The Questioning Librarian

A few weeks ago in a nearby Barnes & Noble, I intended to be conservative in my spending. After all, I have plenty of books I already own and haven't read, and working in a library means I have access to hundreds more I might want to read. Seeing Donald Prothero's new book Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future immediately overcame my resistance. Prothero, a geologist by training, has written a range of books, including a number that are highly regarded, including his 2007 book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, a thorough debunking of creationist arguments about geology and fossils. Reality Check  touches again on creationism, but the larger thrust of the work is an attack on a variety of un-scientific rubbish that has a stranglehold on the minds of many and threatens our very future. From climate change denial and creationism to anti-vaccine activists and those who deny the reality of the finite nature of fossils fuels, Prothero tackl...

In the never-ending Whack-a-Mole of creationist attacks on education, it had apparently quieted down for a little. I hadn't been hearing much about creationist holy warriors, beyond the usual background noise of discontent from the likes of Answers in Genesis. Yet to think that they could be safely ignored would be a mistake, as they've now reared their ugly head in Texas, looking to grab a huge victory for their movement, and thus ensure yet another disaster for an educational system that has already been heavily battered and wounded.  The Texas State Board of Education is currently in the process of adopting new textbooks in line with the education standards that they pushed in 2009, standards designed specifically to allow creationism into the science classroom. Sensing this opportunity, creationist members of the Board are pushing for pro-creationist textbooks , or at the very least ones that are extraordinarily weak in presenting evolution, the central unifying theor...

This morning, I was engaged in the self-flagellation of reading some of the articles on the Answers in Genesis website, and one in particular caught my eye. This article, calling for the " rescuing " of children from a good science education, was a take on the recent revelations that a Christian school gave a "science" test in which answers that no credible scientist would accept (see the image of the test here ) were given a perfect score. The question "Dinosaurs lived with people," was marked as "true" by both student and teacher, for instance, when in fact there is no evidence that humans ever lived with dinosaurs at any place or any time. What was particularly striking about this whole story was not Ham's reaction to it, which is fairly predictable given his usual penchant for identifying anyone accepting evolution as an "atheist," when in fact many Christians and members of other faiths accept the veracity of evolution. No, w...

Usually in writing about young-earth creationism, the focus is on the damage it does to science and to science education. This is quite understandable, as the primary focus of the young-earthers is to push a narrow, sectarian, and highly unscientific worldview that has done serious harm to science education. While this is, usually, enough to worry about, I've been thinking over the past few days about the damage that creationism does to women, having read my way through a handful of feminist books in recent weeks. At first glance, one may think that this is a silly idea, but as creationism in the United States represents the worldview of reactionary elements within Christianity it also does serious harm through its portrayal of women. This may seem incidental, that the view young-earth creationism holds of women is merely collateral damage from an already harmful worldview (to say nothing of their view of homosexuality, which is, as it were, rather unevolved ), but it is important...

When watching creationists, one is struck by the unintentional irony of so much of what passes for discourse among them. In the first place, many who speak for young-earth creationism clearly do not have the first clue about what evolution really is, its importance in biology, or how it developed as an idea, to say nothing of their lack of understanding of geology, fossils, and chemistry (truly, I think that so many of them don't actually know what carbon-dating is, or that there are other dating methods that are used). I've recently experienced this irony on a creationist internet group, where people who are even more out of touch with reality than the typical young-earth creationist routinely accuse the defenders of evolution of lying and quote-mining...when the only people who are quoting at all are the creationists! But for true irony, we have to turn to Answers in Genesis and our old friend Ken Ham. The irony is rich when it comes from them, an organization that prete...

One of the most charming things about Answers in Genesis is a series of articles they call " Arguments Christians Shouldn't Use ," citing a number of arguments that young-earth creationists might use in defense of a literal reading of Genesis that even the charlatans at AiG don't think are good arguments. This is, to anyone who has read the standard fare of this organization, ironic in the extreme. A quick glance over the list of these "bad arguments" reveals claims that most defenders of evolution have heard before in one form or another, ranging from the simply inane (" If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today? ") to those that are outright lies (The infamous " Darwin Deathbed Conversion " fraud).   The ordinary creationist might be forgiven for seeing Answers dismiss these patently bad arguments and thinking that, since the organization isn't willing to use just any  argument to advance their claims, Ken Ham and a...

