Fallacies Invented By This Anti-Creation Video

“Creationism is not appropriate for children,”  hit the internet airwaves on youtube on August 23, and has received a lot of media attention from outlets such as live science, and in CNN’s blog. It has accumulated over 1.4 hits in its short stint…

  

Obviously, Bill Nye the Scientism Guy has invented a number of fallacies in this new clip, some of which are common among hardcore evolutionists and others you wonder if he really thought about what he was saying.

Let’s begin with this…

“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States…When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in it [evolution], that holds everybody back.”

There are people around the world who doubt evolution! One of the biggest creation ministries is located in Australia, there are doubters in England, the middle east, Russia, South America, and so on. It’s really not unique to the United States at all!

Bill’s second fallacy, holding people back. Creationism is their driving force for science, creationist leaders have PhD’s in a wide field of scientific disciplines! Also, it is a fallacy to interchange evolution and science because science is not constrained to one discipline!

Another fallacy presented in the video is the accusation that doubting evolution hinders scientific progress. Let’s put this to the test. Bill Nye the Scientism Guy says that the United States is unique when it comes to denying evolution, right? There would be other countries who embrace evolution more than the United States should be technologically more advanced. Right? Isn’t that what Bill Nye and others are implying?

Not even according to Bill this is true! He fully admits…

“I mean, we are the world’s most advanced technological… I mean you could say Japan, but generally the United States is where most of the innovation still happens.”   

Good point Bill but if you think the United States is so unique with doubters of evolution than the rest of the world and yet this is the place where most of the innovation still happens, what’s the problem?

I mean, countries like South Korea who have a strong Darwinian belief among its government and population, one would think they should be advancing faster than the United States not the other way around! Let me tell you something,  Bill should be suggesting that other countries should follow the US model with its uniqueness.

Here is Bill’s third fallacy…

“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”

Where have you been Bill? There are a lot of inconsistencies concerning many different parts of evolution with new discoveries that happen almost everyday. What you are suggesting is that you require indoctrination of evolution so they can spend more of their hard-earned money through taxes. This is not to say scientific research should not be funded. The amounts and where it is going is in dispute.

What does engineers have to do with evolution? Did the spacecraft messenger evolve by an unguided process to obtain new raw data from Mercury? Was the spacecraft “Curiously” which just landed on Mars,  and is just beginning its two-year mission (possibly longer), a by-product of an unguided process called, evolution or intelligently designed by engineers?

Bill’s forth fallacy…

“…analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. .…” Listen Bill, creationists believe in Tectonic plate theory if there are any mainstream creationist leaders who don’t, then you should have named them.

Bill’s Fifth fallacy…

“Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution.”

Really Bill? In science daily, it says…

“Evolution is a lot of fun, said Bejerano, who plans to continue the investigation into what the ultraconserved segments might be doing. “You answer one question, and five others pop up.”

That doesn’t sound like things are increasing in clarity with trying to explain it within the evolutionary framework. In fact,  Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It. Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman , Ph.D., Boston University, Lehigh University, claim that if one embraces an intelligent designer, one wouldn’t look for anymore causes, suggesting science would all of a sudden stop. Or another words embracing an intelligent designer would make things too simple. And here in Bill’s video he tries to make the oppose argument while coming to the same conclusion.

Updated: Sept 1, 2012…A Creationist Response to Bill by CMI…

Updated: Sept 3, 2012…More videos in response to Bill by Answers In Genesis

Ken Ham responding also to Bill…

But whatever angle these evolutionists tried to attack creationism, they are fallacies invented by them either by bias or by embracing the lie. It is quite clear that their arguments are based purely on emotion with nothing else to back them up. Dawkins a well-known atheist once said that the universe “appears” to be designed, that is because the universe was designed by the most intelligent mind ever known to man, God himself!

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “Fallacies Invented By This Anti-Creation Video

  1. The proposition of denial of evolution on an educational level is exclusive to the US.
    People don’t “invent” fallacies. A fallacy is a flawed argument in which the logic does not bear out.

  2. The proposition of denial of evolution on an educational level is exclusive to the US

    Sad to say, pinkagendist, Michael is correct here. In the leading technological countries of Romania, Serbia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Lebanon, teaching evolution has been legally banned. A few others, such as Turkey, South Korea,[1] and Queensland Australia teach creationism in the schools.

    And, contrary to Bill Nye, popular belief in creationism is worldwide. In Europe, the UK, Russia, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have influential political support.[2] Antipathy toward evolution is widespread in Mideastern Islamic countries.(Iran’s position is similar to theistic evolution—mainstream evolution with a soupçon of divine guidance.) Although creationism does not enjoy overwhelming support in Australia, their leaders have been influential there, and have offloaded several major organizations to the US.

    The US situation poses a conundrum, Scientifically advanced and technologically innovative, yet backward in terms of science education. My thinking on this topic is that we are polarized here, as we are in politics, and becoming more so. Most of the citizenry is uneducated in good science, and tends to lean toward creationism—probably more from ignorance than from any strong belief. On the other hand, there are many citizens who have the ability to overcome this limitation.[3] There are also many Americans whose family backgrounds encourage learning and are not hobbled by pressures of fundamentalist religious belief: Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Jews.[4] And of course there are the 85,000 immigrants that the US has to import every year because of the poor scientific background of so many resident Americans. Glance at a list of award-winning scientists and successful technical innovators; one will not find creationists among them.

    So the US is scientifically dissociating into a cream of successful technologists and a whey of those unable or unwilling to participate because of their anti-scientific beliefs.[5] This of course furthers the polarization, as those in the left-behind whey become less and less able to understand the physical world, and tend to coagulate with each other for the group security of their common beliefs. In this regard, good science teaching would be able to give the children of the left-behind a chance to lift themselves out of the sediment that their environment presses upon them.[6]

    Bill Nye is correct that creationism impedes progress. Although the US as a whole is in the forefront of science and technology,[7] it is only the cream that places us there. The whey contributes nothing. The successful technologist stratum includes few or no creationists, who are found only in the dregs of those who consume science and technology, but who contribute nothing to it. Teaching the false precepts of creationism to children decreases the pool of people who can contribute in the future.

    It is useful to note that major countries having a small or no creationist following, such as China, Japan, India, and Singapore, are the rising stars in terms of scientific papers, technical education, and economic advances, whereas those countries with strong creationism are increasingly fading into he background.

    It is beyond contention that wherever creationism has arisen, it has done so only from religious motivation, and never from any independent physical evidence or logical considerations. Every organization that espouses creationism—including intelligent design—does so for religious reasons. Almost without exception, everyone who believes in creationism/intelligent design does so because of religious belief—the number of agnostic or atheist followers is vanishingly small.[8].

    It is also true that creationism, in whatever form, has never employed its theories or principles to advance understanding of any physical phenomenon, nor has it ever made any advances toward human well-being nor control of physical environment. For this reason alone creationism should not waste our time in schools.

    ==============

    [1] Surprise, surprise! Creationism employs a wide measure of political support in South Korea. It is entirely backed by religious influence; Christianity is the largest single religious faith there. (Although most Koreans profess no religion at all.)

    [2] They even managed to get a BBC video on evolution banned from state TV a couple years ago.

    [3] Acceptance of evolution correlates strongly with educational level. By graduate school, creationist belief is very small. This is why creationists fear higher education.

    [4] Is it not amazing that Jews, who gave us Genesis in the first place. do not support creationism or biblical literalism? What do thye know that creationists don’t?

    [5] Not to suggest that this is the only reason for the divide. But I think it is a major contributor.

    [6] However, several studies have shown that exposure to scientific facts is not very successful in replacing religious beliefs. Note Michael’s sometime hilarious inconsistencies in denying scientific findings. Michael often commits errors not solely based upon his astounding ignorance of the subject matter, but because he is mentally unable to grasp the basic concepts that science employs. For example, be clings to the belief that every complex system requires a designer, whereas the mathematics of computation and of systems theory demonstrate that this is not so. Complex systems are capable of self-organization (Auyang), and even of self-reproduction (Von Neumann).

    [7] For how long is a valid question, however. An increasing fraction is shifting toward Asia.

    [8] Michael may trot out a couple of agnostics or even atheists who hold ID views.. These are outliers, and even they invoke supernatural entities for their {insert-favorite-godlike-entity}-of-the-gaps arguments.

  3. That doesn’t sound like things are increasing in clarity with trying to explain it [sic] within the evolutionary framework. In fact, Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It. Taught By Professor Steven L. Goldman , Ph.D., Boston University, Lehigh University, claim that if one embraces an intelligent designer, one wouldn’t look for anymore [sic] causes, suggesting science would all of a sudden stop.

    Michael quotes Prof. Goldman fraudulently.[1]

    Prof. Goldman’s point is that intelligent design always stops at the top level, answering every question with “God did it.” Science, n the other hand, digs deeper to find further truths and implications of every discovery. Einstein discovered relativity, and noted a few of its consequences. In the century since then, hundreds of papers per year have investigated how relativity explains black holes, how gravitational lensing occurs, and dozens of other questions that had no answers previously. So Goldman’s view, expressed in the lecture series, is that creationist explanations are useless, because they do not raise additional lines of inquiry.[1]

    I have a copy of this series, and have listened to it a couple times. I can therefore state from personal knowledge that Michael is once again fraudulently misstating the facts, Once more, he hopes that no one will check up on him and find out that he’s lying to us.

