Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution


Creator of Literal Genesis Trial believes people who argue in favor of evolution are at a scientific disadvantage

Californiacreationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance.

The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific.

"They [evolutionists] are not stupid people, they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said.

A minitrial differs from a regular trial because it does not need to be held in a courthouse and does not require the presence of traditional court figures. Mastropaolo plans to have a bailiff and court reporter in attendance, along with the judge. Contest rules state that evidence must be scientific, which means it is “objective, valid, reliable and calibrated”.

Mastropaolo believes thatevolutioncannot be proved scientifically. “It turns out that there is nothing in the universe [that] is evolving, everything is devolving, everything is going in the opposite direction,” he said.

Mastropaolo started making public arguments in favor ofcreationismabout 13 years ago, after reading an article about evolution in the newspaper. He has a PhD in kinesiology and taught biomechanics and physiology at a California university for more than 25 years. He is now a contributing writer at theCreation Science Hall of Fame, which is collaborating with him for the minitrial. The Creation Science Hall of Fame is a website, launched in February 2012, that honors those who have made contributions to creation science.

A majority of scientists disavow creationism, buta June 2012 Gallup pollshowed that 46% of Americans believed in a literal interpretation of the biblical version of creation. Legislation to allow students to be taught religious versions of the creation of life is currently beingconsidered in four states.

The Literal Genesis Trial contest would be held in a courthouse in Santa Ana, California and Mastropaolo has said he will create a list of potential superior court judges to decide the case. The participants would have to agree on a judge. Mastropaolo said that he hopes the trials can improve future debates between evolutionists and creationists by addressing the issue in a legal and scientific way.

"The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same," Mastropaolo said. "We can read the transcript and not have have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution."

Guardian

Oh wow. 

Let’s keep a tally of how many times he turns down real evidence on some goal-moving stupid technicality. 

But really. This guy should just be ignored. It’s obvious that he has literally no idea of what he’s talking about. For a real scientist to go and ‘debate’ this man, would put a veneer of respectability on him and his ‘evidence’. 

Which is, of course, what he wants.

~Mooglets

Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ Talks Creationism Critique, Religion, Education


Bill Nye, the famed “Science Guy,” found himself the center of attention this week after a video in which he saidcreationism should not be taught to childrenwent viral.

"I say to the grownups, ‘If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we’ve observed in the universe that’s fine," Nye says in the video. "But don’t make your kids do it.’"

Of course,the Twitterverseand many viewers had a strong response. The Huffington Post reached out to Nye to ask him more about science, religion and teaching creationism in school.

What’s the best scientific argument against creationism?

Unlike science, creationism cannot predict anything, and it cannot provide satisfactory answers about the past. The examples would be nearly limitless. Why does radioactive dating indicate that the world is 4.54 billion years old, if radioactivity is not a feature of nature?

Should teaching creationism be against the law?

Teaching creationism in science class as an alternative to evolution is inappropriate.

Tax dollars intended for science education must not be used to teach creationism as any sort of real explanation of nature, because any observation or process of inference about our origin and the nature of the universe disproves creationism in every respect. Creationism provides no insight whatsoever into nature. Creationism might be taught in a philosophy, psychology, or history of science class, for example.

Is religion inconsistent with science?

If your religion is inconsistent with science, consider tempering your beliefs. For me, the claims of creationism are completely unreasonable.

Judge Jones in Dover, Pennsylvania, used the expression “breathtaking inanity,” meaning so empty, so silly that it took his breath away. The age of the Earth is very close to 4.54 billion years rather than a millionth of that time. The idea that fossils were buried in the Earth by some hidden deity to test ones faith is completely unsatisfactory. We can observe the processes of evolution, physics and especially geology everywhere every day. To deny what I see around me is unacceptable to me. Science is the acceptance of what you observe and seeking the natural laws that cause these effects.

How can science-minded people make it “safe” for believers to acknowledge that evolution is real?

