Defying Reason

The far-right American Family Association is peddling a new DVD series proclaiming that the world’s living wonders can’t possibly be explained by science. Check out the Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution Series here. The videos feature Jobe Martin, a dentist whose The Evolution of a Creationist lectures are all the rage among the anti-evolution crowd. (Another creationist dentist? Don McLeroy must be proud.)

The AFA e-mail promotes the usual “intelligent design”/creationism theme about the complexity of life forms:

The Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution Series enters the fascinating world of animals to reveal sophisticated and complex designs that shake the traditional foundations of evolutionary theory.

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Dr. Martin himself was a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution, rather a revolution when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education. This was the beginning of the evolution of a creationist.

Examples from the Web site:

– How can birds navigate over thousands of miles of ocean and never get lost?

– How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?

– How do great whales dive to the bottom of the ocean without the pressure causing them to implode?

– What creature was the inspiration for the helicopter?

– How can some creatures be cut in half and still regenerate themselves? Some can even grow a new head!

– How can some dogs know that a storm is coming before it appears, or can sense when their masters are about to experience a seizure?

– Which creature perlexes scientists because of its amazing ability to heal itself, even when it sustains horrendous injuries?

The AFA is all about conspiracies to hide the “truth” from people, by the way. At the bottom of the e-mail is another DVD the folks at AFA are peddling:

It’s Not Gay
The sanitized version of homosexuality being presented is not the whole truth.

The truth, as they say, is out there.

48 thoughts on “Defying Reason

  1. One word to describe these videos…….. stupid!!!. I know all the answers to those questions!!!
    TFN, is it illegal to deliberately lie to people about such things??? There has to be some law somewhere that says you can’t lie then put it onto a DVD

  2. Dr. Martin graduated from the University of Pittsburgh Dental School in 1966. What’s with these creationist dentists?

  3. I do not know James. It may have to do with the brain wiring of people who are either talented in or drawn to certain academic areas. For example, over the years, I have observed that a great many of the most rabid opponents of evolution tend to be people who majored in business or engineering in college. Sociology, English, or the sciences—not so much. It may be because the people in the latter group actually have to have a high IQ and think for a living—and do it in a wholistic and systemic sort of way.

    Larry will advance the notion that I am wrong because engineers actually have to think. In reality, engineers are more like chefs. Business majors. I lived with them in my dorm in college. Drunks almost to a man. Casino weekends 24-hours per day in the dorm. More beer. Simple-minded. Bad grades. Now, I know that paints with a very large brush, but it is the brush I have known.

    Does anyone have a theory as to why dentists would be anti-evolutionists? Actually, I find it surprising because a great deal of the really interesting things we know about primate and human evolution focus on evolutionary changes in teeth across geological time—fascinating stuff—just fascinating. I once had to do a term paper on changes in human tooth morphology from Western European Neanderthals to modern humans. In fact, there is a whole academic field in physical anthropology that deal with this area. It is called Dental Anthropology.

  4. “How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?”

    With a 1,2-dioxetanone, you silly Dr. Martin! I did a proposition oral on that nearly forty years ago!

  5. Here are a few of my favorite scriptures—the ones creation science people have tried in vain to twist and distort to use against evolutionists. I think they actually support the evolution position very strongly:

    1) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1: 20).

    This is really saying that humans can learn something about the otherwise seemingly hidden nature of God by simply studying the world around us in depth. Why? Because the things we see around us are the things that God made. As the old saying goes, “You can tell something about the craftsman by looking at his work.” All of the best science and all of the real facts that come from a read of the “…things that are made…” clearly indicate that God did it across billions of years and used a process we call evolution as part of a much larger set of processes that we do not fully understand. One of the hidden things we learn is that God takes his time (in human time terms) and does things his we—not our way—not the way we wish that he had done it. While God is capable of magician-like action, it appears that he does not necessarily prefer to “poof” things into existence. He likes to tinker until he gets it the way He wants it. He is patient too.

