Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

27 September 2008

CBS Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

More nightmares for Charlie. Turns out that most americans don't believe that the living world created itself (Shocka!) . Go figure.

Go to CBSNews.com Home


Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution
NEW YORK, Nov. 22, 2004
(CBS) (This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.)

Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry's voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.


God created humans in present form
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.


Creationism and evolution
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.

For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.

18 September 2008

Clinton Dawkins Feels What's Like To Be Censored

Charles mentions today that turkish creationist Harun Yahya managed to get evolutionist Dawkins' site blocked in Turkey.
All I can say is: "bwahaha!" So how does it feel to be censored, mr Clinton Dawkins?

Anyway, I don't agree with the censor of darwinian sites. One can get a ton of laugh in there. I would rather want both sides discuss publicaly the merits of their own theories, and let the people decide. Darwinists, of course, don't want any of that.

Dawkins asks concerning Harun's work "And where does the money come from?" Well, interesting question, coming from someone whose creation religious myth (evolution) is taught at public expenses in public schools as a "fact".

17 September 2008

Creationists Reject "Most of Modern Science"

At least that's what Charles Johnson says today!

This comes in the post where he reports that the scientist who said that Creationism should be discussed in schools has "quit". (Well, that didn't take long, did it?) I mention that story here.

But anyway, do creationists reject "most of modern science"? Or de we reject the "sciences" that are used in suport of the evolutionary fairytale? Do creationists reject Chemistry? Hardly. There are creationists with PhDs in Chemistry. Do we reject Geology? No. There are creation geologists, naturally. One could mention many other scientific fields, and we'd see that creationists are represented in all of them.

So why does Charles say that? Well, my guess is that Charles wrongly assumes that the methods that are employed in all sciences are the same methods that are employed in the theory of evolution, and since creationists reject the theory (for Biblical and scientific reasons), they must also reject all other scientific fields.

The problem of course is that the theory of evolution is not on the same realm as the theory of Gravity, or Quantum Mechanics, or the Einstein's theories. Evolution is a story about the unrepeatable past, and belongs to the domain of "Historical Sciences" (HS). Physics and Chemistry, for example, belong to "Operational Science" (OS). Creationists differ with darwinists when it comes to HS, but are in agreement with them when it comes to OS.

What darwinists try to do is to mix them together and make it seem as if rejecting the theories that arise from HS is the same as rejecting Physics or Chemistry, which belong to the realm of OS.

This is totally false. One can be a good scientist and reject the notion that the living world is the result of a mindless, purposeless, undirected natural force.

13 September 2008

Scientific method - From Conservapedia

From Conservapedia

Scientific method

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Flow chart illustrating the steps to the Scientific Method
Flow chart illustrating the steps to the Scientific Method

The Scientific Method is the process used by scientists to conduct research.

Science is an active process where knowledge continues to grow as scientists ask better questions and use improved technology to try to answer those questions. Although new technology can lead to better science, technology alone is not good science. Good science is the result of asking good questions.

Scientists all over the world make discoveries by asking questions and searching for the answers. They conduct experiments using the common process called the Scientific Method, which is a standardized method involving a specific, rigid way of getting those answers.

The goal of the Scientific Method is to test the validity of a hypothesis. It is not a set of directions for making original discoveries and it does not set out the means that scientists must use in order for their research to succeed. The whole point is to compare the hypothesis with the facts.



Steps of the Scientific Method

Although by no means conclusive, the following steps are used by a majority of scientists in their work:

1. Observation

The scientist observes something interesting, and he wants to know how it happened. He lays down the basic questions as to what is responsible for the phenomena he observed, and from there begins to form his hypothesis.

In asking these questions scientists also look for research that has already been done on their topic to determine if they are duplicating a past experiment, doing something new, or building on a previous experiment. Such research, although tedious and time-consuming, simply builds on the knowledge yet to be gained by the scientist’s questions.

2. Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a statement of what the researcher thinks will happen in the experiment. This is usually an educated guess using current theory and has to be testable and observable.

3. Experiment

When designing the experiment, the researcher carefully controls as many variables as possible. In most experiments there is a control group and a treatment group. The two groups are as similar as possible, but the treatment group is the one that experiences the variable as to what the researcher is studying.

4. Conclusion

Photographic study of a horse galloping (top) and its animated sequence, by Eadweard Muybridge, 1887.
Photographic study of a horse galloping (top) and its animated sequence, by Eadweard Muybridge, 1887.

