The Panda’s Thumb

Bombus pascuorum

2020-03-16T11:00:00-07:00

Photograph by **Marilyn Susek**. Photography contest, **Honorable Mention**.

Bombus pascuorum – common carder bee, gathering pollen on a Skimmia japonica 'Rubella', Ravenfield, Rotherham, England, April, 2015.

Ark Park creator complains of bias and propaganda. He is a master of both

2020-03-13T11:57:00-07:00

The author, right, with Ken Ham, in less fractious times.

[Reprinted](https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article241065276.html) from the Lexington Herald-Leader with permission of the author. Matt Young will be the principal moderator of the comment thread. I read Ken Ham’s February 28 op-ed “[Don’t believe ‘agenda-driven propaganda’ film about Ark Park](https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article240622332.html)” with much amusement and more than a bit of disgust. Mr. Ham’s complaints about the film “[We Believe in Dinosaurs](https://www.webelieveindinosaurs.net/)” are projections of his own behavior onto the film makers. He complains of bias and propaganda, which he is a master at, and misrepresentations and errors, without being able to provide a specific example of anything factually wrong. In fact, the makers of the film were careful to let everyone speak for themselves with very little commentary. This is clear to anyone who has actually seen the film. Ham also complains about the use of dinosaurs in the film yet has ample space in his so-called museum depicting dinosaurs and promoting the insane ideas that they lived with people and that some of them breathed fire. Amusingly, the fire-breathing part isn’t mentioned in the wooden Ark-shaped building at his amusement park. Noah must not have had access to asbestos. Moreover, Ham has been referring to dinosaurs as “missionary lizards” during his preaching and fund raising for at least three decades. Although the rank pseudoscience, pseudohistory and absolute nonsense promoted by Ham and his fake-science organizations are what motivate me to complain, I’m astounded by the brazen hustles that have been used to milk city, county, and state government out of money. This money whether it be rebates of sales tax, or the gratis things received by the Ark and mentioned below, ultimately are taken away from taxpayers. Ham says the documentary “focused on one small town [Williamstown] that has no major hotels or restaurants and whose struggling downtown is not convenient to interstate drivers.” Before the Ark Park was built, Mr. Ham and his cronies received from Williamstown and Grant County $175,000 cash, nearly 100 acres of land for $2, and a 75% property tax rate reduction. Mr. Ham knew the town was “not convenient to interstate drivers.” Moreover, the City of Williamstown issued $62 million in junk bonds so the Ark Encounter could be built, and arranged for the bonds to be repaid by payroll and property taxes. All through this, Ken Ham knew the town that was doing him this fantastic favor, a favor necessary for the Ark to even be built, was “not convenient to interstate drivers.” In August 2011, I attended a “[Listening Session](https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/08/ark-encounter-l.html)” by representatives of Ark Encounter, Grant County, and Williamstown. At this meeting the locals were told many spectacular things that the Ark would supposedly bring (I have a recording) and that it was a “transformational project for this community.” Many jobs for the region were promised and Mayor Skinner told the audience his sincere belief that utility rates would go down. Mr. Ham’s associate, Mr. Mike Zovath, told the audience that the Ark property had 60 to 70 acres of its 800 acres to to lease or purchase for the construction of hotels and restaurants. At this meeting Mr. Zovath actually said, “We have 1.6 million people coming to Williamstown when it opens in 2014.” The entire time that Williamstown was promised streets of gold and the moon to boot, Ken Ham and his crew knew Williamstown was “not convenient to interstate drivers.” Today, Ham, similar to a film-flam man, blames his victim. Mr. Ham’s attitude towards Williamstown after they bent over backward and forward for him on repeated occasions is nothing less than despicable. Dan Phelps, President, Kentucky Paleontological Society; Geology and Paleontology Instructor, Jefferson Community and Technical College, Louisville, Kentucky; also a major participant in the film "We Believe in Dinosaurs". He can be reached at edrioasteroid@msn.com.

