Bill O’Reilly joins the liberal Darwinist media

| 49 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

This is the funniest thing I’ve read all week. Yes, it’s even funnier than young-earth creationist and Discovery Institute fellow John Mark Reynolds attempting to argue that J. K. Rowling is wrong about Dumbledore being gay. (It’s fascinating to watch Reynolds blithely employ interpretive principles derived from the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and apply them to the Harry Potter texts to argue against the very ‘deity’ that created them, J. K. Rowling. It’s a short circuit in Reynolds’s brain, just like young-earthism. But that’s another story.)

Anyway, here’s the funniest thing: First the DI tells everyone to watch Ben Stein on the O’Reilly Factor. But apparently neither Stein nor O’Reilly got the memo about how ID isn’t about religion or God creating things. They both think it is for some reason. And yet they clearly are not part of the evil Darwinist liberal media. Wherever could they have gotten the idea? I mean, it’s not like hundreds of clear statements from ID advocates connecting ID to God, creationism, and conservative evangelical apologetics should have lead them astray.

Here’s the actual text of the latest missive from the Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division:

Intelligent Design is Not Creationism (No Matter What Bill O’Reilly Thinks)

Monday night Ben Stein showed up on The O’Reilly Factor to talk about his forthcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and the fact that scientists are being persecuted for simply questioning Darwinism in some cases, or for researching and advancing the theory of intelligent design in others. Interestingly, I would bet that none of the scientists who will appear in Expelled (and by all accounts there will be a LOT of them) are creationists. Unfortunately, Bill O’Reilly simply conflates intelligent design with creationism, mistakenly defining it as an attempt to find a divine designer. Not so. (see here, here and here to start) Compare O’Reilly’s misunderstanding with this letter from a guy who clearly gets it.

It was unfortunate too that Ben referred to the “gaps” in Darwin’s theory, as if those are the only issues that intelligent design theory addresses. To be sure there are shortcomings with Darwinism, the scientific literature of late is full of them. However, intelligent design also provides a robust, positive case and a serious scientific research approach. This is the news that O’Reilly’s viewers need to hear about.

Posted by Robert Crowther on October 24, 2007 12:04 AM

The really hilarious bit is that even from the preview of Expelled it is clear that Ben Stein knows this is about God and divine intervention in science – Stein says so right in the preview. So why was the DI surprised at what came out on The Factor? The guys at the DI have been talking out of both sides of their mouth for so long they can’t keep it straight themselves when they’re supposed to be pushing the religious apologetics and when they’re supposed to be denying that that’s what they’re doing.

2 TrackBacks

I told you that the Discovery Institute was going to have conniptions over the Stein/O'Reilly interview. O'Reilly defined ID as the idea that "a deity created life," and I could have mentioned this nonsense from Stein: There's no doubt about... Read More

St. Bernard Dog I woke up this morning to see headlines such as the following in my newsreader: Study Casts Doubt on Creationism ... and St. Bernard Study Casts Doubt on Creationism.... It turns out that the shape of... Read More

49 Comments

What still surprises me (despite having been following this issue for about 3 years on and off), is how many bare-faced lies appear in just one DI press release. It’s almost as if they’ve blanked KvD out of their memories altogether.

Nigel,

I know I’m the biggest cynic around here, but I see this as just more crocodile tears from the DI. KvD if anything made them realize that they can let more God-speak slip, as long as it’s not “too loud.” With this 1-2 punch they win both ways. One segment of their audience wants to hear what Stein and O’Reilly say, and another - mostly non-Biblical-literalist, but still very anti-science - prefers what the DI says but is nevertheless sympathetic to S & O’R. I call the latter the “jury’s still out” crowd.

Meanwhile we critics jump in with “ya see, it really is about God and creationism!” and all the while no one notices that not one of those poor “expelled” (pseudo)scientists has said word one about what the designer did, when, and how - let alone how they would test it. Nothing that would make their “theory” qualify as an alternative to evolution, and get them “unexpelled.”

I missed the O’Reilly interview, but I heard Stein on Mike Gallagher’s radio show. Stein was very careful to use the word “Darwinism” at every opportunity. I’m still not sure if he’s just parroting feel-good sound bites or in on the scam, but he managed to pack in several bait-and-switches, including a very comical (alas, not to his target audience) variation of “tornado in a junkyard.”

