Why Hovind hasn't earned the title of 'Dr. Dino' (2a of 5)

In Part 1 of this series, I described why Kent Hovind's 'doctoral dissertation' doesn't even qualify as one, from its own admission of not being original research, to exposing the school that issued it as being highly dubious indeed. If you haven't read it already, please do.
` This time, I'm taking on Chapter 1, in which Hovind officially begins his paranoid ranting and misrepresentation of science, culture, religion and history. My favorite part is where he says that Noah's flood destroyed every living thing on earth during the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.
` That particular detail, however, will have to wait until Part 2b. As you may have noticed, this post is Part 2a of 5. It seems that Chapter 1 divides nicely into three fairly equal pieces, which I am now working with one at a time. It's much easier, both on me and my readers.

Also, I would like to address some criticisms:

I've been given quite a hard time for wasting my time and talent on shredding apart what is so obviously unworthy of anyone's attention in the first place. After all, attention for being obnoxious is what these young-earth creationist proponents want, and I'm giving it in spades.

Why do I bother to beat this dead horse instead of write about something my readers would actually care about? It's not as though I would expect to convince any of Kent Hovind's fans that there may be something fundamentally wrong with his fundamentalist claims.
` Even more, there's nothing at all challenging about this task other than putting a lot of time and effort into keeping myself busy with it. If I want to impress someone with my writing, then I should pick a topic that actually requires work in order to figure it out.

So, why am I doing this? Because really, I just need the exercise. It's straightforward and not intimidating, and I think it's good practice for me to go through the motions without the pressure of having to make a difference in the world.
` In other words, I'm too lazy to be creative, original, or helpful to anyone but the very few who actually care about how mentally ill Hovind may be.

Most of all, one might think that if I am doing this for the benefit of my Arch-Rival in Taking Over the World, then I'm only shooting myself in the foot. I disagree:
` While I'm taking all this trouble to write this series, he will probably conclude that this immense sea of writing only demonstrates that Hovind is somehow a formidable opponent and that therefore he instead must have some intellectual worth.

After all, Kent Hovind -- while he is in federal prison at present -- has nevertheless gotten rich and successful, unlike me. Who's actually 'made it' in life -- someone who has a career, or some random blogger?
` Furthermore, who am I to criticize someone who makes a living off of telling outrageous lies so he can get attention like some spoiled brat? Never mind about his fake degree -- what credentials do I have?

To answer that, I'm currently working on my transfer degree to get to a four-year university, and that will be more qualification than Kent Hovind has ever earned, as I have previously mentioned.
` I've taken classes in biology, oceanography, and other sciences, and have read a great deal about evolution and other topics of whose principles Hovind has never demonstrated having even the most basic grasp.

So really, is this all just to make myself feel superior to some rich person who acts like an idiot? Is writing this series actually about how ignorant or dishonest I can expose someone else to be in order to stroke my own ego?
` Not really -- to me, this is a way that I can share my laughter at such utter mental retardation to anyone who cares to hear it. It's genuinely a form of (depressing) entertainment for me, so why not show the world how funny/sad Kent Hovind's ravings are?
` The best part is, it requires that I reserve my effort for where it really matters in life right now -- working and studying hard. Priorities, you know?

Of course, writing something more timely and important may also further my career, so what is my excuse for playing silly games instead of working?
` I admit that I don't have one, other than to develop my mad debunking skillz, as well as to invoke the Sunk Cost Fallacy by saying I spent so much time in May working on it that I'd really just love to finish maiming/glorifying Hovind's paranoid ranting.

If this lame excuse is not satisfactory to my readers, especially if you're the type who is so traumatized by the pain of listening to Hovind's abject nonsense that you never want to hear his name again (this isn't hypothetical, I know such people), just know that I'm only going to do this once and only once. And I'm gonna do it good.

So, I should really be getting on with Part 2a already, and I would like to point out first that throughout this dissertation, Hovind shows signs of insecurity by frequently using words such as 'clearly', 'definitely' and 'obviously' in almost every point he makes.
` It seems to imply that if you can't 'clearly' see it, then you're 'obviously' stupid. I can 'clearly' see why Hovind would have to resort to this form of bullying, because in the very first sentence, he demonstrates that he seems to have no clue about what evolutionary theory is:

THE HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

(Section A: Bastardizing Science)

This is really the first sentence:

Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time? Who would start a crazy idea like that?

Oh, I know! Creationists would! In this way, they make those who accept evolution look 'crazy'! In reality, of course, biological evolution is quite different:
` The theory of evolution is based on the idea that species adapt to their habitat at the time they are alive. As evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould phrased it, evolution is not a watchmaker, but a short-order cook.
` Because of this, there is no clear 'progress' toward any specific goal, but rather only change through allele frequencies. Unlike wine and cheese, species are not expected to 'improve' over time according to some subjective criterion or human taste.

It sure would be 'crazy' if people who study evolution thought it to be progressive -- now, wouldn't it? -- and that's why Hovind claims they do.

The theory of evolution only predicts that species will adapt, which is the only thing a lineage can do to keep itself from going extinct in the face of any environmental challenge. Evolution does not plan ahead, nor strive for any particular goal; in general, changes occur because they are necessary in the immediate environment.
` This concept is as basic to evolution as the concept that 'molecules are made up of atoms' is to chemistry, so right here it is obvious that Hovind is not displaying any actual knowledge of what evolutionary theory actually is. And it goes on and on this way:

This idea is the opposite of everything that we observe in the world today.

Darn right it is, and 'evolutionists' completely agree on that point.

For instance, all the highways in our nation today left to themselves decay, deteriorate, and fall apart. A house left to itself will become a wreck. It takes work and constant planning to make anything improve. Everything tends toward disorder. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are well established scientific laws that have never been observed in the universe to be broken.

I've explained to my Arch-Rival before, in some detail, why this makes zero sense -- it is a false analogy. To reiterate here, the sun is constantly adding energy to the earth, which allows the level of entropy to decrease in the earth's ecosystems.
` Although life forms can reliably grow, develop, organize and create new individuals without breaking the second law of thermodynamics, billions of years from now the sun will be so hot that it will boil the oceans from the earth and eventually explode, destroying the only planet we've ever lived on (so far).
` In other words, entropy is still the ultimate result, but until then, life will continue to grow and decay in roughly equal amounts.

Living things are not like highways or houses because they can repair themselves, increase in size, eat each other and produce many more individuals. These individuals can only do their best at competing/cooperating in the world because, as the earth turns, the sun is ceaselessly and evenly replenishing the ecosystems.
` This continuing input of energy is the only requirement necessary for evolution: as long as organisms can keep living and reproducing, their genes will continue to change -- occasionally at a very noticeable rate (i.e. new species evolving before our eyes), which I may get into later in this series.

As I've also mentioned to the Arch-Rival, genomes can increase the number of genes they contain, as in gene duplication yes, there is such a thing, which can cause new genes to evolve; one noteable example is the gene that codes for the antifreeze protein in the Antarctic eelpout. The gene has a new function, yet it comes from a frame-shift mutation in an un-needed copy of another gene with a different job.
` In other words, genomes don't degenerate. They can lose genes, but they also make new genes. I'd go on with other examples, but it seems most appropriate to stick with Kent's insanity about the laws of thermodynamics:

The first law says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed by ordinary means.

Actually, it doesn't. It states only that energy is conserved, and as we know today, matter and energy are interchangeable. The "by ordinary means" bit is also not a part of this law.
` Scientists don't say, "this happens, but only without God!", which is what Hovind seems to be suggesting. Physicists actually say, "this happens", and whether or not God is involved is left out because that is unanswerable by science.
` This comment rather seems to reveal Hovind's belief that there is indeed a way around physical laws, similar to his belief that there is a way around tax laws.

We do not see anything being created today, and yet we do see an entire universe of created material. This clearly indicates a Creator.

Clearly? Or perhaps this is all semantics; first, he's saying the universe was 'created', in order to imply such creation was deliberate. Just as easily, we could use another word, like 'formed', which doesn't imply the universe came about on purpose.

So, what caused the universe? We may be led to expect an answer to this question because we exist inside of time. Time began when our universe began, so our familiar concept of cause and effect would not apply.
` In other words, cause-and-effect can only work if there's already something to work with. If there isn't anything to work with, then it happened another way, and that's a way no one knows about.

All that physicists know is that the galaxies are flying away from one another because space is expanding, and if you turn back the clock 13.7 billion years, all of space would have been a singularity.
` Although the Big Bang is understood in minute detail only fractions of a second after its occurrence, the gist of it is that early on, all of space was filled with white-hot luminous matter before it cooled and the light 'turned off'.
` This same light is still streaming through the universe, although it's thinned a lot because the universe continues to expand. It's not visible to human eyes, however, because the expansion of space has stretched it from the visible spectrum into longer-wave light.

This universe-wide flash near the beginning of our universe was accidentally discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson, a physicist and astronomer pair who had just built the then-most sensitive radio antenna/receiver system in the world.
` Although this radiation was predicted in 1948, Penzias and Wilson did not think of it when their machine picked up some 'noise' they did not expect. After ruling out all other sources of radiation, such as New York City -- as well as shooting some pigeons who had been depositing 'white dielectric material' in the horn antenna -- they concluded that it must be coming from somewhere else.

The echoes of this flash -- called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation because it is strongest in the microwave spectrum -- is being mapped in great detail by progressively more advanced satellites. For example, here's what the WMAP shows us:

As you can see, these glowing particles were not entirely evenly-distributed, but rather lumpy, which would be just what one would expect if galaxies were to have a way to form via gravity becoming stronger in some regions and pulling material together.

Just how that expanding singularity 'happened' in the first place is still a mystery, but it may not always be as long as scientists don't throw up their hands and say, "I give up, therefore Goddidit!"

Moving on, Hovind also implies in this passage that it's impossible for anything at all to create matter, with only one possible exception; God, and presumably not any other deities, either.
` Of course, human beings use particle accelerators to hurl particles around and smash them into one another, which can create matter through the ordinary rules of cause-and-effect -- it's called pair production.

Thermonuclear bombs do the same thing, of course, as does the sun, to the extreme! In this process, one particle has a positive charge and the other has an equal-but-opposite negative charge -- in other words, a matter particle and an antimatter particle.
` Thus, their energy level is the same as the level before they were formed. However, antimatter is rare (although enough of it orbits the earth to be used as fuel according to this Astrophysics Journal article) because most types of antimatter tend to annihilate one another.
` Although annihilation produces a lot of energy, it leaves behind the same total amount of energy because one is positive and one is equally and oppositely negative. I've always pictured this as sort of like taking a string (energy) and tying it into a knot (particles) and then untying the string again.

So, while this doesn't break any laws of physics, it does demonstrate that unlike what Hovind asserts, matter is ordinarily created every day.

The particle accelerator experiments help physicists figure out how matter was formed in the Big Bang, although they don't tell us where this energy that turned into matter came about to begin with, or why more matter hasn't been annihilated by antimatter.
` That mystery (and perhaps the missing antimatter) lies outside the universe and its laws of cause-and-effect, and remains to be solved.
` It is this mystery, and not cause and effect, that Hovind seems to be referring to -- the universe is here and no one knows why.

Scientists who ask this question do experiments to try to figure it out; they want to learn the answer because they don't know. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that not knowing the answer means that you don't know the answer -- therefore you still don't know!
` To say you have the answer when you really don't is a logical fallacy called Argument From Ignorance. So, if someone says, "I don't know how to explain that, therefore it's evidence of ghosts/aliens/Goddiddit" the only thing that tells you is that individual's personal beliefs.

And one more important point (yes, there's more); figuring out where the universe comes from is the realm of physicists and cosmologists, not biologists. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with biological evolution, although there are concepts which use the name 'evolution', such as 'stellar evolution', which describes how stars change over time.

Stellar evolution is the process of gravity causing gases and dust to collapse into stars and planets, which explains why they are round, and why they move the way they do. Later, when all the star's fuel is spent, it no longer has the energy to prevent its further compression and blows itself apart into a different phase, such as a red dwarf or neutron star.
` If it is massive enough, it becomes a singularity, called a black hole, which can be seen like a cosmic version of the Tasmanian Devil character from Looney Tunes, occasionally tearing apart other objects in a very bright and violent mess.
` Stellar physics has nothing to do with biological evolution because stars are not living things and are not subject to genetic variability and natural selection. In this case, the word 'evolution' refers to the changes of a single star over its 'lifetime', in the same way that 'lifetime' here means 'as long as it lasts' rather than 'as long as it is alive'.

I think that's more than enough of my interjections -- let's move on to Hovind's next paragraph:

There are people in the world today who wish to avoid the concept of God. They do not like the idea of a God telling them what to do. Therefore, they have come up with the most dangerous, damnable doctrine every [sic] imagined, evolution.

It is easy to see why there is literally no logic to this statement: If somebody already doesn't believe in a certain deity, then why would they care if that deity wants them to behave a certain way, any more than a believer in that deity would take a different one seriously?
` There's no more empirical evidence for Zeus or Thor than there is for the Christian concept of God, so why would atheists (or deists, for that matter) be compelled to believe it exists, much less 'wish to avoid' it? (I suppose there are some rebels out there, but they seem to be in the minority of atheists.)