Pandemic as opportunity

2020-03-12T00:06:00-07:00

Credit: Public Health Image Library.

Andrew Fabich thinks that the "[coronavirus outbreak is possibly the greatest outreach opportunity for the church worldwide](https://answersingenesis.org/culture/coronavirus/)" (as quoted approvingly in the Answers in Genesis website). Dr. [Fabich](https://answersingenesis.org/bios/andrew-fabich/), a microbiologist at [Truett McConnell University](https://truett.edu/), advises that "[t]he church needs to respond to the current situation sensibly and centered around the gospel. Here are some things we should be doing during this time of worldwide panic." He lists three specific items: >

Put together a medical mission team in your church for a local response …. The beauty of such a team is that infectious disease outbreaks happen regularly [italics mine]. Having something in place will mobilize the church moving forward.
Purchase as many personal hygiene products that are currently in high demand. Churches should stock up on [toilet paper and hand sanitizers] for distribution to their local communities. Ideas for this include taking supplies to your community or putting together fliers indicating that your church is distributing free personal hygiene products.… It just makes sense to promote good personal hygiene because it is ultimately derived from a biblical worldview.
Have someone creative and biblical write a tract for distribution to each person receiving the personal hygiene products. What a travesty to meet people’s physical needs and neglect to tell them about their most important spiritual need: a relationship with the Creator Redeemer Jesus Christ.…

I am left speechless, and I probably should stop here. But I want to point out a [fairly sensible article](https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/coronavirus-biblical-practical/) in which Dr. Fabich gave good advice on how to keep yourself from catching the Covid-19 virus. The article was unfortunately marred when he downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic: >[A]re you as scared about getting the flu or are you more scared about getting COVID-19? When put in proper perspective, you can see that this COVID-19 is not as bad as the headlines are making it. I’m not aware of anyone who buys a surgical mask for the flu every year.... He further averred that "this COVID-19 outbreak [teaches us] that life is short and we’re not guaranteed tomorrow," but it is OK because we will all live forever. Curious, I looked up Truett McConnell University and decided that we need to have a legal definition of "university." To call an institution with 760 students, a 6-year graduation rate of 30 %, and 4 masters degrees (not counting 2 religious degrees) a university is very much like certain reports of Mark Twain's death. Dr. Fabich is a real microbiologist, with degrees from Ohio State and Oklahoma. He has a longish list of publications, of which only two are labeled "Technical"; one of those actually appears to be about postmodernism. His biography shows that he has worked only at religious colleges since getting his PhD.

Be very, very careful if you want to use science to prove something about religion