    Desperate, Michael, desperate

    ============

    [1] Throughout the series, Goldman employs creationism as an egregious example of what no one would call “science.” Michael quotes a source who says the exact opposite to what Michael claims. Is that really the best he can do?

  4. Almost without exception, everyone who believes in creationism/intelligent design does so because of religious belief—the number of agnostic or atheist followers is vanishingly small.

    Bulverism

    So Goldman’s view, expressed in the lecture series, is that creationist explanations are useless, because they do not raise additional lines of inquiry

    That’s incorrect because even if one were to say “God did it,” one could they still work to find out how “God did it” which is what creationists like Kepler and Boyle were doing.

  5. Almost without exception, everyone who believes in creationism/intelligent design does so because of religious belief—the number of agnostic or atheist followers is vanishingly small.

    Bulverism

    Hi, Bulverism—

    The number of life-science researchers is about 440,000. What would be vanishingly small? 44? (0.01%)

    Name 44 agnostics or atheists who believe in creationism/ID.

  6. Name 44 agnostics or atheists who believe in creationism/ID.

    Argument from ignorance and appeal to popularity.

  7. That’s incorrect because even if one were to say “God did it,” one could they still work to find out how “God did it” which is what creationists like Kepler and Boyle were doing.

    Please check off below which creationist principle(s) that Kepler employed to figure out whether the earth revolves around the sun—
    >> The earth was created in six days.
    >> The moon gives off its own light, independently of the sun.
    >> The sun and the moon were created on the same day.
    >> The earth had light before the sun or the moon existed.
    >> The stars mark sacred times.
    >> The sun stood still upon Gibeon.
    >> The moon stood still the in valley of Ajalon
    >> The moon can give off as much light as the sun.
    >> If the stars go dark, the moon will cease to shine.
    >> The earth has water both above and below the sky.
    >> Earthquakes are caused by God shaking the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land.
    >> OTHER. Please specify in detail.

    Please indicate which biblical passages Robert Boyle found helpful in relating the pressure and temperature of a gas to its volume—
    >> {Sorry, you’ll have to make up your own list for this one.}

    Moving toward the present time, what advances has the Creation Research Society made since its founding in the 1950s? What experiments has it conducted to test its hypotheses? What fossils have been unearthed by its field expeditions? What new medical treatments, insights into nuclear physics, astronomical predictions, or other benefits has it produced for mankind? The Discovery Institute operates the well-funded Biologic Institute. Experiments? Field expeditions? Advances in biology, physics, cosmology? Litigation—oops, sorry; plenty of litigation.

    There certainly are questions aplenty for creationists to address in their own bailiwick. What are the purposes of biological designs? How are individual designs formulateded? Are new designs still being generated today? What is the mechanism by which an immaterial being manipulates matter? (Imagine the stupendous consequences of noodling that one out! Not to mention the egg on the faces of mainstream scientists. Certainly worth lifting a finger or two for a bit of research, n’est-ce pas?)

    Do creationists address these or other questions? No. Do they even try? No. Are they likely to? No.

    Meanwhile, studying the evolution of the mammalian heart from the reptilian last year has resulted in finding the cause of a human congenital heart defect. Research into the evolution of taste buds revealed that the previous theory of taste was incorrect. Biologists have reconstructed a 450-million year old protein, and found that it functions correctly. The location of one of the first tetrapods was predicted—and its fossils discovered.

    By their fruits shall you judge them. Right?

  8. Argument from ignorance and appeal to popularity.

    Bulverism, you questioned the accuracy of my statement. I requested evidence for your contention that my statement is incorrect.

    How does that involve an argument from ignorance, or an appeal to popularity? Inquiring minds want to know.

  9. All of these are irrelevant to how “God did it.” These are at best what “God did” (assuming these are creationist dogma). Some issues nonetheless:

    The moon gives off its own light, independently of the sun – AIG disagrees [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/28/contradictions-by-the-light-of-the-moon]

    The earth had light before the sun or the moon existed – this can be explained as initial scattered light which was ordered by the sun and moon (this and other explanations can be found in bible commentaries, many freely available online)

    The stars mark sacred times – the moon for instance, is used as an indicator of the time to plant and reap

    The sun stood still upon Gibeon – often considered either miraculous or metaphorical

    The moon can give off as much light as the sun: source?

    If the stars go dark, the moon will cease to shine: source?

    The earth has water both above and below the sky – the air has moisture and there is an ocean below the sky so I’m not sure I follow where this comes from?

    Earthquakes are caused by God shaking the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land – where is this a creationist assertion?

  10. I did not inquire about the truth, falsity, or interpretation of any of those creationist principles.

    You claimed that that Kepler was a creationist. My question is, how did those or any other creationist principles aid Kepler in discovering the rotation of the earth about the sun? For example, Newton’s gravitational principle led to the later discovery of Neptune, which had never before been seen or even imagined. So how does, for example, a 6-day creation of the earth lead to heliocentrism, or indeed to a new understanding or control of any physical phenomenon whatsoever?

    By their fruits shall you know them.

  11. Please indicate which biblical passages Robert Boyle found helpful in relating the pressure and temperature of a gas to its volume

    Non sequitur. Assuming “God did it” and finding out how “God did it” does not automatically mean that they had to resort to the bible as it is not a science manual. Matthew Maury however, did use a bible passage but this does not mean that he could not have found out sea current on his own.

    Moving toward the present time, what advances has the Creation Research Society made since its founding in the 1950s? What experiments has it conducted to test its hypotheses? What fossils have been unearthed by its field expeditions? What new medical treatments, insights into nuclear physics, astronomical predictions, or other benefits has it produced for mankind?

    Yes, this is a valid point. They have produced little but since they have little resources to begin with, it is not quite unsurprising. It was only circa 1980 that they built their research centre. One prediction is that of Humprey’s Mercurial rock magnetization. Some predictions said to be successful are here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions. The list as you can see is short. Since the bible is more a social science book, why have you not asked if a creationist framework works better there? While evolution is a good framework and does fit the evidence many times, it is based on assumptions which are not scientific. Thus even if evolution did produce many successful predictions, it does so in a localized manner (biology separate from physics for example). It assumes abiogenesis which has yet to be shown scientifically. This also assumes that truth only comes through science which creationist would argue, it does not. Also, one must ask which evo prediction cannot be valid under a creationist paradigm and there are some claimed evo predictions which are based on so-called micro-evolution such as disease resistance. This would also be valid under a creationist rubric.

  12. There certainly are questions aplenty for creationists to address in their own bailiwick. What are the purposes of biological designs?

    Frankly, I don’t see how this is relevant. It was designed for its functional purpose, an eye to see and all that.

    How are individual designs formulateded?

    The initial designs in Genesis or new ones?

    Are new designs still being generated today?

    It is assumed that there are new designs generated by mutations and natural selection.

    What is the mechanism by which an immaterial being manipulates matter? (Imagine the stupendous consequences of noodling that one out! Not to mention the egg on the faces of mainstream scientists. Certainly worth lifting a finger or two for a bit of research, n’est-ce pas?)

    That would be to presume to know how God would do things which is generally anathema.

    Do creationists address these or other questions? No. Do they even try? No. Are they likely to? No.

    These questions are irrelevant. Creationists have contributed to science by doing science in whatever field they specialize. Those who delve into ‘creation science’ have done some work in baraminology and flood modeling among others. I would not comment on the effectiveness of their work as most are still in infancy. However, if you care for what they are researching, why not send them a mail and post their reply?

    Meanwhile, studying the evolution of the mammalian heart from the reptilian last year has resulted in finding the cause of a human congenital heart defect. Research into the evolution of taste buds revealed that the previous theory of taste was incorrect. Biologists have reconstructed a 450-million year old protein, and found that it functions correctly. The location of one of the first tetrapods was predicted—and its fossils discovered.

    And exactly how did investigating the “evolution” aspects of a mammalian heart lead to finding the cause of a human congenital defect? Does creationism state that human hearts and reptilian hearts are so different that they cannot be compared? Since I don’t know about these issues, could you post links to their papers?

    By their fruits shall you judge them. Right?

    Yes, so what’s the compression algorithm for the singularity? How did abiogenesis occur? Where does the gene for love located? Where is the sequence for the intelligence gene? How does nothing explode?

  13. Bulverism, you questioned the accuracy of my statement. I requested evidence for your contention that my statement is incorrect.

    How does that involve an argument from ignorance, or an appeal to popularity? Inquiring minds want to know.

    I simply listed your fallacies which says nothing as to if you are correct. Numbers are an appeal to authority (e.g. Project Steve). An argument from ignorance is to assume that the majority is correct because the minority haven’t yet proven something to be false.

