The Questioning Librarian

One of the arguments that those defending evolution and good science continually have to fend off is the absurdity that is "irreducible complexity," the old argument of Paley that was dusted off and reinvigorated by Michael Behe. This argument has many manifestations, but at heart they are similar forms of the same basic idea. The young earth creationist points to something in nature, such as the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting system in humans or the human brain to give a few examples, and argue that it is too complex to be the product of evolution by natural selection. Therefore it must be, in the mind of the creationist, a fine example of design by a Creator of the young earth/ literal Genesis type. Within the last week or so two more of these so-called examples were brought to my attention by creationists eager to demonstrate that my acceptance of evolution is wrong, wrong, wrong. A few days ago, I was sent another one of those horrible Creation Moments daily pi...

After an inexcusably long absence, I've returned today to my occasional series highlighting those people and organizations whose stances are not only in contradiction to reality but are so counter-factual as to be absurd. However, becoming an "Enemy of Reason", joining the ranks of such notables as Ken Ham, Conservapedia and Creation Moments, requires more than just the average brand of crazy. Being listed as an "Enemy of Reason" requires holding and promoting positions that are hopelessly irrational. Congresswoman Bachmann meets both of these qualifications. Sometimes an Enemy of Reason is a one-issue person, someone who may otherwise be reasonable except on that one topic that, as soon as they open their mouth and talk about it, makes them seem crazy. Others are crazy on a number of different positions, and it is into this category that Bachmann falls. The first position Michele Bachmann holds is support for the unscientific notion of Intelligent Design, ...

Creationists of the Young-Earth variety often protest that they cannot take Genesis figuratively for some very good theological reasons. If Adam never literally at the apple, then why did Jesus die on the cross to remove the sin that Adam never incurred? If Christians shouldn't take Genesis literally (and many already don't), then what other parts of the Bible should be taken figuratively rather than literally? Creation Moments asserts that when God said to rest on the seventh day it is because of the six-day Creation event; when Moses was given the Ten Commandments, the command to rest on the sabbath day was made explicitly because of Genesis 1. The anonymous author asks, if Genesis is not to be taken literally, does that mean we don't take the Ten Commandments literally ? My own answer is that I don't much care what you decide to do about the Ten Commandments. What you decide about your personal faith is up to you, but when it comes to long-settled science, the on...