Report on a Creation Evidence Expo

| 182 Comments

On Biodork there’s a guest post reporting a visit by several skeptics/atheists to a Creation “Evidence” Expo held recently in Indianapolis. A couple of excerpts to entice you to read it all:

It turns out creationism is still alive and kicking. Okay, maybe not kicking so much as floundering so it doesn’t drown.

Of some note, creationists have already picked up the ENCODE project’s “80% of the genome is functional” meme that’s polluting mainstream media and the blogosphere. (See T. Ryan Gregory for a representative critique of the PR misrepresentations of the ENCODE papers, and Nature News for an overview of some of the critiques. And here’s Nature’s portal to the ENCODE data.) At the Creation “Evidence” Expo YEC Nuclear chemist Dr. Jay Wile is reported to have used ENCODE’s bogus ‘80% functional’ claim:

He began quoting biology books from 1989 and talking about “junk DNA”. He informed the audience that junk DNA doesn’t exist because god made us and that they now know 80% of what our DNA does.

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

182 Comments

Something threw me about Louise’s report. She said she outed herself as a non-believer at a recent expo and the audience cheered her. Huh? Why did an assembly of creationists react positively to the bailing of another believer?

If you think creationism is dead, how about some “new evidence “ for it? Check out Florida Citizens for Science blog http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=1685

I’d write more, but I’m late to kill, steal and destroy.

Glen Davidson

Paul Collier said:

Something threw me about Louise’s report. She said she outed herself as a non-believer at a recent expo and the audience cheered her. Huh? Why did an assembly of creationists react positively to the bailing of another believer?

They were reacting to the opportunity to proselytize.

“Bring these unbelievers to us, so that we may know them”

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

We are living in a actual revolution in “science” subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins. That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution. Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins. It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal. I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

Robert Byers said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

We are living in a actual revolution in “science” subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins. That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution. Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins. It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal. I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

Stand with phlogiston theory as it sweeps away thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, unless you want to be with the losing side (hint, it involves charred flesh)!

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said:

Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

It is dangerous in the sense that its proponents, who include those in positions of political authority, are attempting to undermine and erase everything we know about modern biology, as well as geology and other ACTUAL sciences.

Robert Byers said:

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

How so? The overwhelming majority of scientists still denounce Creationism as pseudoscientific clap trap. The “revolution” is entirely in your head.

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy, has essentially forced evolutionists (including the good ole Pandas) to go on the defensive. This website constitutes evidence

Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

In fact, here’s some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn’t it? Ain’t no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

Robert Byers said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Creationism exists as a socio-political (bowel) movement, but not a scientific one.

Initiating delusion of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

We are living in a actual revolution in “science” subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins.

RiiIIiiIIiiight ! Expect for the FACT there was no world-wide flood - christians almost 200 years ago realized that !

And for the FACT that you have to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate REAL WORLD DATA to make it conform to the creationut ‘model’.

How, EXACTLY, does blubbering ‘IT WAS CREATED MY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE !!!!!1!!!!’ qualify as a valid, useful, or scientific answer ?

The stupidity continues with :

That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

Creationuts and IDiots have been claiming that for DECADES.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP !

(and no, blubbering ‘** I ** assert evolution cannot explain X; therefore, Xtian Magical Sky Pixie DIDIT !!!!!’ is not, has never been, nor will ever be a convincing argument).

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution.

A socio-political bowel movement, meant as a mental laxative to shove Magical Skymanism into science where it never belonged.

Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

Good thing that it is quite easy to show why IDiots and creationuts are wrong.

The only problem is that IDiots and creationuts are incapable of listening, and so, when shown to be wrong, merely bellow their misunderstandings and lies ever louder (in a feeble attempt to drown out reality with their sanctimonious screechings).

It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

RiiIIiiIIIGHT ! They argue about the fine points of how evolution works, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS.

A point the IDio-creationuts have YET to comprehend …

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Ah, yes - ye olde ‘evolution is about to fall ANY DAY NOW !!!’

Creationuts have been saying that for 150+ years. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. And they will continue to be wrong until they can present postive evidence FOR IDio-creationism.

(and no, blubbering ‘evolution cannot explain X; therefore, GodDesigner DIDIT !!!!!’ will not cut it).

More vainglorious posturing :

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has been a flop in science for nearly 200 years; ID doesn’t even reach the status of hypothesis (since it has no testable mechanisms, predicts nothing, etc).