  14. I did not inquire about the truth, falsity, or interpretation of any of those creationist principles.

    I know, hence I said “Some issues nonetheless:”

    You claimed that that Kepler was a creationist. My question is, how did those or any other creationist principles aid Kepler in discovering the rotation of the earth about the sun? For example, Newton’s gravitational principle led to the later discovery of Neptune, which had never before been seen or even imagined. So how does, for example, a 6-day creation of the earth lead to heliocentrism, or indeed to a new understanding or control of any physical phenomenon whatsoever?

    See first sentence below your post.

    By their fruits shall you know them.

    Yes, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

  15. Do creationists address these or other questions? No. Do they even try? No. Are they likely to? No.

    These questions are irrelevant. Creationists have contributed to science by doing science in whatever field they specialize.

    Wow. The most important type of questions that science addresses are irrelevant! HOW gravitational force holds galaxies together. HOW evolution innovates new functions. HOW quantum nonlocalization occurs. WHAT is the nature of space/time.

    And yet the process by which God implements a mental design in material form is not only irrelevant, but “generally anathema”! Incredible.

    If we needed any further evidence that creationism brings nothing to the table of science, we have it here

    That’s incorrect because even if one were to say “God did it,” one could they still work to find out how “God did it” which is what creationists like Kepler and Boyle were doing.

    Once again, the question is not what creationists may have discovered, but rather what creationism contributed to the discovery. If, as you say, the Bible “is not a science manual,” then why would creationism have any bearing on Kepler’s discoveries? Why claim him as a creationist? Besides, Kepler must not have been a very good creationist. I seem to remember the Church dumping several large loads of Higgs bosons on him for teaching theories contrary to the Bible.

    So what is left of the connection between Kepler and creationism? Zero. Nichts. Rien. Walang. Betsuni. E wa. ничто. Did I mention Nothing? Pierre Curie did not apply French principles to to the discovery of radioactivity. Newton’s extensive work on biblical codes seems not to have led to any laws of motion. (In fact Newton’s bibilical research in later life was accompanied by a sharp decline in his scientific output.)

    .

    It certainly is true that the reason many early scientists undertook their endeavors was to discern God’s plan in the universe. What they uniformly found, however, was that that plan did not comport with Genesis. For example, Kepler, Lyell, Hutton, Linneaus, Darwin.. (As a young man, Darwin was quite impressed with William Paley’s natural theology—the intelligent design of its day.)

    Once more with feeling: Creationism has never contributed to any scientific advance.. Not one. Not now, not ever. It is fruitless and of no scientific value whatever.

  16. Wow. The most important type of questions that science addresses are irrelevant! HOW gravitational force holds galaxies together. HOW evolution innovates new functions. HOW quantum nonlocalization occurs. WHAT is the nature of space/time.

    I’m surprised you would make such a childish statement since your posts seem so well organized and erudite. I apologize for my inaccurate expectations. HINT: Context is important.

    And yet the process by which God implements a mental design in material form is not only irrelevant, but “generally anathema”! Incredible.

    Selective quoting or is it selective understanding on your part?

    Once again, the question is not what creationists may have discovered, but rather what creationism contributed to the discovery. If, as you say, the Bible “is not a science manual,” then why would creationism have any bearing on Kepler’s discoveries? Why claim him as a creationist?

    Creationism provided a framework for said science a la God is methodical, his creation can also be understood by methodological laws and principles. Evolution is not methodical, there is no reason why a law (under evo thinking) cannot change due to a selective pressure or a combination thereof.

  17. Besides, Kepler must not have been a very good creationist. I seem to remember the Church dumping several large loads of Higgs bosons on him for teaching theories contrary to the Bible.

    Again, irrelevant. One can be a creationist and be incorrect about other theology. On a test, can one not get a high grade yet have incorrect answers?

    n fact Newton’s bibilical research in later life was accompanied by a sharp decline in his scientific output

    Correlation does not always equal causation

    It certainly is true that the reason many early scientists undertook their endeavors was to discern God’s plan in the universe. What they uniformly found, however, was that that plan did not comport with Genesis. For example, Kepler, Lyell, Hutton, Linneaus, Darwin.. (As a young man, Darwin was quite impressed with William Paley’s natural theology—the intelligent design of its day.)

    Strawman. The issue was if creationism created inquiry. The fact that there were creationists who paved early science shows that you are wrong. Whether creationism is correct is not the issue.

    Once more with feeling: Creationism has never contributed to any scientific advance.. Not one. Not now, not ever. It is fruitless and of no scientific value whatever.

    Contradiction as per your above statement. Seriously, can you please stop with the logical fallacies?! I see that you are like most anti-creationists and atheists I have met who always selectively answer questions in my posts while I’m taking lots of time to quote and respond to most of your drivel. Anyhow, do us “never contributed to any scientific advance” creationists a favour and answer 2 questions I previously posed which were:

    How did abiogenesis occur? How does nothing explode?

    For me, continuity is important (apparently not for evolutionists). Thus I need a logical start (nothing magically creates a singularity which then explodes to magically create a universe) with no gap between non-life and life (the magic of abiogenesis).

  18. Ratz. Dropped a blockquote on my foot again. One of these days I’ll invest in an HTML editor.

    .

    Those who delve into ‘creation science’ have done some work in baraminology and flood modeling among others. I would not comment on the effectiveness of their work as most are still in infancy. However, if you care for what they are researching, why not send them a mail and post their reply?

    I do follow the creationist attempts at research sporadically. Several papers on different subjects are reviewed my comments in this blog, from July 13 through July 18. The emphasis there was on the necessity for miracles—no matter how many “scientific” steps were described, a miraculous assumption had to appear somewhere in the chain to make it work.[1]

    These papers also demonstrate other facets of creationists claimed research. None of the papers suggested any sort of test that could confirm or falsify their hypotheses.[2] None of the papers offered any sort of experimental results; they consisted entirely of argument from data that had been gathered by real scientists. None of them made any predictions as to what their theories might find in the future.[3]

    I read every issue of Science, Nature, Sigma Xi’s American Scientist, and other journals. Comparing their papers to those in AiG’s Answers Journal and CSRQ is risible. The creationist journals are not written for peers in the field at all; they are written to impress laymen—great gobs of highly footnoted but elementary mainstream science as introduction, then a paragraph or two of creationist claims, introduced by, “If we assume that….” without any evidentiary support. They frequently conclude with “Future investigation will confirm that….” .

    Creationist organizations claim poverty and youth for lack of results. However, they seem to be well-funded The Creation Research Society has been in business since the 1950s, and operates a graduate school in Texas.[4] The Biologic[5] Institute was founded by the Discovery Institute in 2005, but has rebuffed reporters, claiming that its “research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.” The only work to appear in print has been a paper proposing an evolutionary model of written characters in the Mandarin language. The DI lists a number of staff members for the Biologic Institute, but it has no street address or physical facility.

    Such is the stuff of creationist research. There is good reason for them to avoid actual experimental studies. Confirmatory results would merely reinforce what they already know to be true. On the other hand, untoward results would constitute major egg on the face, and have to be explained away.[6]

    ================

    [1] My favorite was a paper proclaiming that magnetic monopoles could affect radioactive decay rates to account for a young age of the earth. Tracing the steps, their explanation required the existence of monopoles, which have never been found and which are in fact prohibited by Maxwell’s equations. The paper required them concentrated in the earth and nowhere else, and in such vast quantities as to choke a unicorn. BTW,the authors used Maxwell’s equations to calculate the necessary monopole flux, even though these equations prohibit monopoles! Then, if one looks at what the paper did not say, we find that their theory would affect only one of the dozen decay processes that are used in radiometric dating. And only on the earth, leaving rates measured on other planets—and in space—unaffected. AND THEN another paper in AiG—by one of the co-authors—contradicts the monopole hypothesis, by proposing a different, incompatible reason for altered decay rates. This is a good example of why creationists do not submit to peer review. The reviewers would laugh their heads off.

    [2] It is of course standard practice in science to offer results for replication and testing.

    [3] The purpose of a scientific theory is to predict as-yet unknown data. As Kuhn pointed out, many theories can be made to fit data that is already known. (“The overdetermination of theory by facts.”) The value of a theory is to extend knowledge to other situations. No creationist theory has ever made a valid prediction about the physical world.

    [4] Last year it was denied academic accreditation. An appeal affirmed the denial.

    [5] Get it? BIO(logical) LOGIC. Heh heh.

    [6] In contradistinction, a number of scientists have proposed that AAAS establish a Journal of Negative Results where hypotheses from failed experiments could be published so that others could avoid having to repeat them.

    [7] Please pardon the lack of explicit attribution for quotations. Michael’s WordPress filter kicks out comments with too many links as probable spam.

  19. answer 2 questions I previously posed which were:

    How did abiogenesis occur? How does nothing explode?

    The main argument of creationists does not produce any evidence for creation, but rather appeals to what science does not yet know—“God of the Gaps,” combined with false dichotomy.

    There are actually too many hypotheses for abiogenesis, not too few. Without knowing more detail about the early environment, it is not possible to narrow them down or or to refine them. However, a number of reactions necessary for life from inorganic chemicals have been demonstrated in the lab. Spontaneous formation of amino acids from C, N, and water. Spontaneous formation of lipid vesicles (a la cell walls) from naturally occurring fatty acids. Autocatalytic reactions for producing the compounds needed for energy are known. The ability of RNA to both reproduce itself and catalyze metabolic reactions (enzyme action).[1].

