Vindications

One more post of gloating righteousness.
Take note of the word “lemur.”

“In this case, we’ll have to wait and see. But because the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week.“

Answers In Genesis, May 16th, News to Note.

“Organizations with the word “Family” in their name are invariably fundamentalists and creationists (with the possible exception of “Family Planning”), and OneNewsNow, the website of the “American Family News Network,” is a case in point as they react to the news of the “Ida” fossil by consulting Ken Ham, leader of the young earth creationist group Answers in Genesis. Ham’s conclusion: It’s just a dead animal. Big deal.”

Charles Johnson, curator, bitter anti-creationist, Little Green Footballs blog, Thursday, May 21st, 2009. 3:15 pm.
Who Cares About a Dead Lemur?

“The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.”

Discovery News, October 21st, 2009. Emphasis mine.
“Missing Link” Primate Fossil Debunked.

It appears the Charles owes Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham, and Rush Limbaugh a public apology. Something tells me it won’t happen.

D’ Oh!

Blind Confidence Fail:

“It’s just pathetic that on a day when such an amazing scientific discovery is announced, possibly one of the greatest finds of all time, Rush Limbaugh gets on the radio and tells his millions of admirers that it’s meaningless b******t.

It does mean something. This should be a day when all Americans — all human beings — are proud of what we can accomplish through science and research, and human intelligence. Discoveries like “Ida” happen once in a lifetime.

But instead we have high profile “conservatives” b***hing about it as if it’s a personal affront to them.

Just pathetically sad.”

Charles Johnson, curator, anti-creationist, Little Green Footballs blog May 19th, 2009 10:38:48 pm (emphasis mine).
Rush Limbaugh, Creationist

“Among the geeks at ScienceBlogs, there’s a lot of debate about the appropriateness of the splashy media campaign to promote the “Ida” fossil; the NYT Opinionator blog has a round-up of the comments (and a nod to LGF for our Rush Limbaugh post): Let’s Not Go Ape Over Ida.

I understand the consternation scientists feel when they see these kinds of public relations techniques being used; it may be the first time a media event like this has been staged to promote a scientific discovery. But as long as the science is good — and in this case, the team of researchers worked on the fossil for two years before going public, and did publish a paper in the journal PLoS One — I can’t get upset over the PR push.

After all, every time we post about evolution at LGF, professionally-done, context-driven Google advertisements promoting creationism appear in our sidebars — and not once have we seen similar ads promoting evolution.

The anti-evolution, anti-science crowd is spending lots of money and enlisting the services of media and graphic designers to promote their side. It’s past time for real scientists to get in the game — with the caveat that they don’t forget to do the real research to back up the media effort.

Charles Johnson, curator, anti-creationist, Little Green Footballs blog May 20th, 2009 12:02:53 (emphasis mine)
Going Ape?

“Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it “the link” that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.

Experts protested that Ida wasn’t even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

Discovery News, October 21st, 2009 (emphasis mine)
‘Missing Link’ Primate Fossil Debunked.

They say crow pie is a dish best served microwaved…

Phillips on LGF

I have documented over the last year or so how Charles Johnson’s once informative blog, Little Green Footballs, has descended into anti-creationist madness. I think what stirred up his angry bigotry against creationists, and the ID movement in particular, was a conservative political hero of his, Ben Stein, making his movie Expelled. In fact, it was probably last spring or so, just a few weeks before Stein’s movie was released, when Johnson began posting links to atheist websites supposedly debunking ID and creationism.

Since then, anyone of any prominence in the Red-state conservative opinion world who either comes out against or in support of ID theory, Charles will note on his blog adding his pronouncements of praise if the person chose in favor of Darwinian evolution or hurling his curses if the person supports ID.

Another “hero” of sorts for Charles has been British opinion writer, Melanie Phillips, who has written hard and wise against social leftism and the European governments succumbing to Islamic sensibilities. However, she has gotten on Charles bad side because she recently published a post supportive of ID ideology. This irritated him to no end and he just had to make his own ignorant comments upon it. Specifically, he repeats the same myth he has repeated now for nearly a year: ID is stealth creationism only wanting to turn every public school into a giant Jesus camp.