    When I read this scripture, I hear God saying that the creation science people are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Why? Because they do not do what God asks them to do in this scripture. They do not examine what is created in-depth to see how God is talking to us about himself—through the things that He made. Instead, they trot off to Genesis 1, assume that their quivering mass of brain cells is infallible with regard to understanding scripture, assume that Genesis 1 is actual natural history, assume that God just “poofed” everything into existence—and then just walk away in a cloud of self-righteousness. You see. With the creationists, it is not really about God at all. It is not really about creation and HOW God did it. In the end, it is all about THEM and what THEY NEED God to be like—rather than what God is really like.

    2) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalms 19: 1)

    It do sheweth his handywork. The things that it clearly sheweth are that the creation science people are DEAD WRONG. Can I get an “Amen” from the real scientists out there? It works like this: GOD IS RIGHT. SCIENCE IS RIGHT. CREATION SCIENCE IS DEAD WRONG.

    3) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9: 20).

    This is one of my all-time favorite scriptures. We might ask it of the creation science folks. Who art thou that repliest against God: “I know that my Lord didn’t make me from no monkey!!!” How often we hear it. Oh, how often. Well, that is true. He did not make you from a monkey. However, all the evidence pretty clearly indicates that he did make you from some ape-like ancestor. Now, I know the very thought of that is painful, and I know that repulses you and brings up goose bumps on your skin. You need to feel like God took a Saturday afternoon just for you and made you special out of the dust of the ground. Well, I have good news for you. He did. As Carl Sagan said, “We are all made of star stuff.” Those 10o+ elements on the periodic table and various chemical compounds made from those elements—in a word—DUST. Your ape-like common ancestor was also made of dust, as are all living things on this planet. If God made your ape-like ancestor first from dust—and you were derived from that dust through evolution—you are no less made of dust yourself. God has made you from dust. Why would you be any less special as a creation if God did create your physical body from an ape-like common ancestor? Everything God does is special. He took a lot more time than a Saturday afternoon creating you. The fossil record of human evolution alone shows that he took a few million years to create you. Now, I call that special!!! Talk about quality time with Dad!!!! So, I leave you creationists with God’s own question as you sit there all certain of your righteousness, certain of your personal infallibility with scripture, and stewing in your creation science juices: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?”

  6. I remember blundering across the series in my local library catalogue and getting the first DVD. I was surprised that it pandered the old OLD arguments that TalkOrigins has had articles debunking for a long time — the woodpecker’s tongue, the bombardier beetle, confusing evolution with the Big Bang Theory and the creation of the solar system (he even says “The theory of evolution starts out with an explosion…”). And then you have the host dressed up in safari gear and visiting zoos, rattling off facts about animals like it was some nature documentary. It was campy, awful, and just painful to watch.

  7. “It is impossible to prove something to be true (this dips deeply into philosophy, but Truth is an ever-elusive principle.) One can create a theory with an overwhelming amount of support, but one valid piece of contrary evidence can strike it down.”
    ~A quote from the University of Illinois at Chicago website on “The principals of Science”

    It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
    ~A quote from Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, NY on “Introduction to the Scientific Method”

    All of you arm-chair scientists are forgetting the limitations of the scientific method. It seems this theory of evolution is too much loved to question it’s validity. No matter how convinced you are of a theory’s validity, it is the duty of scientists to question it, to test it, if it stands true then it is all the more strengthened. But if it fails the test, then it shouldn’t remain in place.

    The scientific method is not about collecting evidence and guessing. It’s about observing, testing and proving.

    How many times has life been created in a test tube from non-living elements? Zero.
    How many times has a science experiment created a new species from an existing one? Zero.
    Does science know what “life” is — not as a definition, but rather the cause, the source or the spark that makes something alive. No.

