Bligbi » Creationism

A Master of Science in Creationism?!

Karen — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:29:14 +0000

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?

Possibly Related Posts

Atheists are what??

Karen — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:37:13 +0000

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.

Possibly Related Posts

Expelled Gets Flunked

Karen — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:10:11 +0000

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.

Possibly Related Posts

Evolution vs. Creationism, the Texas version

Karen — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:10:01 +0000

It looks like Texas is planning to enter the “debate” over the teaching of evolution. After fighting for nearly three years about how to teach children to read, the Texas Board of Education has decided to take on the science curriculum this summer.

One of the goals of the board is to undermine the teaching of evolution by making it a requirement to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” evolution. Vice Chairman David Bradley of Beaumont calls this “hogwash”, but goes on to say that “evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven. Student need to be able to jump to their own conclusions” (source).

And what better way to have them “jump” to the conclusion that magic man did it than by forcing teachers to bluntly lie about evolution?

Possibly Related Posts

The problem with moderate Christians

Karen — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:19:25 +0000

The problem with moderate Christians is that they are unwilling to bluntly state that the conservatives are wrong and will hem and haw to avoid bluntly stating that the Bible itself is wrong. If there’s one subject that they clearly show this tendency on, it is evolution.

A simple reading of the bible makes it quite obvious that it states Yaweh created the planet and everything that it is on it. It goes on to state that our species was created “as-is” and that we were given dominion over the earth:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

As the biblical authors were pretty obsessed with their lineage to such a degree that the bible contains insanely long lists of who “begat” who, one can conclude that all this took place approximately six thousand years ago.

Modern scientists, on the other hand, have generally concluded that the universe came into existence approximately 14 billion years ago and that our planet came into existence a mere 4 billion years ago with life making it’s first appearance somewhere around 1 billion years later.

Furthermore, our species did not appear until 200,000 years ago. We are not a distinct species, but a kind of ape. We are not a result of an alien “making” us nor did some ancestor suddenly spring to life when the same alien breathed upon dirt, we are a product of evolution as are the other species.

One does not have to be a genius to figure out that these two stories are not “complimentary”, but contradictory. The Bible states it went down in a very particular way and gives no evidence that it was not serious about it. In fact, the biblical creation story has been understood to be a factual account since it was written down approximately two thousand years ago.

It has never been understood to be a “timeless truth” and the majority of Americans thoroughly reject such claims with (as of 2006) 55% believing that Yaweh created our species “as-is“. Support for this “as-is” theory has actually increased in the last decade or so from roughly 40 to 45 percent of the population.

So not only are the moderates fudging about what the Bible actually states and what is actually believed by Christians, they are also apparently lying about what what they actually believe because if they did actually accept the conclusions of science and are the alleged majority they claim to be – the percentage of Americans who actually accepted the conclusions of modern science would be higher than it is.

This makes them a problem rather they like it or not for as long they continue to insist that Bible is “complimentary” to reality, the nutballs will continue believing that it is still acceptable to believe the Bible story is a factual account. They will continue to think that “creationism” or “intelligent design” should be taught in our public schools as “science” and more generations will grow up in an education system terrified of contradicting the now absurd and unfounded belief that a “magic man did it” .

The fact of the matter is that moderates have to give up their fairytale once and for all by admitting that the biblical creation story is merely an account that a certain group of humans once believed was a truthful account but is now contradicted by the findings of modern science. It’s the only way we’re going to get out of this mess we’re in here in America.

Possibly Related Posts

Ben Stein is bribing schools to watch his movie

Karen — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:09:02 +0000

As you may be aware, Ben Stein is starring in the movie “Expelled”, a pseudo-documentary about how creationists are being systematically shut out of American academics by evolutionists. The whole thing has been a shady affair with the producer Mark Mathis lying to people such as PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott in order to get them to agree to interviews.

Now it seems they’re bribing “Christian” schools to have their students, faculty and adult community members watch the movie by offering up to $10,000 to the school that returns the most ticket stubs:

To engage Christian schools to get as many students, parents, and faculty from your school out to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (opening in theaters April 2008).

Here are some suggestions as to how to do that:

Organize a school field trip and invite parents to attend as well.
Offer extra credit to your students to go on their own time.

What is the reward?