Now, never mind the fact Phillips is a self-described Jewish agnostic and she merely wishes to “follow the evidence where ever it leads” as a rational thinking human being. She has done the unforgivable: Going apostate from the secular community by thinking forbidden thoughts and suggesting that Darwinian evolution doesn’t have all the answers about life. Ironically, Charles unyielding secular fundamentalism is just as extreme and irrational as the Islamic mullah’s in the PLO he routinely criticizes in his blog.

None the less, Phillips responded to his comments with a pithy post centering on answering the absurd claim that ID is just stealth creationism.

The Secular Inquisition

In spite of her wrong-headed definitions of biblical creationism, her response to Charles is highly amusing. He is yet to give any response to her in return except linking to some atheist propagandist who equally smears Phillips as an evolutionary apostate.

Man. You would think she has thrown off the veil or something.

Or maybe the burkha?

The Evolution and Religion Can Be Friends Farce

Charles Johnson, curator of the conservative leaning, Little Green Footballs, has become something of an anti-creationist bigot. Over the last year or so, he has turned his once enjoyable to read blog into a dumping ground for every crackpot news item he sees as bagging on creationism in defense of Darwinian evolution.

For example, over the weekend he cites a blog article put up by a group of atheists who call themselves the misnamed Louisiana Coalition for Science. They recently posted an article complaining against Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, who has signed state educational legislation favorable to intelligent design being taught along side Darwinian evolution in the public school class room.

The article, a post written by atheist crank Barbara Forrest, grimly states how the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology is boycotting the state of Louisiana by not holding their national meeting in New Orleans for 2011. The last meeting in Boston had 1,850 participants, the letter from the SICB explains, and that means their boycott will keep nearly 2,000 brilliant scientists and graduate students from adding to the local economy in New Orleans just because the governor has supported those stealth creationist Discovery Institute dullards.

Ummm.

1,850 is not a significant number of anything. To put it in perspective, Grace Community Church has triple that amount of members attending on just one Sunday morning. About double that number for Sunday evenings. The Together for the Gospel conference from 2008 had nearly 6,000 pastors in attendance in Louisville. To suggest a tiny group of specialized educators and researchers is going to have any measurable economic impact upon the city of New Orleans with their boycott is laughable. They would make a much more significant point if they can get Mardi Gras cancelled for the year.

At any rate, following on the heals of the atheists boycotting Louisiana post is a second one by Charles noting some lawsuit against Berkley concerning their website listing misconceptions about evolution. The web page in question suggests that religion, code word for Christians in this case, and evolution can get along if religious people would just come to their sense about the way things are. Predictably, the page links to another pseudo-scientific group that is really just another clearing house for atheistic propaganda, the National Center for Science Education. That alone tells me the bias of these folks.

The merits of this lawsuit aside, I wanted to comment upon what the website actually says about religious people being “friends” with evolution.

The paragraph states,

Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

Allow me to make a few observations.

First off, the first sentence is truly dishonest. Religion and science with “science” being equated automatically with evolution are said to be two entirely different things. Of course religion is typically understood by these people as blind faith in the non-existent supernatural. Evolution is automatically assumed to be bacteria-to-man, no divine being doing anything at all during the course of its process over billions of years. And again, Darwinian supporters believe this definition of evolution is never to be questioned, has been proven as fact, and is undeniably true. Hence the reason evolution in this case is equated with science.

Note also how the second sentence sets up a false dichotomy: science alone is the only valid means which can use natural causes to explain natural phenomena. Religion in turn, according to this contrast, is merely blind faith in non-existent things that supposedly go beyond the natural world. Creationist critics like Charles Johnson, and many in his lizard army, should understand that creationists have never been opposed to explaining natural phenomena with natural causes. Seeing that creationists clearly believe God created the world to function in a natural way (Because God told us so in His Word), natural phenomena is expected to be caused by natural causes. Thus, such an understanding of “science” is not exclusively an anti-creationist or even an anti-supernatural position. One can have a belief in the supernatural and hold firmly to natural causes causing natural phenomena.