2020-03-05T16:20:00-07:00

The tireless Dan Phelps (I shall soon run out of adjectives) sent this article [In the endless fight over creation versus science, what if both sides were right?] (https://www.kentucky.com/living/religion/paul-prather/article240835156.html), by Paul Prather, a columnist for the Lexington *Herald-Leader* and a pastor at a [church in Mount Sterling, Kentucky](https://www.localprayers.com/US/Mount-Sterling/440530499298783/Bethesda-Church), about 50 km outside Lexington. The article is in stark and refreshing contrast to the [kind of nonsense](https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2019/10/AIG-blames.html) that comes out of another Kentucky entity, answers in Genesis. Indeed, it was gratifying to see that Rev. Prather allows that science is completely compatible with his religion. The headline of the article is, however, misleading: Rev. Prather seems to know better than to think that creationism and, in particular, young-earth creationism are compatible with science. Nevertheless, he argues that you can believe in modern science, in particular, the Big Bang, and still hold a religious belief. I consider that to be an experimental fact, since I have personally observed top-notch scientists who were also religious. Unfortunately, Rev. Prather bases at least some of his understanding on the book, *[Genesis and the Big Bang](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005KB0V62): The Discovery of Harmony between Modern Science and the Bible*, by Gerald Schroeder. Rev. Prather claims to have lost his copy of the book and admits that he understood only about half of it. That is perhaps fair enough, since he is not a physicist. I have had the misfortune to have read two books by Gerald Schroeder: the aforementioned *Genesis and the Big Bang*, and a later book, *[The Science of God](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BOQMAK): The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom*, and I also cannot find my copies. I understood them in detail. Let me make two observations: First, Dr. Schroeder is not "a renowned Israeli physicist." A search of Google Scholar shows a measurable number of papers, largely concerning aquaculture, and (I think) nothing more recent than 1989. Earlier papers, from the 60's, have to do with radon, radiation, and neutron-activation analysis, and are possibly related to his thesis work at MIT. His citation index is fairly high, presumably because of his popular books. I did not look exhaustively, but none of the publications I discovered had a byline at the Weizmann Institute of Science. When he wrote his aquaculture papers, he worked at places with names like Fish and Aquaculture Research Station. I have a clear memory of someone, years ago, trying to find out whether Dr. Schroeder had ever been on the faculty at Weizmann and coming up empty-handed. He is, however, an Orthodox Jew. Second, his books will convince no one who does not already want to believe them. Rev. Prather writes, >But basically Schroeder explained that scientists already know time isn’t linear as once assumed. It stretches, bends, speeds up, slows down. It exists across—or perhaps exists across, but I’m not sure—multiple dimensions. >Given what’s known about time, he said, the very same event could take six days and also take billions of years, depending on which point you happen to be looking at it from. It’s not a matter of which is literally true—they could both be literally true. Look at it from over here, it’s six days. Look at it from over there, it’s billions of years. >Schroeder said the fight between Genesis and the Big Bang is unnecessary. In theory, both accounts could be speaking accurately of the very same beginning. That is sort of accurate, but it is not exactly at the heart of Schroeder's thesis. Here is something I [wrote](https://people.mines.edu/mmyoung/wp-content/uploads/sites/99/2019/01/Young_No_Sense_of_Obligation.pdf) (p. 121 ff.) concerning *The Science of God* in 2001: >Gerald Schroeder, whom we met in connection with the Bible codes, descends from a different stream of Jewish literalism than the Lubavitcher rebbe. In *The Science of God* [1997], he states at the outset that he will examine modern scientific texts and ancient religious texts and try to bring them into agreement. If that sounds sensible to you, try turning it around: What if he were going to limit his study to modern theological texts and ancient scientific texts and try to bring them into agreement? You would very possibly recommend that he extend his study to include modern scientific texts. But Schroeder evinces no interest in religious studies later than those of Nachmanides (1194-1270). ... >Schroeder believes that the first chapter of Genesis accurately describes the creation as viewed from the proper relativistic frame of reference. He calls time as seen from this frame of reference *cosmic time*. Cosmic time is not entirely arbitrary but is based on a philosophical argument by the theoretical physicist Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond [Lévy-Leblond, Jean-Marc, 1990, “Did the Big Bang Begin?” American Journal of Physics, vol. 58, pp. 156-159]. Lévy-Leblond argues that the finite age of the universe puzzles not only laypersons but also scientists and philosophers. To eliminate the conceptual ambiguity that arises when we claim that time had a beginning, Lévy-Leblond defines what he calls *linear time*. Linear time is set up precisely so that the age of the universe is infinite. If you measure time in linear time, the question, “What came before the beginning of time?” is meaningless. >Schroeder renames linear time cosmic time. According to Schroeder, Chapter 1 of Genesis was written from the point of view of a being living in cosmic time. Only at the end of Chapter 1 is the clock turned over to earthly beings [who measure earth time, not cosmic time]. Specifically, Schroeder argues that the first day of Genesis corresponds to the first 8 billion years of earth time, the second day to 4 billion years, and so on. >The correlation between cosmological and paleontological fact and the six days of creation is fairly good, but there are problems. In the Book of Genesis, there is water above the sky; dry land and plants are created before the sun; and fowl appear before reptiles. Schroeder notes that flowering plants would not have appeared on the third day but on the fifth, but solves his dilemma with an *ad hoc* argument taken from Nachmanides: the plants *developed* during the next days. What did they develop from? Single-celled plants. Sounds a good bit like evolution. >Similarly, there is no geological evidence for a Noachian flood, so Schroeder applies a textual argument to suggest that the flood was only local. In brief, he notes a change in terminology from *eretz* to *adamah*. These words, in context, are synonyms, but to Schroeder they signify that God changed his mind about a worldwide flood. Finally, at the beginning of the sixth day, there should have been a major mass extinction, but it is not mentioned in Genesis, and Schroeder all but ignores it. Dr. Schroeder goes on to perform a simple but wrong mathematical calculation to show that speciation is impossible. He brings up the old saw about the lack of transitional forms, but he fixates on a particular transitional form, *Archaeopteryx*, which he associates with a Hebrew word, *tinshemet*, that appears twice in Leviticus and is translated respectively by the Jewish Publication Society as *horned owl* and *chameleon*. JPS, however, notes that many of the words in this portion of Leviticus have been lost and their meanings are uncertain. In his conclusion, Rev. Prather argues, >Schroeder said the fight between Genesis and the Big Bang is unnecessary. In theory, both accounts could be speaking accurately of the very same beginning. Well, maybe. But if you want to use science to demonstrate something about religion, I suggest you find a better source than Gerald Schroeder.