Also, something I recall from my Philosophy of Religion class (taught by a devout Christian): If biblical morality is moral because God says it is -- as in "Thou shalt not kill" -- then God can say that killing is immoral one day and moral the next. In other words, whatever God says is moral becomes moral and there are no objective moral standards!
` Although the bible is filled with instances of God (and even Jesus) telling the Israelites to kill others, this is not because the rules are being changed, but rather because "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to other Israelites, and everyone else is fair game. Either way, this is not what anyone today would consider as 'enlightened' thinking.

My Arch-Rival has defended the example of God telling Moses to commit genocide, sparing only the virgins for the purpose of raping, as being moral because it was a necessary step in spreading God's love. And why do the ends justify the means?
` Because Whatever God Commands Is Good, Even If It's An Unspeakable Atrocity. Do I need to go into why exactly this is Very Bad Logic?

I should expect that if there's a God who actually told my Arch-Rival to do something so incredibly heinous, he wouldn't be able to bring himself to do it, thus putting his own moral standards above God's.
` However, if he were able to obey, then what would that say about him? Would that make him a religious terrorist? Would it show the strength of his faith or the tragedy of being a pawn to his belief that God Is Always Right?

There are, however, examples of changing morality in the bible, as when God decrees slavery, and commands people to stone those who insulted him, even when they hadn't harmed anyone. In the modern world, such things are considered barbaric, so does that mean that God was a barbarian?
` Were those things right back then? Were they never right to begin with? How can there possibly be objective moral standards if those standards can change?
` The idea that God is benevolent is only believable when one has faith that everything he is said to have done is Right. If that belief is at the base of one's answer, then anything else can be justified in that light.

Regarding scientists, they must avoid the concept of God in their methods, whether they believe in God or not. This is because it is not possible to include something you can't test, or to explain some unexplained phenomenon by saying "Goddidit!" because if there is a naturalistic explanation, you can't afford to be cynical and say there can't possibly be one.

Charles Darwin himself was studying to become an Anglican minister before he became a naturalist, and according to all his writings, he himself believed all the tenants of the Church, including the literal six-day creation, until he was convinced by all the geological processes and fossils that the earth was millions of years old, and that such things as the pattern of species distribution showed that species arise mainly through natural selection.
` As I recall, Darwin described admitting his proposal "like confessing a murder" because of the reaction it would get, but it was no doctrine: He put his theory out there to be trounced upon by the entire scientific community, and they did, which led to it being taken apart, revised, refined and expanded enormously, which continues to this day.

So, what is evolution through natural selection, anyway? Hovind clearly has no clue:

The technical definition of evolution means “change.”

Whoa, Kent, that's so technical! In all seriousness, what he's trying to do is make the definition of biological evolution so vague that it can apply to any sort of change.
` As I've said, biological evolution is about the genetic changes in populations, nothing more.

As the Understanding Evolution website puts it: "Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance."
` I recommended Understanding Evolution to the Arch-Rival, so that he could learn more about what he doesn't know about evolution, such as what it is and how it works, as well as its history.
` It's very basic, but it doesn't take a braniac to understand the concepts -- and then realize that people like Kent Hovind are giving it fictional definitions that are ripe for mockery!

Hovind quite deliberately likes to confuse biological evolution with the idea of any other kind of change, including ideologies promoting progress. (No surprise, he's conservative to the point of wanting to bring back public executions by stoning, but that's another story.) He says:

There is no question thatthings [sic] do change. All change is directed either downward toward less order if left to themselves, or upward with a master-mind behind it.

I would like to point out that crystals do build themselves, and there's no master-mind needed to explain them. This is why crystal formation has been suggested in the past as one way that living things could have come into being (this is not part of evolutionary theory, but rather, the theory of biogenesis).

The cities that we live in have ‘evolved’ over the years. ... Not one of the buildings in your city built itself by the material rising up out of the ground.

I would also like to point out that living things build themselves -- thanks to our parents, we've all done it ourselves in nine months, and then continued growing and developing.
` Under the best conditions, a small number of trees can "build a whole city" of trees, with new trees literally springing up from the ground, thanks to the natural creative force of the plants' reproductive organs.
` These are some of the reasons that materials used for making buildings are not considered life forms, and this is why they cannot build themselves. Is this not 'obvious'?

A college professor told me that cities 'evolve' with time.

This is true, provided that we acknowledge that the word in quotes does not refer to biological evolution.

I said to him, "I agree. If you use this as your definition of 'evolved' then you are including a design, a designer, and lots of work -- planned intelligent progress, not chaos ordered by self. Not one of the buildings in your city built itself by the material rising up out of the ground."

True -- if we use this as our definition! However, we're not talking about genetic distribution in a population because buildings don't make baby buildings.
` When biologists speak of evolution, they are referring to the minor changes in allele frequencies that naturally occur in plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, archaea, etc. in order to adapt to their local environment. Unfortunately for Hovind:

When I speak of evolution, I am not referring to small minor changes that naturally occur as animals have to make some adjustments to their environment.

So, in other words, he is spelling out that when he is referring to evolution, he actually isn't referring to biological evolution at all! What brilliant double-talk! How does he do it?

Biological evolution works like this: Unlike what Hovind would say, we always expect the offspring of organisms to be the same species as their parents, although each one has their own unique mutations that even the parents don't have.
` Over time, genetic changes accumulate more and more so that, while their DNA is compatible with their contemporaries in their own population, over time it loses its compatibility with their ancestors of many thousands of generations before.
` The line between species is always a fuzzy line. The lineage at Time A may be genetically compatible with the same lineage living at Time B; and the lineage at Time B may be compatible with this lineage at Time C, and so on.
` However, if the population of the lineage at Time A could try to produce fertile offspring with the population at Time E, their genetic divergence may no longer allow this.

We also see this in species that share a recent common ancestor, yet have been isolated from one another for thousands of generations. Some examples of mammals crossbreeding include donkeys with horses (mules/hinneys), lions with tigers (ligers/tiglons), dromedary camels with llamas (camas), and bottlenose dolphins with orcas (wholphins).
` Genetic markers and fossils show that these close relatives were once the same species, and as evidence of this, their genes still allow them to produce offspring, although it may be difficult.
` In some cases, the offspring are commonly fertile, as with wholphins, camas, and hybrids of various types of big cats, although in others, such as mules/hinnies, the offspring are usually sterile.

This is also why I have pointed out to the Arch Rival the existence of ring species -- contemporary species which are only blurrily separated by space -- which is exactly what evolution predicts we'll find:
` Species A can breed with neighboring Species B, and Species B can breed with neighboring Species C and so on, but by the time you get to Species E, it cannot breed with Species A!
` There are only subtle differences between the neighboring species, but if the middle 'links' in the ring go extinct, then you have a successful separation of two distinct species which will never again be considered part of the same species and continue to differentiate as orcas and dolphins have, or camels and llamas.
` The Arch-Rival's response, if my memory is correct, was basically, "That's still micro-evolution." Or in other words, it wasn't 'macro-evolution' which, as we'll see just ahead, includes speciation in its definition. In other words, I described one way that new species evolve, and then he said this isn't what is happening.
` Well, what is happening? Hovind cannot tell us:

For instance, if we released hundreds of rabbits in an area with cold winters, only the animls [sic] with the heavier fur would survive. So within a few years, the population would have a little heavier fur than the earlier populations. These small minor population shifts brought about by environment are referred to as ‘micro-evolution.’ There has been no change in the genetic material of the rabbit.

Except, the way he has described it, there has been a change in their genetic material in that certain variants have become dominant.

There has only been a change in the ratio of the population.

No, actually it's a ratio of the genes in the population, genius.

You still have the same kind of animal. If that climate were to change back to a milder climate, the population of animals would change back to having a lighter fur.

It might, although it might not, depending on whether that's particularly beneficial to change back.

Macro-evolution would be defined as changing into a different kind of animal. There is no similarity between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Many evolutionists will use micro-evolution to try to prove that macro-evolution is true. We must guard ourselves not to fall for this false logic.

This 'micro-evolution' is a good description of biological evolution through natural selection, and this is not false logic, as there is in fact no solid distinction between these concepts. As such, many biologists don't even use them.
` If we are going to use these terms, it's like the same sort of relationship that microeconomics -- the economic activity of individual households and businesses -- has with macroeconomics, which is the collective sum of microeconomics and how it determines economics on a societal or global scale.

In biology, these 'micro' and 'macro' terms are not always useful, because no matter what aspect of evolution one is describing, it is all based on this incremental type of change.
` Some biologists do call certain areas of study -- such as population genetics and ecological genetics -- 'microevolution', whereas paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, genomic phylostratigraphy and comparative genomics constitute 'macroevolution'.

These terms were coined in 1927 by Iuri'i Filipchenko, in his work, Variabilität und Variation, in which he sought to reconcile Darwin's theory with Mendelian genetics.
` One of his students, Theodosius Dobzhansky, introduced them in his 1937 founding Modern Synthesis work Genetics and the Origin of Species: "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution".
` This was the first time anyone had heard these terms in the English-speaking biology community, although they are still not used by most biologists in the English-speaking world. While definitions vary, here's the general idea:

Microevolution -- changes below the level of speciation, referring to the frequencies of alleles (i.e. alternative genes) within the species or population, as well as other changes which are not even genetic.

Macroevolution -- can be anagenetic speciation, which is the change of one species to another over time, and cladogenesis, which is the splitting of one species into two, as ring species have imperfectly done.
` It can also apply to more specific and dramatic instances, as in Levinton's definition from his 2001 Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution: "I define the process of macroevolution to be "the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank".

So, when variations in gene ratios change in favor of heavier fur, that can be called 'microevolution'. When this same thing happens with more traits, which accumulate over thousands of generations until a distinct species emerges, that can be called 'macroevolution'.
` Although creationists love to load these terms with great meaning, there is actually no solid line to be drawn between such abstract concepts as different aspects and degrees of evolution. You can no more draw a line between them than you could draw a line between colors in one continuous spectrum.
` Go ahead, try. You really can't, can you? Even so, as with colors, labels can still be handy.

Let's go back to the rabbits: What if all the deer in one area went extinct? One could conceive of a population of rabbits taking advantage of all the food that the now-gone deer aren't eating. To adapt to this new way of life, they would become larger and taller to reach higher branches.
` Over thousands of generations of this happening a little bit more, and a little bit more, these rabbits could become another species altogether. A species of unusual-looking rabbit, yes, but eventually one would be tempted to give it another name. Dougal Dixon, help me out, here!

Ah, yes, why not 'rabbuck'? Notice, however, that they will always be based on rabbits -- or, you can say, 'basically rabbits' -- no matter how much they change. No one claims that they wouldn't be, except for Hovind in his inane lectures, as I've addressed elsewhere.

Similarly, lizards can only give rise to other lizards -- for example, there are modern lizards which are adapted to marine environments, including monitor lizards.
` A point of interest with this is, at one point in the earth's history, the sea was home to fully-aquatic, whale-sized monitor lizards called Mosasaurs, which looked like this:

See? That's a lizard! It's quite different from the ones we know, in that is had flippers, but it's still a lizard! It's not even difficult to picture similar marine lizards evolving again, although meat-eating whales would probably have to go extinct for this to happen.

Also, unlike what Hovind will tell you, lizards are different types of reptiles from dinosaurs, in the same way as turtles are different from mammals. It amuses me, then, that Hovind suggests (in his lectures) that the gigantic browsing ornithopod, reminiscent of a rhinoceros, Triceratops, has evolved (but he doesn't call it that!) into a tiny predatory chameleon.

Now, chameleons have prehensile tails and feet, which they use to slowly move through tree branches while swaying back and forth like a leaf, eyes that look in different directions independently for finding insects, and a sticky, spring-loaded tongue for catching prey.
` It isn't an insane proposition to suggest that one animal could evolve into one that is so different, but the basic skeletal structure of dinosaurs have different derived characteristics than those of lizards, such as different openings in the skull, not to mention their limbs, joints and torsos are built quite differently from one another because of their different postures (e.g. splayed vs. upright).
` In other words, they are both reptiles which share a common reptile ancestor, but they took different paths in evolution -- they've diverged to begin with -- so one did not evolve into the other!
` Hilariously, though, Hovind has actually stated that dinosaurs are merely large versions of today's lizards, but this is as absurd as saying that dinosaurs are merely large versions of today's marsupials. They really are that different, although describing why would take a really long time.

And while I'm on the subject of lizards, I'd like to bring up one (of many) instances of visible lizard evolution -- one which shows just how fast an animal can evolve in response to its environment:
` Only 36 years after biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their habitat in Pod Kopiste to the island of Pod Mrcaru, the population was noticeably different:
` Since they had adapted from eating insects to plants, their heads were much larger and deeper for chewing, their teeth were flatter, and they had even developed cecal valves in their guts for digesting plants, which is a rare trait among lizards.
` Their social structure had also changed, as plants are so plentiful that the lizards no longer needed to defend a territory. This whole thing did not even take four decades. It happened literally before the biologists' eyes, as they had been watching the whole time. Given another few thousand years, what else could happen?