A third observation is the vague comment in the big paragraph which tells the reader that many religious groups and even some theologians have no problem with the theory of evolution. The writer of these words continues to leave what is meant by “evolution” undefined for the reader, and presupposes it is non-life forming life and one celled organisms changing and mutating, and then changing again until we have modern man in his full glory without any “god” or outside supernatural force doing anything at all. The writer also doesn’t tell the reader that the majority of those “religious” individuals referenced don’t really take the Bible seriously as a revelation from God any ways. Usually these religious people or theologians are from hard core liberal denominations like the United Church of Christ and Unitarians, and they generally deny the supernatural to begin with.

Lastly is the heart of the disagreement. Critics like Johnson are often times ignorant of the core fundamentals which shape the dissent on each side in the debate. Heck, even anti-creationist apologists like Barbara Forrest are ignorant of the fundamentals. They are of the opinion non-evolutionists reject clear evidence that supports the bacteria-to-man evolution and for them to deny this reality places the creationists and IDers in the realm of the delusional.

The disagreement biblical creationists and IDers (who are not creationists, by the way) have with evolutionists has really nothing to do with science per se. Creationists are just as “scientific” as evolutionists. The true disagreement is with the presuppositions brought to the evidence and which is utilized to interpret it.

I as a creationist believe the Bible is God Word and I know it provides a clear revelation of God’s creation of the world and all that is contained there in and ultimately man on the sixth day. The creation narrative of Genesis is not another ancient myth with no bearing upon the modern world. It is a reliable historical record of God creating in the span of six normal days as we understand days. The grammar of the text of Genesis cannot allow for any other conclusion. Evolution as this Berkley website defines it, is no where present in the text of Genesis. Thus, I as a religious person, as I take my faith just as seriously in creation as the evolutionist does in his “science,” would have to abandon my faith to satisfy the whims of the evolutionist in order to be “friends.” A compromise I am sure evolutionists like Barbara Forrest, whose criticisms of creationism is driven more for her hatred of God than defending the integrity of “science,” would gleefully welcome.

And the alternative of the evolutionist abandoning his materialistic naturalism as the first principles which shape his understanding of the world, and embracing a God centered view of the origins of life, would be just as odious to them.

The Eugenics Deniers

A Quick Review of Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

(I truly wasn’t going to post anything until next week, but I was inspired.)

Conspiracies of all sorts abound in our culture specifically on the internet. Two of the more insipid are the ones claiming the Holocaust never happened or there are no Jews alive in our modern world and the “Jews” we know today occupying the land of Israel are really of Turkish decent. The first scenario can be located in the putrid propaganda of racist, KKK, neo-Nazi anti-Zionists, where as the other is primarily the product of radical, anti-Dispensational replacement theologians.

However, in recent months another group of historical deniers has begun to publish on the internet: those who want to minimize or ignore entirely the role Darwinian evolution played in shaping early 20th century eugenics policies in the United States and eventually the master race goals of Nazi Germany before World War II. Charles Johnson, curator of Little Green Footballs, is the one eugenics denier I am most familiar with. I have been tracking and on occasion noting on my blog how he has become a full on Dawkin’s stooge ridiculing creationist and ID supporters to the point of falsely accusing the Institute of Creation Research of being in league with Islamic “creationist” groups funded by terrorist organizations.

Probably the main source of his irrational response to the conflict evolution has with creation is Ben Stein’s documentary from earlier this year, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I did not see the film when it was originally released, though I did post a bit on the reactions it was receiving from bitter atheists who hate any one attacking their faith. Now that it is has been released on DVD, and I have the free time vacationing as it were at the in-laws, I had the opportunity to sit down and watch it on a gigantic LCD 50 inch flat screen TV.

Thus I wanted to offer my thoughts.