The link to the “positive evidence” for design is to a short description by Casey Luskin, a lawyer. They can’t even come up with a single peer-reviewed paper supporting their case.

I am anxiously awaiting Crowther to break the news to O’Reilly that the DI’s star “scientist” Michael Behe said (in “Edge of Evolution”) that to read the Bible as a textbook was silly. I’m guessing that Stein was coached enough to know that already. On the Gallagher show Stein did note that he found a lot about “Darwinism” convincing, but of course stopped short of saying whether he meant Behe’s “old earth and common descent” or just “microevolution.”

Jack Wrote:

They can’t even come up with a single peer-reviewed paper supporting their case.

The irony is that if they would simply stop the 20-year-long repetition of “we found design!” and move on to what the designer did, when and how, they’d find thousands of peer-reviewed papers. And they’d have something worth teaching too. What stops them of course is the inability to answer the simple question “how is that not evolution?”

Maybe ID advocates are really just incompetent. Reading Luskin’s piece on the “positive” junk about intelligent design you have to wonder if they even know what they are talking about.

Just imagine if they did have a substantial positive case for the intelligent design scam. Why are they running the bait and switch on any rube stupid enough to believe that they do have a positive case for ID. Why pitch intelligent design for years and then give the rubes worthless junk like Critical Analysis where ID/creationism can’t even be mentioned as anything worth critically analyzing?

Why would they be running the bait and switch on their supporters if intelligent design ever had anything going for it?

Even the IDiots probably know that the guy that wrote the above piece is lying. They know because they probably wouldn’t be supporting ID if it were not for their creationist beliefs. The notion is scientifically worthless. If ID didn’t exist they would be barking around organizations like AIG or Reason to believe. Heck, most of their arguments come from the scientific creationists and their predecessors. They even treat Paley as if his assertions ever amounted to anything. With links like those who would bother to deny creationist association, except dishonest political hacks.

In the religious world, only two things are required for a statement to be a true statement:

1) You have to SAY it’s true.

2) Your audience has to WANT to believe it.

It’s that second one we’re concerned with here. Science is something poorly taught and the scientific method (which involves admitting error) is antithetical to normal human thought processes. BUT as a Magic Word, science carries great cachet because people know that science has made their lives so much better in every way, and that science is where you turn when you’ve got real problems.

And this opens up a very large barn door for the creationists, who can SAY their faith is “scientific”, associating it with a very powerful positive meme, to an audience which enthusiastically desires to believe their superstitions are “scientific”. This is a tactic that plays most gratifyingly well in Red America. And the convinction that magic is “science” makes people even LESS likely to ever understand what science really is, or ever want to look into it very deeply. As a PR tactic, it’s a win-win.

People here continue under the delusion that evidence matters, and that creationist claims that “intelligent design also provides a robust, positive case and a serious scientific research approach” are risibly false on the merits. This is a misinterpretation of the “merits”. Evidence has nothing to do with creationist merit, nor does integrity, accuracy, correctness, stuff like that. Creationist merit is measured entirely in terms of the persuasiveness of the claims to as many people as possible. Fundamentalist sects have been growing at a ferocious rate in the US for 50 years, and now claim the majority of ALL citizens. Fertile ground.

Jack Wrote:

The link to the “positive evidence” for design is to a short description by Casey Luskin, a lawyer.

Lol. Who is more authoritative, a PR guy and a lawyer, or a talk show host and an actor/speechwriter? This is the kind of quandary one is faced with when dealing with a “science” that isn’t really science.

Ben may be a dupe and an IDiot, but I don’t think he’s the type to flat out lie. If you watched the interview you couldn’t help but note he said more than once that their theory may be worng, and might be stupid. Clearly, at least based on the interview, he is not promoting ID as much as he is denouncing “Darwinism” and the chokehold it has over science.

The DI is not used to it’s followers telling the truth. Perhaps this is the beginning of Ben realizing what a bunch of assholes he just jumped in bed with.

Or maybe not.