Kent has refused to acknowledge the fact that biologists expect that lizards can only give rise to lizards, and, in one of Kent's "debates" I've discussed with the Arch-Rival, that plants can only give rise to plants and animals can only give rise to animals, but just what type of plant or animal it can evolve into depends on what branch on the family tree it derives from.
` This is why molluscs can only evolve into other species of molluscs, although we may call them clams, snails, or squid, for example. They have the same basic body plan, and genetics, but seem much different from one another. In the same vein, vertebrates will always be vertebrates, although they range in form from sharks to elephants.

Reptiles include groups as diverse as snakes, mammals and birds, which share an even more ancient common reptilian ancestor. Those on the mammal branch can only give rise to other mammals, be they whales, bats, naked mole rats, or possibly rabbucks.
` Monkeys can only give rise to other monkeys, including apes, and apes can only give rise to other apes -- even if they're bald, big-brained and bipedal, they're still 'savannah apes'.

The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is a continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order.

Again, this statement merely demonstrates that the 'evolutionists' haven't gotten anything across to him, because evolution has got nothing to do with progress, much less an inner drive toward it.

I should add that, the word 'evolutionists' is used to make people who accept evolution seem somehow on par with 'creationists', or 'Marxists'. In other words, this word is used to make it seem as though biological evolution is merely an ideology or belief.
` Now, Aristotle argued that such upward progression must exist, from lower to higher forms, and so did Lamarck in his now-discredited not-even-theory of Lamarckian evolution -- both because of their spiritual views. However, no biologist today would make such a ridiculous claim of progress because a) it doesn't make sense and b) all the evidence is against it.

This is totally opposite of the first and second law of thermodynamics.

Actually, it seems that this 'progress' idea would only go against the second law, but that is more than enough for it to be wrong. And, as Hovind's idea of evolution is wrong, it's good that no biologist believes it.

It goes against all scientific evidence that has been accumulated.

Yes it does -- he's right! But that's the idea of 'evolution' that he's peddling and not the theory that biologists use!

Yet, this lie is what many men believe today.

This could only apply to men who don't understand how evolution works, and this lack of understanding is one good reason why it needs to be taught better in schools -- the last thing we need is more people like him!

We don't see any evidence of this in the fossil record.

Indeed, there is no evidence of direction in the fossil record because species must adapt from one habitat to another, even if that means becoming less complex. That's evolution.

From the perspective of someone who has a basic understanding of evolutionary theory, Hovind's repeating-as-mantra the idea of evolution-as-progress reminds me of the childish lies of an old friend of Arch-Rival's and mine -- Restraining Order Rick.

` When Rick claimed that he was planning on moving to a house overlooking Stephen's Pass, I didn't know whether to believe him or not. However, my Second-In-Command, Lucas, knew that this area is nothing but rugged state parkland, so to him it was so obviously a lie that it was presumably hard for him not to roll his eyes.

` So it is when Hovind describes evolution -- it is so blatantly not evolution that I have trouble not rolling my eyes, along with any evolution-studying scientists who might be reading. This comparison in itself doesn't mean that Hovind is lying, but it does illustrate how people who know what evolution actually is view these statements of his.

Even so, I'm pretty sure that what's going on here is that he is using his knowledge of the fact that, the more times you repeat something, the more likely your audience will think it's true, and the more difficulty others will have with correcting these distortions.

Well, I've come to the end of Section 2a, but next up in the queue is Section 2b of Hovind's thesis: Bastardizing the World's History and Religions.
` If any of my science-minded friends have any suggestions or would like to correct me on anything, please leave me a comment so that I can fix it. After all, I did not so deeply research this section because most of what I wrote is ubiquitous in any text about evolution to the point where it seems to have become hard-wired into my brain.
` Also, if any fans of Hovind would like to correct me about Hovind's position on anything, do let me know.

My Annotation of NOVA's 'Judgment Day' Dover Trial Special

While my next post would be my ripping apart the so-called doctoral dissertation of one of my Arch-Rival's young-earth creationist role models (starting here), it's taking such a long time that I thought I'd post something else, which I had previously written, in longhand, just for him.

Back in February, the Arch-Rival brought up the subject of Intelligent Design and claimed that the evil atheists were suppressing its acceptance as real science. Having studied the subject extensively on and off since the late 90's, I of course argued otherwise, but as he was about to leave for work, he recommended that I watch the 'documentary' with Ben Stein called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
` He also asked me how scientists explained how life was supposed to have begun, and that the theory of spontaneous generation had been debunked long ago. I started off by telling him that the theory of abiogenesis (beginning of life) has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (change of life), nor the completely wrong concept of spontaneous generation, and that it's quite a large and complex area of study, which I could tell him more about if he didn't have to leave just then.
` On his way out the door, smirking, he winked and said something like "I think you'll be surprised" or "impressed" or something like that, as though he expected that I would be stunned by what the movie 'reveals'. I immediately went to my computer and found Expelled for Instant Download on Netflix.

I watched it no fewer than three times, becoming less impressed with each viewing, let's just say.

On one level, I became so deeply offended by its childish demonization and Nazification of evolution and the people involved in its study that I actually started to get angry and teary-eyed. On another level, I vowed to clear up this distortion, so I wrote down each of the movie's claims, and, over the next few months, I managed to use the power of facts to debunk every last one of them.
` Within the next few days after viewing, however, I did manage to write up about fifteen pages of criticism and gave it to him to read. To my surprise, he conceded that I had indeed exposed some actual 'yellow journalism', and I'll have to type that up for this blog.
` However, as that would take way too long, and because I already have a massive project going here, I should probably just wait until I post that.

As a teaser, though, just after I wrote those fifteen pages shredding Expelled, I remembered a rather good documentary that my biology teacher (years ago) had assigned for us to watch because she was terrified that some of the students would think that trying to teach them evolution was some attempt to subvert their religious beliefs.
` (And she was terrified -- shaking in fact -- because she's probably had to deal with such people!)
` This documentary was a PBS Nova special called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial, and I had thought it was such a good choice that I actually began to write up a blog post about what the other students had to say about it. As was common at the time, I didn't publish it, although someday I will dredge it up for all to see.

This documentary, I thought, might at least impress the Arch-Rival in the fact that it contains lengthy commentary from both 'sides', rather than sound bites which are taken out of context to make one 'side' look bad -- as I saw in Expelled. Also, its informativeness and its utter lack of Lord Privy Seals might also give him some idea of its level of quality.
` I told him that if he was interested in seeing a documentary that I would regard as accurate, that he should watch Judgment Day, and he agreed to the next time he went to the library.
` To help him out, I wrote him up five pages of notes of my narration/commentary of what I thought was most important, for his own reference, and his own use in formulating a response.

To my knowledge, he still hasn't watched this documentary, even though I've sent him a link two separate times to the online video, last spring after he had gotten himself a computer!
` If you want to beat him to it, you can watch it at this link, and there's also another one at the bottom of the post.

I am not sure if he has read the notes I've given him, but as I have them back now, I can transcribe them here for my loyal readers (assuming I have any) so that at least someone can really appreciate this!
` Plus, I've added just a few more bits and pieces for your own enjoyment -- including a video demonstrating the evolution of a bacterial flagellum!

My notes/annotation/augmentation:

One Dover high school student did a very well-done mural of human evolution, which mysteriously disappeared one day. This seems to have to do with the fact that many Doverians were angry that only Darwin's theory was taught in exclusion to anything else, and suggested Intelligent Design as an alternative, which they claim is based in science, not religion.
` They wanted a statement read in class, informing the students of its existence, and that there is a textbook called Of Pandas and People in the library explaining what it is.

I am not suggesting that a court of law should settle scientific matters, because the evidence should -- but that is another issue. The issue here is whether or not "ID" is even based on scientific research, and, failing that, whether or not it is based in scripture.

The Dover residents talk about "creationism" versus evolution. Is ID based on biblical creationism? We go back to earlier court cases of evolution and creationism -- Scopes losing his trial, and evolution removed from textbooks so as to prevent any more trouble from creationists.
` When Sputnik sparked new interest in science, evolution started going back into the textbooks, and creationists spoke out again. Since creationism is bible-based, it violates our Constitution's Establishment Clause if taught as a fact of the world in government-run schools, and was banned in 1987.

Creationist Bill Buckingham was appointed by creationist Adam Bonsell to review Dover's textbooks. Buckingham did not like the 9th-grade biology textbook by Ken Miller and Joe Levine because it was "laced with Darwinism," and said he did not feel comfortable approving it. The book was put on hold.
` Then, we have a very brief overview of the discovery that broke the back of Darwin's proverbial camel: When finding help in classifying Galápagos' various birds, which looked like woodpeckers, mockingbirds, etc., he found that they were all different species of finches.
` Instead of different types of birds having been separately created on different islands, it seemed that the most likely explanation was that they were all made by one species of finch having spread to different habitats and adapting to different niches.
` Whoa, that one finch has a more than 'slightly' larger beak! There were, of course, many more different types of finch beaks than the ones shown. We see a simplistic explanation of natural selection and descent with modification. Nevertheless, all this is based on the observation of countless species and not some religious text.

Some people feel that this idea takes God out of the picture, including Bill Buckingham, who was allegedly the one who had destroyed the evolution mural, and enjoyed watching it burn.
` In looking for a way to mitigate evolution's being taught in school, the Thomas More law firm directed him to websites about Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, which was consistent with his creationism views.
` He and Adam Bonsell wanted to add Of Pandas and People to the curriculum, but it didn't happen. A few weeks later, 60 copies of Pandas turned up at the school, with a statement to be read to students about 'problems' with evolution, and pointing to the textbooks.
` Six school board members resigned in protest, and their reason was that it's creationism. In September of 2004, eleven parents filed suit against the school board, saying it was violating their Constitutional Rights -- the government should not endorse/discourage the practice of any religion. They were represented by the ACLU.

[This fact doesn't win any Brownie Points with the Arch-Rival, because according to him, the ACLU is atheistic, evil and communistic, which was especially amusing when I started to do my own investigation into the matter -- but, I digress.]

Teachers refused to read the statement, so it was read for them. As we'll see a tiny hint of, ID is far from being a scientific theory because scientific processes are what decide valid and useful theories, not interference with the school board, just so we're clear on that.
` After all, when was the last time you heard of scientists trying to force unaccepted theories on kids, for any reason? There's a reason for that; bypassing the scientific community doesn't prove a thing -- but evidence does!
` ACLU was to find evidence that ID is a clever way to disguise creationism as science so that creationists could use it to get creationism in a science classroom, skipping the scientific process. Thomas Moore was to show that ID is to "make students aware of another scientific theory" and that "it is not religion."

This was what President G.W. Bush and Senator Santorum had thought too, evidently, so they made sure that the conservative Judge Jones would be presiding over the case. The first thing he would examine was whether or not ID was science. ACLU assembled some science expert witnesses. (Pay attention to the way they word their explanations.)

Tiktaalik, an even more dramatic transitional fish-tetrapod fossil than Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc., had been discovered too late to be used in the trial as one of the transitional fossils, a few of which we see in this documentary.
` What is a theory? The ID proponents complain that evolution's not a fact, but in science, the word 'theory' means something much greater than a fact, as is explained.
` Also, the word 'law' means something quite different from a theory -- laws are simple descriptions, like the law of gravity. A theory is a complex explanation, like gravitational theory, which is meant to explain why the law of gravity exists.
` So, to review; law = description of a very simple natural phenomenon; theory = complex explanation for described phenomena. It's like apples and oranges.
` Though evolution through natural selection and other processes has been described, there is no 'law' of evolution because the number of variables (i.e. type of organism, type of niche, environment, what changes could happen, what DNA is available and what mutations occur, etc.) make it impossible to predict with complete accuracy as to what the next 'move' will be.

Genetics was an enormous test to Darwin's theory -- it could have contradicted this explanation, but instead confirmed it. (The "great details" are left out of this documentary, presumably for simplification's and time's sake.)
` A simple example is shown -- why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas our closest genetic relatives have 24. It turns out that we all have the same chromosomes, except that two of these in chimps correspond to one large human chromosome that has been found to be made up of two chromosomes fused together.

Darwin proposed his theory in 1859, and his basic ideas have been built upon and used for practical purposes (which depend on his theory being true), including medical research and even self-designing technology (through selection), as well as understanding virtually any given detail of the living world.
` What understanding does ID give us? What predictions does it make? What practical purposes does it have?
` Its proponents say that looking at nature as if it were designed is supposed to be a practical value unique to ID, but it is not; looking at the 'machinery' of nature as though it should be put together in a semi-orderly way -- by evolution's somewhat sloppy processes -- has always been helpful in figuring out how it works.

When you think about it, Intelligent Design doesn't have anything new to offer because it is almost entirely based on (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution doesn't make sense, and not on positive arguments for what one should expect in nature.
` So, even if evolutionary theory were overturned, we would then have no theory to explain all of biology, only that "something somehow designed species and it isn't evolution." It doesn't tell us what the designer is, how it designed or when. If you can't even define what it is you're arguing for, then how can you possibly test this idea?