    You don’t have these basic answers, yet you are zealously sure that your right. That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

  8. Charles: You call yourself a Christian? I think you are having extreme difficulty recognizing the truth. Especially the truth in God’s word! Yours TRULY

  9. These DVD’s neglect some of the best examples of “incredible creatures that defy evolution”: creatures that defy coevolution.

    Coevolution is generally defined as adaptation to other kinds of organisms, as opposed to adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment (e.g., air, water, and land in its various forms). Because of the prefix “co,” which means mutual or together, coevolution is sometimes more narrowly and more properly defined as the evolution of obligate mutualism, e.g., the relationship between bees and flowers, but the definition is often extended to include interspecies relationships where the adaptation might be on only one side, e.g., some predator-prey and parasite-host relationships. Sometimes organic features of an environment — e.g., the trees of forests — may for the purpose of evolutionary analysis be treated the same as purely physical fixed features of the environment, e.g., air and water.

    As I have pointed out many times, the problems of coevolution present some of the biggest barriers to Darwinian evolution. However, none of the following examples given by the webpage advertising these DVD’s concerns coevolution — with the exception of the bird that can kill a lion with a single kick (not an example of obligate mutualism):

    – Are there really creatures that produce fire to defend themselves?

    – How does a giraffe get a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?

    – How can Geckos walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

    – How can birds navigate over thousands of miles of ocean and never get lost?
    – How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?

    – How do great whales dive to the bottom of the ocean without the pressure causing them to implode?

    – What creature was the inspiration for the helicopter?

    – How can some creatures be cut in half and still regenerate themselves? Some can even grow a new head!

    – What kind of bird can kill a lion with a single kick?

    – How can some dogs know that a storm is coming before it appears, or can sense when their masters are about to experience a seizure?

    – Which creature perlexes scientists because of its amazing ability to heal itself, even when it sustains horrendous injuries?

    – How do Emperor Penguins go two and a half months without eating or drinking?

    Coevolution defies evolution in the following ways:

    (1) Obligate mutualism: Coevolution of corresponding co-dependent traits might be difficult or impossible because — unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment — there might be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other kind of organism is likely to be locally absent.

    (2) Very complex specific adaptations to other organisms: Examples of such adaptations are orchids’ mimicry of female wasps’ sex pheromones, some very complex parasitisms

    (3) Multi-host parasitisms: These parasitisms may require the simultaneous evolution of two or more parasitic adaptations and it may be difficult to imagine a pathway for such evolution.

    Here is an example of an extremely complex parasitism, from “The Loom” blog of Carl Zimmer —
    http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/02/02/the_wisdom_of_parasites.php

    As an adult, Ampulex compressa seems like your normal wasp, buzzing about and mating. But things get weird when it’s time for a female to lay an egg. She finds a cockroach to make her egg’s host, and proceeds to deliver two precise stings. The first she delivers to the roach’s mid-section, causing its front legs buckle. The brief paralysis caused by the first sting gives the wasp the luxury of time to deliver a more precise sting to the head.

    The wasp slips her stinger through the roach’s exoskeleton and directly into its brain. She apparently use sensors along the sides of the stinger to guide it through the brain, a bit like a surgeon snaking his way to an appendix with a laparoscope. She continues to probe the roach’s brain until she reaches one particular spot that appears to control the escape reflex. She injects a second venom that influences these neurons in such a way that the escape reflex disappears.

    From the outside, the effect is surreal. The wasp does not paralyze the cockroach. In fact, the roach is able to lift up its front legs again and walk. But now it cannot move of its own accord. The wasp takes hold of one of the roach’s antennae and leads it — in the words of Israeli scientists who study Ampulex — like a dog on a leash.

    The zombie roach crawls where its master leads, which turns out to be the wasp’s burrow. The roach creeps obediently into the burrow and sits there quietly, while the wasp plugs up the burrow with pebbles. Now the wasp turns to the roach once more and lays an egg on its underside. The roach does not resist. The egg hatches, and the larva chews a hole in the side of the roach. In it goes.