More santimonious gibbertwittery :

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

Translation : we IDiots and creationuts are taking credit for the scientific revolution that DEMONSTRATES WE ARE WRONG AT EVERY TURN !

Egomaniacal wanking in 3.. 2.. 1..

I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

‘Change human thought’ as in ‘drag science and learning backwards 200 years so it conforms to one peculiar interpretation of ancient morality tales’. That is NOT a good thing !

The good guys are the ones that advanced science by studying the REAL WORLD and then TESTING THEIR IDEAS AGAINST IT.

Given the fact that IDiots and creationuts are unable or unwilling to test their ideas, the winner is EVOLUTION.

Unless, of course, you actually have EVIDENCE to the contrary ?

FL said:

Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

In fact, here’s some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn’t it? Ain’t no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

Creationists get published in legitimate, reputable scientific journals when they do legitimate science. It’s really that simple. Leonard Brand and Robert Gentry, for example, have been published repeatedly.

Birney is being crucified lately because of his poor PR handling of ENCODE, not because of any disagreements to do with evolutionary theory. Typical Creationist tactic… to toss the original context of a statement and replace it with their own…

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy, has essentially forced evolutionists (including the good ole Pandas) to go on the defensive. This website constitutes evidence

It is only evidence that reality is being ‘assaulted’ by droves of deranged f*ckwits that ‘think’ science can be overriden by political action.

Good thing that, IN REALITY, a scientific theory can only be overturned by ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

And neither ID nor any other form of creatorism ARE science - they are nothing more than glorificiations of ignorance. A way to STOP thinking and learning, yet feel good about being willfully ignorant.

Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

In fact, here’s some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn’t it? Ain’t no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

‘Interesting’ delusions you have there Foolish Loon.

The IDio-creationuts bellow from one side of their mouth : “DARWINISM IS MONOLITHIC GROUPTHINK !!!”, yet out of the other side of its mouth bellows “IT BE FALLING APART !!!!!”

In the real world, when folk say stuff DEMONSTRABLY AT ODDS WITH OBSERVED REALITY, they should expect a backlash.

The only way 80% of the genome could have a function is if you define ‘function’ so broadly that just about anything qualifies.

Kinda like saying ‘employment is at 100%’ - if digesting food qualifies as employment.

That is the main problem with the ENCODE fiasco - their definition of ‘function’ stops just short of ‘can be digested by DNase’. They detected many potential switches - whether they DO anything or not is a seperate question that will take a LOT of hard work to figure out.

After all, even long dead transposable elements can have regulatory sequences that DNA binding proteins can bind to AND SO WOULD QUALIFY AS ‘FUNCTIONAL’, even though they don’t do a thing.

Even the ENCODE scientists admit that they haven’t debunked junk DNA - IIRC, di0geneslamp provided quotes directly from them stating exactly that.

But all of those details are beyond your willfully limited understanding, aren’t they Foolish Loon ?

All that you see is a discussion about something you don’t understand, and immediately jump to ‘evolution be in trouble !! GO MAGICAL SKYMANISM !!!!!!’

Ewan Birney definitely has alot to answer for.

For example,over at the Huffington Post, the only one who has blogged credibly about the ENCODE results is Mike White:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micha[…]1881788.html

On the other hand, the delusional James A. Shapiro reacted with ample enthusiasm by posting this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james[…]1873935.html

and then, he opted to post this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james[…]1893984.html

I must credit Diogeneslamp0 for being consistently the most consistently effective poster pointing out Shapiro’s breathtaking inanity in grossly misinterpreting the ENCODE results.

Finally, last but not least, here’s Shapiro’s rather unique take on Science Guy Bill Nye’s recent video condemning the teaching of creationism; his latest pathetic example of breathtaking inanity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james[…]1919558.html

Let them keep on this ENCODE thing. If I’ve understood aright, the other thing the result tells us is that 20% of the genome does literally nothing – it’s chemically inert. Previously ‘junk DNA’ was a rhetorical own goal – a poor, hastily-coined term for sequences that didn’t have a clearly understood function, which allowed the IDs and creationists to crow with victory every time that a new function was discovered for a particular sequence and claim we’d eventually get to 100% and prove that God (or He Who Must Not Be Named Where People Can Hear Us, if you’re going for a cultural wedgie) was not a wastrel. By using the widest definition of ‘active’ possible, however, they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Just ask them to explain the remaining fifth…

YEC Nuclear chemist Dr. Jay Wile

YEC nuclear chemist? That’s an oxymoron, isn’t that?