See how that's a negative argument and not an independent concept that explains facts? It's not even a scientific hypothesis because it doesn't actually try to explain anything at all!
` And, because it isn't testable, as any scientist would explain -- even my Oceanography teacher, come to think of it -- it isn't science. How can you determine if something is true or not if you can't even check the idea against the real world?

By now, 8 of 9 seats on the school board were empty, including Buckingham's, and the situation for the people in Dover is getting very hairy -- as in death threat-hairy -- for the people who are trying to keep ID out of schools.
` What do the ID advocates in court have to say? Five of their witnesses dropped out. The remaining ones were asked whether there was a valid reason for teaching ID other than religious purposes.
` So, Michael Behe explains that design is the inference that parts which look designed are actually designed, and the most 'visually striking' example is the bacterial flagellum, which has parts he claims are ordered for a purpose. He asserts that if any of the parts are missing, then it can't function, thus there would be nothing for natural selection to act upon.
` He cites a 1998 paper by Dr. Daniel DeRosier, who studies such flagella, saying that this type of flagellum "resembles a machine designed by a human." So, De Rosier himself is asked and he says that he doesn't think it actually is designed, because it is clearly an evolved system, built up gradually by the messy process of natural selection.

So, does a 'half-formed' flagellum have anything for natural selection to act upon? Yes.

Just one example is the one they showed here, a 'half-formed flagellum', which is actually a 'syringe' that Yersinia pestis uses to inject poison into human calls -- it functions just fine as evidenced by the historical success of the bubonic plague.
` There are also other examples not included in the documentary, including a version that uses even fewer parts. Importantly, the proteins making up the flagellum are used in other structures in the cell, so it isn't as though they would have to appear just for the purpose of making the flagellum, as Behe would have you think.

* In one of my reams of Expelled-analysis, I drew a full-page illustration explaining how the flagellum could have plausibly evolved, and which has been backed up by actual biological experiments.
` Since it's on notebook paper and would have to be shrunk to show on screen, it would look very hazy and undecipherable, so I found a YouTube video that shows a somewhat informative animation of the same thing:

Also, the genetic evolution of each of these proteins is now understood. Cell biologists can see that the gene for one protein has been duplicated, that is, an extra copy was made, and this is seen to occur in nature. Because only one gene is all that is necessary to make a certain protein, one of these genes was now free to mutate without disrupting the production of that protein.
` A beneficial mutation caused one of the genes to make a different protein with a different job. This kind of thing has happened again and again, for each of the proteins, splitting and changing into new versions as different beneficial mutations accumulated in different lineages, creating new and different proteins:
` (Ignore the white dots -- they're supposed to be black but I can't get them to be!)

Original Protein
. ..|.|
. .\ . /. . . . . . . . . (mutation) . . . . . . . . . . .(subsequent mutations)
. . .V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V. . . . . . . . . .V
TAAACGTGA -- TAACCGTGA -- TAACCGTGT -- TAACCGGGT
` \\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \\
` . --TACACGTGA -- TACACGTGC . . . . . . .-- TAACCCTGT -- TAACCCTTT
` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\\
` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- GACACGTGC -- GCCACGTGC

...and so on.

[My original illustration was more extensive and didn't use short strings of letters, but I hope you get the idea. As this text-illustration is off the top of my head, it does not represent an actual genetic sequence, but rather represents the basic explanation for the patterns that are seen to occur in actual genomes over longer stretches of DNA.]

This pattern of genetic diversification is also seen in the genes coding for the proteins in our immune system and our blood-clotting factors. Let me emphasize that this is one way that new information arises in our DNA, from which natural selection can work with.
` Another way is when retroviruses insert their genomes into their host's DNA, adding all their genes! When this happens in a germ cell, the retrovirus can be passed on to the offspring, and host cells have even been observed to use retroviral DNA for their own purposes!
` I mention this, of course, because one of the claims of creationists and ID proponents is that no new information can be naturally created. Since it actually does happen, that claim is disproved.

In the court reenactment (from the transcript), we see how Michael Behe testified that we have no sufficient answers for the evolution of the immune system. He says he hasn't ever read the stacks of books and scholarly articles on the subject that the lawyer presents to him, yet confidently (enough) maintains that there are no sufficient answers.
` But... if he hasn't even examined the research, then how can he judge that for himself?

After weeks of 'science class' in the courtroom, ID is not deemed any sort of science -- although, that does not mean it is religion. So, they ask, is it?
` According to a catalog in the bottom of one of the boxes of donated books, Of Pandas and People is listed under 'Creation Science' (i.e. biblical creationism). Since Pandas is the manner in which ID has been presented in the school, the question is: Is Pandas, and by extension Intelligent Design, actually just 'creation science'?

An old newspaper article was found, about a biology book which 'presents both evolution and creation' by Charles Thaxton. This article was published just before the 1987 trial where creationism was banned in schools for violating the constitution.
` Charles Thaxton is also the editor of Pandas. Was this 'creation and evolution' textbook the same as Pandas? An investigation into earlier drafts shows that this is the case. (Also, the documentary doesn't mention that the original title was Creation Biology! Really!)

Looking at two drafts of this book, one just before the 1987 verdict and one just after, they show that the texts are very similar, except that in the former draft, language such as 'God' and 'creation' are used, and in the latter, these words are changed to 'Intelligent agent' and 'design' (and references to the bible are also omitted).
` According to the former draft, 'creation' is defined as 'various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."
` In the latter draft, the same definition is given for Intelligent Design except that it's through an 'intelligent agency.' In making this transition, one of the editors mistakenly replaced 'creationists' with 'design proponents', resulting in a 'transitional fossil' of sorts -- 'cdesignproponentsists.'

Another good question comes; does ID offer only a critique of evolution, or does it offer something more? ID proponent and leader Paul Nelson, was asked this question, and here was his response:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" -- but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

(BTW, even to this day they haven't reported making progress on this objective.)

In other words, ID is not a scientific theory and Nelson presumably knows this. Or, is it scientific? Michael Behe, whose definition of a scientific theory includes supernatural (i.e. non-testable) phenomena, says that astrology would be considered a scientific theory under his definition.
` Science is known as 'science' because it is based on empirical evidence, which astrology has none of, other than evidence against. Which reminds me, I remember a bill being proposed to re-define what kids are taught that science is, that it doesn't need empirical evidence.
` The point of this bill was to allow ID to be taught in government-run schools. Of course, lying to our kids that about science being something other than science only serves to keep them from understanding how science actually works and how it actually requires evidence.

The Wedge Document, which highlights the ID Movement's strategy, reveals their motives and ideals. It starts out, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built..."
` Wait... what about the Ancient Greeks? Their philosophy, arts, mathematics, architecture, science, etc. were instrumental in the development of Western civilization. What happened when Christianity took over? The Dark Ages -- that is, the decline of civilization and the spread of ignorance!
` And what happened when people started paying more attention to the Greeks' and others' ancient texts, and rediscovered all that literature and critical thinking and science? The Renaissance -- that is, the flourishing of Western culture!
` If it weren't for people who didn't believe that we're created in God's image, Western civilization might still be floundering in superstition and oppression, and wouldn't have modern technology and medicine unless another civilization invented it!

The Wedge Document also argues that the idea that we come from nature causes people to give up objective moral standards -- as though nature could possibly command us to do so!
` I can't think of anything more ludicrous -- the more-or-less objective portion of my morality certainly dictates that mass-murder is wrong, but if I thought a deity which created me wanted me to go on a suicide bombing mission, or a crusade, or kill all the Jews, or go to war in Iraq, and that anything this deity told me to do was right regardless of my compassion and concern for others, then I would have to abandon my objective moral standards in order to do it!
` It is is difficult to get people to do things they generally know not to do -- the aforementioned atrocities, excommunicating family members, genital mutilation, etc. -- unless they believe that it's for the best. This is true of any ideology, of course, not just religions -- however:
` If it's based on a 'crazy ideology' of 'mere humans', there's a small chance they could bring themselves to question it. But; what if they think that an action is being proposed by something that is supposed to be looking out for them, is all-knowing, all-good, and who promises them an eternal reward for believing, obeying, and loving -- and an eternal punishment for not doing so? It would be much more difficult to back out.

Additionally, this idea that we either come from nature or from God is a false dichotomy -- most Christians in the world also accept evolution, and in this country, because there are so many Christians, most Americans who accept evolution are Christians.
` In other words, these people think that God made them through evolution, that both things are true. How would accepting evolution mean that God wasn't responsible? Most people have a way around such black-and-white thinking.

But, back to the point -- is there religious motivation behind ID? The documentary does not mention this, but there is plenty of other documentation, including records from church meetings and public religious forums, which are hard to interpret in any other way.
` An example I can recall from the top of my head was a 1999 article for Church and State magazine entitled Missionary Man, which is about the scarily-fanatical speakers at a Right-Wing Christian conference:

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

"You must unify your own side and divide the other side," Johnson said. He added that he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient. This debate, he said, can be resumed once Darwinism is overthrown. (Johnson, himself an old-Earth creationist, did not explain how the two camps would reconcile this tremendous gap.)

I can't picture this as being quote-mining, due to other, more direct sources I've seen, but if you'd like to challenge me on that, go ahead.
` Also, the second paragraph is important, because a big part of the object of Intelligent Design is to get rid of the details of which creation story one goes by. Did it occur over a long time? Just how much of Genesis do you have to take literally?
` These details are deliberately left out in order to garner maximum support. At the same time, without these details, there can be no hypotheses in order to test how this thing is supposed to have happened -- automatically making it not science!

The other thing is that the goal is to get evolution out of our culture, which one can only do if one has sufficient reason. If the entire object of your operation is to put forth a conclusion and then find supposed evidence to rationalize it, that's the opposite of science!

Continuing on with the documentary, the Wedge strategy's twenty-year goals include "to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
` In order to do that, they would need to do scientific research that supports their claims of ID as valid -- and they haven't! Phillip Johnson explains that the goal is to reverse cultural changes. This is their motivation, but where is their evidence of ID, and of supposed 'cultural changes'?

Now, Judge Jones must find the motivations of the Dover School board members, who proposed the teaching of ID. In the courtroom re-enactment, they show the tape of William Buckingham suggesting that evolution should be balanced with "creationism", but he says the meant to say "intelligent design."
` Also, Buckingham and Bonsell had sworn in their depositions that they did not know who had donated the books to the high school. In the trial, Buckingham admitted that he had given the check he had written for buying these books to Alan Bonsell, and that the 'unknown businessman' who had bought the books was Bonsell's father. Alan Bonsell must have known who this 'unknown businessman' was, yet he claimed that he hadn't! Accused of lying under oath, Bonsell claimed he misspoke.

Dover's local school board election was national news -- all eight elected opposed ID. December 2005, Jones' decision -- ID is not science, and was introduced for religious reasons, and thus is unconstitutional to teach in Dover science classes.
` Jones says, "Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being, and to religion in general. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect, however, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom, or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the Intelligent Design policy."
` "The crushing weight of the evidence indicates that the board set out to get creationism into the science classrooms, and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that."
` "In an era where we're trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me. You know, garbage in, garbage out, and it doesn't benefit any of us. We benefit daily from scientific discoveries."
` Of course, Buckingham and Bonsell disagree, as did the ID proponents, and were somewhat appalled. Even Jones received death threats, and he and his family needed police protection. Although the trial is over, he's right -- this issue isn't settled!

The End!

Assuming you, my reader, have read all these annotations/additions to Judgment Day, I hope you have appreciated it! To watch the actual documentary, now with the information I've provided in mind as a background reference, click here.

As for my Arch-Rival, I am not really surprised that he apparently hasn't seen this documentary, despite repeatedly assuring me that he would. I guess that when you think you're right about something, it's not worth taking a good look at your opposition.
` Which reminds me, in order to tie up the abiogenesis conversation we'd had, I later did try to show him a science magazine article about the various different studies that show how life could have arisen, and handed him the magazine, but he literally rolled his eyes and did not even look at the article!

Well, I hope at least someone out there has enjoyed my annotation -- now back to destroying Hovind's dissertation!

Some YEC-y dialog with A.R.

Here's part of the monstrosity that's turned into its own monstrosity!
` This post refers to the discussions I've been having with my ArchRival (see previous post), who is a Young-Earth creationist.
` I figure this might as well double as public web material, I thought I would put more of it on display so that I can at least have something on one of my blogs. After all, I've already done the the hardest part -- writing it in the first place!

Leaving off from the last post, here's the next message I sent to 'AR':

I've always thought how strange it was that the more I learn about an unfamiliar subject, the more I realize I don't know. For example, when I started doing some research about the bible, I thought I knew squat. Now I know that I know even less than that!
` For example, in the past I might have said "Didn't Jesus say 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is wrong?' Well, doesn't that mean that God was wrong?" But now I know that doesn't make sense because that was meant to be a law to the magistrates, saying that if a man kills a king, you only kill the man, not the man's whole family, because the family didn't do anything. What Jesus was criticizing was that people were taking this action into their own lives and exacting revenge on others, when it wasn't meant for that. [?supposedly?]
` I don't remember if it was you who told me that or some Anglican bishop or whoever, but now I know that's wrong and won't make such a criticism. Of course, I'm learning about it not so that I can make better criticisms of it, but all the same it shows the danger of making false claims, especially if they form the basis of some criticism. I should know better, so I'm always trying to be more and more careful!

