The Questioning Librarian

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...

An acquaintance and I engaged in polite conversation some time ago, discussing the nature of historical evidence and sources, and the discussion happened to go on to the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. Both of us being students of history, we know how important sources are; sources are what we base the study of history upon. The acquaintance offered to loan me Josh McDowell's Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims . I was reluctant to do so, but being polite I agreed to borrow and read it. The name of McDowell was familiar to me before the fact, but I admit that I didn't know much about him or his work. Now having read the book from beginning to end, paying close attention to the nature of the argument and the sources McDowell uses, I can say without a doubt that this is the finest piece of pseudoscholarship I have encountered since it was my misfortune to read Lee Stobel's The Case for a Creator . The numerous pro...

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...