My predication is Ben Stein will be a great asset to our cause in spite of his intent to do otherwise.

Go Ben go, tell it like it is! ID is a (stupid) creation myth designed to fill in the gaps! Shout it from the rooftop!

Sorry about the spelling above, I blame it all on the cough syrup.

By the way, I hope someone is pointing out to both Ben and Bill O that they got it ALL wrong per the DI. That’s the important feedback they both would appreciate.

This reminds me of the cartoon where Daffy Duck is trying to convince Elmer Fudd that it’s rabbit season and he should shoot Bugs Bunny. Then, after Elmer Fudd has mistakenly shot Daffy for like the hundredth time, Daffy Duck (sans bill) escorts Elmer Fudd away with the following exchange:

Elmer Fudd / Ben Stein: More briefing?

Daffy Duck / Discovery Institute: more briefing.

So is it just me, or does the “positive evidence” link boil down to “this looks designed”?

I recall about three years ago (in other words, in pre-Kitzmiller days) listening to a discussion on radio (I think it was NPR) in the evening where Intelligent Design advocate George Gilder was interviewed for about 25 minutes, and then *after* Gilder, Richard Dawkins was interviewed for about 25 minutes. Before Dawkins ever said a word, Gilder went on and on about God this and God that, openly explaining to everyone that Intelligent Design was about belief in God. In these post-Kitzmiller days, IDists are now performing Orwellian 1984 rhetorical games to pretend that their history (and the conceptual facts of the matter) doesn’t even exist. Of course, those of us with many years of experience with creationists are already quite familiar with how they play fast and loose with the facts, because for creationists the message is far more important than reality, and they never seem to realize that itself is exactly why their message is completely worthless.

Mr_Christopherher Wrote:

Clearly, at least based on the interview, he is not promoting ID as much as he is denouncing “Darwinism” and the chokehold it has over science.

Denouncing Darwinism and ID are virtually one and the same.

fnxtr:

So is it just me, or does the “positive evidence” link boil down to “this looks designed”?

No, it’s not just you. You’ve got it nailed.

Clearly, at least based on the interview, he is not promoting ID as much as he is denouncing “Darwinism” and the chokehold it has over science.

Wait, didn’t he make an entire movie with the ostensible point being to promote ID, rather than attack Darwinism? I’ve of course not seen the movie, but it’s named “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, and the promotional materials seem to me to be saying that the intent is to advocate acceptance of ID, which they claim is being excluded from scientific consideration. How is that possible if his real goal is to denounce “darwinism” rather than to promote alternatives? Surely either the promotional materials for his film or his interview would be something of a bait and switch.

And if ID isn’t worth promoting on its own, then why complain about Darwinism’s “chokehold” in the first place– I.E. wouldn’t a chokehold be justified for a theory which has predictive utility and to which no viable alternatives exist? Maybe the chokehold has nothing to do with Darwinism itself (except to the extent that Darwinism works well) and is occurring because scientific alternatives are not being proposed. If that’s the problem then no amount of attacking Darwinism you do is going to reduce the chokehold*.

* Come to think of it, people have been attacking Darwinism for just under 150 years and it’s only gotten continuously stronger all that time. You’d think at some point people would begin to wonder, after continually failing at something for a century and a half, what it is that is going wrong?

I read that statement by the Discovery Institute above and nearly died of laughter. “Damage control” is always the last resort of people who get so twisted up by their lies that they end up like tornados. But at least you can give Bill O’Reilly some credit, since he advertised his show long ago as “the no-spin zone”. I’ll bet he will never allow Ben Stine on it again!

* Come to think of it, people have been attacking Darwinism for just under 150 years and it’s only gotten continuously stronger all that time. You’d think at some point people would begin to wonder, after continually failing at something for a century and a half, what it is that is going wrong?

You are missing an important point – They are not so much attacking Darwinism as they are defending their faith. What’s more, over the years, many of these people have incorporated “Evolution is Wrong/Evil/Antithetical to Christianity” as an article of their faith. To them, anti-evolutionism is as much a part of their religion as the resurrection.

It is the act of attacking that is important, not the success of the attack.