    The larva grows inside the roach, devouring the organs of its host, for about eight days. It is then ready to weave itself a cocoon — which it makes within the roach as well. After four more weeks, the wasp grows to an adult. It breaks out of its cocoon, and out of the roach as well . . . .

    . . . . [the adult wasp] is too small to drag a big paralyzed roach into its burrow. So instead it just delicately retools the roach’s neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third. The Israeli researchers found that they could also drop oxygen consumption in cockroaches by injecting paralyzing drugs or by removing the neurons that the wasps disable with their sting. But they can manage only a crude imitation; the manipulated cockroaches quickly dehydrated and were dead within six days. The wasp venom somehow puts the roaches into suspended animation while keeping them in good health, even as a wasp larva is devouring it from the inside . . .

    Scientists don’t yet understand how Ampulex manages either of these feats. Part of the reason for their ignorance is the fact that scientists have much left to learn about nervous systems and metabolism. But millions of years of natural selection has allowed Ampulex to reverse engineer its host. We would do well to follow its lead, and gain the wisdom of parasites . . .

    Yet Carl Zimmer dismisses this “reverse engineering” as merely “an evolutionary transition”:

    I find this wasp fascinating for a lot of reasons. For one thing, it represents an evolutionary transition.

    Here is a summary of my thoughts about coevolution:

    http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary-of-thoughts-about-co-evolution.html

    Scientists who consider only the evidence for evolution and ignore the evidence against evolution are like the following joke about the hillbilly who was on trial for stealing chickens:

    Defendant to witness: Did you see me go into the henhouse?

    Witness: Yes

    Defendant: Did you see me come out of the henhouse?

    Witness: No

    Defendant: Aha! Ise still in that henhouse!

  10. @ Charles

    >> Here are a few of my favorite scriptures—the ones creation science people have tried in vain to twist and distort to use against evolutionists. I think they actually support the evolution position very strongly:

    Science doesn’t “need” the support of Christianity or any other religion.

    A huge part of the problem is that people feel the need to look at religious texts and see how well (or how badly) they are consistant with science. It’s really very simple. Science is science, and religion is not.

  11. Dear F Murray Rumpelstiltskin,

    Christianity is truth. Science is the search for truth. That’s why people compare the two.

    1. Note to all: Please refrain from attacks on someone’s faith — whether that person believes in creationism or opposes or accepts the science of evolution. (Many people of faith have no problem accepting the science of evolution.) On the other hand, we do not restrict (polite) criticism of people’s opinions on public policy.

  12. To Jeff: Perfectly stated!!!!!!! I admire your intellect and wisdom!!!!!!! Thanks!!!!!!!! You are a blessing!!!!!!!!!

    To TFN: If you really meant what you said, you would have chimed in with your remarks long, long ago. Your website would refrain from attacks on an individual’s belief in God and God’s creation. How hypocritical can you get TFN? In your case, the truth hurts! You are a sorry case of human dignity.

    Yours TRULY

  13. Charles (and others),

    I think you would enjoy this series by Dr. Conor Cunningham, Did Darwin Kill God? I disagree with his conflation of the “New Atheists” with religious fundamentalists, as the former accept scientific evidence and the latter do not, but he gives a fascinating overview of how creationism, especially young earth creationism, is a modern phenomenon in Christianity and has been strongly influenced by political and social movements.

  14. Please TFN.

    Would you be so kind as to check your background web data to see whether Jeff and ScienceMinded are the same person. For a while, when Jeff suddenly disappeared a few weeks ago and ScienceMinded suddenly appeared out of nowhere, Ben had a hunch that these two might be the same person. It is my understanding that dual posting in this manner is considered to be the height of poor manners on the web. Their sudden appearance together here today—in mutual congratulatory mode—sounds just a little bit too Batman and Robin to me—or maybe we have a hubbie and wife/friend tag team from two different home computers. Who knows? Thanks.