    Now may I ask how far creationism has progressed in explaining abiogenesis? How many experiments have been conducted to gather evidence of abiogenesis, or to fathom the processes by which it might have occurred? .How was the Krebs cycle constructed? Why does every living organism, archea to man, use ATP to store energy? Why were RNA-based organisms created along with DNA? (DNA is superior in every way to RNA for storing genetic information.)[2]

    How does nothing explode? Random quantum fluctuation is one way.[3] Cosmologists find such fluctuations in the early cosmic background radiation. But not all current hypotheses require nothing as an initial state. Brane theories posit colliding multidimensional entities as the source of our universe. Multiverse theories posit huge numbers of universes that form continually. At present, there is insufficient data to choose among the alternatives. Meanwhile, the string theorists slug it out with the quantum-loop advocates, each advancing evidence for their position. Evidence—that’s the key point.

    Now one might ask how creationists explain the beginning of the universe. Remember, an explanation is more than “Go did it on a slow week in heaven.” We’d like to know where mass comes from, how to account for hot quark-gluon plasmas, and other aspects. We’d like to know that creationists are not just smugly denying that such questions are relevant, or that they constitute blasphemy.

    “God did it” as the be-all and end-all of explanation is yet another reason why creationism does not qualify as science. As the astronomers say, “An explanation that explains everything explains nothing.”

    Creationism has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control. .

    ==============
    [1] Recent experiments have disclosed molecules other than RNA and DNA that are capable of reproduction.

    [2] Remember that “God did it” does not explain anything by itself. Only HOW God did matters.

    [3] The measured net electrical charge of the universe has been measured to be ZERO. The net magnetic moment of the entire universe is ZERO. The total angular momentum of the universe is ZERO. The net mass/energy of the entire universe has been measured as ZERO within a small margin of error. So “something” did not proceed from nothing. Nothing proceeded from nothing. You might read Brian Greene’s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.

  20. Bulwerism, I think you are missing a foundational point in all of my comments, which I keep repeating without avail. It is true that creationists have contributed to science. What is not true is that creation has, or ever will, contribute anything. Until you can get that through your head, O fear we are at an impasse..

  21. Sorry. a lapsus clavis introduced a small but significant error in the above comment—

    Bulwerism, I think you are missing a foundational point in all of my comments, which I keep repeating without avail. It is true that creationists have contributed to science. What is not true is that creationism has, or ever will, contribute anything. Until you can get that through your head, O fear we are at an impasse..

  22. Frankly, I am annoyed with creationist research because it seems unfocused and not well thought out. It would seem that there has not been a concerted attempt to systematically analyze the data but that everyone is doing their own thing and hoping for the best. Only yesterday I ordered the 2008 ICC presentation DVD so I’ll be able to see exactly what they have been doing all these years. While I understand your position that their journals are not up to scratch, many articles in peer reviewed journals in psychology for example, are atrocious. Few evolutionists seem to care that there are racists using evolution in peer reviewed journals. As for financing, unless you have some form of inside information, I would not make accusations. That’s speculation and since you clamour about evidence and the scientific method, why engage in this?

  23. However, a number of reactions necessary for life from inorganic chemicals have been demonstrated in the lab…..

    Which experiments are these? Hopefully not Miller-Urey. Could you provide some links?

    Now may I ask how far creationism has progressed in explaining abiogenesis?

    Creationism does not assume abiogenesis, it assumes creation ex nihilo

    Why were RNA-based organisms created along with DNA? (DNA is superior in every way to RNA for storing genetic information.)

    So DNA and RNA are interchangeable? Can you live without your RNA? RNA has no unique purpose except to store information?

    [2] Remember that “God did it” does not explain anything by itself. Only HOW God did matters.

    You seem to think that God (if he existed) would have to use a scientific way of manipulating matter. If this is so, by what feat of logic is this plausible?

    [3] The measured net electrical charge of the universe has been measured to be ZERO. The net magnetic moment of the entire universe is ZERO. The total angular momentum of the universe is ZERO. The net mass/energy of the entire universe has been measured as ZERO within a small margin of error. So “something” did not proceed from nothing. Nothing proceeded from nothing. You might read Brian Greene’s book The Fabric of the Cosmos.

    You’re pulling a Lawrence Krauss by redefining nothing. A net charge of zero is not nothing, it is something that has the same measured net charge as nothing i.e. charge: +1 + (-1) = 0 (no measured charge as if there were nothing initially to add). A quantum fluctuation is not nothing since it requires something to fluctuate. Thanks for the book recommendation though.

    Evidence—that’s the key point

    I would argue it is evidence and interpretation but I digress. You stated that there are other theories which do not require a vacuum big bang model such as Brane and the multiverse. Please state what experiments have identified any other dimension other than the one we exist in presently? And how does this differ from the creationist view that God exists in a different dimension?

    Now one might ask how creationists explain the beginning of the universe. Remember, an explanation is more than “Go did it on a slow week in heaven.” We’d like to know where mass comes from, how to account for hot quark-gluon plasmas, and other aspects. We’d like to know that creationists are not just smugly denying that such questions are relevant, or that they constitute blasphemy.

    Creationism explains the universe as a physical manifestation of the creative power of God who is the only uncaused cause of everything in our 4D dimension. Mass comes from particles that are not naturally visible (Heb 11:3 – one possible interpretation of this verse) and the quark-gluon plasma may not be necessary on a creationist model (God may not have ‘banged’).

  24. “God did it” as the be-all and end-all of explanation is yet another reason why creationism does not qualify as science. As the astronomers say, “An explanation that explains everything explains nothing.”

    ‘Nothing had a quantum fluctuation’ or a ‘multiverse occurrence did it’ does not qualify as science theory but as hypothesis. It is also a hypothesis that God has to exist to be the uncaused cause so that an infinite regression does not occur. Since being personal is superior to being impersonal, God is personal or closer to the personal than to the impersonal. The only personal God is that of Judaism and Christianity, both of which use Genesis for the origin of matter and mind. Genesis states that God created the universe by divine fiat, not by physical naturalism. Natural laws were implemented after creation to sustain order because he is a God of order and evidence for his design is evident in his creation so that man is without excuse.

    Evolution cannot explain what caused the primal cause of the quantum fluctuation or the multiverse collision. Evolution thus has to regress infinitely or have a starting point. If it has a starting point and the starting point is material (i.e. a singularity), then it has to explain what caused the singularity (and what algorithm contained all matter in the universe in an infinitesimally small space). If the starting point is immaterial (an extra-dimensional multiverse), it has to explain what causes this extra-dimension to affect our present dimension and why, given that the multiverse might not even operate by our dimensional laws. Of course, one would still need to find the cause for the multiverse and the cause for the cause of the multiverse and so on, ad infinitum.

    Creationism has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control.

    Incorrect, Gen 1:1 (Amp) states: “In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth”

    Thus one can understand from the first verse that (a.) time has a beginning (b.) God is the uncaused cause of the universe who existed at the beginning (c.) the heavens and the earth exist (d.) the heaven is separated (by some extent) from the earth hence their separate mention (e.) the creations would in their structure indicate some aspect of the nature of the creator i.e. the natural laws governing the creations are derived from the innate ordered characteristic of God and (f.) things created would indicate common design or homology.

    Cosmology, mathematics and philosophy confirm (a.) with all of the other sciences using it axiomatically, philosophy confirms (b.), all of science confirms (c.) to (e.), (f.) is confirmed by chemistry and evolutionary biology.

  25. To nitpick, the term is bulVerism not bulWerism, from C.S. Lewis’s God in the Docks.

  26. Finally, we’re sort of[1] getting back to the question that I posed originally—

    Creationism has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control.

    Incorrect, Gen 1:1 (Amp) states: “In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth”

    Thus one can understand from the first verse that (a.) time has a beginning (b.) God is the uncaused cause of the universe who existed at the beginning (c.) the heavens and the earth exist (d.) the heaven is separated (by some extent) from the earth hence their separate mention (e.) the creations would in their structure indicate some aspect of the nature of the creator i.e. the natural laws governing the creations are derived from the innate ordered characteristic of God and (f.) things created would indicate common design or homology.

    Let’s take these principles individually, to determine whether or not they have explained any physical phenomenon in a way that hes led to any scientific discovery for understanding or control.

    (a) In the 1920s, the consensus was Einstein’s hypothesis that time had NO beginning. Then Georges Lemaître formulated what later became the Big Bang hypothesis, positing an origin of time. The rest of us all think the inspiration for this was growing evidence that the universe is expanding.

    In what way did the biblical text “lead to” or have anything to do with the discovery? Is there any evidence that this occurred? As a priest, Lemaître would probably have mentioned a biblical inspiration, if it had informed his thinking. In view of the work of Alexander Friedmann, H.P. Robinson, and A.G. Walker, you’ll need some cogent historical evidence to back up a contention that Genesis 1 had anything to do with a theory that time had a beginning, or explains it.