The film is extremely well made and Stein brings a charm to the various interviews he has with the scientists expelled from their jobs for questioning Darwinian theory. The basic premise of the documentary is to expose the censorship and black listing happening to a number of qualified, multi-degreed scientists who had the courage to put down the Darwinian kool-aid and ask penetrating questions of the main tenets of Darwinian theory. As a result, a number of them, particularly the ones Stein interviews, have lost their teaching positions, grants for research, or experienced any number of black listing tactics to shut them up. Stein even interviews a reporter in New York who talks about how the black listing even extends to secular journalists willing to give ID a fair shake in their reporting.

In addition to critics of evolution, Stein even interviews Darwinianists like Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, and Daniel Dennet, to get their perspective on the expulsion of these scientists on account of them questioning Darwinian theory. Of course, they either deny such a thing is happening or believe the purge is necessary. The most ardent denier of any censorship happening is Eugenie Scott. One of the more amusing parts of the film is her boasting no such thing is happening, then the film switching to the fact it is. The documentary crescendos to an interview Stein had with Richard Dawkins in which the famed atheist attempts to argue that advanced alien lifeforms (who evolved themselves according to Darwinian means) could have seeded life on our planet so it too could evolve like them.

However, the most controversial feature of the film, and the reason for the title I gave this post, comes when Stein traces the history of Darwinian thought as it influenced eugenics policies in the U.S. and eventually Germany which led to Hitler’s death camps. In spite of the anger this portion of the film has inflamed, I personally thought more could be shown in this section, because the film makers didn’t even begin to touch on the history of the eugenics movement. Most notably, the influence U.S. scientists and politicians had on Germany and Hitler’s use of their research.

Though the history of eugenics in the U.S. is briefly mentioned, the film skips over the first 20 years or so of eugenics being practiced in the U.S., and instead focuses upon Stein touring a German mental facility from the WWII era where the mentally ill were experimented upon and eventually killed all in the name of eugenics. One disturbing note is the young German gal giving Stein the tour. She believed she could not rightly judge what had happened in that place, even suggesting it was a right thing to do. Her responses to Stein’s questions showed how generations throughout the world have succumbed to postmodern thought.

At any rate, it is this part of the movie which has brought it the most controversy and criticism even by friendly supporters of ID. But the hostile reaction to Darwinianism influencing Nazi eugenics policies is baffling, because critics are reacting negatively to historical fact. It is just an historical fact that the Nazis justified their eugenics policies by appealing to evolutionary theory. Anyone who would do any serious research would discover this reality. Yet, it is denied by Stein’s critics to the point he has been ridiculed for even suggesting evolutionary theory played a significant role in the German Holocaust.

I personally believe this hostile reaction is because eugenics was an attempt by modern societies to take evolution out of the realm of just being a theory explaining the emergence of life on earth way in the past, and employed it in a practical manner in which humanity is controlling its evolutionary destiny. This troubles normal thinking folks, because the weak and helpless were the primary victims of these policies. What happened in Nazi Germany is the logical conclusion of Darwinianism, and people are so uncomfortable with that fact they make the absurd claim Stein is distorting the truth, or they argue there was no connection between Hitler’s madness and evolution, or deny eugenics existed at all, or down play its influence in the U.S. during the early 20th century.

The film is certainly worth the rent and people uninitiated to the intellectual debate between atheistic naturalism expressed in the form of Darwinianism and those who believe in a creator will be startled such censorship is taking place in the scientific academy. Even more startling are the large host of individuals, like Charles Johnson, who would be the first to decry the leftist censorship of conservative ideas taking place in the university these days, yet justify and even applaud the censorship of Darwinian dissenters in the name of keeping “science” pure. Let’s hope Stein’s film will be a help in opening their eyes to the truth.

Addendum:

The first commenter asked about further resources on the history of eugenics.

There are a few books on the subject:

The War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black

The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism by Stefan Kuhl.

The Unfit: The History of a Bad Idea by Elof Axel Carlson

G.K. Chesterton was a co-author of the book called, Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State.

And the book mentioned on the Expelled documentary, From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart. A review of it can be read here.

All these books can be found at Amazon.