I bring this up because, as I've said, creationists (that is, creationism proponents) make criticisms about evolution that similarly make no sense. Such as, in the last message, Hovind saying that "scientists think a non-dog can come from a dog" and of course they don't! I've read about Hovind saying that a duck laying a tomato instead of an egg would prove evolution. No, that would prove magic! The only thing that scientists have EVER said is that species diverge gradually into slightly more and more different species until the descendents can no longer breed with the ancestors.
` Yet, no matter how many times scientists tell him, "That's not what we think, Hovind!" he would continue with the same arguments, claiming that "evolutionists can't disprove me!" As though it's really true! The other creationists do the same thing, which I'd like to try demonstrating to you.

However, something I do know about is evolution and basic science, which these creationists continue to misrepresent -- except Hovind because he's in Federal prison for fraud.
` They're never going to teach you about science because no matter how many times you correct them, they won't learn from their mistakes. Which then, must mean that those aren't mistakes but are intentional -- even if they're debating a biologist and the biologist has already disproven them by showing them that their argument is based on a false assumption, they continue on with their script as though nobody had challenged them at all. And yes, some of the creationists in the audience DO notice this -- and some don't!
` I get the idea that these creationism proponents know they're lying, but as with people who say fraudulent holy relics are real, they are probably just committing 'pious fraud' in order to get more converts (and make money, like those 'faith healers' on TV!). I can't help but think that if Jesus were here, he'd be trying to shut these people down!

While I already have plans for Hovind (see my email and accompanying video I sent a couple weeks back), I wanted to ask you if you would be open to learning more from me, and also informative videos that I know are accurate from what I've learned from science books/magazines and classes. (And, almost all of which I discovered AFTER I told you I'd be emailing you some videos! I had no idea they were even out there until I started watching Hulu and then YouTube instead of Netflix....)
` Learning more about what Hovind and Ham say, I can tell that if you actually believe them -- and many creationists DON'T -- then you really know about as much about evolution as I know about the bible. (So, I'll continue learning about that!)

I'm an honest person, so I'm actually working on correcting my mistaken assumptions about things I don't know. I have been for years because it's so hard to do anything in the world if you're operating on false assumptions about reality! If a cliff is there in real life, and I think it's not really there, that won't stop me from falling off it anyway! Okay, that's a silly analogy, but I think you know what I'm saying.
` I can guess that, since you're an honest person (I'd think!) that you would want to actually know what scientists "really think" and what evolution "really is" -- and I can give this to you, in smaller bits, not big ones like before!
` Also, if you'd like to direct me to some articles or videos or whatever, about something you want to correct ME on, I'll go for that! What do you say?

AR's response to my message:

"Let God be true, and every man be a liar." I for one do not personally believe that those who espouse creationism or intelligent design have any ulterior motives (beyond winning souls to Christ - and let's face it, that particular motive is shared by the church at large). While there are plenty of "not-for-profit" organizations out there looking to turn a buck on people's faith (I'm lookin' at you, Pat Robertson), one must bear in mind that the ultimate goal of God's people is in fact to help people to know God - everything else we do ought to be directed toward this end (Acts 20:24).

Frankly, I feel you've invested far more time and effort in this particular matter than I can afford. I applaud your efforts, and you've given me plenty to ponder and investigate. Unfortunately, I lack the time to invest in this endeavor, what with everything else going on in my life. I don't mean to negate your own efforts, but it may be a while before I am able to produce a satisfactory answer. And by "a while," I mean an indeterminate amount of time which could range from a few days to several months. I need to do my homework, too - and I'm beginning to think the reason I never got a job in journalism has to do with my inability to abide by deadlines.

I suppose the real question at hand here is this: Even if the Genesis account of creation is in error, does this in any way negate the greater truths of Scripture? On the one hand, as previously explored, it does - no Garden means no Tree, no Tree means no Fall, no Fall means no sin, no sin means no need for grace, no need for grace means Jesus died for nothing. In order for the Bible, for Christianity as a whole, to make any sense whatsoever, one must accept not only that Man came into being according to God's design, but moreover, that he abandoned God to pursue his own, and that since then God has been trying to bring man back to Himself - an effort culminated in the Man Jesus.

On the other hand, as I'm sure even Lucas would point out, while many of the ideas of Scripture may relate either directly or indirectly to this main idea, the main idea serves only as a primary motivation for holding to these ideas. Love and compassion for one's fellow man, respect for life and property, selflessness and self-sacrifice, faithfulness and loyalty, obedience to authority, diligence in one's work, honesty and integrity in one's dealings, grace and forgiveness - these are all Christian principles, and they find their motive in a love and respect for God, who has made Man in His image; thus by respecting man, do we respect God. However, I have on many occasions, and frequently to my own surprise, seen these same virtues practiced by those who did not share my faith. Perhaps their motives were different from my own, but the results of their actions - that they met the needs of their fellow man - are no less admirable. Many know what is right, and seek to do it for no other reason than it is the right thing to do. I believe the Bible shows us why these things are right - because God says so! Take that away, and any argument as to the "why" of righteousness becomes flimsy, just as easily disproved as it is proved. But even as Jesus Himself said, "Those who are not against us, are for us."

I approach this matter from a philosophical angle, because I consider myself more a philosopher than a scientist. As I've mentioned before, I believe scientists must consider carefully the philosophical implications of their theories and findings, and must also understand that they will always interpret their findings according to their own worldview - one's perspective ultimately determines what one really sees (Hovind especially hits this one home). You can separate philosophy from science, but you cannot separate one's interpretation of science from their philosophy. "Facts" will always be seen through the filter of "truth."

I will attempt to answer your questions in due time. Do understand, though, I have no intention of changing my own opinion on this matter. I have seen to much to convince me of my own stance in this matter to be unconvinced now. I figure if my God says He made the world a certain way, then I'm in no position to argue with Him - He is God, after all, not exactly someone one would want to have a disagreement with. Nevertheless, I do seek to address your concerns when time allows.

As of completing this, I have about 20 minutes to get to work. We'll talk to you later. Thanks again.

My very patient response to him:

Thanks for your response! My goal here is not to show you that Genesis is in error, only that people like Hovind are telling falsehoods about evolution and everything he can associate with it, in order to make it look bad, whether or not he knows he's doing this or not. If he is, it may indeed partly be to make money, which would explain why he lied to the government about how much money he made.
` You said you are surprised to see the same Christian virtues practiced by non-Christians? This statement puzzles me, since these are the same values that most people have, as far as I can tell, and I am never surprised when I see non-Christians practicing them. So, I have to ask; what would you expect to see instead?

You say you think right is right is because God says so. Does this mean that if God said that doing something horrible is good, would you do it? Forgive me if this is based on false assumptions again, but doesn't the Bible say that God told Moses that it was righteous for him and his followers to destroy other tribes and to rape the virgins and kill everyone else? Would you do that if you were Moses?
` Even things like slavery are condoned in both the Old and New Testament -- this I am also pretty certain of. Does that make slavery right? In the 1800s, that's what a lot of anti-abolitionists said -- God says slavery is right, so that means it is right! It took human beings, including Charles Darwin BTW, to use science and reason to show that racism and slavery are irrational and immoral.

Hovind is just misrepresenting science again here -- the whole point of science is to pursue knowledge without a filter of 'truth', no matter what people may think of it. That's what the scientific method is FOR. Different people from all around the world can see the same data and the same facts, and come to some sort of consensus. Personal philosophies can get in the way, however.
` Take the Darwin-denying Lysenkoists, who had to agree that it was Lamarck's theory of evolution that was right, not Darwin's, and that DNA didn't exist -- or they would be sent to the gulag! Hitler also banned Darwin's books and, as I've been reading, talked at length about how evolution of any kind was ridiculous and that only God could have created all life on earth, using typical creationist arguments.

Misrepresenting and suppressing science in order to support one's ideals is something I'm against, and there are a lot of people out there making ridiculous arguments about how the earth is flat and how the sun is really small and goes around the earth, because the Bible or the Quran says so, and they distort science just as Hovind does in order to support that.

Anyway, I'm glad I've given you plenty of things to ponder and investigate! What kind of homework do you predict you'll have to do? I can help you with stuff like that, you know, streamline the process.
` Actually, there's this university site called 'Understanding Evolution', which contains an 'Evolution 101' that Hovind really could have used. The first page says:

"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance."

Hovind, and a lot of other creationists, don't show an inkling that they even understand this and repeat that all changes, from human society to natural phenomena having nothing to do with genes are all just 'evolution', one and the same.

That aside, it also contains a section that I think will interest you a whole lot because it covers the history of (the real) evolutionary theory, and I think will really appeal to your philosophical side! I urge you to read some of it now, just to see what I mean!

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_01

I've actually stopped to read some of it (again), and it goes by pretty fast, so you'll probably have time to get through a couple of centuries before you have to move onto something else.

It actually starts out with one of the points I've made here: Vesalius and his challenge of actually checking to see whether Galen was right about human anatomy or not. What Galen wrote was considered 'truth' in Vesalius' time, but science is not about having the truth, unlike what creationism proponents will say.
` On the contrary, we have science because we don't know, and will never quite arrive at, the truth. Its purpose is not to reveal truth, but to fumble around until we can find some theory that can reliably predict what other facts will be uncovered and what else will happen in reality.
` That is as close as scientists can ever hope to get to 'the truth'.

His response to that:

Okay, let's back off Hovind for a minute. I obviously don't know this cat's backstory, so that means I'll have to do some digging on my own later. Let's get back to the source material here.

First of all, the thing I find surprising - not shocking or amazing, just surprising - is that people in this culture can actually be selfless sometimes. Let's face it, this is not a culture that espouses selflessness; I highly doubt a consumerist culture could ever hope to thrive in a society that promoted a selfless mentality. While I realize Christianity is not unique in teaching selflessness (again though, it gives a more concrete reasoning behind the idea), that such things are not entirely lost on humanity gives one a certain degree of hope.

Second of all, what am I really saying when God says something is right? Let's break that down, elaborate a little. I'm saying, that the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of everything that exists in the entirety of not only the universe, but all things that exist beyond the space-time continuum (i.e. eternity), has decreed by His own authority as the infinite, uncreated, Master of all He surveys, that there are points of conduct that He has prescribed to mankind, whom He has made in His own image that they might know Him, and that by adhering to these decrees, one might not only bring due glory to this same God, to whom all is due, but might also benefit himself and be a blessing to his fellow man. Moreover, the converse could be said about that which God has commanded man not to do; that such things are not only an offense to God, who is holy, but they are made even more offensive by the fact that they are harmful to oneself and one's fellow man, who are again made in the image of the living God. Because man is made in God's image, to harm one's fellow man is an affront to God Himself. Some people think spitting on a Bible or cussing in a church would tick God off; not nearly as much as actually doing harm to the masterpiece of His creation - us.

Which segues nicely into the whole Moses debate. A lot of people have said a lot of nasty things about Moses, especially in our little forum (remind me to send Mike what I'm about to try to lay down here). To understand what God asked of Moses as He was using him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into the promised land, one must first understand God's underlying motive. Simply put, God desired a people not only to wear His stamp of approval, but to represent Him to their fellow man on this earth. He understands the weakness of the human heart, and He knew (and would later be proven right) that the Israelites would be drawn into the idolatrous cultures that had taken over the land He had promised to Abraham in the time since his descendants had gone into Egypt, should those peoples have been allowed to remain. (It should be noted, the "pagan" cultures that God commanded Moses and the Israelites to drive out were NOT nice people - these were peoples whose religions involved human sacrifices, up to and including infant sacrifices; sexual rites that included mass orgies and bestiality; and all manner of other things which God strictly commanded His people to not engage in, not only so they wouldn't be drawn into those cultures, but also because, well, such things were pretty dark to begin with.) God commanded His people to eradicate these other nations so that His chosen people would not become in any way tainted by a culture that had long since abandoned Him. Moreover, God wanted His people to deal peacefully with neighboring nations, representing His justice and mercy to them, while at the same time maintaining sovereignty and not allowing outside influences to corrupt the culture God sought to cultivate in His people. (It should also be noted that, because the Israelites did not follow through and completely wipe out all the nations God had commanded them to, that the remnants of those nations would later return and corrupt the Israelite people - even as God had warned them.) Simply put, there was no way the Israelites could have brokered any sort of deal with these nations that would give them the land God had promised, allow the Israelites to maintain national sovereignty, and prevent them from being completely absorbed into the peoples and cultures surrounding them. The purge of the various pagan peoples from the promised land was the only way to ensure God's chosen people would have any chance of remaining in the land He had promised to Abraham and would not be swallowed up by those same peoples. That said, this was never a desirable outcome - God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, for they too are still human, still made in His image. God took drastic measures to ensure that His ultimate plan for Israel - and indeed, for all mankind - would not be thwarted, but that His people would flourish and eventually bring forth the Messiah, the seed of Eve that would crush the serpent's head, even as He had promised Adam and Eve all the way back in the Garden. (Have we yet established that the Genesis account has to be true in order for Christianity to have any validity whatsoever?) This same Messiah would later elaborate and bring to fruition the things taught by Moses, becoming the completion of the Law and the fulfillment of the Prophets.