  15. And Please TFN,

    Give me a break. Another personal attack from Charles! Could you be so kind to check your background web data to see whether Charles, Ben, and Ben’s counterpoint, Larry, aren’t one in the same. From all appearances, it looks like Charles and Ben are constantly rubbing shoulders and complimenting one another, then combining with Larry in something of a good-cop, bad-cop routine (Larry being the good cop of course). I wonder if Ben and Charles are unofficial members of the TFN staff? And lets talk more about poor manners on the web.

    I have posted against the never-ending barrage of personal attacks directed towards creationists at TFN in the past. Ben seems to have a real problem in this arena. I have provided suggestions on stopping these attacks, but these have just drawn an even heavier barrage of attacks. And, in the rare event when a possible creationist chimes back in response to a blatant attack, you seem way too eager to stifle them. And if you are handing out personal information on bloggers to other bloggers, like it already appears you have done on me, you are probably asking for legal troubles. Bloggers here trust in you to protect their privacy. If you can’t do that, I wouldn’t doubt that TFN’s life expectancy is nearing an end. So, if you care at all about your agenda, you will safeguard, at all costs, the privacy of all bloggers who contribute to your public website. If you can’t do that, well, it will just be another win for the right-wing SBOE and, I believe, for Texas as well.

    1. We have not distributed private information about visitors to our blog.

      Step away from the line, please.

  16. TFN, I give you my full permission to check my IP information—and reveal your findings—about whether I am located geographically anywhere near Charles or Larry.

    Amusing idea, isn’t it? That I might be Larry? That would be the greatest accomplishment in sockpuppetry ever.

    ScienceMinded/Jeff—how about you? Willing to give the same permission?

  17. TFN Says (April 6, 2009 at 10:33 am) —
    –Note to all: Please refrain from attacks on someone’s faith — whether that person believes in creationism or opposes or accepts the science of evolution. (Many people of faith have no problem accepting the science of evolution.)–

    It is mostly the Darwinists who insist that the evolution controversy is only about religion. One of the main reasons why they do this is so they can exploit the Constitution’s establishment clause to try to prevent evolution from being criticized in the public schools. The Founders never intended that the establishment clause be used for such a purpose.

  18. Hey, I have an idea. Other than ScienceMinded, all of the commenters here—me, Charles, James F, jdg, Larry, Rahne, Leigh, etc—we’re all fictional! TFN created us all as shills for their evil purposes. So ScienceMinded is having a running battle with nobody real.

  19. Please. I would like to say just a few things here, and if what I have to say is inaccurate or out of place, I will gladly retire to my corner, take a deep breath, and play with my worry beads:

    1) ScienceMinded. I did not ask TFN to release your personal information or anyone else’s personal information to the public. I merely asked them to check nonsecret (to them) data that is readily available to anyone who owns a blog or website and knows how to use its backing software mechanisms. There is a way to see whether different posts are coming from the same computer. TFN would never release such data about you or anyone else to the public—probably not even with your permission. I do not think you have anything to be concerned about there.

    2) I do not work for TFN and have never met anyone who does—never. In fact, I live in another state numerous hundreds of miles from Texas.

    3) I do not know Ben—never met the guy in person or in any other context except here on TFN when we first encountered each other here a few weeks ago. For all I know, Ben may be a “she” instead of a “he.” Although Ben and I have religious differences, I like him because he is an interesting and creative character. In addition, he is one of the better “bullpoop” spotters I have seen on assorted blogs over the years. I still think the “Grip of Satan” is an innovative idea in modern luggage and culture wars. I expect Samsonite to spring for it any day now.

    4) Please forgive me if I appear to speak for TFN here because I really do not have that authority. What I am about to say is all my own, but TFN can step in here and counter whatever I say if they feel so inclined.

