the anti-christ. (Raw Story)

• Mike Bickle, official endorser of Rick Perry's The Response prayer rally, sees marriage equality as a sign of the End Times and is rooted "in the depths of Hell." (Right Wing Watch)

• Fox News forgets that 9/11 took place on George Bush's watch, and Dana Perino, sitting right there, fails to correct them. (Raw Story)

• Sarah Palin on debt ceiling: 'Reload,' don't 'retreat' (LA Times)

• Michele Bachmann flubs her Jewish cred by mispronouncing “chutzpah” (News Hounds)

• Tea Party Nation: President Obama is just like Casey Anthony (Right Wing Watch)

• Rick Perry wants to leave government ‘in God’s hands,’ says ‘God, you’re gonna have to fix this.’ (Think Progress)

• Wis. GOP state senate candidate: ‘Why not teach creationism’ and put a cross in school? (TPM)

• Poor Rupert Murdoch is 'annoyed' with all these negative headlines about his company (allegedly) hacking 9/11 victims' private voicemails. (WSJ)

• Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake: Obama supporters 'are the dumbest motherfuckers in the world.' (Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog)

• Michele Bachmann wants to make sure you know she's not pro-slavery. (Mediaite)

How Evolution Works, in Comic Form: So Easy a Caveman Could Understand It

Until my dream of an IMAX 3D evolution documentary is realized, we have accessible, educational, and imaginative works by artists like Darryl Cunningham

Evolution is probably the most misunderstood concept on the planet. I still have some misconceptions to this day, I'm sure. I was an English major who grew up in Southeastern US public schools. I have no recollection of evolution being taught, and have been playing catch-up for quite some time.

I never really doubted evolution, for some reason, but I just didn't totally 'get it.'  When it finally clicked for me, after a devouring a handful of well-written primers on the subject, it was as if I'd unlocked a whole new way of looking at everything. Which I had. When you fully understand that every living thing shares an ancestor with every other living thing, it has a profound effect on how you view those things.  And when you understand how biological complexity arises in nature, you start to see examples of more complex, and less complex, mechanisms all around you.  You begin to see that many of the concepts and mechanisms found in evolution also have applications in non-biological areas, such as technology, religion, language, art, etc.

A recent Gallup poll shows that 4 in 10 of Americans do not accept evolution.  Granted, most of those who deny evolution do so because of their literal readings of scripture.  But, I do believe that, in addition, part of the problem is that people have misconceptions and misunderstandings about evolution.  They either have been willfully given misinformation by an opponent of evolution, or they have been the victim of oversimplifications, or flat-out wrong assumptions, such as the much-repeated fallacy that humans evolved from monkeys.

I've often thought that evolution could really use a boost from CGI.  I realize that there have been some short, and minor uses of CGI to demonstrate aspects of evolution on television documentaries, but I would love to see either a full-length documentary or a mini-series that really plunges in depth, leaving no stone unturned.

I imagine this thought experiment passage from Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth done in CGI -- IMAX 3D, even.  Picture it:

I’ll call it the hairpin thought experiment. Take a rabbit, any female rabbit (arbitrarily stick to females, for convenience: it makes no difference to the argument). Place her mother next to her. Now place the grandmother next to the mother and so on back in time, back, back, back through the mega years, a seemingly endless line of female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter and her mother. We walk along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining them carefully like an inspecting general. As we pace the line, we’ll eventually notice that the ancient rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern rabbits we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan’t notice the trend from generation to generation, just as we can’t see the motion of the hour hand on our watches – and just as we can’t see a child growing, we can only see later that she has become a teenager, and later still an adult. An additional reason why we don’t notice the change in rabbits from one generation to another is that, in any one century, the variation within the current population will normally be greater than the variation between mothers and daughters. So if we try to discern the movement of the ‘hour hand’ by comparing mothers with daughters, or indeed grandmothers with granddaughters, such slight differences as we may see will be swamped by the differences among the rabbits’ friends and relations gambolling in the meadows round about.

Nevertheless, steadily and imperceptibly, as we retreat through time, we shall reach ancestors that look less and less like a rabbit and more and more like a shrew (and not very like either). One of these creatures I’ll call the hairpin bend, for reasons that will become apparent. This animal is the most recent common ancestor (in the female line, but that is not important) that rabbits share with leopards. We don’t know exactly what it looked like, but it follows from the evolutionary view that it definitely had to exist.

Like all animals, it was a member of the same species as its daughters and its mother. We now continue our walk, except that we have turned the bend in the hairpin and are walking forwards in time, aiming towards the leopards (among the hairpin’s many and diverse descendants, for we shall continually meet forks in the line, where we consistently choose the fork that will eventually lead to leopards). Each shrewlike animal along our forward walk is now followed by her daughter. Slowly, by imperceptible degrees, the shrew-like animals will change, through intermediates that might not resemble any modern animal much but strongly resemble each other, perhaps passing through vaguely stoat-like intermediates, until eventually, without ever noticing an abrupt change of any kind, we arrive at a leopard.

Various things must be said about this thought experiment. First, we happen to have chosen to walk from rabbit to leopard, but I repeat that we could have chosen porcupine to dolphin, wallaby to giraffe or human to haddock. The point is that for any two animals there has to be a hairpin path linking them, for the simple reason that every species shares an ancestor with every other species: all we have to do is walk backwards from one species to the shared ancestor, then turn through a hairpin bend and walk forwards to the other species.

Fortunately, Dawkins' thought experiment is so elegantly written that we really don't need CGI to grasp it, but then again, we have the pesky problem of how to get that 40% of Americans to pick up a Dawkins book.

There are some other really wonderful (and accessible) books by less-controversial figures, such as Jerry Coyne, Sloane Wilson, and many others.

We also have a rising number of graphic artists serving up some pretty amazing works. There's Jay Hosler's Evolution: The Story of Life on Earth and Michael Keller and Nicole Rager Fuller's Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species: A Graphic Adaptation.

And then we have Darryl Cunningham's forthcoming book, Science Stories, which will feature a version of an amazing comic strip about Evolution (he says the version on his blog is a beta version).

What I love about Cunningham's comic is his approach from the perspective of two people who are discussing evolution. One doesn't understand it, or does not accept it, and the other is very comfortable addressing these questions (all very common questions that we see time and time again). Cunningham allows us to learn about evolution through doubt, which is really how it works in real life for so many Americans.

I hope that Cunningham's strip receives a lot of attention, and hopefully reaches a much wider audience. At least until we have that CGI IMAX 3D movie I've been dreaming about.

Here are a few frames to enjoy. They are excerpted from the middle of the piece, to demonstrate his approach. Please visit his blog for the evolution comic from start to finish:

Again, I urge you to check out the entire piece.

Miss USA - The Evolution Monologues

As you may have heard by now, the winner of the Miss USA Pageant, Alyssa Campanella (Miss California), was one of only two out of 51 contestants who fully affirmed their belief in evolution and that it should be taught in schools (Alida D’Angona, Miss Massachusetts was the other).

Via HuffPo:

The rest either confused the question with evolution of species (versus the intelligent design debate), or stated that they thought both should be taught in school, according to Scientific American.

Campanella and Alida D’Angona from Massachusetts were the only two contestants to state that they fully believed in evolution.

There had been concern, leading up to the pageant, that questions about evolution were too controversial and caused undue anxiety.

For those of you who are interested in the pre-recorded answers provided by each of the 51 delegates, the video has been released for your viewing pleasure.

You may wish to encase your skull in foam before watching. Some answers may lead to banging head on desk.