The Bible actually contains ideas that wouldn't gain any real popularity in Western culture for several centuries after canonization, such as the idea that the Earth is round or that it floats freely in space. Scholars either conveniently ignored these passages or glossed them over for the sake of their reputations in popular culture, which at the time held that the earth was flat and sat on the back of some great beast or giant. Science, it seems, has always been limited by the perspectives and ideas of men. Having said that, Moses was kept from entering the promised land because he himself misrepresented God, and I would expect similar things to befall those who invoke His name to justify ungodly, even dishonest, practices - Hovind being no exception (and again, I'll look into your claims). The thing about God, He's completely honest about everything He is and does; what He says today will not contradict what He has said yesterday, He is the same forever and ever. His commands must be understood in the greater context of Scripture as a whole, and any command that would run counter to the Spirit of that Word should not be seen as having come from God, and thus ought to be ignored. But those who ignore that which He has commanded will be subject to judgement, if they refuse to repent and change their ways.

I hope this adequately addresses a few of your questions, and we will try to answer more when time permits.

My next response:

Interesting, and thanks, I think I can understand this a little better. You have a point about this consumerist culture not promoting selflessness -- and so many people make fun of it and rebel against it. They must know better, and there's probably a lot of different reasons why this is, including religious reasons.

Why do you think Christianity gives a more concrete reasoning behind selflessness than other ways?

I guess I understand what you mean about Moses -- and don't forget to send this to Mike if you think it will help!
` So, God wanted all these wicked people GONE so the Israelites could get away from people practicing child sacrifice and things. But, that just leaves me with more questions. I thought that God is supposed to be able to do anything, like create the universe!
` If that's true, then couldn't God have stopped those people from being the way they were, or at the very least get rid of them himself? Why did those other nations need to exist if God wanted them all dead? Did they exist just to be killed/raped by Israelites?

I suppose the bible may describe something that can be construed as a round earth -- on the one hand, the earth is said to hang upon nothing, but in other instances, it is said to rest on foundations, and other very unscientific ideas.

For example, according to this article,

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

the bible also describes the earth as unmoving, and not rotating and orbiting the sun, as you would think the bible would if the bible is true. It also says that there is a vault above the earth containing the sun, moon and stars, and that above this dome is water, which is where rain comes from.
` The book of Enoch, which is not included in the bible, Enoch describes going to the ends of the earth and coming to the edge of the dome covering the earth in several points, each time seeing a gate of heaven that is opened and spouting weather phenomena, as well as the store-rooms holding the sun and moon, which come out of different openings depending on the seasons, and that they are guided by the stars.
` In actual bible verses, a height is described that one can look down and see the WHOLE world, and in Daniel, a tree is described that could be seen from the farthest reaches of the earth, which is only possible if the farthest reaches do not curve around in a sphere.
` And what about the stars singing together, and in Isaiah, when the morning star seeks to put his throne above God and the other stars. In Daniel, Matthew and Revelation, stars can fall from the sky, and are small. Deuteronomy notes that stars were made to be worshipped by other people.
` Also in the book of Enoch, the stars that don't rise and set on time are thrown into a fiery abyss, and there are descriptions of stars, having sexual organs as those of horses, being bound hand and foot and thrown into this abyss!
` Clearly, this is ridiculous. Astronomers understand that, although gas does tend to spread out in a vacuum as you may know, when the gas is swirling a bit, it instead forms lumps, which accumulate mass and thus gravity (even you and I have gravity!).
` Even just a little gravity will pull in more gas, which makes more concentrated gravity, and pulls in more gas toward one point until this process creates a giant sphere of gas (somewhat like our gas planets), which emits enough radiation that it would quickly kill any nearby human.
` When it reaches ten times the size of Jupiter, the atoms fuse, creating thermonuclear reactions (i.e. sunlight), which would vaporize any unprotected human, and it's called a star/sun. This is what astronomers know today about star formation, and they can see this happening within staggeringly large gas clouds which dwarf the stars that form in them.

If the bible were right about stars, it might describe them as distant and mighty suns, but instead they are described as being small and contained within the sky dome.
` This is what I mean by people using the bible as evidence that the earth is flat. These things aren't true, but if the bible's right about the facts of the world, then what purpose are these descriptions?
` The historical/theological explanation for this, as I understand it, is that the bible is written by people who believed the earth was flat (and also believed that slavery was the way things should be). Whether or not they were inspired by God, they wrote what they wrote because of their human biases.

Later on, AR and I spoke about this. He said the flat-earth arguments from the bible had all been debunked. Ironically, just earlier, AR had asked Lucas something like "Why are you guys getting on me about evolution? Why is that so important?" and Lucas said something like, "Because it's as dumb as Flat Earther arguments!"
` Lucas is not so nearly patient as I am.
` AR also told me to check out Kent Hovind's digging up dirt on (translation: crazy conspiracy theory about) the Smithsonian. Later on, I wrote:

I've been up here trying to figure out what's going on with Hovind's conspiracy theory about the Smithsonian having thousands of murdered Australian aborigines in their basement, which I assume is most of what you were alluding to earlier.
` The only information I can find, outside from people repeating Hovind's claims, is people repeating Hovind's claims so as to expose Hovind's 'craziness', so that's hardly helpful.
` I'm actually seriously investigating into the matter further at this time, so I'll hopefully be back with something of substance.

[Later:]

I found Hovind's whole spiel about the Aborigines... yeah, I think I can come up with a good response to this one. Time for karate class, though!

As I've said before, Darwin was raised anti-racist and according to this article, which I just found, he may have based his theory of evolution on his anti-racist worldview -- the idea that the races are not different species, but 'brothers':

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5562488.ece


Here are some of Darwin's words on the matter:
http://www.ncat.edu/~univstud/Charles%20Darwin%20on%20Slavery.pdf

I'll probably write about Hovind's crazy conspiracy theories some other day, but let's just say, I'm not impressed.
` Later on, we had another discussion. I don't really remember which one this was, but I refer to it in my next message.

You brought up the term 'dumb on purpose' to me today, implying that scientists who accept evolution are guilty of this, according to Kent Hovind's attempts to make them look like willfully ignorant fools.
` As I have spent the past two months (when not sick or working) examining an important document of Hovind's, not one but three times, I wanted you to have some small inkling as to the flavor of my response.

Not long ago, I found this video (by the same science journalist/editor who did the video on sloppy science journalism) which examines creationist claims that modern objects can quickly become petrified.
` Besides being very informative, it is also quite 'entertaining', and I hope you enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj0s4-v0bPE

Please take these ten minutes to see why there's a difference between the well-understood phenomena of becoming clogged up with minerals (concretion) and actually becoming replaced by minerals (fossilization), and ask yourself who looks most like they're being dumb on purpose.

AR's real-life response largely consisted of giving me a knowing look and winking very slowly. I guess it was way too harsh for him, and wanted to apologize, but really didn't think that was appropriate, either, because I wasn't sorry.
` In my message I just thought I'd explain this to him as best I could, also referencing some of Potholer's other videos, which I wish he'd see (along with a whole slew of others) but I doubt he ever will:

I understand that this video upset you for being smug, but I didn't anticipate it would be so hard for you. See, I WATCH CREATIONIST VIDEOS and this is what I see:
` "See, this is how stupid scientists are!" they say. "Look, they believe that [insert ridiculous bullshit that scientists actually don't think], and that's ridiculous bullshit! Therefore these scientists are idiots and their theories are bullshit!"
` Well, they WOULD be idiots if they DID think that, but the truth is they DON'T, so the argument is null. I'm surprised these creationists don't constantly get sued for libel.

Try to picture in your mind someone up on stage slandering Christians. "Christians are evil atheists who eat babies and worship a flying zombie! The bible is totally crazy!"
` You damned well know you don't believe that, and would see the people in the audience eating this up and think to yourself, "How can they BELIEVE THAT! If they just read the bible, they would know better!"
` Let's say that you try to tell this speaker that they are wrong about Christianity, but in the end they don't listen and keep giving the same message. It seems, no matter what you do, it doesn't make a difference what you say.

This is how I feel when creationists misrepresent science and scientists. [This is not to compare the two otherwise!] I willingly watch and read their material and find it to be horribly offensive, not because they are putting their viewpoint forward, but because they have to lie about science in order to cut it down so that seemingly their own argument is more reasonable.
` I guess I didn't think this video was so smug because compared to creationist videos, it really isn't.

This is one of the reasons I wanted you to see this video; it EXPOSES how creationists discredit evolution, and the first segment, which you must have seen, is a great example of that.

Remember that guy? He says that well, either it was Noah's flood, or aliens brought hammers to earth and dinosaurs evolved hands to use them!
` That's a logical fallacy called 'false dichotomy'. He is also (if jokingly) implying that scientists are STUPID ENOUGH to believe some ridiculous story to explain away the 'truth' of the flood.

Of course the scientific explanation ISN'T a bunch of dumb bullshit, but no creationism proponent will ever tell you what that explanation really IS!

In this case, the REAL scientific explanation, as you'll recall, is that stalagmites form all the time along the path of mineral-rich water, and sometimes they form around human-made artifacts.
` Geologists understand this process well, but to say that there's no reasonable explanation for artifacts encased in stone, and that scientists are STUPID not to believe it was caused by Noah's flood and rapid fossilization, BECAUSE they don't have a REAL explanation, and therefore must be AFRAID OF THE TRUTH... well... isn't THAT smug?

(Well, it's still better than those people who really DID think that aliens were behind this stuff! LOL!)

Sure, Potholer54 may be making fun of the creationists, but notice... he doesn't have to lie once! It's the creationists that lie, like the one who displays and reads this text:
"The two new fossils were found in a pit in what was once a cave, their bones preserved by a hardened sediment that buried them in a flood shortly after they died..."
` After reading this aloud, he says, "See? It says it hardened shortly after they died! It's rapid fossilization!"
` But, as that is not what the text says, right in front of you, he's making it plain to HIS AUDIENCE that he is lying, or at least has a seriously distorted sense of reality.

That's called 'exposing' not 'misrepresenting', right?

Potholer also makes it clear that concretion ALWAYS happens to objects which are left in water, as archaeologists know. They have to scrape minerals off of artifacts, just as one scrapes off the mineral deposits in one's shower!
` Think about it -- they couldn't scrape the minerals OFF if the artifacts were fossilized, because then the artifacts would actually BE the stone! Right? That's why they're NOT fossilized!

He gives us some examples like the hat that was left in a flooded mine shaft; the mineralized water soaked into the hat and it became hardened.
` And then, at the end of the video, WHO do we see? Why, it's Kent Hovind, proclaiming that this is a "petrified hat", along with other examples!

Is Potholer misrepresenting Hovind here? That is what he SAID, isn't it? That's not a LIE, is it?

Then, Hovind explains (quite smugly!) that some kid sent him some acorns, which had been left in a bucket of water on his back porch for some months and "turned to stone".
` Oh yes, those scientists sure are stupid and obstinate not to accept what you say, Mr. Hovind! Ha ha, yes, they're fools, but creationists KNOW BETTER and can sit there, smug in their knowledge that only they know the truth!

Hovind has been told of 'mistakes' like this, time and time again, but he's never acknowledged this in his lectures. He just goes on and on, "I know the truth but those scientists want you to believe that you can't have a petrified hat because it can't possibly be fossilized!" No they don't Kent...
` They want you to believe that you can't have a petrified hat because it's NOT PETRIFIED, there's a difference!

"Oh, scientists want you to believe that trees were buried upright in strata for millions of years without decaying, or else grew up through solid rock!" No they don't, Kent:
` They actually want you to believe that these trees, which were in a marsh, stood dead for a hundred years or so, just like dead trees in marshes today, while various floods came along and gradually buried them, which also happens today. The rocks don't date millions of years between the bottom of the tree and the top, only hundreds, so that makes sense.

"Oh those scientists want you to believe that you can't carbon date a dinosaur fossil because it's too old!"
` No Kent, they want you to believe that you can't carbon date a dinosaur fossil because it's completely replaced by minerals! There's NO carbon in it, period!
` "This guy carbon dated a Tyrannosaurus bone and it dated to 20,000 years!"
` That's because it was covered with carbon-based shellac, not because there was any carbon in the bones!

He just goes on and on, as though he has all the answers and that scientists are a bunch of dipshits with their heads in the sand or are making this huge cover-up of bad data or something, when there's really nothing strange going on at all!

So, who's being smug?

If these creationists genuinely just don't care enough, then they have kicked themselves out of rational discourse. What can you do? Scientists and science educators are at a loss to stop these people because they literally don't respond to being corrected.

I've actually watched a debate in which the paleontologist anticipates all the creationists' arguments, explains why none of them make sense, and then the creationist (it was Duane Gish) just went on with his arguments, word-for-word, from the script, exactly has he always has done, without even acknowledging that the paleontologist had said ANYTHING!
` It was really quite surreal, like watching a monologue! Did Duane even hear anything the guy said? My guess is yes, but he didn't act as though he did. (Some of his fans DID notice, though, and thought it strange that he never responded!)