    The subject here at TFN for the past several weeks has been science vs. nonscience. However, it is really impossible to have a meaningful discussion of those two things in and of themselves. The problem is that the nonscience side is driven (with the possible exception of Larry) by a particular Christian religious ideology that is known to be highly organized, extremely loud, very outspoken, culturally and socially irresponsible, and apparently quite uncaring about who it hurts as long as that hurt person is perceived of as being “an enemy of the Lord,” which seems to be just about everyone these days. When all of that is the central and driving force behind the nonscience side, ignoring it, pretending that it is not a problem, and not taking it to task for its errors, perversions, and arrogance would be a great dereliction of duty and would be extremely irresponsible. It is like saying, “Let’s have an in-depth discussion of Pol Pot, but we must avoid the subjects of torture and the killing fields because they are really irrelevant.” For an ideological system whose whole stock and trade is publicly labelling individuals and groups of people as children of Satan and then practicing the politics of personal destruction (as an official policy) against those people, I think it is a bit disingenuous to expect the recipients to just stand quietly by and never say anything critical about that ideological system.

    5) I actually came to TFN as a result of seeing an article on the AU website, where I had been a regular poster for a while. The staff at AU (such as Rob Boston) would no doubt agree with what I said in Item No. 4 above. They fully understand the threat posed by the Religious Right in this country, and I think TFN does too. If you will notice at the head of the TFN Insider page at the top, it says ” A Mainstream Voice to Counter the Religious Right.” I take that to mean that a certain ideological frame of mind poses a basic threat to American liberty and human rights. You cannot counter the Religious Right without going after the Christian Neo-Fundamentalist ideology that frames it, inflames it, and claims it. In the 1950s, this would have been like going after polio—all the while being careful to ignore the March of Dimes, deny the existence of the polio virus, and wall out medical research on vaccines. Doing so would be insane. Doing the same kind of thing with Christian Neo-Fundamentalist ideology would be equally insane.

    6) Why has the Religious Right been so successful over the past 30 years? They have great masterminds? They are wonderful organizers? They have God on their side? I do not think so. I think they have been successful because of one word: SILENCE. The denizens of the Religious Right have counted on the silence of the apathetic American citizen—and above all else—they have counted on the silence of the larger church of Jesus Christ—silence with regard to the twisted Christian Neo-Fundamentalist ideology that drives the Religious Right. The LOSS of this silence is the ONE THING that the Religious Right MOST FEARS. They are frightened to death at the very thought of real churches, real Bible scholars, and real theologians from major universities coming VERY VOCALLY AND VERY PUBLICLY after the ricketty theological and Bible-pretend legs of their milking stool. This is a major area of vulnerability that has not been addressed up to now. This aspect of the fight has to begin and it has to begin in earnest now. The goal is not to convince the fundamentalists that their ideology is unstable. That would be impossible. The goal is to get the attention of the many millions of reasonable Americans in the middle who are fence-sitting—and convince them that the Christian Neo-Fundamentalist worldview is theologically bankrupt and that it poses a threat to basic American freedoms, such as the right to raise up our children in our own faith.

    7) Some organizations and churches are beginning to understand this and take action. I think the United Methodist Church is heading in that direction, especially at the grass roots level of individual churches. Organizations such as the National Center for Science (NCSE) now have divinity school professors and pastors working either as staff members or in an advisory capacity. Jim Wallis and The Sojourners are speaking up. Divinity school professors such as Dr. Randall Balmer at Columbia University are now speaking up and writing popular books (on the shelf at Barnes & Noble) that are highly critical of the Religious Right and that put the lie to their wobbly ideology.

    8) Burning the cigar at both ends. The way to defeat the Religious Right is to burn its cigar from both ends. Keep up the political and scientific heat on one end of their Don Tomas and start incinerating their wobbly ideological system on the other end. The cigar will burn twice as fast that way. Now is a particularly good time to begin in earnest. They are politically weak. Their charasmatic senior citizen leaders are dying off like flies—with no really strong voices to replace them, and their churches are entering a period of statistical decline—by their own admission. There is no time like the present.