Answers in Genesis published a briefer, introductory work on the evolutionary foundation for eugenics called, Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots. It is currently being featured at their website. The introduction to the book can be read here. Of course, the eugenics deniers will complain the book is written by creationists, so it doesn’t really count. I would just remind them of how illogical that objection is and exhort them to check their research before passing judgment.

Since many folks don’t have immediate access to these books, there are some shorter technical articles on the subject available on the web:

A Civic Biology and eugenics

The Assault on the Family: Its Aims and Basis

There are many more articles at Creation on the Web located here.

Scientific Fundamental Extremists

*See Addendum

Here’s a fun little article exposing the religious zealotry of some of the more rabid evolutionary extremists like P.Z Myers and Richard Dawkins.

From a lefty-wing on-line magazine of all things.

I wonder if the author realizes how profound he is?
I wonder if creation-a-phobe bloggers like Charles Johnson will pay attention to the significance of this article?

What’s Wrong With Science as Religion

Like I always try to hammer home to my readers, everyone is committed to a worldview. There is no neutral ground, and the ferociousness of these “scientific” defenders against any challenges of their worldview of scientism displays this debate is not around brute evidence, but heart issues.

Addendum 8/1/08

I thought I would mention this amazing twisting of the facts from a frothing anti-creationist, because it demonstrates the desperation of the “science=religion” aspect of the Salon article.

I have been pointing out the Darwinian descent of Little Green Footballs curator, Charles Johnson, for a few weeks now. I was most particularly annoyed with a post he wrote back on July 10th claiming U.S. creationist groups were being funded by radical Muslims. This charge was alleged against both ICR and the ID think tank, The Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute wrote a post refuting Johnson’s assertions, and I posted an email I received from ICR also refuting the assertions.

In response to the Discovery Institute disavowal, Johnson posted a defensive “rebuttal.”
In that rebuttal he makes one of the more dishonest claims I have seen from anti-creationists in a while. He writes in his defense:

The misdirection: I did not “imply” the Discovery Institute was in league with Islamic radicals. I stated outright that the Discovery Institute is in league with Islamist creationists, a fact that is indisputably true, as we’ll see in a minute.

Did Charles forget the title of this post in question? He wrote, Radical Muslim Funding US Creationist Groups? Maybe he thinks the question mark leaves the charge in the realm of ambiguity, and he didn’t say exactly Radical Islam, but Radical Muslim is close enough in my mind, and no where did he talk about Radical Creationists. What exactly is a Radical Creationist anyways?

Creation Terrorists

Annoyed with Charles Johnson’s lies against biblical creationists in which he attempts to link them to radical, Islamic terrorism, I shot the folks at the Institute for Creation Research an email inquiring about their take on Johnson’s slanders. I received the following:

Dear Fred,

Thank you for contacting ICR. There is no official affiliation of ICR with Harun Yahya (pen name for Adnan Oktar) and/or with the Science Research Foundation (SRF), founded in 1990 by Harun Yahya; nor has there ever been such an official (or unofficial) affiliation.

ICR desires to bring the creation-science message to those who invite its speakers to give the scientific reasons for the authorative account of the Genesis creation, with no political or doctrinal agreements attached. ICR desires to remove the evolution impasse that has kept – and still keeps – millions of souls trapped in this unscientific and religious theory. In fact, ICR seeks to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Although ICR does not have the time to continually champion the cause of creation in such encounters, this does not mean that ICR has ignored such criticism; the ICR staff has responded to critics and have present rebuttals to evolutionist viewpoints and supposed discoveries in current events related to our area of expertise for over three decades. These responses have been posted on ICR’s website, in ICR publications, and products.

Nevertheless, it should be obvious to anyone that these anti-creation organizations have been set up to invalidate Genesis and anyone advocating its literal translation. They do not accept Scripture as God’s authoritative Word, Genesis as a literal history, or Jesus Christ as God, the Creator.

Along those same lines, the Discovery Institute has published this post answering Johnson,

Little Green Footballs fumbles the Ball…

Johnson owes some apologizes in my opinion.

Little Green Footballs hits bottom, digs

Continuing in his campaign of spreading boneheaded propaganda against those individuals who would dissent from a Darwinian perspective on life, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs posted this deceitful smear last week:

Radical Muslim Groups Fund U.S. Creationist Groups?