A novel feature with new information

2020-03-05T15:30:00-07:00

If you scroll to the bottom of the front page of Panda's Thumb, you will see that we have implemented a new feature, a list of the 8 most recent comments. (We can make that number bigger if needed). This should make it much easier for you find the new comments on PT posts, without need to scroll through all subthreads of comments or to have a email notifications mailed to you. We hope to have more improvements soon. The highest priority among them is restoring all the old comments on earlier posts. These disappeared when PT moved to Github, but they still exist offline and we hope to find ways to restore them. Thanks particularly to our peerless leader Reed for guidance on all this.

Creationists Game Rating of “Dinosaurs” Documentary

2020-03-03T10:30:00-07:00

Recently, Eric Hovind wrote a [blog post](https://creationtoday.org/eric-hovind-on-pbs-hey-mom-look-im-on-tv/) about the documentary [We Believe in Dinosaurs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Believe_in_Dinosaurs). In his post Hovind stated “... after you watch the film, ... you may want to consider a review on Amazon, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB to let others know what they are going to encounter.” On the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) the documentary had a rating of 7.8/10 for several weeks, until just a few days ago. Suddenly, there were 12 new 1-star reviews and now (3/2/20) the IMDB rating is 6.4/10. Hopefully, you have seen the documentary and can fairly review it [here](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6316506/ratings) (you will have to have or establish an account with IMDB). You may want to also check out what is happening at [Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/We-Believe-Dinosaurs-David-MacMillan/dp/B081S9Y898), where a handful of 1-star ratings have reduced the film's overall rating to 4.3/5 stars, and [Rotten Tomatoes](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/we_believe_in_dinosaurs), where 9 out of 10 critics assigned it "fresh tomatoes."

Evolutionary biology in real time

2020-03-03T07:00:00-07:00

Here in Seattle, Joan and I have "gone to ground" at home, working from home and seeing in person as few people as possible. The Covid-19 coronavirus flu is spreading fairly rapidly locally. Creationists are fond of claiming that medical science does not make use of evolution in practice. So, in this case is evolutionary biology relevant? You bet! Evolutionary virologist Trevor Bedford at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center is on the case, tracing out genealogical trees of virus sequences to track transmission locally and globally. He and his group made the news with their discovery that Covid-19 arrived in Seattle at least as early as the 15th of January, almost 7 weeks ago. (I think we're supposed to call the virus itself SARS-CoV-2). Trevor has been reporting results every few hours on his Twitter account (here). His report of "cryptic transmission" can be found at his blog which is here. Very much worth reading.