    Besides, not all current cosmological theories posit a beginning of time: Cyclic universes, Brane theory, Multiverses do not. Might God have gotten it wrong?

    (b) A category error. Uncaused causation is a philosophical argument[2], not a scientific discovery, and does not explain anything nor suggest any means for controlling an uncaused entity. In fact, science has eschewed uncaused causation ever since Abelard introduced the concept of explanatory closure 800 years ago.

    (c) That the earth exists hardly needs any biblical narrative. Homo erectus knew that a million years ago when he stepped on a sharp rock. Not a scientific discovery, not an explanation. The existence of “the heavens” is not a scientific inquiry but a theological one. Thus it is not the subject of any scientific discovery attributable to that principle. If by “heavens” you refer merely to “sky, then Homo erectus was also aware that something existed above the earth, so is not attributable to any creationist principle.

    (d) The separation of “the heaven” (in the sense of “sky”) could also be deduced by our remote ancestors. Please adduce any evidence that the separation of earth and sky has led to any scientific discovery or explained any phenomenon.

    (e) Again, the existence of natural law in general—that is, the existence or orderliness in the universe—was known to ancient Greek philosophers without any knowledge of or input from Genesis. (In fact, you might try explaining how Genesis describes the existence of scientific laws; I think you’re fully into hindsight mode.)

    You claim that “the natural laws governing the creations are derived from the innate ordered characteristic of God.” First, name a specific characteristic of God as described in the Bible. Then relate that characteristic to a natural law, such as Boyle’s law or Vavilov’s law or Cassini’s laws or Maxwell’s laws. Finally,using your chosen pair of divine characteristic and scientific law, explain how knowledge of the particular divine characteristic inspired the discoverer to come up with the particular law,or explained the subject physical phenomenon, or allowed us to use it for our own purposes.

    (f) First, homology implies macroevolutionary biology[3] Creationism denies macroevolution, therefore it denies homology. A concept that goes against biblical teaching can hardly be said to have been discovered from that teaching, or to explain it..

    Second, common design (I assume you mean by an external agent) is a contention of creationism, but has never amassed any physical evidence, much less been the subject of a scientific discovery. Even William Dembski’s vaunted explanatory filter fails to distinguish in practice between naturalistic sources and intentional designs.[4]

    Once more: Creationism has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control, nor contributed to any scientific discovery. Therefore, creationism has no valid claim to constitute science.[5] The six proposed examples above are either historically untenable, outside the ambit of scientific discovery, or contrary to the creationist principles from which they are said to be derived.

    ==============

    [1] Remember, however, that I did not inquire about the truth or falsity of these principles per se. Thus—

    Cosmology, mathematics and philosophy confirm (a.) with all of the other sciences using it axiomatically, philosophy confirms (b.), all of science confirms (c.) to (e.), (f.) is confirmed by chemistry and evolutionary biology.

    —is irrelevant as hors d’œuvre the question. (Some of it is factually incorrect as well.)

    [2] Even here, this philosophical principle was first advanced by Plato (The Laws, Book X). As far as anyone knows, Plato was not even aware of the Hebrew Genesis, so could not have used it as a source or inspiration. If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it.

    [3] Homology—“Biology a a fundamental similarity based on common descent.” (dictionary.com). Homologous—“2. Biology: Similar in structure and evolutionary origin, though not necessarily in function.” (American Heritage Dictionary).

    [4] At least, when put to the test by others. Dembski himself refuses to test it for false positives or false negatives in specific circumstances. (Quelle surprise!) Biblical creationists have such a flimsy notion as to how to define “common design” that they cannot even apply the notion to the physical world consistently. Witness the airy speculations of the baraminologists as to what might or might not be a common design. That is, even the creationists themselves cannot discover a law for “common design” from what the Bible says or implies. Now that’s sad.

    [5] The only reason for this claim in the first place is that the public holds scientific knowledge in much higher regard than religious pronouncements. Gone is the day when Martin Luther could be taken seriously justify geocentrism because the Bible mandates it. Today such a claim would be met with laughter. Thus naive biblical literalists must arrogate the cloak of science.

  27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THIS JUST IN

    The current issue of Nature draws a parallel between a sea of milk through which the Hindu gods struggled and, the discovery of the Higgs boson, whose field retards massive particles.

    Might we suppose that Satyendra Nath Bose will clam that the Bhagavad Gita explains the Higgs, or led to its discovery?

  28. Besides, not all current cosmological theories posit a beginning of time: Cyclic universes, Brane theory, Multiverses do not. Might God have gotten it wrong?

    Irrelevant, God if he exists and if he did create the world, will not be invalidated by changes in science or changes in creationist interpretation. Also, I asked before: “Please state what experiments have identified any other dimension other than the one we exist in presently? And how does this differ from the creationist view that God exists in a different dimension?” I am hoping for more posts since you seem to have glossed over much of what I wrote to focus on the last part.

    (b) A category error. Uncaused causation is a philosophical argument[2], not a scientific discovery, and does not explain anything nor suggest any means for controlling an uncaused entity. In fact, science has eschewed uncaused causation ever since Abelard introduced the concept of explanatory closure 800 years ago.

    The uncaused cause may be philosophical but science is based on philosophical principles such as the laws of logic. There is no category error.

    c) That the earth exists hardly needs any biblical narrative. Homo erectus knew that a million years ago when he stepped on a sharp rock. Not a scientific discovery, not an explanation. The existence of “the heavens” is not a scientific inquiry but a theological one. Thus it is not the subject of any scientific discovery attributable to that principle. If by “heavens” you refer merely to “sky, then Homo erectus was also aware that something existed above the earth, so is not attributable to any creationist principle.

    You assume Western logic. Humans could have believed that everything was an illusion and did not exist but was the dream of a god as is the case in Hinduism.

    (d) The separation of “the heaven” (in the sense of “sky”) could also be deduced by our remote ancestors. Please adduce any evidence that the separation of earth and sky has led to any scientific discovery or explained any phenomenon.

    I just gave you how creationism could explain the separation of the sky/space from the earth. Whether or not this could also be logically deduced under evolutionary thinking (or otherwise) is irrelevant. You also cannot know what could have been deduced by our remote ancestors. We simply do not know the extent of homo erectus’ ability to process information logically.

  29. (e) Again, the existence of natural law in general—that is, the existence or orderliness in the universe—was known to ancient Greek philosophers without any knowledge of or input from Genesis. (In fact, you might try explaining how Genesis describes the existence of scientific laws; I think you’re fully into hindsight mode.)

    Again, “Whether or not this could also be logically deduced under evolutionary thinking (or otherwise) is irrelevant.”

    You claim that “the natural laws governing the creations are derived from the innate ordered characteristic of God.” First, name a specific characteristic of God as described in the Bible. Then relate that characteristic to a natural law, such as Boyle’s law or Vavilov’s law or Cassini’s laws or Maxwell’s laws. Finally,using your chosen pair of divine characteristic and scientific law, explain how knowledge of the particular divine characteristic inspired the discoverer to come up with the particular law,or explained the subject physical phenomenon, or allowed us to use it for our own purposes.

    Moving the goalpost and misunderstanding. The innate order characteristic is the characteristic which relates to the order of natural law i.e. the innate order of God is the characteristic which is exemplified in natural law. Additionally, a creationist scientist does not need to first look to the bible to find inspiration to make a scientific discovery. As I have said before and multiple creationists have already stated: the bible is not a science textbook. Science from a creationist perspective is about learning the intricacies of nature which relate to the nature of a creator. While an evolutionist may come to the same conclusion (e.g. Boyle’s Law), neither the evolutionist or the creationist is correct in saying that their philosophical foundation is true because it correlates with their science finding.

    (f) First, homology implies macroevolutionary biology[3] Creationism denies macroevolution, therefore it denies homology. A concept that goes against biblical teaching can hardly be said to have been discovered from that teaching, or to explain it..

    Incorrect, homology can imply common descent but it can also imply a common designer.

    [3] Homology—”Biology a a fundamental similarity based on common descent.” (dictionary.com). Homologous—”2. Biology: Similar in structure and evolutionary origin, though not necessarily in function.” (American Heritage Dictionary).

    Apple dictionary: Biology: similarity in sequence of a protein or nucleic acid between organisms of the same or different species. You are thus using the implication rather than the physical evidence alone.

  30. Second, common design (I assume you mean by an external agent) is a contention of creationism, but has never amassed any physical evidence, much less been the subject of a scientific discovery. Even William Dembski’s vaunted explanatory filter fails to distinguish in practice between naturalistic sources and intentional designs.[4]

    Irrelevant, homology also logically implies a common designer.

    Biblical creationists have such a flimsy notion as to how to define “common design” that they cannot even apply the notion to the physical world consistently. Witness the airy speculations of the baraminologists as to what might or might not be a common design. That is, even the creationists themselves cannot discover a law for “common design” from what the Bible says or implies. Now that’s sad.

    Baraminology as I understand it has problems with the criterion for kinds which would make the Noachian flood possible by allowing for kinds alone on the ark instead of all the variety (of kinds) of animals. This has nothing to do with any ‘law for “common design”‘. But if I err, do post a link.