After the data are analyzed and written down, the scientist checks the results against the hypothesis; if the results have proven the hypothesis to be wrong, then it must be discarded. Even if the hypothesis is not correct, conclusions can still be made and significant knowledge gained. If the hypothesis is indicated to be correct, then the results are published and sent to other scientists within the field in question.

Scientists must be able to take such published data and repeat the experiment. This not only confirms the validity of the original hypothesis, but advances it to the level of a “theory”, which in science means an interpretation or explanation of a hypothesis that is well-supported by evidence which is tested and testable. A theory can also be falsified by evidence as well. The level of a “fact” or “law” is simply that which is empirical, and cannot be proven wrong.

A classic example of the Scientific Method being used stemmed from a simple bet. In 1872 a railroad baron named Leland Stanford made a wager that a horse’s hooves do not touch the ground at some point in a gallop. To test the hypothesis, photographer Eadweard Muybridge [1] was hired; he installed a series of trip wires which were rigged from a long wall about two inches from the ground, each one tied to a camera’s shutter facing the wall; the experiment called for the horse to run past the wall, tripping the wires and getting a photo at each point. The results were factual and conclusive: a horse at a running gallop does have all four hooves off the ground.

The agreement of an observation or experiment with a hypothesis does not on its own prove the hypothesis correct. It merely makes its correctness more likely. The hypothesis must agree with other aspects of the scientific framework of knowledge, and survive the test of repeated experiments by other people working independently. Over time, the accumulation of data will tend to confirm or refute a hypothesis.

Scientists may be influenced by their world-views to look for certain results that fit a preconception. The test of objectivity and rigor imposed on their work by the need for other scientists to replicate it makes the truth-seeking facility of the scientific method prevail in the long run. [1]



  • Campbell, Reece, Taylor, Simon, et al. Biology: Concepts and Connections 5th edition; Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2005)
  1. http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Most Americans Suport Academic Freedom


Biologist says: "Teach Creationism in Science Classes"


Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds – which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory

Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society

Photograph: Frank Baron

Link to this audio

What should science teachers do when faced with students who are creationists? Definitions of creationism vary, but about 10% of people in the UK believe that the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, that it came into existence as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Qur'an and that the most evolution has done is to split species into closely related species.

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution to be the central concept in biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every aspect of the life sciences into a single coherent discipline. Equally, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the universe is of the order of about 13 to 14 billion years old.

Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins of life and the universe described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures. The issue seems like an ongoing dispute that has science and religion battling to support the credibility of their explanations.

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14 to 16-year-olds? Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them.

For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue. If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.

Having said that, I don't believe that such teaching is easy. Some students get very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said.

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it – and to learn more science.

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

Michael Reiss is professor of science education at the Institute of Education, University of London, and director of education at the Royal Society

07 September 2008

LGF: "Hamas' Leader Doesn't Believe in Evolution"

Is LGF's lastest post a "guilty by association" post by Charles Johnson?

If I keep citing assassins as people who don't believe in evolution, what kind of message am I trying to pass? "If you doubt evoution, you must be a islamic terrorrist!"

Two can play this game. What if I cite Hitler, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and other mass murderers as people who believed in evolution? What would that say about the theory? Would it say anything?

Come to think of it, what if I cite Isaac Newton, Carl Lineus, Mendel, Maxwell, Faraday, Galileo, and other scientists who believed in creation?

Once again, that is bad logic.

06 September 2008

What does Charles Johnson know about Christianity?

In his latest jibe against Creationism, Charles makes a few coments that are worth comenting.

Since I’ve posted two articles about Sarah Palin’s statements on creationism, let’s go across the aisle and see what the fanatical Darwin-hating creationists at “Answers In Genesis” think.
Notice the emotional words "fanatical" and "hating" that Charles uses in these short lines. I believe he uses those words with the clear purpose of arboring negative feelings towards those who believe that God spoke the Truth about Creation in Genesis 1.

Do creationists hate Darwin? I have been reading a lot of creationist material for some years, and I have never seen "hatred" for Darwin anywhere. Now, do we hate darwinism? Sure we do, since it's a lie. The Bible says:

Prov 8:13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech

They’re also examining Palin’s statements, and of course they’re eagerly hoping she’ll be an advocate for their weird pseudo-science: Is She Really a Creationist?
Coming from a man who believes that land mammals became whales, and dinossaurs became birds, it's trully amazing him considering the belief that there is empirical evidence for design in the universe as "weird pseudo-science".
(Notice how they add footnotes everywhere to make it seem like a scholarly work.)