The gist of the post is to make a link with Muslim “creationist” apologist, Adnan Oktar, who is hardly a “creationist” as I have noted in two previous posts here and here, and other Christian creationist organizations like ICR. The post then goes on to cite a report from Reuters (a news agency often commented on by Johnson as being unreliable, easily duped by Arab photo stringers, and is too accommodating for terrorists) who interviewed Oktar concerning the enormous book he wrote called Atlas of Creation. The report suggests that Oktar is able to make huge print runs of the book, as well as mail them to creationists all over the world because he is funded by Saudi money. The final sentence in the citation is a quote from a Turkish-American physicist who makes the off-handed remark that if there are any funds flowing it is from Oktar to U.S. creationist groups. Thus, if one connects Johnson’s dots he has laid out before us, well the Discovery Institute is really a sleeper cell awaiting their orders to cut the throats of American children as they play in their backyards.

That bit of deceit is bad enough, but the most egregious is when Johnson links his readers to a page on Oktar’s website mentioning the conferences the Turkish apologist has arranged to promote his Islamic “creationism” to the public. Among those named by Oktar as speaking at his conferences, which are held in Turkey, are Dr. David Menton and Dr. Duane Gish, both respectable creationists. At first glance, the names of these men speaking at an Islamic creation conference is a bit troubling. Why would these men be speaking at an Islamic conference like this? However, looking a bit closer at the article on Oktar’s site, this particular conference where Gish and Menton spoke took place in 1998.

That’s ten years ago folks!

My curiosity was stirred nonetheless, so I contacted a person I happen to know via the internet at Answers in Genesis, where Menton is a staff speaker. My friend responded to my inquiry and stated that Menton did indeed speak at that conference and regrets it something terrible now. He was led to believe he would have opportunity to give his regular talks on various issues pertaining to anatomy, with scripture and the gospel incorporated in the talks. However, Oktar’s group censored him, as well as all the other Christians there, severely limiting the things they could present to the audience. It was a mistake he won’t make again.

I have always noted that one of the dangers with intelligent design theory as it is promoted by the Discovery Institute, is that its apologetic approach is much too broad when confronting evolution in our culture. By steering away from a solid commitment to our self-disclosed Creator, marginalizing the biblical creationists in their midst, as well as primarily appealing to the vague ideas of “ID” taught by ancient Greek philosophy, the otherwise fine folks at the Discovery Institute have opened themselves up to being in league with curious, theological bed-fellows. This kind of compromise will only continue to handicap them and bring them under scrutiny by those in the ignorant masses, like Johnson.

That being said, it is one thing for Charles Johnson, or any anti-ID person, to passionately disagree with their system of belief, but when hatred for a dissenting viewpoint gets to the point a well-known blogger has to start inferring ridiculous conspiracies and begins making stuff up, his disagreement has gone beyond simple, passionate dislike, to becoming pathological. Again, more proof this debate is deeper than mere “scientific” evidence. It involves the heart.

When did Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs become a Dawkins stooge?

Another Rant

Ever since his involvement with exposing Dan Rather’s fraudulent Bush National Guard documents back in 2004, I have been an avid reader of Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs blog. I particularly appreciate how he highlights international news items reporting on events in the Muslim world and the Middle East that otherwise go unnoticed by our American media. His photo slide shows about PLO child abuse or the wacky antics of anti-war moonbats are at times valuable photojournalism to consider. I think his blog is such a valuable tool for staying on top of international current events, I even have it asterisked in my side-bar links.

But in recent weeks he has turned into this shrill, militant, snotty Darwinian apologist. In a manner of speaking, a Dawkins stooge. It seems like every 5th post is about some science news item, but it is attended with his snide, mocking comments aimed at the Discovery Institute or anyone adhering to creationism. For example, he’ll note some item about the Phoenix lander on Mars and add, “launched by the Discovery Institute… Oh, I mean NASA” as if a belief in biological Darwinian evolution is even remotely relevant to landing a rover on Mars. He certainly would hesitate to make such ignorant, clownish comments if he realized a good many of the people behind developing the Mars lander are non-evolutionists, with a few of them even attending my church.