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy,

You had 90% of the people in the mid-1800s. Now you have at most 50%. And what resurgence? YEC numbers seem to have been stable for the last 30 years.

Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

Nobody is disputing the scientific results of ENCODE. We don’t like how its been hyped, that is all. They used a very broad definition of ‘functional’ which has already lead to misunderstanding by the public (and probably will continue to do so). But change the term to “chemically active” or something else like that, and everyone here would be perfectly happy with the result.

So again, just to make this point clear: nobody is disputing that (bits of) the genome acts the way they describe. People are disputing whether ‘functional’ is the best word to describe what they found.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.

Evidently we don’t have to wait 20 years for the “fantastic flop.” We can enjoy it now!

Here’s a hint… when you describe a ‘scientific revolution’ as a ‘movement’, you probably don’t know what a scientific revolution even is.

As far as ‘movement’, well insert your own crude joke here, because that’s all ID really is.

Let me know when you decide to actually do anything sciency with Intelligent Design. You know, like create a valid hypothesis. One that is testable, discriminatory, and falsifiable. Then let me know when you actually get around to testing it, instead of blatantly misrepresenting other peoples’ work. Let me know when you have gotten together with all the other YECs, OECs, IDists, etc and come up with a single notion, instead of all the mutually contradictory ones that you all support because you don’t dare be seen to argue with one another.

Oh and, you still owe us a discussion of how to teach ID in schools, especially considering that 40% of science class must be labs. So feel free to describe a lab that shows ID in biology.

And just look at the quality and knowledge of ID/creationism’s followers!

Or, um, well…look, a wombat.

Glen Davidson

Matt Bright said:

Let them keep on this ENCODE thing. If I’ve understood aright, the other thing the result tells us is that 20% of the genome does literally nothing – it’s chemically inert. Previously ‘junk DNA’ was a rhetorical own goal – a poor, hastily-coined term for sequences that didn’t have a clearly understood function, which allowed the IDs and creationists to crow with victory every time that a new function was discovered for a particular sequence and claim we’d eventually get to 100% and prove that God (or He Who Must Not Be Named Where People Can Hear Us, if you’re going for a cultural wedgie) was not a wastrel. By using the widest definition of ‘active’ possible, however, they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Just ask them to explain the remaining fifth…

Problem is, Ewan Birney has been telling every interviewer he can that he’s confident the amount of “functional” DNA in further surveys will reach ~100%. And using ENCODE’s “definition” of function, that’s not entirely unlikely.

Well yeah, I suppose you’d get down to some sort of trivial structural stuff where you could argue the toss. That big string of Gs looks like it’s helping something bind to a histone, or preventing too much read-through from something upstream. Does it need to be that long, though? Maybe it does! Maybe God’s involved! Who knows? You don’t. Ahaaaaaa!!!

Is the game really worth the candle at that point, though? Maybe our only hope with these people is to back them into a place where the only arguments they can make are self-demolishing, in that they require the listener to know so much molecular biology even to follow them that they can immediately see why they’re bullshit.

Even there, Creationists have an “out” that might sound convincing. If there’s a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn’t do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it’s DNA that was damaged since The Fall. “After all,” they’ll say, “everybody knows mutations are always bad and don’t produce anything useful.”

ksplawn said:

Even there, Creationists have an “out” that might sound convincing. If there’s a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn’t do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it’s DNA that was damaged since The Fall. “After all,” they’ll say, “everybody knows mutations are always bad and don’t produce anything useful.”

And then we can hammer them with exactly how stupidly wrong they are. It’ll be fun!

Hi Byers & FL!

Since you think ID is such a great scientific slam-dunk maybe you can take a moment to explain it to us. My own cursory examination of the subject suggests that the ‘science’ bit is based on two claims 1} Some systems are Irreducibly Complex [IC] – ie, they could never have developed by any conceivable step-by-step process; and 2} that the existence of Complex Specified Information [CSI] requires an intelligent designer – and that CSI is detectible and measurable in all designed things.

I’m nor terribly interested in IC, though maybe you could give an example or two of a biological system that displays IC. Primarily I’d like an explanation of CSI; please describe how CSI can be detected and measured in several examples. Help cure my ignorance of ID by walking me through the math, step by step; show me exactly what is so blazingly obvious to you and other ID advocates, but that I seem to keep missing.