The bible that is often cited as a guide to natural law has been translated from other ancient languages. There must be countless subtleties and nuances that are literally lost in translation. I got into good bit of controversy, when I showed an audience in Waco, Texas, USA that the bible, as translated into English, claims that the Sun lights the day, and the Moon lights the night. I pointed out that this translation is unsettling. To my ear, it doesn’t seem as though the author realized that the Moon’s light is reflected sunlight. It seems to me that many ancient people may have realized that the Moon casts reflected light, but it’s lost in translation. This being but one example.

Will anything good be lost if creationism disappears?

Because of the robustness of our historical records, creationism will probably never disappear as such; instead, creationism can be used in classrooms and conversations to illustrate the process of science.

To wit, people once accepted an idea that the Earth was built in a week. In recent centuries, we have discovered the actual nature of nature. The process of science debunked and disproved the old idea, so it was cast aside for a better idea.

Did you ever believe in creationism? If so, what changed your mind?

The biblical stories were presented to me, but they never seemed reasonable.

I remember asking about Noah’s ark. Did he look after the invertebrates: the bees, for example? What about the yellow-jackets? And, the black wasps that stung me a few times? All those ants? There’s no mention of the most numerous organisms in my world. As a kid, I remember imagining a series of barges full of soil to be pulled like trailers behind this big boat. Grownups explained that it was just a story (whatever that meant). I remember asking, what was the point of the story? What was this guy’s idea to get animals two-by-two? What did he hope to accomplish, if all the bees, worms, oak trees, and rosebushes were gone? Let alone the question: why did he let the poison ivy come back? He missed a huge opportunity, etc. It was never satisfying to my mind.

If you could speak directly to the children of creationists, what would you say?

Hang in there.

There is another amazing, exciting, inspiring way to know the world, one that will fill you with joy and reverence. Pick your battles with grownups. These creation ideas are important to the grownups in your life right now. Accept that.

Do your views place your personal safety in jeopardy?

We’ll see. You don’t get shot down, if you’re not flying.

We are at a turning point, a crossroads in human history. Climate change or an asteroid impact can only be addressed with science. Shooting the messenger is not going to make creationism able to explain anything in the natural world. It still will be completely unsatisfactory and useless to anyone trying to solve an engineering problem in the real world. No science; no asteroid deflection.

Do you have any superstitions?

None that I know of. I change my socks often, because I had bad bouts of athelete’s foot fungus infections as a kid. I may be able to change socks less frequently and not get the fungus. But, I’d rather not run the test to determine just how infrequently I could change socks. I don’t feel superstitious about it.

Who is your favorite scientist?

Don’t make me pick.

Michael Faraday was amazing. He clearly realized that his discovery of a means to generate electricity, would change the world. I have great admiration for my physics teacher George Lang and my old professor Carl Sagan; he changed the world. My dad was no slouch, either. My older brother Darby continually showed me wonderful scientific principles.

The big step comes when you can convince yourself of the truth of a natural law. It changes the way you think of everything around you.

HuffingtonPost

Creationists triumph in South Korea, as references to evolution excised from school textbooks


Yesterday I blogged about a new Gallup poll revealing that 46 per cent of Americans hold creationist views, but today attention shifts around the globe to South Korea, following news that school textbook publishers are to remove several references to evolution from future editions as a result of a successful petition by a creationist organisation.

According to a report in the latest issue of Nature, the Society for Textbook Revise, an offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research, launched a petition calling on the South Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to ask publishers to remove examples concerning the evolution of the horse and Archaeopteryx, a winged Late Jurassic creature believed to be an ancestor of modern birds. After the Ministry passed on the petition to textbook publishers, several took the decision to remove the examples from their books.

The focus on the specific example of Archaeopteryx represents a common creationist tactic, whereby genuine disputes among evolutionary biologists are exploited in an attempt to undermine the science as a whole. Archaeopteryx has long been believed to have been an ancient ancestor of birds, but more recent studies have suggested the connection to modern birds may not be as clear as was previously thought. Having successfully taken advantage of that particular scientific debate, the Society for Textbook Revise are apparently now aiming to persuade publishers to remove references to “the evolution of humans”.