    Once more: Creationism has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control, nor contributed to any scientific discovery. Therefore, creationism has no valid claim to constitute science.[5] The six proposed examples above are either historically untenable, outside the ambit of scientific discovery, or contrary to the creationist principles from which they are said to be derived.

    Your answers are fallacious. To deny that creationism hasn’t contributed to science is to break the foundation of present evolutionary science.

  31. [5] The only reason for this claim in the first place is that the public holds scientific knowledge in much higher regard than religious pronouncements. Gone is the day when Martin Luther could be taken seriously justify geocentrism because the Bible mandates it. Today such a claim would be met with laughter. Thus naive biblical literalists must arrogate the cloak of science.

    So when are scientists going to engage in “laughter” of Darwin’s “favored races”? You know, that book that launched evolution and racism was the accepted science of that time? Unless you are saying that present science indicates that some races are better than others, when will this laughter session begin? I’d like to participate. “Thus naive” darwinian evolutionists “must arrogate the cloak of science” and let the intelligent designers or panspermians become scientists. What a splendid idea!

    And Luther was simply accepting the science of his day. Thus Luther is an excellent example of what might happen to evolutionists who assert the ‘science of their day’ until a pseudoscience topples it and future people laugh at evolution as naiveté.

  32. ……………THEOLOGICAL ILLITERACY:

    Hinduism does not believe in a natural reality thus Higgs Boson would also be part of the elaborate ‘feels like it’s real’ Brahmanic dream.

  33. A quick correction of an incorrect assertion—

    So when are scientists going to engage in “laughter” of Darwin’s “favored races”? You know, that book that launched evolution and racism was the accepted science of that time?

    You are engaging in the historical fallacy of whiggism by attributing modern meanings to the words that Darwin used. In Darwin’s time “race” meant “species.” “Favored races” were species that have not gone extinct.

    In any event, this is a religious argument, not a scientific one. In religion, one could rightly impugn Christianity by showing that St. Paul harbored evil views. But even proving that Darwin may have been a racist has no bearing whatever on the truth of evolution. James Watson holds that blacks are mentally inferior to other races. Therefore his theory that DNA expresses genetic information must be false. Right? Right?

    Desperate.

    Another easy falsity—

    And Luther was simply accepting the science of his day.

    Pants on fire.

    The purpose of Luther’s statement was to refute Copernican heliocentrism, which was gaining wider acceptance at the time.

    Desperate.

  34. You are engaging in the historical fallacy of whiggism by attributing modern meanings to the words that Darwin used. In Darwin’s time “race” meant “species.” “Favored races” were species that have not gone extinct.

    Well who better to speak about the time of Darwin than good ole Darwin himself:

    The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

    From Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343.

    In any event, this is a religious argument, not a scientific one.

    Eh!?

    In religion, one could rightly impugn Christianity by showing that St. Paul harbored evil views.

    Pray tell, what evil views are these? On what evolutionary basis can you make moral pronouncements such as good and evil?

    But even proving that Darwin may have been a racist has no bearing whatever on the truth of evolution.

    That is correct, such an argument would be ad hominem and guilt by association.

  35. blockquote>James Watson holds that blacks are mentally inferior to other races. Therefore his theory that DNA expresses genetic information must be false. Right? Right?

    Was that what I argued? Did I say that Darwin was a racist thus evolution is incorrect? What I am arguing is that Darwin was a racist who expressed racist views about non-European humans and saw them as inferior and predicted that these would be exterminated by nature due to their evolutionary genetic inferiority.

    Darwin in the Descent of Man:

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla

    Just because The Origin of Species doesn’t mention it explicitly doesn’t mean that his other works cannot be used to piece together a more holistic view of what he meant by “evolution”.

    Or would you rather hear Huxley who lived in the time of Darwin? From Emancipation–Black and White (1865):

    It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.

    Desperate

    Indeed if you desire to defend racists like Darwin.

  36. Pants on fire.

    The purpose of Luther’s statement was to refute Copernican heliocentrism, which was gaining wider acceptance at the time.

    Desperate.

    Sidestepping ad hominem. The statement “And Luther was simply accepting the science of his day” does not conflict with your assertion that Luther was trying to refute heliocentrism. However, like evolutionists, Luther was simply defending what was the science of his day which was proven subsequently to be wrong. Thus, one does not make desperate statements such as “Thus naive biblical literalists must arrogate the cloak of science.” unless you want to make a similar claim for evolutionists.

    You’re quite desperate indeed for a learned man who reads so much science literature.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THIS JUST IN

    The current issue of Nature draws a parallel between a sea of milk through which the Hindu gods struggled and, the discovery of the Higgs boson, whose field retards massive particles.

    Might we suppose that Satyendra Nath Bose will clam that the Bhagavad Gita explains the Higgs, or led to its discovery?

    Yup, that’s desperation.

  37. It only now dawned on me to ask. What science qualifications do you have? And how exactly did evolution directly affect your scientific output (undergrad/postgrad thesis, peer reviewed research)?

  38. It only now dawned on me to ask. What science qualifications do you have?

    Dawn, I have a 53-year-old degree (high honors) in electrical engineering. After heading a department of a Naval air squadron, I returned for an MS in physics–my thesis was on the theory of multidimensional distributed networks. After some experience designing the guidance system for the Apollo moon rocket, I switched careers, and snagged a law degree (magna cum laude) in 1968. My major papers included legal implications of the then rapidly developing fields of in vitro fertilization and computer programming protection. Also on the nature of the person under Soviet law.[1][2]

    Then a long stint as a patent attorney at IBM Research, mostly in machine intelligence, including hardware and software for machine pattern recognition. After retirement, I was a staff attorney at a large IP law firm, working in computers, optical systems, medical devices, business methods—and for the last 5 years before retirement, I was head of the firm’s bioinformatics effort,working with 7 biotech PhDs.[3] Since retiring from there, I give talks on how to identify and protect intellectual property. The audiences, in the Midwest, New York,and California, have included inventors, product developers, business executives, and university graduate students and faculties. I have also taught a graduate computer-science course at a two local universities.

    My work involved delving into scientific and technological advances in fields from astronomy to zoology, deeply enough to write technical descriptions of them and to suss out their differences from the inventions of others in court. This got me interested in how scientists think and how they work, how they formulate research problems, and how they devise tests for theoretical advances. (Having Paul Feyerabend teaching locally for a while was helpful. altho he was quite flaky.)

    I do know a lot in a hands-on way about how scientific research is conducted, what questions are important, how scientists formulate and test hypotheses,and how the system works. Certainly enough to know that our host Michael is entirely out of his depth, and has no idea what he’s talking about..

    I’m not sure what you mean by how evolution affected my scientific output. In writing biotech patent applications, certainly it serves as an organizing principle for understanding the subject matter.

    Now, how about yourself? Scientific/technical background? Research experience? Oh, yes: How has creationism promoted your scientific output?[4]

    =================

    [1] I took Russian as an undergrad in 1957.

    [2] Surprisingly enough, the Soviets took very religious views in their civil and criminal laws..

    [3] This involved learning a lot of biology, in which I had not previously had even a high-school course.

    [4] Creationism has certainly been deleterious for creationist academics. Michael Behe wrote 40 papers before he hooked up with the Discovery Institute; since then (12 years ago) only two. Guillermo Gonzales, the cause célèbre astronomer who was denied tenure in 2008, published fistfuls of reviewed papers (66, as I remember) before getting involved with ID. After that, a tailspin to almost nothing—and no grant money for research projects. Although Douglas Axe claims that his papers “support” ID, everyone else thinks they are right down the mainstream—but there are fewer of them now than previously. The caged biologists at creationist colleges (Biola, Bob Jones, etc.) do not publish papers in refereed journals; a couple of them have been fired recently for listing too much toward evolution. Andrew Sneling is the rock star of the lot. He publishes young-earth geology papers for AiG and CRSQ, but old-earth papers for his industrial clients and journals. This prompting a wag to ask:“Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?”

  39. Bulverism,[0] you’re straying from the question again. Please try to stay focused on the proposition that Creationism (that is, naïve biblical literalism) has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control, nor contributed to any scientific discovery.[1] Note I do not gainsay that the Christian Church has aided science—by translating and preserving Greek texts, by debating the nature of science, and by providing an educated class of people who became naturalists.)

    (a) You did not address my showing by historical evidence that the cosmological notion of a beginning of time owed nothing to Genesis. So I assume you accept that result.

    Your question as to the existence of other dimensions is irrelevant to the question.[2] Please stay focused.[3]

    (b)

    The uncaused cause may be philosophical but science is based on philosophical principles such as the laws of logic.

    The fallacy here is one of incompleteness; the final step is missing: that the laws of logic were derived from a biblical source. But this required, step in your chain is is untenable. The laws of logic were not discovered from any biblical text or inference. The ancient Greek philosophers—who were not aware of the Bible—formulated these laws, which were passed on to early scientists.