My only guess is he was annoyed with Ben Stein’s recent documentary Expelled, because he once respected Stein as a reputable conservative commentator, and now must do all he can to shun Stein who is perceived as an intellectual apostate. Hell hath no fury than Darwinian atheists spurned.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised with this recent exposure of attitude, because it is reflective of your typical person who has been mis-educated on this issue. Charles has the evolutionary propaganda handbook and is running it play by play:

• The consensus of scientists in the world are Darwinians and no consensus of any alleged group of “experts” can be wrong about anything, especially the infallibility of their chosen scientific belief.

• Dissenting “scientists,” like those men at the Discovery Institute, are really quacks and psuedo-scientists. Their “doctorates” are probably all made-up, or they received them from George “Goober” Lindsey University or some other degree mill.

• Moreover, those dissenting “scientist” have nothing substantive to offer as far as criticism is concerned because they are not as highly educated as those scientists who are committed evolutionists. In fact, most of their arguments against scientific evolution were probably dreamed up during their weekly Thursday night Bible club meetings down at Jo Jo’s Catfish along side the White River outside Mountain View, Arkansas.

• Moreover, the IDers are only clandestine fundamentalist snake-handlers in disguise anyways. If they got in charge of all the universities, they would make everyone go to church and close all the liquor stores on Sunday.

• Evolution is the only logical conclusion of true, unbiased science. A real scientist doesn’t have any biases and when he examines all the evidence the only rational decision he can make is that Darwinian evolution is true, and thus to question any aspect of the facts is denying the truth. To deny evolution is to deny the Holocaust took place, or gravity exists.

• IDers and creationists are biased, hence they can’t do any real science, and because unbiased scientists will be evolutionists by default, seeing they have had the courage to break away from religious traditions and follow the scientific evidence where it leads, which is evolution, only their conclusions about science are valid.

• Any slight change in a species or adaptation to the environment by an animal group is proof positive of Darwinian evolution that led from molecules-to-man. So the recent, over hyped experiment of Richard Lenski in which E. coli bacteria gained the advantage of digesting citrate after almost 40,000 generations is proof of molecules-to-man evolution even though they are still bacteria, and given a zillion more generations, they will apparently sprout wings and fly.

The ironic thing about Johnson’s slurs against ID and creationism is that he argues just like the leftist environmentalist do against critics of man-made climate change: The scientists who reject it have a hidden agenda, or they are sub-par experts, or not educated enough, or are a tiny minority nowhere representative of the consensus, and they most certainly are denying the obvious, like denying gravity exists.

The so-called evolutionary experts always complain about the lack of evolutionary education. But I don’t see the failure of education as I do a failure to argue convincingly and in a manner that doesn’t involve the hurling of elephants and absurd ad hominem.

More Reactions for Expelled

The last post from Friday highlighted Ben Stein’s interview on Dennis Prager’s radio program regarding his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I didn’t get to see it opening weekend (four little kids tend to cramp the movie going style) though I hope to see it soon with a friend. Besides, I wanted to attend a lecture on Saturday night by a prominent geneticist, which I will talk about in a moment. More than likely I will have to wait for the DVD. I understand it is going to be a substantial production on the level of the extended editions for the Lord of the Rings.

I did, however, entertain myself with reading the reactions of folks from around the blog-o-sphere. Pretty much as I can tell, people really loved the film or they hated it with a severe, pathological hatred.

Those who loved it were generally supporters of ID; those who hated it were frothing at the mouth Darwinian atheists. The more laughable were the reviews by movie critics. These are people who make their living watching movies and yet some of them pontificate on the merits of evolution against ID as if they graduated with honors in biology.

The hostile reaction from opponents of this film reveal to me the significance of the origins debate. It is clear this film strikes at the heart of the fundamental axiom shaping the worldview of many folks. People don’t like to have their worlviews attacked. You know arguments are becoming desperate when one of the key criticisms is phony charges of copyright abuse.