I always thought that there was a natural choice between the conspiracy theory and the cock-up theory. The paranoid fruit loop would naturally favour the conspiracy theory for any event (“It was Them working in secret”) and the realist would favour the cock-up theory (“They couldn’t organise a p*ss up in a brewery”).

I have to take my hat off to the Discovery Institute - they manage to satisfy both audiences expectations at the same time, and don’t even realise it themselves!

The link to the “positive evidence” for design is to a short description by Casey Luskin, a lawyer.

Containing 4 examples types of “evidence”, pulled out of Luskin’s ass instead of from a theory, that have all been falsified. Um, except that the “junk-DNA” prediction is only expected to be falsified. Well, I guess IDC may have a “positive evidence” after all. :-P

And the “serious scientific research approach” is a short description by Wells, on a “Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving (TOPS)” that is based on criticizing evolution, and Wells’ insightful idea that centrioles are turbines which he came up with when staring on pictures of Mars… excuse me, of cells.

After all, if we can detect designed canals on Mars, why shouldn’t we be able to detect designed biochemical machines in cells by just looking? There is only one thing correct in this mess, and that is that Wells notes that his idea is a proper testable hypothesis. But it didn’t make it into publication, and it didn’t make it to ID research.

It looks like Dr Dr Dembski has realised that he needs to tactfully change course, yet try and retain his current support. Over on Uncommon Descent he asks the question “How does the actor act?” and solicits thoughts from his audience:

“This objection has always seemed to me, at least in part, to miss the point, seeking to reduce an act of creative intelligence to a mechanism (on the order of reducing consciousness to computation). And yet, the question of how design gets implemented in natural history does seem to be critical to understanding ID.”

Interestingly a number of lurkers have chosen to post (and not yet retrospectively deposted) saying that ID needs to move into providing ‘proof’. Perhaps his refusal to offer a pathetic level of detail has backfired?

And yet, the question of how design gets implemented in natural history does seem to be critical to understanding ID.”

Dembski is on record as believing that fleets of angels and demons roam the earth. This common belief is not well supported by a literal reading of the bible but these clowns know their religion about as well as they know their biology.

He hasn’t quite stated that angels are patching in whole segments of DNA on an as needed basis but it wouldn’t suprise me if he does, in fact, believe that.

The role of demons in evolution is more speculative. Maybe they are in charge of planting fossils in the sedimentary rocks that cover much of the earth’s surface.

The IDists are urgently in need of an ectoplasm detector to prove their case.

“Psst! Ben! Ix-nay on the Od-gay!” – WAD.

Get the picture people, they are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in pushing their own limited theology through each and every persons throat. It os not about the Truth TM, just about power.

Shenda wrote:

“It is the act of attacking that is important, not the success of the attack.”

Exactly, just like any good terrorist.

I love how these guys are self destructing.

seeking to reduce an act of creative intelligence to a mechanism (on the order of reducing consciousness to computation).

Oh. Could it be that Dembski believes his own scam? Does he really believe he can’t specify a mechanism for test because his gods are by definition unknowable?

Nah, he is too scheming for respecting sincere beliefs.

Nick Matzke, there is an error on your blog above. It begins with “This is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.” The link at the word “This” leads to this: http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/200[…]-the-author/

I think you meant it to lead to this: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/1[…]ot_crea.html

BTW, I passed on the hilarious Ben Stine interview by Bill O’Reilly to my own discussion group on evolution: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/dis[…]p;pst=825792

Can someone clarify how does evolution explain homologous genes in species that didn’t have common ancestor? Is it convergent evolution and how does the explanation actually go?

Thanks in advance.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 313, byte 313 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Yes, the appearance of homologous genes or traits in two different lineages of organisms is what convergent evolution is. For example, the nylonase enzyme gene seen in two different strains of Flavobacterium, and in one strain of Pseudomonas aerugenosa are all very different from one another, but they all allow their owners to accomplish the same function of breaking down and metabolizing nylon.

So what would be justification for presuming that convergent evolution is true? Could possible explanation be in form that it just happened that same mutations got favored independently? And perhaps it couldn’t happen another way, i.e. other mutations would either be detrimental or ineffective as the similar mutation?