Generous donations can be awarded to schools according to the number of movie ticket stubs they turn in. By accepting this challenge, your school could be awarded a donation up to $10,000, just for bringing your kids to see this film!

Your school will be awarded a donation based upon the number of ticket stubs you turn in (see submission instructions in FAQ section). That structure is as follows:

0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub
100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school
300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school
500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school

Each school across the nation will be competing for the top honor of submitting the most ticket stubs with that school having their $5,000 donation matched for a total donation of $10,000!

I’ve never liked Ben Stein so I’ve lost no respect for him, but damn. Is he expecting the movie to bomb so bad he’s got to pay people to see it if just to come out even??

Possibly Related Posts

Why “God Did It” Fails

Karen — Sun, 06 May 2007 18:16:37 +0000

If there’s one pro-god argument that annoys me, it’s the “God Did It” argument. It usually goes something like this:

Science can’t fully explain this that and/or something else. And since it can’t, the answer is obvious. God did it.

Are there things the scientists can’t quite explain? Yes, there are. Perhaps they’ll figure those things out one day, perhaps they’ll still be slaving away when the sun goes blows up millions of years from now. Who knows? But, here’s the thing.

“God did it” or some variety of that explanation has been the standard answer to unexplained things throughout the centuries. What caused the ground to shake? God. What caused the rivers to dry up? God. What caused the rivers to flood? God. What caused the sun to be covered up by the moon? God. In fact, you name the thing and a thousand years ago, it was some god that was behind it.

But things have changed. The ground doesn’t shake because a god is struggling against its chains, but because of plate tectonics. The drying up or flooding of a river is due to weather patterns, not the wrath of some god. The moon occasionally appears in front of the sun because it rotates the planet which rotates the sun and every now and then, it’s rotation puts it squarely between our planet and the sun. No gods need apply.

In fact, no gods need apply for much of anything anymore. We’ve figured out pretty much everything that was once the domain of the gods. So the gods have not only retreated, but in many instances have been assigned to the dustbin of history. The best thing a god of old can hope for today is to go down as a “myth”.

Zeus no longer sits on his mountain throwing lightening bolts at us when the mood strikes. El Diablo isn’t ripping holes in the ground due to his impatience. Apollo no longer holds up the sky. Neptune hasn’t sunk a ship in ages and not a word has been heard from the monsters of the sea he commanded.

But there are two things that are still considered roughly the domain of the gods. The exact origins of the universe and the exact origins of life. And what is the answer to these questions according to the promoters of the one god we haven’t managed to run off?

God did it.

Is there a more useless sentence than this one? I don’t think so. It says nothing. It explains nothing. It’s a cop out. It’s ignorance turned into a virtue. It is a complete failure.

“God did it” is shorthand for “I don’t know the answer, but I’m damn straight not going to admit my ignorance. Besides, I don’t like the answers to some of the other questions and if I admit that for all I know the universe has always been and life is just a by product of the natural workings of the universe, well that would be abdicating my throne which is located at the center of the universe. And I’m just to damned arrogant to do that so GOD DID IT. End of discussion.”

How utterly asinine.

Possibly Related Posts

Why “God Did It” Fails

Karen — Sun, 06 May 2007 18:16:37 +0000

If there’s one pro-god argument that annoys me, it’s the “God Did It” argument. It usually goes something like this:

Science can’t fully explain this that and/or something else. And since it can’t, the answer is obvious. God did it.

God did it.

Is there a more useless sentence than this one? I don’t think so. It says nothing. It explains nothing. It’s a cop out. It’s ignorance turned into a virtue. It is a complete failure.

How utterly asinine.

Possibly Related Posts

Why “God Did It” Fails

Karen — Sun, 06 May 2007 18:16:37 +0000

If there’s one pro-god argument that annoys me, it’s the “God Did It” argument. It usually goes something like this:

Science can’t fully explain this that and/or something else. And since it can’t, the answer is obvious. God did it.

God did it.

Is there a more useless sentence than this one? I don’t think so. It says nothing. It explains nothing. It’s a cop out. It’s ignorance turned into a virtue. It is a complete failure.

How utterly asinine.

Possibly Related Posts

The New Nightmare

Karen — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:48:35 +0000

First it was bananas, now it’s peanut butter.

This is without a doubt the dumbest creationist spiel ever.