Figures for those not believing in evolution in South Korea are relatively high, with almost one-third of those surveyed in a 2009 poll saying they did not. Considering that only 26 per cent of Koreans are Christian, it is possible that the problem lies with science education rather than religion – 41 per cent of those disputing evolution in the 2009 survey cited “insufficient scientific evidence”, compared with 39 per cent who cited religious beliefs. Speaking to Nature Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University, suggests evolution is not taught widely enough in the country’s universities, with “only 5–10 evolutionary scientists” teaching the theory to students across the entire university system.

—-

New Humanist

This doesn’t surprise me. This is my neck of the woods right now, and the sheer amount of crosses I see, on every damn street, flashing neon from roof-tops, Religious Iconography in windows and store-fronts…I swear, it’s worse than America.

~Mooglets

Tennessee Senate Passes Anti-Evolution Bill


On Monday, the Republican dominated Tennessee Senate passed an anti-evolution bill by a vote of 24-8. The bill, known as HB 368, is sponsored by Republican Senator Bo Watson and “provides guidelines for teachers answering students’ questions about evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects,” according toKnox News,  ”The measure also guarantees that teachers will not be subject to discipline for engaging students in discussion of questions they raise, though Watson said the idea is to provide guidelines so that teachers will bring the discussion back to the subjects authorized for teaching in the curriculum approved by the state Board of Education.” The bill basically encourages teachers to present scientific weaknesses of “controversial” topics. In the case of evolution and climate change, both have been scientifically proven and the only weaknesses that have been presented by the right-wing are based on unscientific biblical verses. In other words, Republicans want teachers to use religion to destroy accepted science.

This bill is yet another attempt by Republicans to inject creationism pseudo-science into science classrooms. It gives students the ability to interrupt the teaching of real evidence based science with religious nonsense that belongs in church. So basically, as long as students bring up creationist theories, teachers can discuss them. This opens up the classroom to conflict between students of different religions or none at all, who all have different doctrines and points of view. Such conflict only serves to bury actual science under religious myth and superstition and is a distraction to learning real facts.

According to theNational Center for Science Education,

“Among those expressing opposition to the bill are the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute for Biological Sciences, the Knoxville News Sentinel, the Nashville Tennessean, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the National Earth Science Teachers Association, and the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, whose president Becky Ashe described the legislation as “unnecessary, anti-scientific, and very likely unconstitutional.”

The bill now heads to the House, which just passed a Ten Commandments bill, so we should expect them to pass this bill as well as part of the GOP war against freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

Addicting Info

Tennessee, you are dragging science education BACKWARD. This is a bad thing, in case you didn’t know.

~Mooglets

A thoroughly amusing take down of a Creationist argument.

~Mooglets

Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists


Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkinsand Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.

The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations”.

The British Humanist Association (BHA), which has led a campaign against creationism – the movement that denies Darwinian evolution and claims that the Earth and all its life was created by God – described the move as “highly significant” and predicted that it would have implications for other faith groups looking to run schools.

Dawkins, who was one of the leading lights in the campaign, welcomed confirmation that creationists would not receive funding to run free schools if they sought to portray their views as science. “I welcome all moves to ensure that creationism is not taught as fact in schools,” he said. “Government rules on this are extremely welcome, but they need to be properly enforced.”

Free schools, which are state-funded and run by local people or organisations, do not need to follow the national curriculum. Scientific groups have expressed concerns that their spread will see a reduction in the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Several creationist groups have expressed an interest in opening schools in towns and cities across England, including Bedford, Barnsley, Sheffield and Nottingham. Critics say they seek to promote creationism, or the doctrine of “intelligent design”, as a scientific theory rather than as a myth or metaphor.

One creationist organisation, Truth in Science, which encourages teachers to incorporate intelligent design into their science teaching, has sent free resources to all secondary schools and sixth-form colleges.