Could they still be homologous through some independent gene that we can’t identify yet? Some ancestral gene served some function and later on it changed function (divergence) and then later via gene duplication and subsequent alterations sequences converged?

Get the picture people, they are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in pushing their own limited theology through each and every persons throat. It os not about the Truth TM, just about power.

As somebody else once said:

It’s not about good.

It’s not about evil.

It’s about power.

Henry

Dudes – it’s “Ben Stein”, not “Ben Stine”. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

Dale – fixing it, thanks…

So what would be justification for presuming that convergent evolution is true? Could possible explanation be in form that it just happened that same mutations got favored independently? And perhaps it couldn’t happen another way, i.e. other mutations would either be detrimental or ineffective as the similar mutation?

In a few words: Similar constraints, similar environmental pressures will lead to similar solutions. Btw Analogy is a similarity in function but not necessarily in structure. In other words, genetically there are differences, however it serves a similar function. An example is the wing in birds and bats.

So what would be justification for presuming that convergent evolution is true? Could possible explanation be in form that it just happened that same mutations got favored independently? And perhaps it couldn’t happen another way, i.e. other mutations would either be detrimental or ineffective as the similar mutation?

Could they still be homologous through some independent gene that we can’t identify yet? Some ancestral gene served some function and later on it changed function (divergence) and then later via gene duplication and subsequent alterations sequences converged?

Convergent evolution is true because it has been observed to occur, three different times in the case of nylonase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

I read this thinking that this was the DI parody site that had the Egnor joke. It wasn’t until I read the comments that I realised it was the real DI. What a joke.

So what would be justification for presuming that convergent evolution is true? Could possible explanation be in form that it just happened that same mutations got favored independently?

IANAB, but besides Stanton’s “we see it, duh” I must say I don’t see how you envision the “same mutations” at different places and on “very different” enzyme genes.

I don’t think mutations are entirely independent, as for example AFAIU their position on a chromosome may influence crossover rates, but the mutational events are. So you wouldn’t expect that different populations would show exactly the same variation before selection even if they started out with similar genes.

And I have a hard time even to begin guessing what you mean with “same mutations” on “very different” genes. Considering that you write that mutations gets favored instead of the resulting traits gets selected on, perhaps you conflate mutations with the traits they show and dismiss selection as a mechanism?

Dissimilar results of variations such as mutations can show similar traits, especially if they have been under similar selection. As I understand Stanton, that is what “homologous” means and what convergent evolution shows.

“but the mutational events are”. Hmm. Well, probably pretty much for the purpose of this discussion, again reminding myself of crossovers between chromosomes and similar complications.

Toni wrote:

“Can someone clarify how does evolution explain homologous genes in species that didn’t have common ancestor? Is it convergent evolution and how does the explanation actually go?”

Well technically, homologous genes are similar due to common ancestry. So no, technically there are no homologous genes in species that didn’t have comon ancestors. However, as PvM pointed out, similar selection pressures can produce superficially similar adaptations independently. The nylonase gene seems to be an example of this, since it appears to have arisen independently in different lineages.

Sometimes the probability of evolution finding a certain solution is higher that one sould suppose. Therefore, convergent evolution is more common than one might suppose. In fact, this is one of the problems with phylogeny reconstruction. Exactly what characters you choose is important, since convergence can obscure true phylogenetic relationships between organisms. For that reason, it is best to choose charactes that have a low probability of convergence and reversal, that reduces the noise in the data set and allows for more robust concousions. For genetic markers there are statistical procedures for distinguishing between convergence and homology. For other characters it is important to understand the mechanisms of evolution in order to assess the probability of convergence. Either way, this is hardlky a problem for evolutionary theory.

Of course if there really are homologous genes in organisms that really didn’t share common ancestors, the answer is lateral gene transfer. That is a rare phenomena, especially between eukaryotes that are not closely related, so it hasn’t really been much of a problem either.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I don’t think mutations are entirely independent, as for example AFAIU their position on a chromosome may influence crossover rates, but the mutational events are. So you wouldn’t expect that different populations would show exactly the same variation before selection even if they started out with similar genes.

