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...

Yesterday I took the creationists to task for misrepresenting the science and statements of a number of prominent figures, from Karl Popper to Stephen Jay Gould, and I wanted to continue about the piece in question today. In the past, I and others (most notably authors like Donald Prothero and Ken Miller) have exposed as false the creationist assertion that, when it comes evolution one must choose between Christ or fallible Man and his opinions. This is the classic false dilemma; millions of people both accept Christianity and accept that evolution occurred. This fact can only be doubted by the fools at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis where their interpretation is the only correct one, and everyone else is compromising. There is another aspect to this creationist assertion that I think is worth highlighting, for it exposes the Young-Earth Creationists as the hypocrites that they are. The same science that declares evolution to be true is the very same sci...

I always enjoy reading the Creation Moments daily propaganda, because, after all, the news some days is hardly entertainment enough. Thus I'm compelled to look elsewhere for a bit of humor, and the creationists are an unending wellspring of laughs. One of the newest, one that was forwarded to me, is no exception. " Faith: Christ or Man ?" the organization asks, repeating one of the favorite Young-Earth canards. Implied in this question is that you must choose; will you accept fundamentalist Christian faith or the feeble science of Man? Also implied is that the godless scientists have rejected Christ by arguing that evolution is true...and they are bold enough to say they have evidence for this "fairy tale" too! How scandalous! When it comes right down to it, in spite of their public statements, creationists have chosen "Man", just as they accuse scientists of having done. I will elaborate on this point in Part Two. For this post, suffice it to say th...

Just when I despaired finding good material to write on anymore, I was forwarded a slew of stupidity from Creation Moments. Say what you will about the Young-Earth Creationists (I was reminded to clarify which specific "kind" of creationists I'm arguing against), but in many ways they are remarkably consistent; they repeat the same objections over and over and over again. The forms may change, or, if you will, evolve, but at heart they are the same few objections expressed differently. One of the more recent Creation Moments, titled " The Archer Fish " is no exception to this idea. It's a classic "God of the Gaps" argument. The argument generally goes like this: Look at this object or feature in nature, in this case the ability of the archer fish to send a concentrated burst of water from its mouth to stun an insect and eat it. The young-earther then continues on to develop in detail how it is done (with the unstated assertion that it is very com...

You know, it's been so long since I've heard someone spew nonsense about evolution (it was last night when I watched the Michael Shermer vs. Kent Hovind debate on YouTube) that I was so happy that I wouldn't have to go a single day without it! Thanks again to Ann Coulter for entertaining us yet again with her wisdom about the "liberal religion" of evolution. It wasn't enough that her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism spent, by her own reckoning, a third of its time "debunking" evolution. No, since Rick Perry decided to tell us that Texas teaches creationism AND evolution (it doesn't, not legally anyway) and was immediately mocked, Coulter took up her pen of idiocy to enlighten the masses about evolution. First, Ann rants on World Net Daily (where else but that hotbed of anti-science thinking?) that evolution is the "flash mob" method of science  in which it is "belief" not evidence that matters. Read the article in ful...