A BHA campaign, called “Teach evolution, not creationism”, saw 30 leading scientists and educators call on the government to introduce statutory guidance against the teaching of creationism. The group said if the government would not support the call, an explicit amendment to the wording of the funding agreement could have the same effect. Last week the Department for Education confirmed it had amended the agreement, although a spokesman denied it was the result of pressure from scientists. He said the revision made good on a pledge regarding the teaching of creationism given when the education secretary, Michael Gove, was in opposition. “We will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories,” the spokesman said, adding that “all free school proposals will be subject to due diligence checks by the department’s specialist team”.

The revised funding agreement has been seized upon by anti-creationists who are pressing for wider concessions from the government.

"It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science," Dawkins said. "Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice to our young people if we fail to teach it properly. "

A spokeswoman for the BHA said: “The government’s new wording is quite wide and in practice could prevent those who promote extreme religious or particular spiritual or pseudoscientific approaches from including them as part of the school curriculum as science or as evidence-based.”

The Guardian

Thanks to pintucks for the submission :) 

~Mooglets

Easy to understand evidence for a common ape-like human/chimp ancestor. One of thousands of collaborating pieces of evidence, but this one is very conceptual. Whip it out anytime a creationist starts preaching.

Watch the entire lecture “The Collapse of Intelligent Design” given by Ken Miller at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Islam, Charles Darwin and the denial of science


At University College London we have numbers of Islamic students, almost all dedicated, hard-working and able. Some, unfortunately, refuse to accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds, as do some of their Christian fellows; and just a couple of years ago a Turkish anti-evolution speaker (a Dr Babuna, as I remember) was invited on to campus to give an account of why The Origin is wrong. He was the scion of an extraordinary – and very rich – anti-evolution organisation based in his native land that has sent out thousands of lavishly illustrated creationist books and has linked Darwinism to Nazism and worse.

Much of their propaganda has been lifted from Christian fundamentalism and there is a certain irony in where it has ended up. I have had plenty of verbal complaints from undergraduates of both persuasions that I am demeaning religion, while others ask that they be excused lectures on my subject, or simply fail to turn up.

In schools things are worse: some kids will walk out rather than listen. Their teachers can be just as bad. The most virulent attack I have had in recent years came from a physics teacher in a respected north London state school, who – to the embarrassment of his colleagues – barracked my talk on evolutionary biology with repeated statements that Darwinism contradicted the laws of thermodynamics. I was forced, uncharacteristically, to be rude.

The ‘Evolution Test’ from Missing Universe Museum


Students, give this test to your teachers. When they fail it, ask them why they are teaching this nonsense!

Teachers, give this test to your students if you really want them to know the truth about evolution!

1. Which evolved first, male or female?


2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?


3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.


4. Why hasn’t any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?


5. Which came first:
…the eye,
…the eyelid,
…the eyebrow,
…the eye sockets,
…the eye muscles,
…the eye lashes,
…the tear ducts,
…the brain’s interpretation of light?


6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?


7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can’t all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?


8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution!


9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?


10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)


11. Why aren’t any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?


12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.


13. Why hasn’t anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?


14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?


15. Why hasn’t evolution duplicated all species on all continents?

Find Missing Universe Museum here

There is just… so much wrong with this entire list, and just goes to show precisely how little this person actually knows about evolution and evolutionary theory, or even simply bloody biology. 

  1. Absurd question, they evolved contemporaneously.
  2. Absurd question: see answer 1.
  3. None - scientists eliminate false assumptions when they identify them.
  4. Absurd question. Please go and read some basic evolution books.
  5. The eye, in the form of photosensitive cells, now go and actually read about the evolution of the eye.
  6. You find that out by looking into the specific evolution of a specific eye - it will be different for each phylogeny. 
  7. Absurd question: see answer 4.
  8. Molecular Systematics Of The African Electric Fishes (Mormyroidea: Teleostei) And A Model For The Evolution Of Their Electric Organs by John P. Sullivan, Sébastien Lavoué and Carl D. Hopkins, Journal of Experimental Biology203: 665-683 (26th January 2000) [full paper downloadable from here]
  9. Absurd question: They aren’t. Also, read up on the science of fossils and how fucking hard it is to create one in the first place, let alone how hard it is for said fossil to survive to the modern era so we can discover and examine it.
  10. Absurd question: It didn’t and no scientist says it did.
  11. Absurd question: They are. They take a long time to form. Deal with it.
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
  13. Absurd question: Because the people offering said money are Creationists who shift the goal posts constantly.
  14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAHHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHHHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Oh, sorry, you were being serious? We’re over populated. Go and read up on it.
  15. Absurd question: Different conditions cause different adaptations to be needed, thus resulting in different evolutionary histories. Read up on it.