But, I digress. My point is, it's very frustrating what these creationists are doing, making a comedy out of science by lying about what the scientists' arguments are. By doing this, they are actually making a comedy out of THEMSELVES by exposing just how false their OWN arguments are.
` It is therefore no surprise to me that some people like to help these comedies along, such as Potholer54. If you can't reason with creationism proponents, at least expose them for lying in a humorous way!

One more thing... when I asked you if you'd seen this video, what was your reaction? Do you remember that?
` You got this look on your face, like you were... maybe smug? Amused? (Well, I told you you would find it... 'entertaining', didn't I? LOL! I guess it was too painful, huh?) And you kept winking at me in a knowing way. Remember that?
` Would you care to tell me what that was all about?

[Later:]

P.S. While I was writing that last message, I was thinking about these debates with Kent Hovind on YouTube that show that no matter what you do, you can't get your point across to him.

His opponents were describing, for example, how common descent predicts that the common ancestor between plants and animals would be a single-celled organism that is neither plant or animal, and when you compare the DNA of any plants and any animal, it shows that this ancestor lived 500 million years ago during the time of single-celled organisms, before plant and animal fossils are known.
` This explains, they said, why animal and plant fossils are always either plant or animal, and so therefore finding some sort of animal/plant hybrid would contradict common descent.

They kept having to explain this again and again to Kent, because Kent kept insisting that finding a half-plant half-animal would SHOW common descent! "Where's pine cone man? Where's the dragonfly banana?" he kept asking, and they said, "Kent, a half plant half animal would contradict evolution!"
` HE KEPT INSISTING that we should find half plants and half animals, and that their existence would be evidence toward evolution, again and again and again! They kept explaining that no, that would be evidence against evolution.
` It was much like a conversation with my dad, or a wall. Kent kept insisting that you SHOULD find pine cone man, and they kept explaining why this is not how common descent works. It went around and around like this for something like 20 minutes, and eventually they gave up. (These are two separate incidences, the same thing happening both times.)
` Because they could not get across this concept to Kent, he concluded that because there is no man with a pine cone growing out of his head, then evolution is false -- after they explained SO MANY TIMES WHY the opposite would be true.

Kent concluded, then, that he had won the debate. What does that say about Kent? I can't believe at this point that Kent is so thick he doesn't understand what they're saying.
` He acts as though he is, but I think it is basically his main debate tactic -- keep misrepresenting evolution until they give up trying to correct you, and you've won! Again, that's basically lying because it's disingenuous.

Anyway, I just had to get that off my chest before getting off to the gym, and I hope you understand a little more about why I think of Kent Hovind in the same way that I think of those nice folks on FOX News.

I also later described to him how Hovind came off in the debates I'd seen, completely failing to acknowledge that anyone was trying to correct his assumptions -- he didn't even say "no, that's not true", he just kept repeating himself over and over as though he was by himself.
` If he'd just acknowledged the other person's argument, he would have been forced to change his position. A debate is supposed to involve responding to your opponent, not blocking them out.
` Before I explained this to him, however, he had this to say to me:

Look, I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this, and do regret being unable to put an equal effort forth myself in this endeavor. The bottom line here, I'm not in a position to answer your arguments, either to confirm or refute them. I've directed you to my sources, and if you have found them to be in error, than that is truly unfortunate for the both of us. I suppose I need to find better sources, but again, I just don't have time right now.

It has become apparent that further discussion on this topic would only cause discord in our relationship; I am as convinced of my side of the argument as you are of yours, and neither of us shall be swayed anytime soon. To each their own; I don't hold people's beliefs against them. If I did, that would be most hypocritical of me, especially when I hold fast to the freedoms of this country which allow me to follow my faith as I see fit. Who am I to deny that same freedom of anyone?

You really want to know why I believe God made the universe in six days? Because God told me He made the universe in six days. I have His word on the matter. Therefore, if you believe differently, your argument is ultimately not with me or any other man, but with Him. If you don't believe He exists, again, you're welcome to that belief. But I would appreciate it if you and those of similar opinion did not think less of us for either believing in God or trying our best to live our lives according to His word. We are seeking in our own way to make the world a better place, even as you are seeking to do so in your own way. While there are certainly those on both sides of this particular fence who would impede both our efforts, I am of the belief that we ought to put our disagreements behind us, and focus instead on the things we can agree upon. There is nothing wrong with working for a better world, and while our definitions of "a better world" may differ, I believe those among us who are working to such ends agree that they start and end with helping improve the quality of life for our fellow man.

One of the main reasons I pointed you to "Expelled" to begin with was not so much to demonstrate arguments against evolution, but also to show how Darwinistic ideas had been used in the past to justify the evil deeds of evil men. Yes, I realize men with similar evil motives have in times past used Scripture to try to justify their deeds, and that much of this continues even today (thank you, Westboro Baptists, may you burn in the same fires of judgement you condemn everyone else to). I believe one of our chief goals, no matter what side of the idealogical fence we occupy, ought to be calling people on the carpet for misusing and misrepresenting ideas that are meant for the betterment of the human condition. If that means people like Ham and Hovind need to be corrected, then so be it. If that means people like Dawkins and those Zeitgeist clowns require correction, then I hope they're humble enough to receive it. I myself will strive to regard people based not on the content of their creed, but of their character. I would expect similar courtesy from my fellow man.

Then:

I apologize if the tone of my previous comments has been harsh. I'm writing this while barely conscious, in a state of utter exhaustion and exasperation. I do wish to again express my deep appreciation for all your hard work; indeed, you've given me much to investigate and ponder, and when I might find the time to do so, I shall. But I believe it would be best to let this matter rest for now. You've made your point, but I myself am not inclined to agree with it at this time. Upon completion of my own findings, I may get back to you, whereupon we might continue this discussion after we've both had an opportunity to regain our energy and patience.

I wrote back to him:

I don't think any less of you for believing in God, any more than I think less of myself for ever believing that spirits were telling me the truth of the universe, which I no longer believe.
` This has nothing to do with ideology. Evolution has not even been used to justify the evil deeds of anyone, as far as I know. Hitler was assuredly a creationist, as I've been reading about in his own words and had Darwin's books burned because he didn't want anyone to learn about evolution, which he thought was silly.
` In Communist Russia, they denied Darwinistic evolution and denied that DNA had been discovered. In one of my books, I think it was 'Discarded Science', this Lysenkoist doctor comes to America where they show him DNA (i.e. deoxyribonucleic acid), and he says, "Acid is liquid, but this stuff is powder! Therefore it can't be DNA! Therefore it's a hoax!" Anything to deny Darwin, or otherwise he'd be thrown in the gulag!

What does Dawkins have to do with Zeitgeist? Really, I think it's insulting to think they have anything to do with one another, especially a supposed ideology, not least because Dawkins of course thinks all that stuff is BS!
` Before you said anything about him, I didn't know much about Dawkins but now I know that he is indeed an anti-theist, and he's actually really nice about it! He really respects Christians and Jesus, and has been misquoted by creationism proponents to look more like The AntiChrist!
` I was actually reading this little article on him the other day:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-myth-of-dawkins-as-an-intolerant-atheist-crusader-is-just-that-myth-2669926.html

Says, in part:

"The popular meme of Dawkins The Bigot is the creation of the Christian Creationist Right, who loathe him for the power of his advocacy of the idea that Darwinian natural selection is the sole creator of our living world.

I spent the two weeks before meeting him immersed in his works, before which I was a great sceptic of Darwinism. I am now largely -- but not entirely -- persuaded of its essential correctness. ..."

Then he goes on to explain some really interesting things he's learned and ends with:

"Dawkins is simply not the austere and proselytising dogmatist of myth. Such people expect and almost seek confrontation, whereas he merely wishes to make his case.

Moreover, he is quite clearly baffled by the extraordinary vituperation to which has been subjected, usually by the nameless thugs and religious skinheads who stalk the lightless slum-corners of that strange and troubled city, the internet. Take my advice. Forget the meme. Buy the books."

That way, you'll know what Dawkins REALLY thinks! I have one of his books, and have been meaning to finish it.
` I've also been watching many videos with Dawkins teaching people about science and other videos where he discusses religion with religious people and atheists and for the most part he seems like such a nice person, why would anyone think he's not?
` If you just see him for yourself, he really doesn't put people down. He's only been misquoted, as I've also seen, to make him seem that way, and well, I think THAT is horrible and dishonest. Why isn't Dawkins suing these people for libel, I don't know, LOL!

Well, anyway, I guess that's enough of this subject, as you say. ...

After churning for three weeks with more thoughts on this subject, I turned my mind inwards to look for a deeper reason as to why this is pissing me off more than I would expect. I suddenly realized that there is more to explain here:

...I had something on my mind. I wanted to thank you for spurring my research into creationism, which is mostly what I wanted in the first place because there's just so much of it that, well, I needed a place to start, and currently I'm up to my armpits in it.

I also wanted to apologize for being not a good science educator and, well, getting rather heated over it. [I'm actually referring to the previous posts. Do they really seem that heated, for the most part?] I think I've figured out why.
` I react to being insulted, as I'm sure you do. Watching Kent Hovind reminds me of how my dad used to humiliate me in front of other people, and I still have that reaction.
` For example, when I was four, my grandpa gave me piggy-back rides, but then I grew and was too big for that, and I never thought about doing it again.
` Then when I was 13 (and 120 pounds) and was going to introduce a friend to my grandpa, who could barely walk, my dad said, "Don't be climbing on your grandpa's shoulders! He can't carry your weight!" I assured him that I was not that stupid that I would ever think of doing such a thing, but he kept insisting that I would.
` To think that he was trying to tell my friend that I was that stupid and blind to other people's needs really horrified me. It's like that with you. It's like these creationists are telling you that I would believe these crazy things that I wouldn't, and the thought of this is very hard to take.

So yes, I take it more personal than maybe I should be. That does not mean that I'm not being rational at the same time, but still I feel insulted.
` For example, I know from my studies and college and things that each sedimentary layer in the geological strata begins with heavier particles like gravel at the bottom and has lighter particles like silt and clay on top. This is because heavier particles sink to the bottom, as you know.
` Each individual layer is like this, with gravel, sand, fine particles, and gravel again with the bottom of the next layer, and sand, dirt, fine particles, and the next layer starts with gravel, etc. like a nut and yogurt parfait. This can only happen naturally if these layers are laid down at different times, otherwise ALL the gravel would be at the bottom instead of interspersed at the bottom of each layer!
` Also, some of these entire strata themselves are far heavier and denser than the ones below them, as they are not in any particular order of density. The only way this could naturally happen is if the denser [strata] were laid down after the less dense one below them solidified first.
` Even more, there are coral reefs and desert sandstone and coal deposits on top of one another, each with its own unique fossils of flora and fauna. This can be explained by the changing of the landscape, and by the raising and sinking of land.
` As I learned in Oceanography class, the geological column floats on top of heavier rock, and if you take weight off of it, as with erosion, it just floats higher. Also, the land pushes itself up, as with the Himalayan mountains rising 5 millimeters per year because India is being subducted underneath of Asia. Surveys over the past couple of hundred years show that the continents are moving, and this explains other features of which layers have what in them. Etc, etc, etc.

My point is, when I see Kent Hovind or someone mixing up a bunch of flood sediment and it settling into different densities, he proclaims these are like separate strata just like the geological record in nature. But they are not. There's gravel at the bottom and silt at the top, just like ONE layer in ONE stratum in the geological record as it exists in nature.
` Am I biased to say that what I see is one layer and not many? Of course not, because you can look at layers and see that each one starts with bigger particles and is topped with smaller particles. That's how it is in nature.
` Creationists who do this stunt say, "Hey, I just disproved that the geological strata were laid down at different times! It's that simple!" thus, implying that the scientists who say otherwise are even simpler! Really, this is meant as a mockery of science.

Is it because of some evil conspiracy that I'm not convinced that they have disproven it? Am I blinded by atheist ideology? Are all the geologists and paleontologists in the world so dumb that they don't notice it's so easy to disprove?
` Or is it just that I know better? I know the facts that contradict this, so when they say, "Hey, these are separate layers!" My BS detector goes off.
` I used to buy into this 'scientists are stubborn anti-spiritual bigots' when I was into all that New Age crap. They said the exact same things as creationists do, but you don't believe New Ager's claims, do you? That people can move objects with their minds and such?
` Mainstream scientists are not ignoring this 'reality', but rather, have found the [pseudoscientists'] 'experiments' to be highly flawed and sometimes even faked. Then, the New Agers refuse to publish their 'research' in scientific journals, claiming that scientists wouldn't accept it because of their anti-spiritual ideology and persecution of New Agers.
` They claimed that because psychic phenomena have an effect on the world and can be controlled and utilized, that they aren't supernatural, but rather natural. They claimed the only reason why scientists object is because of their anti-psychic ideology.
` So on and so forth, just like creationists, as well as cold fusion 'researchers' and people who claim that the oil industry is suppressing the 'science' of energy sources that break the second law of thermodynamics (Mike the mechanic believed this--not surprising!).
` Once I learned how science works, I realized that these fringe people weren't being treated unfairly, or persecuted, that industry [or ideology] does not rule science. I also learned that minorities who show their ideas are right do so by the scientific process, not by backing out of the scientific community and declaring to the world that scientists are basically like Nazis.

