Creationism and Bad Science Education around the Blogosphere

P. Z. Myers shared the excellent cartoon below (Jim Getz also mentions it) as well as information about a secret Intelligent Design conference.

P. Z. Myers also has a post at The Panda’s Thumb explaining a recent article in Nature and another on a study that uses young-earth creationism’s own dubious methods to demonstrate evolution.

Dennis Vennema has posted part 6 of his series on evolution and the origin of biological information.

Scott Bailey tries reading the tower of Babel story literally, and contrasts R. C. Sproul and Rudolf Bultmann on elements of ancient worldview.

John Pieret discusses the latest Discovery Institute attempt to claim ID is scientific, while Ted Herrlich tries to help them with basic math.

Jesus Creed highlights the movie Leap of Truth, as does the BioLogos blog.

Debunking Creationism links to an evaluation of a running egg-laying crocoduck video:

YouTube Preview Image

While Open Parachute talks about Galileo’s modern critics, Jimpithecus has a post on the growing popularity of geocentrism as a fringe viewpoint among Catholics (see further the article he links to in the Chicago Tribune). Jim also discussed P. Z. Myers’ response to Ken Ham’s famous response to all scientific claims about the past: “Were you there?” I think that everyone should answer Ham’s claims in the same way:

“God created the world in 6 days.”

“How do you know? Were you there?”

“No, but God says so in his word.”

“How do you know God said these things? Were you there?”

“No, but Jesus accepted Genesis as the work of Moses and inspired by God.”

“How do you know? Were you there when Jesus supposedly said these things?”

“No, but his followers recorded what he said, and they were eyewitnesses.”

“How do you know who wrote the Gospels? Were you there?”

And so on until Ham ceases from his seemingly unrelenting inanity.

Jerry Coyne proposes a scientific test of the story of Noah’s flood. David Bailey offers computer-produced text snippets as examples of the ability of the combination of rule and randomness to produce complexity.

CNN’s Belief Blog surveys the history of prayer in (and about) space, and offers a view of spaceflight as a spiritual experience.

Jerry Coyne points out the new Scientific American blog network.

Also of interest are physics data suggesting the universe isn’t a hologram, and work on an atheist-Christian Turing test.

  • Brian

    Woah, woah. Hold on there, members of my own Catholic Church are supporting geocentricism? Did all those public statements, mean anything? Now, I feel embaressed…oh James, how can this be?
    Well, I’m also glad to hear that universe is not a hologram. I was worried there for a minute.

  • Gary

    On R.C. Sproul & Rudolf Bultman, “What meaning for instance, can we attach to such phrases in the creed “descended into hell” or “ascended into heaven”? “…But in the relativity theory, frame of reference is what counts. Are you an observer on a moving train, or on the ground. If you are in space, there is no up and down. If you are in another dimension, which string theory supports, there is more than just X, Y, Z, and time. So up means? Also, an interesting comment on that blog, relates to a law suit against the Sproul ministry. I have read some of Sproul’s books, and I find him interesting, although I don’t agree with him much. However, I never liked ministries that get set up to hand down from father to son. Smells too much like a business, not a ministry.
    On holograms, you can get a 3D image from a 2D source with a hologram. However, there is no mass associated with the 3D image. So a hologram universe would have to be totally imaginary. No mass, no energy, no force, makes for a dull universe. OK, except maybe in the Matrix (as in K. Reeves Matrix).


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X