It's a new year, but there is nothing new about the battles that we can expect from the creationists and their proxies. 2012 was a rough year, and, while a lot of truly terrible candidates lost, the creationists have far too many friends remaining in the Republican Party. Marco Rubio, a rising star within the Tea Party fringe, made some noises that weren't exactly evolution-friendly, seeming to think that the age of the earth is a matter of "dispute amongst theologians." A House Republican, on the Science Committee no less, was caught on video saying that the big bang, evolution, and (oddly) embryology are " lies straight from the pit of Hell ." And Michele Bachmann, a known evolution-denier, narrowly survived re-election. There was good news out of Louisiana, remarkably, as a parish school rejected creationism , but the forces of unreality are unceasing in their efforts to dilute and hinder the teaching of real science in the classroom, with their inane c...

In the years I've spent watching the walking, babbling idiocy that is young earth creationism, I have learned never to underestimate what they will do, never to be surprised at what they claim, and certainly never to think that most of those who believe this way will be open to reason. No claim is too absurd, no denial of reality too patently ridiculous for the proponents of a literal Genesis. Belief is a powerful thing, especially a belief that refuses to see objective evidence, and such are the beliefs of young earth creationism. Whether it is Ken Ham or Eric Hovind, they are united in their conviction that true Christianity requires that the Bible be taken literally, especially the creation myth of Genesis. Further, they believe that to accept, as many Christians do, that evolution is reality is to join the ranks of the compromisers, and to risk eternal damnation.   While there is no debate among scientists as to the fact of evolution, this has no meaning to ...

Distinctions are important. Distinctions have meaning, and they have purpose. They help us sort out reality from fantasy. If we needed any reminder of this fact, the hype over Robert Ballard's latest work should be sufficient to reinforce just how useful distinctions are. Imagine my surprise, after years arguing that the Flood of Genesis is a myth, to read that no less a respected authority than Robert Ballard, the man who discovered the location of the Titanic , "says Noah's Ark evidence comes to light," as this story from MSN has it. But if one reads the actual story, Ballard claims no such thing. After working with his team in the Black Sea region, Ballard announced his support of the hypothesis advanced by William Ryan and Walter Pitman that an ancient flood substantially raised the water level of the Black Sea, a flood event which formed the basis of many of the Flood myths. But trust the media to never let reality get in the way of a good headline! The hype co...

I suppose the occasion for this post is not only the winding down of grad school for me, but also the intersection of two most interesting people. Ken Ham, former biology teacher out of Australia and know-nothing creationist head of "Answers in Genesis", has reissued his old saw "The Lie: Evolution" under a new subtitle, namely "The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years," no doubt to creationist acclaim. I suspect, however, that the content will be just as stale as the first edition of this man's magnum opus, the same hackneyed arguments that patient scientists and educated non-scientists have deconstructed and debunked for just as long as Ham's been saying them. Not having read this new edition, how can I say this? Quite simply, the book's description on Ham's website contains the same arguments that I've been hearing and reading from the AiG emissaries for years, whether it was from the man himself or his legion of pseudo-scientific proxie...

When I checked my email the other day, I found creationist nonsense. As usual; a friend simply insists on sending me "Creation Moments" daily drivel. Each post makes some argument about how evolution is a) evil b) silly c) unable to explain the complexity of the biological world or d) all of the above. Some of them make me smile with their simple-minded caricatures of what the young-earth creationists seem to think evolution is. Others make me shake my head in wonder. The most recent email belongs firmly in the second category. The author argues that we only believe that "fossilized apes" are relatives because it nicely fits our pre-existing story and has nothing to do with actual evidence. This person makes the argument that if we believed humans to have evolved from birds and found a fossilized bird we would claim it as an ancestor. The hit-piece goes on to argue that science "has made up a lot of stories," as though science were based on ideas scient...

Sometimes I am asked why it is that I devote so much of my time to promoting evolution and attacking the certifiable lunacy that is young-earth creationism. Surely I have better things to do with my time, it is implied, like read Charles Dickens or plant flowers; after all, people believe lots of crazy things, why not let them have them, especially when it does no harm? That, however, is where the person asking the question goes astray. Creationism does do harm, real and verifiable harm. It is not harmless, like the belief that Elvis lives or the idea that Bigfoot strolls somewhere in the western United States. It is not a question of my opinion versus yours, not when the truth of evolution is verified scientific fact. At its heart, the struggle between creationism and evolution isn’t about a battle of ideas, for evolution is far more than just an idea. It isn’t even a struggle between religion and irreligion, though the young earth creationists might like you to think that, for ma...