    You might wish to note that the early Christian (and Muslim, too) theologians acknowledged the Greeks as the source of the logical precepts that they followed in their field. One would would certainly suppose that they would attribute their philosophy to the Bible, rather than to a pagan source. But no.

    In what way does Genesis provide any explanation of the laws of logic? For example, how does the Bible explain or justify rules of inference, such as modus ponens or contraposition?

    (c) Yes, I do assume Western logic. The kind that the Greeks invented. Don’t you? Otherwise, it would be not that that that is is that that is not is not, is not that so?

    However, I still don’t understand how the earth’s existence[4] helps us understand the nature of any physical phenomenon, nor predict any scientific result, nor led to any discovery.—-which is the question at hand.

    (d)

    I just gave you how creationism could explain the separation of the sky/space from the earth. Whether or not this could also be logically deduced under evolutionary thinking (or otherwise) is irrelevant.

    Another category error. The separation of earth and sky is an observation, not an explanation. What does it explain? Why would a direct observation need to be “logically deduced” from anything?

    (e) Moving the goalpost? The question is,and has always been, How have creationist principles explained any physical phenomenon, or led to any scientific discovery? I am merely asking for specific examples: HOW do creationist principles explain Boyle’s law in particular? In what way can creationist principles be said to underlie Vaviov’s law specifically, or to explain WHY genetic diversity of a species is maximized at the location where it evolved?

    You’re engaged in mere hand-waving. In fact, you cannot relate any specific creationist principle to any scientific explanation or discovery. Scientific discoveries have proceeded from the naturalistic scientific method, and have not employed any creationist input whatever. So—of what value is creationism to science? None whatever.
    —————————————-
    SIDEBAR
    The point of asking you to relate specific attributes of God to specific discoveries is this. The fundamental questions of science deal with the nature and characteristics of its basic subjects: “material.” Space/time, mass/energy gravitation, living organisms, quanta, chemical bonding, and so on. If God be the source of these subjects, then science needs to know the characteristics of God which would explain their attributes, and which would allow understanding based upon these caracteristics, or allow predictions about these subjects.

    The 2,500 papers per year on evolution do not address the question of “proving” that evolution occurred. Instead, their purpose is to explicate some aspect of evolution. To apply evolutionary concepts, such as selection, to specific situations. To figure out the specific consequences of, say, DNA methylaton as an evolutionary process To discover the sources of evolutionary innovations, such as new protein functions.

    If, as Bulverism contends, such questions about divine characteristics are “irrelevant” or “anathema,” then this is further evidence that creationism has nothing in common with science, sharing neither its goals nor its methods. Thus creationism contributes nothing to science.
    —————————————–

    Finally, if you persist in saying, “the Bible is not a science textbook,” then why do you claim that its narrative of the creation in six days is scientific, rather than theological?[5]

    Science from a creationist perspective is about learning the intricacies of nature which relate to the nature of a creator.

    Then why do you shun scientific results that that conflict with your interpretation of the nature of the creator? Or evidence that Genesis is not a historical narrative?[6]

    (f)

    Incorrect, homology can imply common descent but it can also imply a common designer.
    ……..
    Irrelevant, homology also logically implies a common designer.

    This is blatantly false, but Bulverism has made a into a fraud as well. The Apple Dictionary text he quotes deals only with a specialized meaning in molecular genetics. The Apple Dictionary employs the Oxford American for its definitions. Bulversim has conveniently omitted the general biology definition of “homologous” from the OAD: “Biology (of organs): similar in position, structure, and evolutionary origin but not necessarily in function.” In furtherance of the distinction with common design, the OAD says that homologous is “Often contrasted with analogous”—-which OAD defines as “Biology (of structures) performing a similar function but having a different evolutionary origin, such as the wings of insects and birds. Often contrasted with homologous.”[7] Common design and common descent are thus mutually exclusive alternatives; homology cannot imply both

    Once more: Homology is defined in terms of macroevolution, and excludes design.. Creationism denies that macroevolution occurs. Therefore, a creationist interpretation of the Bible cannot be the source of, nor an explanation for, biological homology, and creationism has contributed nothing to the concept of homology.

    In order to show that creationism explains or contributed to, common design, you must first establish that there is such a thing as common designs from an external designer.[8] You have adduced no physical evidence for common design, as opposed to common descent. Every claimed facet of common design could have been produced by common descent instead. No one has adduced any actual positive evidence for common design which would be contradicted by common descent. Therefore science does not need to explain common design, and creationism has contributed nothing.

    .

    So, as to the specific claims that you have adduced, creationism (that is, naïve biblical literalism) has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control, nor contributed to any scientific discovery.

    The black swan tells us that no negative proposition concerning the world can be proven decisively, except by exhaustion. However, it seems highly unlikely from its innate characteristics that creationism has, or ever will, contribute to science. Their goals are opposite: Creationism seeks to justify specific theories about the world and its history,[9] while science seeks to build theories that fit the physical world. Their methods are also opposite. Creationism seeks only evidence that supports its preconceived positions; all else is ignored, minimized, or tortured to death. Science accumulates all evidence; if it does not comport with existing theories, the theories must change, not the evidence. (Cf. [6].)

    If we represent creationism with a jigsaw puzzle, the picture that the puzzle must show came on the box, and cannot change. The pieces are assembled according to the foreordained picture. If a piece does not fit the picture, it is tossed aside, reoriented, or chopped to make it fit. The puzzle solvers criticize each other only over how to make the pieces fit. Using the same metaphor, science starts out only with a pile of pieces. Where the pieces seem to fit together,the solvers surmise a partial picture, and look for additional pieces that extend the picture. When a piece doen’t fit the provisional picture, the picture is extended, modified, or even replaced with a totally new image. And each piece must be consistent with all the others. The solvers distribute their partial pictures to each other for criticism of their vision. Ultimately, the evidentiary pieces dominate the theoretical picture

    If this description of science sounds to good to be true,it is. Quantum-loop adherents vie with string theorists for faculty positions, funding, and even popular support, Conflicts over interpretation of data abound, and over the robustness of experimental results. Outright fraud occasionally rears its head. However, the methods of science—such as publication, peer review, replication—are designed to enhance the scope and accuracy of the theories conjured up from the observed data. And to expose fraud—scientific dishonesty is a death sentence. Hwang Woo-suk will never publish again, nor find an academic position. Even an accusation of a data omission by one of his assistants almost cost Nobel prize-winner David Baltimore his scientific life. (He was cleared after a thorough investigation.)[10]

    In view of these major differences, and the fact that it refuses to address the questions of interest to scientific inquiry, creationism is not science, has no value to science, and cannot contribute to any scientific advance.[11]

    ====================

    [0] Sorry, I did have you confused with Bulwer Lytton, the 19thC British novelist whose most famous novel opened with the sentence, “It was a dark and stormy night.”

    [1] In aid of this goal, I have tried to place material that directly bears upon the question in the main text, and to shovel other material into the endnotes.

    [2] As to experiments to find other dimensions, several have been performed over the past decade, involving the action of masses at very small separations (microns). No positive results have been found. (But then, only string theory requires additional dimensions.) I was not aware that creationists hold that God exists in another dimension. If that is so, would experiments showing that no additional dimensions exist demonstrate that God does ot exist?

    [3] Whether God exists in a separate dimension is not even a scientific question. But, just out of curiosity, how do creationists derive the principle of another dimension (of what? Space? Time? Temperature?) as God’s abode from any biblical text? I think this is unadulterated horse pucker. Also, should we find that no further dimensions exist, would this disprove God?

    [4] In fact, one of the issues confronting the philosophy of science today is the existence vel non of an ultimate reality,beyond our senses and measurements. Is there no more than that which we can see? Or, as the Hindus say, is it impossible to tell? And, if it is shown that no ultimate reality exists, does God ipso facto not exist as well?

    [5] The rest of us think that Genesis was intended to set forth theological truths, and that the whiggish interpretation as a historical narrative is not only wrong, but obscures the very principles that Genesis was intended to convey. See, for example, Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (John Knox Press 1984).

    [6] The rest of us think that Augustine had essentially solved this problem in Liber Naturae, Liber Dei: If our imperfect human understanding of the Bible conflicts with evidence from the world, then our understanding of the Bible must be revised. Creationism, on the other hand, says that the world must be revised to fit their understanding of God. Chutzpah, anyone?

    [7] How about some additional dictionaries? Random House, Merriam Webster, and OED concur in requiring common descent. The Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology states: “Homology: Biology: The fundamental similarity of structures in different organisms that no longer function in the same manner, but that result from common ancestry.”

    [8] Just as, for example, to establish a copyright infringement, the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s work is in fact impermissibly similar. This is a threshold issue, which must be adjudicated before taking up the issue of copying.

    [8] And, of course, there is a lot of evidence of common descent which contravenes common design, such as similar structures that perform no function, a different function, or a broken function in different organisms. Pseudogenes is a good example; they are like shipping a new Lincoln and shoveling into the trunk some broken shock absorbers from a 1998 Ford. What attribute of God would prompt such behavior on his part? Sister-killer genes provide another example. What human designer would add a feature to, say, the headlights of a BMW 750 for the purpose of breaking the headlights of a BMW M5? (I have expensive tastes.), It would be very useful to know which attribute of God is responsible, so that we could counteract it. Or would that be considered sorcery?