Automeris io

2020-03-02T12:00:00-07:00

Photograph by **Andrey Pavlov**. Photography contest, **Honorable Mention**.

Automeris io – Io moth. Dr. Pavlov writes, "The photo of the moth is Automeris io, a moth whose range extends along the Eastern half of Canada and the US. I found the caterpillar and carried it home where it pupated. Approximately 6 months later the moth emerged and while I missed the actual eclosion [the emergence from the cocoon], I hung the moth on some twigs to let its wings unfurl and took a few photos, minutes after it eclosed. The wings were not yet inflated and it wasn't able to move much, which is why it made such a great model." You may find more photographs by Docta Drey here. Dr. Drey cautions that the website is a work in progress, and to inquire about a print you may contact him at the e-mail address given in the "about" page.

Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: book review

2020-02-27T14:15:00-07:00

Several years ago, I sent a copy of Jeffrey Bennett's book, [A Global Warming Primer](https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Primer-Answering-Consequences/dp/1937548783): Answering Your Questions about the Science, the Consequences, and the Solutions, to the EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt. The current EPA administrator, [Andrew Wheeler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_R._Wheeler), is not as obvious a climate denialist as Mr. Pruitt, but at best he downplays the IPCC report and the importance of global warming, and I think he would probably profit from a close reading of the new book [Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RBPNJH3/), by John Cook. Dr. Cook is the founder of the influential website [SkepticalScience](https://skepticalscience.com/). Dr. Cook, a psychologist, focuses on countering misinformation (or, as I would insist, *disinformation*) about climate change, according to his Amazon biography. He is a research assistant professor at George Mason University and also an excellent artist. To give a feel for the book, I will reproduce one page:

Many, perhaps a plurality of the pages are arranged approximately like this one: some text, amusing drawings including often conscionable puns, a sidebar that generally goes Fact – Myth – Fallacy. Early in the book the author lists a few fallacies and lets others leak out as needed; he supplies a sort of genealogy at the end of the book. He also summarizes in tabular form all the Fact – Myth – Fallacy arguments he covers in the book. In this case the fallacy is oversimplification. The book is only about 160 pages long, depending what you count, and (like Bennett's book) it is remarkably encyclopedic. It is divided into six parts: How did climate change get so controversial, denying reality, denying responsibility, denying consequences, denying science, and responding to science denial. That is a lot of denying, but then there is a lot to go around. In case you wondered about the title, the denialist is the cranky uncle you see on the cover. The section on how climate change got so controversial includes, among other things, a comparison with Big Tobacco and a page on what the fossil fuel industry knew, as opposed to what it did. The author warns us to look out for fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories. The logical fallacies are not those you will find in a philosophy textbook, but include *ad hominem* arguments, oversimplification, misrepresentation, red herring, and more. I did not count, but I thought that the most common fallacy was cherry picking. The next section deals with, for example, denialist claims that glaciers are not melting and notes that the majority of glaciers are indeed melting, while denialists cherry-pick a few that are growing. The idea that Greenland was called Greenland because of a bait-and-switch by Erik the Red and not because it was particularly warm was amusing. Denying Responsibility explains clearly how we know that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is warming the planet. In one droll cartoon that mocks those who point to the relative scarcity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Dr. Cook shows Cranky Uncle pointing to a glass of water that has only a minimal amount of arsenic in it and in another frame explaining to a policeman that he has only 0.08% blood alcohol. Denying Consequences shows that heat waves are getting more frequent and hurricanes more intense. Instead of concentrating on polar bears, however, I thought he could have spent a couple of pages discussing coastal flooding, which is apt to cause tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries like Bangladesh. I could have lived without the conspiracy theorists, looking a little bit like medieval monks in their black hoods. And I thought that the references to Donald Trump were possibly misplaced and may make the book look dated very quickly: I have high hopes that this book will outlast the Donald Trump presidency. I bought the Kindle edition of the book and read perhaps half of it on a Chromebook while baking bread. The text was simply too small, so I read the rest on a computer monitor that is about 20 cm high. Reading was completely hopeless on my admittedly very old Kindle Paperwhite. According to Amazon, the paperback is 8 in, or 20 cm, square, so approximately the same size as the display on my computer monitor. I think I would find the text a little small. The Kindle version has no index; presumably the print version also lacks an index. That is not so bad in an electronic book, except that the search feature is "not *yet* enabled" [my emphasis]. It would have been helpful if the Fact – Myth – Fallacy table at the end of the book had included page numbers. The typography is sometimes poor, with a few lines of type overlapping other lines and with occasional words looking like thi s. I also found it difficult to read the green type on a green background, as in the sidebar in the preceding figure. It seems to me that an upgrade is in order. But much of that is carping, which is, of course, what critics are paid to do. On the whole, I thought it was a splendid book, and I am tempted to send a copy to Andrew Wheeler at the EPA.