  20. Larry thinks coevolution is a weakness. Publish, larry. It is a battle against the religious right.

  21. In regards to the remarks I made about Charles, Larry, and Ben: I was just being facetious! Next time, I will be sure to let you know when I’m joking! Nonetheless, someone on the TFN staff is leaking personal information on bloggers that should not be released.

  22. TFN: Are you now censoring me? Please email me and I will gladly let you know what I know.

  23. Science-Minded:

    You have me concerned here. What kind of personal information? Do you mean personal personal—or just personal. I ask for a reason. I have been doing this blogging stuff for a lot of years. If a person writes enough posts over a long enough period of time, on enough different subjects, and one is really good at interpreting English literature between the lines, it is possible to gather all sorts of personal information on a poster. Many people give clues in their writing that they are not even aware of when they are doing the writing. Comparing several clues can even lead to more insights and really good guesses that one might find to be a bit surprising. If you had ever had an official, high level national security clearance, you would no what I mean. This is the kind of thing spies do—and really well too—mining the seemingly ordinary for the extraordinary hidden within it.

  24. jdg Says (April 6, 2009 at 8:41 pm) —
    –Larry thinks coevolution is a weakness.–

    I don’t just “think” coevolution is a weakness — I know coevolution is a weakness. The problem is that Darwinists’ minds are closed to anything that might be a real weakness of evolution — for example, my ideas about coevolution were banned from the blog of the Florida Citizens for Science:
    http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/co-evolution-theory-censored-by-florida.html

    –Publish, larry.–

    I do. My blog has several articles about coevolution. I have posted my ideas about coevolution in many other places on the Internet.

    Charles Says (April 6, 2009 at 8:07 pm) —
    –There is a way to see whether different posts are coming from the same computer. —

    Charles, you are a nosy snoop. Accessing identifying information about Internet users is illegal or frowned upon in Europe and should be so in the USA —
    http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/03/leaking-ip-address-information-is.html

    Also, often IP addresses cannot be linked to a specific computer.

    Charles says,
    –Organizations such as the National Center for Science (NCSE) now have divinity school professors and pastors working either as staff members or in an advisory capacity.–

    I thought that evolution theory was just supposed to be about science.

    Those who interpret the gospel literally but do not interpret the bible’s creation story literally are a kind of “cafeteria Christian.” They consider the fundies — who interpret both literally — to be irrational and superstitious. But these cafeteria Chrstians have it backwards: If god is assumed to be all-powerful, then the creation story makes sense while the gospel does not. The god of the creation story is all-powerful whereas the god of the gospel is weak and limited — the god of the gospel must battle Satan for control of the world and it is Satan who sets the rules of battle. To believe the bible’s creation story, one need only believe in the existence of god and the supernatural, but to believe the gospel, one must in addition accept illogic and inconsistency. The sole basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible, but if the bible is inerrant, then the bible’s creation story must be true.

    William Jennings Bryan said,

    If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?

    There ought to be a “Clergy Letter” for clergy who see no conflict between evolution and religion but who are skeptical of evolution.

  25. Charles, thanks for the kind words. I need to get Samsonite on the phone. Or American Tourister. Are they still around?

  26. You know. Now that you mention, I vaguely recall something about one of them having gone out of business—but could be wrong. Larry, because engineers are omnicient, do you happen to know?

  27. Larry Fafarman Says:
    April 7, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    I do. My blog has several articles about coevolution. I have posted my ideas about coevolution in many other places on the Internet.

    No, larry. Publish in a Scientific Journal “Cell” “Nature” “Protein Science” “Pub Med”. Let the scientific community scrutinize your work, subject it to tests. Otherwise it’s your own “opinion” and nothing else

  28. jdg Says: (April 7, 2009 at 6:14 pm) —
    –No, larry. Publish in a Scientific Journal “Cell” “Nature” “Protein Science” “Pub Med”.–

    That’s a pretty hypocritical thing to say when I can’t even post my ideas about coevolution on the Florida Citizens for Science blog and some other Darwinist blogs.