Some positive reviews from sources I frequent:

Mark Looy’s lengthy review: Dr. Dawkins, Tear Down This Wall!

Dustin Segers’s, brief movie review, and Patrick Chan’s impressions of the film.

Dave Coppedge’s round-up of evolutionary critics of the film. (Scroll down to read his links and comments smattered throughout his evolutionary news blog).

The most negative reactions are posted at Expelled Exposed, a website maintained by the National Center for Science Education.

The NCSE is a consortium of “dinosaur” atheists who advocate a philosophy of science straight from the Communist play book of 1955. Headed by the high inquisitor of the Darwinian thought police, Eugenie Scott, who makes it her life’s passion to ferret out any apostates from the evolutionary fold and burn them alive at the stake, the NCSE lives in a time wormhole where it is 1923, pre-Scopes’ trial America. Their cry is evolutionary science is being censored through out our schools, and they’ll find one, obscure teacher who was let go in a town in Texas to illustrate their cause. I find their charge of censorship absolutely ridiculous seeing that I was immersed in evolutionary indoctrination at school from as early as I can remember, even having creationist beliefs mocked by a bitter high school biology teacher, and that was in rural Arkansas.

Surprising for some people are the harsh criticisms from what would otherwise be considered conservative circles. For instance, Charles Johnson, curator of Little Green Footballs, one of the more important blogs on the Internet, linked to the NCSE website against Expelled. The 2,000 plus comments (as of this writing) mainly by people who are angry with Stein for his documentary, only tells me that a) conservatism as a movement is not necessarily friendly with Bible-believing evangelicals like myself, merely just tolerating them for the sake of some faked “unity” when they need to use them, b) again shows the significance of the evolution/creation presuppositions of a person’s fundamental worldview, and c) shows the willingness by even conservatives to compromise their views of free inquiry, and this from a large group of folks who grouse against radical liberals suppression of thought at universities and Islamic intolerance in Europe.

Now I had mentioned above about a lecture I attended. I went to the monthly meeting of the San Fernando Bible-Science Association to hear Dr. John Sanford speak on genetic entropy. Dr. Sanford was a professor at Cornell University for 27 years and the primary inventor for the gene gun.

The subject he was discussing Saturday night was on genetic entropy. His thesis is that the human genome is decaying, according to the law of entropy, way too fast for Darwinian evolution to be a fact. And this is not something speculative, but a factual reality backed by observable evidence. For instance, he shows how the human genome contains much more mutations than what natural selection can handle. In a sense, it is like a boat with thousands of tiny leaks and all you have is one bucket to bail out the water. The leaks are the mutations and natural selection the bucket. You can pick up his book on the subject if you have the wear-with-all to wade through the technical stuff.

At any rate, before he began his talk, Dr. Sanford spoke a bit about Expelled and testified that the main point of the film is true. That being, good scientific men are being black listed from the circles of academia for daring to challenge the primary tenets of Darwinianism. Dr. Sanford began his scientific career as an evolutionary believing atheist, then moved to a theistic evolutionary viewpoint, then progressive creationism, and then biblical creationism when he and his family started attending a strong, Bible teaching church that challenged the core presuppositions of his governing scientific authorities. Even as a theistic evolutionist he learned quickly not to invoke God or the discussion of ID at great risk of being tarred and feathered by his academic peers.

In spite of the merit of his scientific accomplishments, because he is a biblical, young earth creationist, he receives lots of shrill criticism. One example he gave was an guy reviewing his book on the subject of genomic entropy. Dr. Sanford said, “Here’s a guy telling me, a person who has spent 30 years of his life studying this subject in detail, that I should be ashamed of myself for publishing a book like this that debunks Darwinianism.” He went on, “This guy has absolutely no training in genetics and he thinks I should be ashamed of something I have devoted my life to studying and coming to the conclusions I have?”

His story is an example of why I have always stated that the creation-evolution-origins debate is not one centered around hard, factual evidence, but foundational, philosophical presuppositions.

It is a spiritual problem, not an evidence problem.