It is this finger-pointing and the claims that mainstream science is blinded by ideology which is a substitute for real research. I have given you many examples of why arguments meant to destroy the scientific history of earth actually don't address it, but rather distort it, attacking a straw man instead.
` ALL creationist and ID arguments are like this, not just some. And evidence that there's a conspiracy is similarly fake. Just like with New Agers [i.e. parapsychologists and such] taking quotes out of context and making up things about scientists, creationists do the same thing.
` Recently, I've investigated a quote about a biologist whose last name is Keith (too lazy to look it up at the moment) saying something to the effect of 'the only reason biologists believe evolution is to support their atheistic ideology'. This quote is all over creationist websites, including Hovind's. Most weren't sourced, but some were, saying it was written for the 1959 edition of Origin of Species.
` I found that it was not in that, or any edition of the book. Even more, Keith had died in 1955, so unless he was a zombie, I don't see how this is possible. I could find no source at all for the quote except for creationist websites. I suspect that it was made up by someone, such as Henry Morris, and attributed to Keith, JUST to smear the credibility of biologists.
` Other inflammatory quotes, such as by Stephen Jay Gould and Darwin himself, are quote mined, and I've already given you some examples of how such quotes can be edited to mean the opposite of what they are supposed to mean.
` This HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL, because you can't read the original quotes and not realize what they mean before you decide that you should display parts of them in such a way to mean something quite different.

As a person who studies biology (not as much as I should, I admit) I am used to these insults, but it still hurts my feelings, not because they attack science but because they aren't true. Young Earth Creationist websites remind me of when my dad would just talk about me in front of other people FOR HOURS, totally misrepresenting me and I was punished for trying to correct him.
` So yes, maybe I'm reactionary because of my trauma. I'm sorry. It just wakes up the abused part of my mind. I'm sorry if I've insulted you as well. Educating people about the coolness of science as well as how people can be deceived (and how crazy the media is) is part of my identity, just as your Christian practices are part of your identity.
` I know it must hurt your feelings somewhat when someone accuses you or Christians in general of believing something you don't believe, because they don't have a picture of who you are, or because they're making fun.
` That's why I like to ask you questions, although I'm still learning how to do this well due to so-so social skills. I recognize that I don't know what you, or other individuals really think, so I try not to brand people as believing things they don't believe. In other words, I think I'm getting the hang of not judging people. I hope. I actually care about what other people think, but my communication skills aren't up to par to be an interviewer of sorts, to say the least.

Someday maybe I will, and maybe I'll have a critical thinking podcast in which I interview people and can be sensitive without also being a pushover. LOL! You can be a guest, too!
` Speaking of which, someone expressed [a podcaster's possible] interest in interviewing me at Skeptics in the Pub the other day, for having the brainwashed background that I've had! I KNEW it would count for something!
` Also, Evan Bernstein, co-host of Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, is going to call me soon, at 9 o'clock tonight over Skype and I'm going to help him set up a blog so he can be a science blogger like me! [Yeah, if I can keep putting up posts, right?]
` I'm finally moving into the skeptic community at quite a clip and it's improving my social skills! Now that I have a support group, maybe I won't be so reactionary and feel depressed that creationists are lying about science to people who don't understand it as well as they should ([considering that] I do).

[A]s this is my career, it's my job to know about science more than most people, although I'm still rusty. That's because there's a looooooooooot I've forgotten! That's because there's a loooooooooot to know. And to learn about creationism alongside evolution, that makes it a loooooooooot more! Thanks for reminding me of this!

The next time I saw him, he had a somewhat dejected or preoccupied look about him, but neither of us mentioned anything about this. A little later, I sent him this message:

My conversation with Evan was quite uplifting. He thinks I'm really cool and we have a similar sense of humor, and we'll probably talk again very soon.

It really helps me feel understood when I talk to such people. I could tell them all this and they would understand what I mean.

It's the same if I were to tell you about how, when I was 17 and I was talking to this guy dressed as a Klingon (named Motag), and I was giggling and winking at my dad to show him I didn't think this guy WAS a Klingon. No 17 year-old should have to do this, but I did!
` Then later, we were walking into my dad's brother's house and he turned to his brother and said, "I'm not sure, but I THINK she realized he wasn't a real Klingon."
` I felt such shame [and outrage] that I stopped walking. I wanted to cry. How DARE he make me look like an idiot when I had tried so hard not to look like one?

Or what about the time someone told me to get something that could be used as a blindfold. I said I'd get a pair of shorts, and by the time I was tying them around my head, my dad was coming up the stairs with a tea towel.
` He said, "Oh, when I heard the word 'shorts', I thought you were going to come out with a ratty old stained-up pair of your underwear tied around your head and I wanted to spare you the embarrassment."
` I almost cried when he said that. Since when would I equate 'shorts' with underwear? And why would I be so STUPID as to wear [such a thing] across my face? He was just trying to humiliate me.

You understand this very well. You know it's not right to tell lies and embarrass other people. That's, well, not what Jesus would do. And Jesus would not distort science so that it looks stupid and then say, "Look how stupid it is! Hey, Troy, Spoony believes this stupid shit! She's brainwashed!"
` But I don't, so how can I be brainwashed? They're not going to tell you what *I* believe. There's a huge world of historical science out there, which you clearly don't remember and/or didn't learn much of when you were a kid, but they're not going to tell you anything about it. They're just going to pick thousands of little distortions that kind-of-almost sound right, [close enough to what you may remember], and present that as though it somehow resembles what they're arguing against.
` So-called psychics and other 'fringe' folks also do the same thing, so it's not just creationists!

As part of one of MANY groups that understands what's going on here, I'm surrounded by people who understands the outrage one another is feeling at stuff like this, and can actually try to do something about it.
` When this happens, in the case of anti-vaccine people, they demonize their opponents as baby-killers, even though THEY are responsible for the deaths of babies from disease outbreaks! The host of SGU, Dr. Steven Novella, was once depicted on a prominent anti-vax blog as EATING A BABY for Thanksgiving, and much uglier things, too!
` Reporters and suspected unbelievers also get kicked out of anti-vax conventions because they are seen as evil people who are deliberately spreading misinformation in order to hurt [the believers'] children.

In the creationists' case, they demonize their opponents as atheism-proponents. The National Center for Science Education is one such target because it mainly focuses on evolution education and not much else. That must mean its ulterior motive is to force atheism on kids, right?
` Not at all: Have you ever heard of a movement to distort chemistry, or physics? Those fields are just as 'atheistic' as evolution, geology, genetics, etc. Such movements exist, but they are not in the public sphere as creationism is.
` The point of the NCSE is merely to defend science from the religious right when they try to mess with evolution education, as well as global warming education, and education about how science works.
` (I mean, come on! You can't have kids being taught that one geologic layer is many, that kind of thing. It's ridiculous!)
` The religious right also claims that stem cell research is being taught in grade school, and they want it banned, except it's NOT being taught, so that's just a smear campaign. The NCSE also has to deal with this mess.

The ID folks also tried to get the definition of science changed, as it is taught in schools, so that its methodology can include more than just natural explanations.
` That actually isn't possible to do, as you cannot empirically study something that is outside of nature, hence that is not the scientific method, hence this cannot be taught to children AS the scientific method.

Don't believe the Discovery Institute is a Republican Think Tank? Challenge your view by looking at this! (It's well-sourced.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute

I actually sent you an email of this long, long ago, as well as blogging by these two girls who went to pay Casey Luskin a visit at the DI, which is an annex on the side of a 24 Hour Fitness building.
` They actually succeeded, but only after they had to LIE in order to get in the door, because the DI does not welcome anyone who doesn't agree with them.
` They said they saw a bust of Ronald Reagan and all kinds of creationist and scary FOX News-esque books and said that Casey said some... well... laughable [political] things, I don't recall exactly anymore, but it was in the email.

I also said in the email that I would like to do the same investigation for myself this summer. Maybe I will, with my skeptic friends, and maybe even tell these other girls who did this about it.
` I'm sure I can find some people who are more than willing! You're also welcome to come along to see it for yourself!

[Figuring I still had plenty of points to present, I sent him another message.]

Also, wanted to clarify... that of course hurt feelings aren't my only motivation for my opposition to creationism -- I just wanted you, personally, to know where I'm coming from and why I get upset at these people sometimes. I'm not upset at you, just them, because they lied TO you.
` I also want you to know that if you have been misrepresented, or if I have misrepresented you, you can tell me. I DO understand, and am interested in knowing.

My main concern is preventing the public from being misinformed, because that's what this is really about.

It really does hurt, though. It's almost like racist propaganda against scientists, evolution and atheists. To say these are religions or ideology is a typical trick of the [Religious] Right -- they even say that there's a 'homosexual agenda' to convert children, as though it's an ideology and not a largely-genetic condition one is born with!
` Of course this 'evil gay conspiracy' thing is ridiculous and based on ideology and not science or facts at all! It also really hurts gay people's feelings for obvious reasons -- it's a lot like racism!
` It's also extremely damaging in that it causes parents to disown their children -- I know someone who can't tell his mom because of that. Such is the hatred that some gay kids kill themselves.
` Once there was this gay guy who had a couple of shops on Colby, and I asked why the police were there earlier and why he had bloody bandages on his head. He said his co-worker's son went into his shop with a baseball bat and his homophobe friends for some gay-bashing. This is the damage that propaganda does, or at least exacerbates!
` Even some heterosexual people have been attacked and killed by homophobes because they APPEARED to be gay. I think that spreading awareness is the best way to fight this sort of thing, just as it did for women's rights and the rights of other minorities.

The anti-atheist hate speech on FOX News, and even some local news shows (which enrages me) is very similar to anti-atheist hate speech of creationism proponents (and are often one and the same). SO many people hate atheists, and that's why we're "in the closet", like in that article I put on your Wall.
` I often hear about people, even kids, being beaten up because they are atheists. At least one person I know of, Larry Hooper, was murdered because he had a crazy roommate who unfortunately took the anti-atheist propaganda a little too seriously. According to one article:

"Shelton sounded calm and prideful when he told the dispatcher he had just shot "the devil himself" with a revolver and a shotgun because "he (Hooper) didn't believe in God." Shelton told the dispatcher he was "still armed and ready to shoot again in case he moves. I want to make sure he's gone." When the dispatcher asked how many times he shot the victim Shelton replied, "hopefully enough."

...When the police arrived they were confronted with the grizzly scene of Hooper sitting upright on the couch with his head blown away and his brain lying on his hand."

True, we are all born atheists, but atheist-hatred isn't like racism or homophobia in that way. It's unfair because atheists (and most were formerly theists) cannot bring themselves to believe in a theistic God. Why? Because "they know too much" in some way or another and just can't convince themselves any more than you or I could convince ourselves of other things we don't believe in, like Vishnu or that truth comes out of Glen Beck's mouth.
` It's not really the atheist's fault, it just happens spontaneously, for the most part, with these people following their own questions. And what does that get them? Crazy hate speech, like, "These evil atheists hate God and are helping the devil to push our children away from God." Replace 'God' with 'Zeus' and 'the devil' with 'Hades' and, well, that's basically what I hear. I can't make myself believe in gods, much less hate them!
` It is similarly the case with "you don't believe in God because you don't want someone telling you what to do, and because you're too proud to admit there's something bigger than you that knows what's right, etc."
` You have to assume that God exists to begin with to think that atheism has anything to do with hating God, priding one's self over God, or wanting to not believe in God so they can sin. ONLY A THEIST can have this perspective, and atheist CANNOT.

Let me spell this flawed logic out to you:

1: God exists.
2: Atheists don't believe in God.
Conclusion: These atheists are rebelling against God.

Here's what atheists REALLY think:

1: A theistic God probably/maybe doesn't exist.
2: I might as well be on my own.
Conclusion: I'd better take care of my own life and the people in it because who else will?

Do you see the difference? And yes, some kids are sometimes disowned or beaten by their parents because they can't make themselves believe in God, or even pretend to.

This offensive and destructive propaganda is why I make a point to try to correct whatever misconceptions you may have -- at the same time, I know I must make wrong judgments about other people, so I try to ask questions so that I'm not wrong about them, either. It's very tough to sort out, but I'm pushing my way through!

I'm sure you've heard plenty of hate-speech against yourself, and you can share that with me if you like. It's really okay! I want to know!
` In any case, I didn't tell you all this before because being offended doesn't make an argument -- facts do.
` And, speaking of which, my link in the last message was the wrong one -- the one I sent in my email many moons ago was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture

Since them, I've sent him more stuff, but it delves into subjects more personal than this. It all seems very surreal, as I don't even know whether he can understand how destructive this propaganda is.
` Talk about introspection of a struggling mad science writer! I'm going deep into my own psychology, and I must be mad to struggle to get at least a few of my points across to this guy.
` In doing this exercise, I understand this whole thing better than before. In reading this, my readers also may as well, hopefully better than AR probably ever will!