I eagerly await your concise & clear answer.

ogremk5 said:

ksplawn said:

Even there, Creationists have an “out” that might sound convincing. If there’s a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn’t do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it’s DNA that was damaged since The Fall. “After all,” they’ll say, “everybody knows mutations are always bad and don’t produce anything useful.”

And then we can hammer them with exactly how stupidly wrong they are. It’ll be fun!

Exactly. You’ll never stamp the silliness out, but forcing them to a point where they have to appeal not just to scripture, but to some pulled-out-of-the-ass exegesis of their highly specific, sectarian fundie interpretation of that scripture, is a win. The IDers have to keep schtum, religious moderates get embarrassed and those who have been fooled into thinking they should ‘consider both sides’ on the subject get a faceful of exactly how stupid one of those sides actually is…

Robert Byers and FL both beautifully demonstrate the utter barrenness and malevolent uselessness of the Creationism/Intelligent Design movement.

Robert Byers repeatedly shows us how he has nurtured his self-inflicted inability to learn anything into arrogant self-delusion.

FL, in turn, shows us how his only reason for living is to spread lies and slander about everything and everyone whom he hates or does not share his unthinking hatred of science.

J. L. Brown said:

I eagerly await (Byers’ and FL’s) concise & clear answer.

You’re going to wait a while. I recommend taking up a hobby to help pass the time, like, knitting afghans for Clydesdales or piano cosies.

apokryltaros said:

J. L. Brown said:

I eagerly await (Byers’ and FL’s) concise & clear answer.

You’re going to wait a while. I recommend taking up a hobby to help pass the time, like, knitting afghans for Clydesdales or piano cosies.

I’ve been waiting on FL for over 2 years now. He keeps running away from me.

Don’t these creationists realize that they will be held accountable for withholding all of that evidence for ID/creationism, very likely leading to the loss of souls?

I realize that all of this evidence must be highly proprietary, since not a speck of legitimate evidence for ID/creationism ever leaks out into the public, but we’re talking about the mortal sin of sending souls to hell for lack of knowledge.

If they won’t think of us, still you’d suppose that they’d think of themselves. Maybe they just want so badly to be with us that they’re willing to go to hell for it.

Glen Davidson

Glen Davidson said:

Don’t these creationists realize that they will be held accountable for withholding all of that evidence for ID/creationism, very likely leading to the loss of souls?

They don’t care. All they want is to brainwash more Idiots For Jesus into giving them more money and more power. They literally don’t give a damn about those souls whom they fail to convince.

Bill Maz wrote

It is becoming clearer with each discovery that the sheer complexity of the genome and its regulatory mechanisms needs a more robust theory than the simplistic model of spontaneous mutations and natural selection, even though, on a local level, these mechanisms have a very important role.

Since that “simplistic model” does not accurately represent current evolutionary theory, omitting an enormous amount that we’ve learned since 1859, and since it misrepresents what it includes (“spontaneous mutations”?), I call straw man on Maz.

Bill Maz further wrote

People like Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge Professor of evolutionary biology, and John Kearns, Harvard geneticist, have each expressed doubt about the standard evolutionary model for different reasons and join hundreds of other eminent scientists who are calling for a more robust model.

“Hundreds of eminent scientists”? Who? Where are these calls? I read a good deal of evolutionary literature, both pop science books and the technical literature, and I’m not aware of the claimed chorus of calls.

Bll Maz further wrote

Evan Olsen has even proposed a model based on chaos theory by which DNA is a fractal attractor which guides the evolutionary process toward a defined goal.

Ahhh, yes. Fractal attractors. Invoking fractals has almost the same status as invoking quantum theory in feng shui, something I actually read in the Columbus Dispatch last weekend. Here is the first paragraph of Evan Olsen’s landmark paper:

The sine circle map θn+1=θn+Ω-(k/2π)sin(2πθn) is investigated from a relativistic perspective. The Ω (frequency ratio) or average shift of the angle theta or winding number is conjectured to be a lorentz contraction (alpha) or α=Ω. This has ramifications for space-time theory and because of its relation to chaos theory also has ramifications to DNA. The winding number in the sine circle map is investigated experimentally by the Josephson junction in a microwave field. DNA is considered to be a strange attractor and its structure is related to this new theory of space-time. Space-time is an oscillator and so is matter, and thus space-time is the causation of life.

It fairly shrieks “crank science!”

Yeah, let us crank up the science!!!!

(I know, but that sounds better than the way you phrased it!)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on October 1, 2012 10:49 AM.

Wallace Online was the previous entry in this blog.

Amanita muscaria 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 4.38

Site Meter