Oh, those evil creationists! How dare they to put the references for the things they are claiming?! Pure evil! EVIL, I say!
(...) The Answers in Genesis crowd is quick to reassure the world that they don’t want to force creationism on students—not because it’s wrong or anything, but because science teachers trained in “Darwinism” wouldn’t be able to teach their pseudo-science well enough.

Which is, by the way, true. We only need to observe the ways the mainstream media portrays Christian beliefs in general, creationism in particular, to see that darwinian teachers would do their best to put creationism in the worse light possible.

Instead, they’re in favor of “teaching the controversy,” the current strategy of creationists and proponents of “intelligent design.” Rather than force their hooey into schools, they want to sneak it in.

That's right! There is no controverys around the theory of evolution. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Every single thing about the theory is 100% right, and 100% observable. If you say that it isn't so, then you must be a young earth creationist.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that it is not only the evil creationists who are pointing out the problems with the theory of evolution. Here is a short collection of citations by scientists concerning areas where the theory is lacking: (All emphasys mine)

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason.
But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"

Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.

"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform.
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
Pierre-Paul Grasse,
French zoologist in 'Evolution of Living Organisms' (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 104


"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity--omnipotent chance."

T. Rosazak,
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.


"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?
There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny.
I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
Dr. H. S. Lipson,
F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138


"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arthur Eddington,
(Astrophysicist): Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

Bottom line is that there is no shortage of scientists who say out that the evidence points away from the theory of evolution, and closer to the design hypothesis. What Charles and his darwinian brothers sugest, contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of conservatives, and contrary to the wishes of most americans, is that we don't tell the students about the problems of the theory because, says Charles, that is "sneaking creationism". In other words, we should throw away the evidence lest people become creationists. Never mind the truth.

Charles then cites Answers in Genesis and comments on their words:

Incidentally, it should be noted that there is no such position as a “neutral” or “non-religious” stance in this debate. Public school biology textbooks and many teachers explain the origin of the universe and life through “natural” processes, defining science as explaining things by “natural” processes. They are indoctrinating students in an atheistic religious belief—that no god is or has been involved; thus, naturalism—in essence, atheism—is now the religion taught in public schools. Parents need to wake up to the fact that public education is not non-religious. Even the Bible affirms that one is either for Christ or against—clearly teaching that there is no such “neutral” position.

If you don’t want to turn the clock back to medieval times and deny most of modern science, then according to Answers in Genesis you’re a damned atheist.

Huh, that is not what they said, Charlie. They said that by defining science as the enterprise which seeks only "natural causes", public schools are in fact indoctrinating people in naturalism. That is hardly a neutral position.

Why should we accept their assumptions and their definitions when debating untestable events?

And you can’t be neutral, or believe in God and evolution; it’s creationism or hell.

They didn't say that either. But it's a common trend among darwinists to misquote creatonists. They can't handle the true position, so they make up caricatures, and "attack" them.

One can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The problem is that he is not consistent. If God is the Creator, surely He left evidence. Is that evidence seen? If yes, then creationists are right. If not, then atheistic evolutionists are right.

If God, as the Master Designer, was Unable to leave evidence for Himself in the things He created, He is the Only Designer who was Unable to leave evidence. Even humans are able to leave evidence of their work (paintigs, etc). Strangely, God, the Supreme Designer, was not Able to leave evidence.


But what does Charles make of the evolutionists who say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive? How come he puts the canard "Belief in evolution does not exclude belief in God", and points it at creationists? He should be using that line against people like Dawkins who say that evolution made it possible to be an intelectually fullfilled atheist.

What is it about evolution that makes atheists be intellectually fullfilled? Perhaps Charles should write them, and tell them that they have to get back being intelectually unfullfilled, since evolution does not remove God from the place of Creator.

Or does it?

05 September 2008

Most Americans Suport Academic Freedom

(From Evolution News)

(...) In fact, polls have shown that large percentages of Independent voters — and even strong majorities of Democrats — support both teaching ID alongside evolution as well as the far more modest proposition to simply teach both the scientific evidence for and against evolution, without teaching ID.

A 2006 Zogby Poll found that 74% of Independent voters and 60% of Democrats support the view that biology teachers should teach Darwinian evolution, but also the evidence against it.

The poll also found that 65% of Democrats and 79% of Independents support the view that "When Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life."

This bears repeating: 79% of Independent voters supported teaching ID when evolution is taught. 86% and 85% of Republicans in the poll supported these positions, respectively.