And I have a hard time even to begin guessing what you mean with “same mutations” on “very different” genes. Considering that you write that mutations gets favored instead of the resulting traits gets selected on, perhaps you conflate mutations with the traits they show and dismiss selection as a mechanism?

Dissimilar results of variations such as mutations can show similar traits, especially if they have been under similar selection. As I understand Stanton, that is what “homologous” means and what convergent evolution shows.

Ok, maybe I made mistake by asking how mutations are favored. Especially with recent discovery of how interwoven genome is. I am just wondering how exactly to prove wrong that “prediction” by ID and how to appropriately understand convergent evolution.

Thank you David for clarification. So you practically presume that certain features should arise several times independently simply because selection favors evolution in that direction? That insight in problem with phylogeny reconstruction is helpful.

Also, you say that if homology is present then there must be common ancestor?

Toni,

I don’t know of any prediction by ID so I can’t help you there. What I can say is that if some intelligent alien were designing life forms there is no reason in the world why it could not put an identical gene into completely unrelated organisms. We don’t see this happen except occasionally in prokaryotes due to lateral gene transfer. What we do see is entirely consistent with the process of evolution, complete with historical contingency. If a function is required in a lineage, it must evolve in that lineage. It cannot be borrowed or transferred except under very rare circumstances. So, yes, similar selection does sometimes lead to convergence but the similarities in that case are only superficial and can be distinguished from true homology. For example, bird wings and insect wings are not homologous.

Of course there are very ancient genes that are homologous between even distantly related lineages. But no, by defiinition homology is similarity due to common ancestry and not due to common function, selective constraint, convergence, etc. Indeed the entire concept of homology only makes sense in an evolutionary context. And of course it also shows once again the futility of any type of ID interpretation of the evidence.

Ok, maybe I made mistake by asking how mutations are favored. Especially with recent discovery of how interwoven genome is. I am just wondering how exactly to prove wrong that “prediction” by ID and how to appropriately understand convergent evolution.

What do you mean by ‘how mutations are favored’? The fact that the genome is a ‘complex network’ has been a topic of study for quite some time, nor surprisingly all it takes is two processes found in nature: gene duplication and preferential attachment. In fact, the degenerate nature of DNA coding assists in the evolution of these networks.

Thank you David for clarification. So you practically presume that certain features should arise several times independently simply because selection favors evolution in that direction? That insight in problem with phylogeny reconstruction is helpful.

Also, you say that if homology is present then there must be common ancestor?

It’s not so much a problem for genetic phylogenies as it is for those based on morphologies since the latter one relies on similarity in function not form. That’s why different phylogenies based on morphology and based on genetics are such powerful evidence of evolution.

I don’t know of any prediction by ID so I can’t help you there.

There isn’t, of course. The notion that the Designer has unknowable power, knowledge, and motivation is compatible with any observation, and thus cannot predict anything.

They’ve been crowing a lot about the fact that some “junk” DNA actually has a purpose, occasionally referring it to a prediction of ID, but there isn’t anything to ID predict anything of the sort. ID consists of nothing but a collection of flawed attempts to prove that this or that couldn’t have happened naturally, coupled with some appeals to authority such as their dissenter list. How the heck are they supposed to predict anything about DNA on the basis of that?

Basically they’ve adopted the position that any real or preceived flaw in the findings of biological science is a prediction of ID.

There isn’t, of course. The notion that the Designer has unknowable power, knowledge, and motivation is compatible with any observation, and thus cannot predict anything.

Including observations that are consistent with the theory for which it’s claimed to be an “alternative”. I.e., their “premise” doesn’t necessarily rule out the competing model.

Henry

by defiinition homology is similarity due to common ancestry and not due to common function, selective constraint, convergence, etc.

Oops. Thanks David, I guess I misunderstood Stanton. But I don’t think the rest of my comment is incorrect.

Links to Dr. Forrest’s You Tube Videos entitled,

“Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don’t Want You to Hear”

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI

Vernita:

Links to Dr. Forrest’s You Tube Videos entitled,

“Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don’t Want You to Hear”

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI

Be sure to check out the other 24 videos in the series on YouTube!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on October 24, 2007 2:34 AM.

Hope for the future was the previous entry in this blog.

Behe vs Carroll, redux is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter