by Karen on March 19, 2009
The loons are determined to take over Texas with State Rep. Berman of Tyler introducing a bill that would allow The Institute of Creation Research to grant a Master of Science degree in creationism:
State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas’ Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.
Berman’s bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board’s authority.
And no, Berman does not accept evolution:
“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago,” Berman told FOXNews.com. "I do believe in creationism. I do believe there are gaps in evolution.
What the fuck is next? A masters in intelligent falling?
by Karen on February 11, 2009
When it comes to liars for Jesus, there is none greater than Ray Comfort. Take a look at his answer to the FFRF’s billboards, a billboard promoting his new non-interactive anti-atheist site:
Trina Hooks, the Atheist Examiner, has already slapped that site around here, here and here, including Comfort’s new(ish) lie about what atheists are (emphasis mine):
Let’s start with the obvious… An atheist is someone who does not believe the existence of deities.
The atheists I know aren’t addle-minded enough to suppose that nothing “made” something. But for Comfort, the use of this type of language sets the stage for his creation (or intelligent design) agenda. It is irrelevant to him [Ray Comfort] whether what he is saying is true. But what better way to introduce his house builder analogy, which, if he told the truth about what atheists think, would prove to be a non sequitur.
Truer words have never been spoken. Ray Comfort really does not care if what he says is true. As long as it fits his agenda he’ll say it.
by Karen on December 8, 2008
Ben Stein apparently accused Roger Ebert of refusing to review Ben Stein’s propaganda film Expelled. Stein is no doubt regretting that accusation now as Ebert has slapped a big ole red “F” on Ben Stein’s forehead.
In the film, Ben Stein asks predictable questions, and exploits an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment. Example:
Scientist: “But Darwin did not title his book On the Origin of Life. He titled it, On the Origin of Species.”
Ben Stein (nods, grateful to learn this): “I see!”
The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics. It isn’t even subtle. Take its treatment of Dawkins, who throughout his interviews with Stein is honest, plain-spoken, and courteous. As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins’ face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe.
I have done television interviews for more than 40 years. I have been on both ends of the questions. I have news for you. Everyone is made up before going on television. If they are not, they will look like death warmed over. There is not a person reading this right now who should go on camera without some kind of makeup. Even the obligatory “shocked neighbors” standing in their front yards after a murder usually have some powder brushed on by the camera person. Was Ben Stein wearing makeup? Of course he was. Did he whisper to his camera crew to roll while Dawkins was being made up? Of course he did. Otherwise, no camera operator on earth would have taped that. That incident dramatizes his approach throughout the film. If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here.
That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
That’s just a bit of Ebert’s review. He completely owns Stein.