In these politically polarized times, on how many issues do over 60% of Democrats and over 70% of Independents agree with a viewpoint held by over 80% of Republicans?

It seems that Brokaw and Murphy may need to re-analyze the poll data about where the majority of Americans truly stand on the reasonable proposition that evolution should be taught in a non-dogmatic and critical fashion. (...)

Imagine that! Most Americans want science to be taught as science and not as religious dogma.

Surelly those 60% of Democrats, who support the view that biology teachers should teach Darwinian evolution, but also the evidence against it, must be "Christian fundamentalists".

Darwinist Admits: Tree of life Was Useful Lie To Win Over Creationists


Darwin Was Indeed Wrong but Koonin's Revolution May Not Be Novel

Shi Liu (22 October 2007) Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine

In 1991 I already pointed out the major mistakes made by Darwin which included his assertion that all extent lives were descended from a common ancestor cell and his simple and exclusive treatment of similarity with genealogically inherited identity (1). My alternative view on the origin and evolution is that life might have independently originated from multiple acellular ancestors and that similarity among different organisms may be a reflection of non-phylogenetic formations by a common mechanism (1).

My theory treats biotic evolution as a companion process to the abiotic evolution and thus the events and history of biotic evolution should naturally reflect the abiotic course of evolution. Like the Big Bang events happened in the formation and evolution of the abiotic world, similar Big Bang events should also happen in the origin and evolution of the biotic world.

Thus, it is unfair to say if one introduced the contribution of any Big Bang event (2) to the history reconstruction of biotic evolution then he did not "exercise just a little caution" and created some "hangovers" (3). In reality, both Big Bang events and gradual events have contributed to the real history of life.

Thus, while we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists wining a upper hand in fighting against the creationists for filling our intellectual void of understanding life's origin and evolution, we must realize that Darwin's fetal mistakes have also misled science into a dead end of fruitless search for the non-existent last common ancestor (LCA) and some useless constructions of some untruthful universal tree of life (TOL) (4-5).

Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine
Apex, NC 27502, USA
1. Liu, S.V. 2006. Evolution: an integrated theory – Criticisms on Darwinism – Fifteen years ago. Pioneer 1: 10-28 (PDF ).
2. Koonin, E.V. 2007. The biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution. Biology Direct 2: 21.
3. Matzke, N. 2007. Examine macroevolutionary concepts carefully. Biology Direct 2: 21. Comment 1.
4. Liu, S.V. 2007. Old answers to deep questions in the tree of life. Top Watch 2: 65-66 (PDF ).
5. Liu, S.V. 2007. Neglected modern theories on inheritance and evolution. Pioneer 2: 32-35 (PDF ).

04 September 2008

Palin Has Not "Pushed" Creationism as Governor.

In this last swing against the belief held by the majority of conservatives, Charles Johnson says a few things that should make conservatives move away from his evolutionary position.

He says:

Apparently, she has a rather confused attitude toward evolution (an attitude she shares with about 50% of the US population), but when asked explicitly whether she would support teaching the pseudo-science of “intelligent design,” her answer was “No.”

So in Charles worldview, believing that there is empirical evidence for creation is "confusion", and that "confusion" is shared by 50% of american simpletons.

What an elistist, prejudiced, condescending statement. Charles like to attack Obama (rightfully) about his elistist views (like the "bitter people who cling to guns and religions"), but it seems that, when it comes to evolution, Charles is just as elistist and unrepresentive of the american worldview as Obama is of the political, social and even religious worldview.

If I had been an american conservative, I would be very offended by Charles statement that 50% of americans are "confused" only because they believe that there is empirical evidence that the living world was designed.

How elistist. How condescending. How patronizing.

To use some of liberal style, shame on you, Charles.

03 September 2008

Bio Prof: "It Is OK to Use Some Inaccuracies Temporarily" to Sell Evolution

(From the blog "Darwinian Fundamentalism)

Bio Prof: "It Is OK to Use Some Inaccuracies Temporarily" to Sell Evolution

Yes, a biology professor really said that. Here is the whole quote. Note that he acknowledges that using the inaccuracies temporarily (whatever he means by that) will not necessarily be so temporary, and he is just fine with that too.

Mr. Campbell knows how tricky this process is. You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust.

You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.

If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives.

It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don't you think?

It is refreshing to see such honesty in a person willing to use false propaganda to persuade students to accept evolutionary theory.Others obviously share his views, which is why false information about the evolution of horses is still promoted, and Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still in textbooks.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More