A Tale of Two Hitchens, Part I: Christopher

Christopher Hitchens, adapted from his recent Newsweek article:

[Creationists] now say that they ask for evolution to be taught only with all its "strengths and weaknesses." But in this, they are surely being somewhat disingenuous. When their faction was strong enough to demand an outright ban on the teaching of what they call "Darwinism," they had such a ban written into law in several states. Since the defeat and discredit of that policy, they have passed through several stages of what I am going to have to call evolution. First, they tried to get "secular humanism" classified as a "religion," so that it would meet the First Amendment's disqualification for being taught with taxpayers' money. (That bright idea was Pat Robertson's.) Then they came up with the formulation of "creation science," picking up on anomalies and gaps in evolution and on differences between scientific Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Next came the ingratiating plea for "equal time"—what could be more American than that?—and now we have the rebranded new coinage of "intelligent design" and the fresh complaint that its brave advocates are, so goes the title of a recent self-pitying documentary, simply "expelled" from the discourse.

It's not just that the overwhelming majority of scientists are now convinced that evolution is inscribed in the fossil record and in the lineaments of molecular biology. It is more that evolutionists will say in advance which evidence, if found, would refute them and force them to reconsider. ("Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian layer" was, I seem to remember, the response of Prof. J.B.S. Haldane.) Try asking an "intelligent design" advocate to stipulate upfront what would constitute refutation of his world view and you will easily see the difference between the scientific method and the pseudoscientific one.

But that is just my opinion. And I certainly do not want it said that my side denies a hearing to the opposing one. In the spirit of compromise, then, I propose the following. First, let the school debating societies restage the wonderful set-piece real-life dramas of Oxford and Dayton, Tenn. Let time also be set aside, in our increasingly multiethnic and multicultural school system, for children to be taught the huge variety of creation stories, from the Hindu to the Muslim to the Australian Aboriginal. This is always interesting (and it can't be, can it, that the Texas board holdouts think that only Genesis ought to be so honored?). Second, we can surely demand that the principle of "strengths and weaknesses" will be applied evenly. If any church in Texas receives a tax exemption, or if any religious institution is the beneficiary of any subvention from the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, we must be assured that it will devote a portion of its time to laying bare the "strengths and weaknesses" of the religious world view, and also to teaching the works of Voltaire, David Hume, Benedict de Spinoza, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

Christopher Hitchens

Michael Shermer: The Patience of a Saint

I have no idea how Shermer keeps such a cool head in this interview with God-fearing creationist Georgia Purdom. What a guy:



If you couldn't stomach the video in its entirety, the following quote is a good summary of Georgia's position:

I have a five year old daughter. She's a guilty sinner.

Georgia Purdom

Via PZ.

DeWitt-less Fool

There's an article in the Washington Post describing Liberty "University" Professor David DeWitt's creationism-themed tours around the Smithsonian. Here's what he has to say about the museum:

There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based.

I think he means: "There's nothing supernatural here. It's completely, 100 percent evidence-based."

This man is shamelessly indoctrinating students with archaic and long-disproven theories. Like the tale of a 6000-year-old Earth that was somehow magically constructed by a mysterious entity that exists outside of physical space. And he calls himself a Professor? Let's hear about his institution, from a proper scientist:

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

Charles Darwin

Attenborough on Evolution

Henry Rollins on Intelligent Design

Henry Rollins sums it up nicely:



Via Josh Stein.

A Minor Victory, but a Victory Nonetheless

PZ Myers, University of Minnesota biology prof and owner of Pharyngula (one of the biggest science blogs out there) recently raised awareness of an evil plot by Ken Ham's Creation Museum to team up with Cincinnati Zoo and sell joint tickets to both institutions. As PZ rightly points out, this is a tactic to give the Creation Museum some cred by partnering it with real science. While the Creation Museum might appear at first to be a harmless, kitsch curiosity, its purpose is to indoctrinate people with harmful creationist beliefs. As Pharygula commenter BobC puts it:

The lying scum Ken Ham mentally abuses children while their brain-dead parents watch approvingly.

Well, as soon as PZ brought this news to the blogosphere's attention, Cincinnati Zoo started recieving complaints by phone and email and has now cancelled the scheme! And poor old Ham, he's not too happy about it, blaming his defeat on "intolerant evolutionists":

These people basically worship Darwin — they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn’t agree with them!

Actually, there might be an element of truth in that first part...

For Those Voting Tomorrow...

Here's what the democratic candidates think about creationism:

I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.

Barack Obama

I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!

Joe Biden

Ken Miller Refutes Intelligent Design

Kenneth R. Miller is a biology professor at Brown University, is Roman Catholic, and is one of the strongest opponents of creationism and intelligent design. In this video, he picks apart the intelligent design movement bit by bit, demolishing their arguments and exposing their lies and underhanded tactics. It's a long talk, but it's informative and, above all, very entertaining.