    [9] That is, creationism is a form of apologetics.

    [10] The reason that scientists won’t give creationists the time of day is not that creationism is wrong. It’s because the creationist proponents have no intellectual integrity, no moral code. We EXPECT them to lie.

    [11] Remember that this proposition does not reach the question as to whether the biblical narrative of Genesis is historical or true, except where relevant to the issue of contributions to science. (Cf. “common design,” e.g.)

  40. The statement “And Luther was simply accepting the science of his day” does not conflict with your assertion that Luther was trying to refute heliocentrism. However, like evolutionists, Luther was simply defending what was the science of his day which was proven subsequently to be wrong.

    You missed the whole point. The point was that Luther attempted to refute a scientific argument ENTIRELY for theological reasons—that it contravened the Bible. Luther did not invoke ANY scientific arguments or observations in his favor, nor even cite any contemporary geocentric scientists in refutation of Copernicus. He made a totally theological refutation of a scientific finding.

  41. However, like evolutionists, Luther was simply defending what was the science of his day

    Four centuries later (1915), Ben Voiiva, the leader of the largest fundamentalist movement in the US also claimed that there is no such-a thang as gravitation or orbits or rotation of the earth. “I get my astronomy straight from the Bible!” he thundered.

    Was Voliva also merely accepting the science of his day?

  42. Dawn, a few more science qualifications. Not in biology, but experience in understanding scientific matters in general.

    In 1953, while in high school, I and four others designed and built a cyclotron. This involved working with and getting to know several physics professors at a major university.

    In 1972, I designed and built a personal computer. Crude–main memory was a 7,000-bit acoustic delay line—but it worked. Two years later, I organized the first regional computer-hobbyist club in the country. This group predated the famous Homebrew Computer Club by half a year.

    I am a member of the Policy Committee of the AAAS, which advises professional organizations and governments on public policy involving scientific matters. My professional interest in this field relates primarily to the protection of intellectual property.
    ..

  43. Quite impressive. I have a BSc in electrical and computer engineering and presently working on a MSc thesis in petroleum engineering. No research experience. Creationism has not directly aided my theses but it has partial correlation. My undergrad thesis was a database design to fetch and display simple information through a browser. Simple coding errors (a comma or full stop) would generate massive errors and sometimes halt the data fetching process. This would suggest that coding mutations are deleterious even when an intelligent and naturalistic designer is directly tinkering with the process. My masters thesis is on enhanced oil recovery and doesn’t deal with anything creationist though creationism does explain the preponderance of global rock connate water saturation (global flood).

  44. When I was in undergrad EE, “computer” referred to the department’s analog computer for solving differential equations. As a grad student in 1964, “network theory” meant figuring out whether a network was positive real (no one cares anymore) or planar (huh???) .

    Recently, of course, the area has burgeoned, with new concepts in complex systems theory, chaos effects, and evolutionary networks. There are few texts, and almost no curriculum offerings, even in graduate schools. So I’ve been reading basic books,[1], collections of essays,[2] and current papers and articles in the general journals, such as Science, Nature, American Scientist. I’ll never be able to devote enough time and energy to this pursuit to contribute, or even to keep up. What has spurred this field, of course, is the massive amounts of data flooding in from internet communications, especially social media. A researcher’s dream,but not available to me as a superannuated dilettante..

    My masters thesis is on enhanced oil recovery and doesn’t deal with anything creationist though creationism does explain the preponderance of global rock connate water saturation (global flood).

    It would be interesting to know how a global flood explains the water-saturation you describe in a way that geology cannot. Mostly because creationists have tried since 1930 to recruit geologists, and have been singularly unsuccessful. Even when they offered to send the faithful to graduate school, all of them either dropped out or converted[3] when they found the evidence overwhelming. Andrew Snelling seems to be an exception, but he is a hypocrite. He writes young-earth papers for AiG and CSRQ, and old-earth papers for his clients and for journals.

    The main problem is that flood geology has been unable to produce any theories useful in predicting as-yet unobserved geological phenomena. As Kuhn noted, many theories can explai any set of known data.[4] Thus the value of a theory is the quantity and scope of as-yet unknown observations that it can predict. And, of course, its consistency with observations and theories from other fields, which creationist theories generally are not.

    Also, science eschews miracles,[5]n while creationism always requires at least some supernatural action that contravenes physical laws. The problem with miracles is that you can’t get past them in an investigation. Ignorance can be overcome with further research; miracles cannot.[6]

    In following creationism and ID since the KItzmiller trial (professional legal interest there), I have noted that educated creationists tend to be engineers, programmers, mathematicians, and physicians. Engineers and programmers, of course, work all day with designed systems—thus they are prone to pareidolia. Mathematicians deal with numbers and symmetries and topologies that are designed, and do not change. The design they see is their own. Physicians are somewhat surprising, until one learns that they have always felt at least somewhat estranged from science. Medicine has always been considered a craft, not a science.[7]

    .

    Well, time to kick back and enjoy the retiree’s dream: a liliko’i cosmopolitan[8] on the deck, before church-choir practice this evening,,[9] brass ensemble on Sunday, and first symphony rehearsal next Tuesday.[10] When you are employed, your days are full, but the evenings tend to be free. Retirement is just the opposite: rehearsals. board meetings, and concerts fill the evening, but the days are more free.,

    ================

    [1] Sunny Auyang’s 1999 book. Foundations of Complex-system Theories: In Economics, Evolutionary Biology, and Statistical Physics, expounds a number of principles and concepts that make complex systems behave entirely differently from other types, mostly because of their ability to mutate and adapt. One striking feature is that systems that can evolve are uniformly more complex than designed systems,of equivalent functional level..

    [2] On interlibrary loan, because they are horribly expensive for a retiree. These are much more thoroughly mathematical. The operational calculus and tensor aspects are OK, but my background in statistics and combinatorics could use some upgrading.

    [3] See Numbers, The Creationists (2006), “Creation Geology without Creation Geologists.”

    [4] The overdetermination of theory by data.

    [5] The principle of explanatory closure, first introduced by Abelard of Bath in the 13thC, and central to science ever since

    [6] Here’s an example: Creationists claim that the existence of C14 in some coal deposits, proves a young earth, because the half-life is only 50K years. STOP! Miracle detected. On the other hand, geologists wonder, hm, how can this be if we know from other evidence that the deposit is a bazillion years old? So research assaults ignorance. And, voici, we discover that U-Th decay produces C14. AND, as lagniappe, we have a useful discovery! If you find C14 in coal, you will find potentially valuable uranium and thorium nearby.

    [7] The recent impetus toward evidence-based medicine is being met with some resistance, as denying gut-level non-conscious intuition. (My youngest daughter is an MD. I will say that her gut-level diagnoses are almost always spot on.)

    [8] Liliko’i juice is difficult to find on the mainland unfortunately.

    [9] First practice tonight, sing on Sunday. Tight schedule. Our church senior choir is a fantastic bunch. We toured Germany two years ago, performing in Heidelberg, Leipzig—Bach’s church—Wartburg, and Rothenberg. We performed in Carnegie Hall a few years ago.

    [10] This year will include Handel’s Messiah and Verdi’s requiem mass—the one the Catholic church proscribed until a few years ago. Too theatrical., they said. Well, what did they expect from an opera wonk?

    [11] There is no note 11.

  45. YOO HOO,, MICHAEL. Enough with the videos attempting to refute Bill Nye.

    The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

    Also note that the two (captive) scientists did not present any evidence whatever for creationism—only doubts about evolution. Once more: Why should anyone teach creationism as science if even the creationists can’t dig up any scientific evidence for it?

    And why don’t you remonstrate about teaching relativity and quantum theory to poor innocent children? Not only are there substantial doubts about both, but we KNOW that one or the other of them is WRONG. Can you say “hypocrisy”?

    But, even so, I might consider teaching creationism, if you bring a qualified biologist in to teach evolution to your Sunday School class for a semester ….

  46. Mostly because creationists have tried since 1930 to recruit geologists, and have been singularly unsuccessful. Even when they offered to send the faithful to graduate school, all of them either dropped out or converted[3] when they found the evidence overwhelming.

    Where exactly is this from? Numbers (2006) does not have a chapter named “Creation Geology without Creation Geologists” or is this a sub heading? [http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674023390&content=toc]

  47. It’s a subheading. In the 2d edition (2006), pp.301-309.

    One of the greatest anomalies in the history of scientific creationism, or flood geology, is the nonpresence of geologists. “Where are the Ph.D.’s in geology today who take Genesis 6-9 seriously?” a concerted young Whitcomb asked Morris in 1955.”Where are the geologists on the side of the angels?” echoed Dudley Joseph Whitney in a letter to Price that same year. Besides the Adventists Clark, Burdick and Price himself, none of whom possessed even an undergraduate degree in geology, Whitney could think of no one.

    Ronald Numbers was himself a creationist, of the Adventist stripe, in his early years.

  48. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I
    have really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts.
    After all I will be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s