    Any Nobel laureate, Darwin-Wallace medalist, member of the National Academy of Sciences, etc. can comment on the Internet about my ideas about co-evolution.

    Anyway, your reply is just a cop-out. My ideas about coevolution do not require any scientific knowledge to understand.

    Charles Says (April 7, 2009 at 4:10 pm) —
    — I vaguely recall something about one of them having gone out of business —

    One of what going out of business? I have no idea what you are talking about.

  29. Back in my school days, a long time ago indeed, I resolved to set up a biological laboratory in the broken down, oak-boarded wood and coal shed in back of my parent’s house. My lab equipment was crude and makeshift at best, a combination of metal cans, Mason jars, soda bottles, and other such things. I was determined to use my new laboratory to find a cure for diabetes.

    I am laughing hysterically now!!! Now my wife, who just walked into the room and saw what I was writing, is laughing hysterically too!!! Whenever I read about Larry doing his research on co-evolution out of his retirement home in LA, my mind automatically juxtaposes my home lab situation with my imagination about whatever it is that he is doing in his home lab…and…and…

    That’s not a personal attack Larry—well maybe a little. Sometimes my sense of humor just gets the best of me. Being as how you are an old guy, probably with enormous retirement savings, I have no doubt that you can afford much better lab equipment than I could when I was a kid. However, I sometimes wonder whether I might have actually made that diabetes breakthrough if I had been using 7-UP bottles rather than Diet-Rite bottles.

  30. Hey Charles,
    The world is a big place and there is more than one Jeff in the world. You say Jeff “suddenly disappeared” a few weeks ago. Well, I just discovered this board a few days ago. I tell you what, I’ll change my name to Jeff007 to avoid confusion with other Jeff’s which may appear (and disappear) on this board. And no I haven’t ever posted under another name.

  31. Larry Fafarman Says:
    April 7, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    Anyway, your reply is just a cop-out.

    Larry F wants to create his own rules about how to publish. Science works when the work is scrutinized by scientists that work in that field. They will NOT debate you in a forum. Larry F has no clue.

  32. Thanks Jeff. Iit is good to know that there is more than one Jeff in the world.

  33. jdg Says (April 7, 2009 at 9:29 pm) —
    –Science works when the work is scrutinized by scientists that work in that field. They will NOT debate you in a forum.–

    Wrong. Public Internet debates between experts go on all the time.

    Charles and jdg, you are just big bags of hot air. My ideas about coevolution require no scientific knowledge to understand and no experimental results of my own. These ideas cannot be rebutted by pointing out that they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals and are not based on my own experiments.

  34. jdg said: “They will NOT debate you in a forum.”

    And Larry responded: “Wrong. Public Internet debates between experts go on all the time.”

    See, Larry, the problem is, you are not a recognized expert. jdg might want to revise his sentence to say: “They will not debate YOU in a forum.”

    Larry, if anyone of any relevance or legitimate standing has ever recognized you as an expert on the theory of evolution, please share.

  35. Ben, you are a troll who makes me keep repeating myself over and over again. I said that my ideas about coevolution require no specialized knowledge. I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Expertise is irrelevant (though I consider myself to be a general expert on coevolution because of the great amount of time that I have spent studying the subject).

    “They will not debate YOU in a forum.”

    Well, the hell with them then, and the hell with you. I win the debate by default.

  36. Harlingen High School in the Lower Rio Grande Valley had been showing the Jobe Martin BS until I brought it to the attention of the Superintendent’s office and principal. I, too found it quite hilarious that the Texas creationist clique has an odontological bent. Is it possible that staring onto mouths breeds creationists?

  37. How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?

    Are they actually serious with this?

$50,000 matching gift campaign expires at midnight on 12/31!

X