(All my answers heavily referenced from THIS POST

~Mooglets

    Question Evolution: Question 5

    Well, Lapkine77 has finally released all of the 15 Questions videos so here’s my contribution in all its unedited glory (the one that appears in the compilation was shortened by about two minutes to save space).

    For the record, the odious cesspool of an organization known as Creation Ministries International has produced and is promoting a fetid pamphlet named “Question Evolution” containing 15 Questions they seem to think pose some kind of problem for evolutionary theory. In addition, three particularly fecal-minded YouTubers, PPSimmons, NephilimFree and CockShite (ShockofGod) have also been doing their best to promote this pathetic little rag.

    The YouTuber Lapkine77 has organized a response to these questions from various YouTube free-thinkers and this is my contribution, addressing the fifth question specifically. The compilation videos can be found on Lapkine’s channel 

    TheLivingDinosaur

    ~Mooglets

    [Demotivational poster, black background, central image is of two skulls. Text reads: HYPOCRISY. DNA test have proven that humans do not come from Neanderthals. And still, you ridicule my faith in God, something that can’t be proven, while you continue to believe in something has been disproven.]
Oh my. Where to start. There just so much wrong with this. Sheesh.
DNA testing has proven no such thing
In fact, 
I’m pretty sure it’s been shown our two races interbred a fair amount
(between 45,000 to 80,000 years ago - there’s still some discussion going on about this, but according to some studies, non-African humans have about 1% to 4% DNA from Neanderthal’s)
Before we wiped them out
DNA testing has actually shown that we are ‘cousin’ species, with a common ancestor
That lived about 660,000 years ago
Note how that say’s nothing about us ‘coming from’ them
Which I’m guessing is what you incorrectly think we believe
Who the hell believes that in this day and age anyway?
You’re right in saying that your faith can’t be proven
I’ll give you that one
I’m in a generous mood
But I just completely shot out of the water
Your silly belief
That people who accept evolution
Apparently think we’re descended from Neanderthal’s
So
Any chance of you bringing forth some evidence to support your claims?
No?
No?
Didn’t think so
(I’m emphatically not a scientist, so if anyone thinks I got something wrong, please inform me and I will edit)
~Mooglets

    [Demotivational poster, black background, central image is of two skulls. Text reads: HYPOCRISY. DNA test have proven that humans do not come from Neanderthals. And still, you ridicule my faith in God, something that can’t be proven, while you continue to believe in something has been disproven.]

    Oh my. Where to start. There just so much wrong with this. Sheesh.

    • DNA testing has proven no such thing
    • In fact, 
    • I’m pretty sure it’s been shown our two races interbred a fair amount
    • (between 45,000 to 80,000 years ago - there’s still some discussion going on about this, but according to some studies, non-African humans have about 1% to 4% DNA from Neanderthal’s)
    • Before we wiped them out
    • DNA testing has actually shown that we are ‘cousin’ species, with a common ancestor
    • That lived about 660,000 years ago
    • Note how that say’s nothing about us ‘coming from’ them
    • Which I’m guessing is what you incorrectly think we believe
    • Who the hell believes that in this day and age anyway?
    • You’re right in saying that your faith can’t be proven
    • I’ll give you that one
    • I’m in a generous mood
    • But I just completely shot out of the water
    • Your silly belief
    • That people who accept evolution
    • Apparently think we’re descended from Neanderthal’s
    • So
    • Any chance of you bringing forth some evidence to support your claims?
    • No?
    • No?
    • Didn’t think so

    (I’m emphatically not a scientist, so if anyone thinks I got something wrong, please inform me and I will edit)

    ~Mooglets