As intellectually harmful as it is sometimes to listen to proponents of Young-Earth Creationism, it can often be instructive. Having read more articles from Answers in Genesis and listened to more YEC babbling than is healthy for a sane person, at the least I believe I understand how they operate. One such example is the look some creationists get when confronted with the "just one piece" of evidence for evolution. It is the look of a mind going right into autopilot, the glazed eyes of delusion. You can see an example of this process in Richard Dawkin's documentary series "The Genius of Charles Darwin" when he interviews Wendy Wright (both the clip from the documentary itself as well as the full interview can be found on YouTube). "Show me the evidence," the President of Concerned Women for America says; when Dawkins responds with evidence, she pleads for "just one" fossil, one "carcass," in her words, that shows the transition fr...

When creationists want to awe a credulous audience, preferably one in a church with limited education, they employ a variety of methods. One method is by trotting out one credentialed person to impress the audience with the fact that they have a Ph.D. or some other advanced degree; the person in question is usually old and may not even be a scientist, but they wave their doctorate around as though it makes them qualified to speak on DNA or geology. Often this scientist, generally well-spoken, employs another favored method in support of their rickety case. They will bring forth a natural process and say that if it is true, then the earth could not possibly be older than six thousand years because the phenomena would not exist as it currently does. One such example comes to us courtesy of the Creation Moments organization, which provides daily broadcasts of some example or another that either purports to “disprove” evolution or shed light on the glory of Creation as they see it. In a br...

While sometimes the struggle against the pseudoscientific tripe that is creationism seems never-ending, those of us on the side of science and reason occasionally get a win. This we have done in the past week; in yet another slap against creationism, the British government announced that "free schools", (local schools, often religious in nature but funded by the government and usually exempt from the educational curriculum of Britain), often called "faith schools" will lose funding if they attempt to teach creationism as science. Make no mistake, this is a victory for science. While Great Britain has traditionally ranked very high in public acceptance of evolution, the spread of these "faith schools" has led to a growing fear that this will be used to spread the religious doctrine of creationism. I am very grateful to Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough for spearheading this effort , making sure that Britain doesn't slide back from knowing and under...

If there is anything that I should have learned by now, Ken Ham will use any occasion to spew the nonsense of Answers in Genesis. And I mean ANY occasion. The death of Christopher Hitchens, noted public intellectual, journalist and atheist, is no exception at all. Of course, we should expect Ham and his kind to crow at the death of an atheist, one who thought young-earth creationism nonsense and didn't hesitate to say so either. Still, the very visible exhortations of glee from certain quarters is downright sickening to anyone with even a rudimentary sense of morality. I won't shed a tear when Ken Ham dies, but neither will I dance in the streets, as much as I find him an odious human being whose entire life has been dedicated to spreading lies. Though Ham himself says nothing, he introduces " Two Perspectives on the Passing of an Atheist " which contain much happiness at the death of Hitchens, including a statement that "Hitchens is no longer shaking a fist a...

Often I find that I'm overwhelmed by the sheer amount of output that the young-earth creationist organizations are capable of producing. I'm only one man, and even when I blogged more frequently I couldn't keep up with it. At most, I can deal with and dispense with a few articles from some of the major creationist organizations. This week I thought that I would take a different tack. Rather than focusing on a single article, I'm going to give a brief overview of some of the most recent articles coming out of Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries and Creation Moments. Here we go... Creation Ministries International: (home of the supposed "Unanswerable Questions" for Evolutionists and of the Hovind clan) --Creation Ministries condemns the "framework hypothesis" as untenable in an article about history and pseudo-history. The framework hypothesis is one way of stating that Genesis 1-11 is literary rather than literal, and CMI won't stand for ...

A student wrote to Answers in Genesis for advice. What he got was the sophistry, bad-arguments and muddle-headed thinking that so characterizes that organization. The exchange is fine amusement, if one is in the mood to simply laugh at nonsense rather than feel the anger that often accompanies the attempts of the anti-science crowd to lie, distort and malign evolution. The student in question is afraid of majoring in science because of the "stigma" a young-earth creationist would get from the "Darwinist camp." Already, I'm saddened to see a student so interested in science have his enthusiasm tempered in the name of fundamentalist dogma. The authors of the article, two of the lesser lights of Answers in Genesis apparently, whom I've never heard of before, responded with a lengthy article, part advice and part delusion. They first recommend that this student consider attending one of the AiG-approved colleges where young-earth creationism is taught as scie...

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, ...