Climate change and biblical literalism

2020-02-24T14:40:00-07:00

Photograph borrowed from Monash University by AIG with the purpose of promulgating precisely the opposite message to that of Monash University. Credit: Monash University. Fair use.

I sometimes claim that a religious belief that does not contradict known scientific fact is generally harmless. If you ever entertained the possibility that biblical literalism was harmless, you might consider the article [Climate change and the Bible](https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/climate-change-and-the-bible), by Avery Foley, published the other day by Answers in Genesis. The article was subtitled, "Top four biblical reasons not to panic about climate change." Before we get to the top four biblical reasons (are there more?), I want to note that Ms. Foley has, as far as I can tell, borrowed the preceding figure from an article, [A new approach for teachers to engage in climate conversations in the classroom](https://www.monash.edu/education/teachspace/articles/a-new-approach-for-teachers-to-engage-in-climate-conversations-in-the-classroom), posted by Jodi Evans of Monash University. Borrowing that photograph (uncredited, incidentally) from the article by Ms. Evans seems a bit tacky in that the article by Ms. Foley promulgates the opposite message to that intended by Ms. Evans. In fairness, Ms. Foley does not claim that climate change is a hoax, only that we need not panic. What is her evidence?

Psalm 115:3, "when our God is in heaven and all that He wills He accomplishes," and Psalm 148:8, "fire and hail, snow and smoke, storm wind that executes His command," where I use the Jewish Publication Society's 1986 translation. If you thought those verses were fragments, you would have a point.
"God has commanded us not to be afraid," at least 365 times in the Bible.
God promised Noah, "So long as Earth endures,/Seedtime and harvest,/Cold and heat,/Summer and winter,/Day and night/Shall not cease." Well, yes, it is kind of hard to argue that the seasons will not endure, but we may experience massive dislocations and countless refugees as some agricultural regions dry up, forests burn, and coastal regions flood. Should we "be afraid"? You bet we should.
Genesis 1:27 informs us that we (alone) are made in God's image. Hence, we should adopt a "humans first" policy, which leads Ms. Foley to the very reasonable conclusion that we would do well "to lift nations out of poverty." Her solution, though she tempers it slightly with a light dose of environmentalism, amounts to "drill, baby, drill."

Ms. Foley concludes by advising us to >consider what God’s Word says and the promises God has made. Do what you can to be a good steward, help the poor and needy and support policies that will protect them, and, above all, preach the good news of the gospel. What can I say? She makes light of climate change, pretends that the only way to support the poor is by providing nonrenewable energy, and relies on out-of-context snippets from the Bible for support. I felt a little bit like I was reading a medical tract written by a faith healer. Ms. Foley is, however, worse than a faith healer: The faith healer at least elicits a placebo effect from time to time, but as far as climate change is concerned, there will be no placebo effect. Biblical literalism as it is practiced at AIG is anything but harmless.