oops

I killed the CPU on my main desktop machine.

My hard drive is fine, so I'll only need a new box. I might even do a little upgrade.

Back in the Quote Mine

I was confronted by a creationist with several "quotes" from famous scientists that "proved" that evolution was a fraud. Most were already in the TalkOrigns Quote Mine Project." One that was not was,

W. HOWELLS, Harvard, "A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of; men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.", MANKIND SO FAR, p. l38

Published creationist sources;Creation Wiki: Paleoanthropology quotes

Sean Pittman, MD: Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals

The quote was from a 1944 book, "Mankind So Far." I bought a copy which arrived today, 12, Nov. 2013. The "quote" was on page 128, not 138. From personal forensic work, nearly all police agencies are "boy scouts" compared to professional physical anthropologists. The rest of the quote was totally different from the creationist's presentation. A physical anthropologist, Prof. Howells was critical of paleoanthropologists who named a new species nearly every time they discovered a new skull. Howells was a "lumper" who saw great variation in single species as the common fact, and no need for elaborate classifications of species. This was particularly evident in his research on modern human origins. He was a strong advocate of the "out-of-Africa" hypothesis of human origins, and the biological unity of human races.

I agree that most police agencies do look like boy scouts compared to professional physical anthropologists. But of course, creationists have totally mangled the "quote" to change Prof. Howells' meaning. They have cut off the end of Howells sentence, and deleted the rest of his thought to totally alter the meaning of this passage. Here is the actual section, following "boy scouts"

"If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts ... and it has led to a certain amount of skepticism in the lay mind regarding the restorations of early man which have been made. But it is not quite true.

The restorations of fossil skulls do not really go beyond what is reasonable; in fact there are one or two cases in which the restoration has been made on a small part of a skull only to have another specimen turn up to give the true form; and in these cases the resemblance has been quite good."

The rest of the page follows in a similar vein, that fossil reconstructions are generally reasonable and based on the comparative analysis of multiple specimens of many species. He concluded with the entirely competent observation that soft tissue reconstructions in the 1940s were entirely speculative. Modern forensic studies, 50 years later, are considered much more accurate.

Jeannie Chatman, Special Blogger

Young Earth Creationist Jeannie Chatman, Special Blogger to the Daily Guide, provided some motive and amusement when she regurgitated a load of YEC nonsense. I rebuked her here several times. In fact, her overall public record helped me to start Big Daddy is Dead.

I have checked periodically for the last 9 months, and her public output has stopped at the Daily Guide. At the same time I have not seen an obituary notice. Hopefully she is reconsidering her support for a young earth.

Utterly Dispensable ID Creationism.

Is Darwinian Evolution "Indispensable" to Biology? by the Disco'tute MD, Michael Egnor takes a poke at Larry Moran's blog post, ASBMB Core Concepts in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Evolution. (ASBMB=American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology). The ASBMB offered the following as their nominees for core concepts:

Evolution
matter and energy transformation
homeostasis
biological information
macromolecular structure and function

Egnor's core observation was:

"If you have to periodically proclaim to the world the indispensability of your scientific discipline, then your scientific discipline isn't indispensable."

If you need to beg, whine and mew that your Intelligent Design creationism is really, really sciencey, and that mean ol' Darwinists should stop calling you "creationists," then you are utterly dispensable.

After you eat them, all that is left is a picture

I had a good day aboard the Fury out of Dana Warf.

Photo by Lisa Ray

"Christofascists, and Satan," or "Why don't Fundies Read the Bible?"

The gang of sadistic bastards at Trinity Western 'university' had several additional stupidities in their "Statement of Faith" (Link to a PDF) that I thought were worth mentioning on their own without overlap with their ironically delightful Expulsion of chronic liar Kevie Miller. The first is very simple to expose as stupid:

2. God’s gospel is authoritatively revealed in the Scriptures.
We believe that God has spoken in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, through the words of human authors. As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is without error in the original writings, (etc.)

I'll agree to stipulate this as soon as you show me these "original writings." And while you are looking for some of those, explain why Christian apologists insist that the gross variations, and contradictions within the Bible are due to variations in the oral tradition preceding any written text. The obvious theological significance of this is that the Bible is a mere transcription of what somebody might have remembered about some event, filtered through the lens of their cultural and political expedience. That was before anyone even started editing, adding, and redacting.

3. God’s gospel alone addresses our deepest need.
We believe that God created Adam and Eve in His image, but they sinned when tempted by Satan.

This of course refers to;

Genesis 3 (KJV)

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Not once in this "verbally inspired Word of God" (according to Statement #2), is the serpent called anything other than the serpent. Nor is there any indication that this serpent is "Satan." Nor is that any indication anywhere in the Bible that "Satan" crawled on his belly. Since snakes cannot stand, Psalm 109: 6. "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand," should indicate that the "serpent" in Geneiss is not Satan at all. In fact, many times the Bible presents Satan as a loyal, if sarcastic, servant of the Hebrew God, El. Even the New Testament Satan was not a reptile, and clearly exercised considerable abilities of movement and speech (e.g. Matthew 4, and Luke 4).

But the best evidence that this "Statement of Faith" is anti-scriptural is the prologue from the Book of Job 1: 6 - 12. El the paramount god of the Hebrew pantheon holds court in the Council of Gods, Hebrew "bene elohim." The paramount god holding court is El, also called "el elohim" or "El, God of the gods." Elsewhere we find this god is called “el elohim Yahweh” or “Yahweh, the God of the gods,” used to assimilate the Northern Israel tradition of El as the paramount god with the Southern Yahweh tradition of Juda. Also give attention to the fact that “the Satan,” in biblical Hebrew "il’shatan," literally translated is "God El’s Satan." Satan is appearing at the command, and under the direction of the God El.

The late Babylonian Empire employed secret agents empowered to act as both judge and executioner. They were ‘agents provocateur’ with the nickname of the “Emperor’s wanderers,” or, "Emperor's roaming eyes." (Akkadean verb “shu-ut” = to wander). The Akkadean "roamer" or "wanderer" is "shatar." Later consonant shifts, and a reinterpretation yielded a secondary meaning “shatan”= to accuse. This leads directly to biblical Hebrew "il’shatan," God’s Satan (God's Wanderer) having the role of the “the Adversary” which is another of the biblical Satan's nicknames. It also provides a rather amusing world play in Job 1:7 since the Satan says he was “wandering about” and the name Satan is derived from the Akkadean verb “shu-ut” = to wander. So an actually literal translation would be "El asked, Where "My Wanderer" have you been? I have been wandering, my Lord God, wandering (and/or accusing) on the Earth, said God's Wanderer."

I recommend reading;

Friedman, Richard Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible? New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Pope, Marvin H.
1965 “Job: A new translation with Introduction and Commentary” Anchor Bible Society Vol. 15, New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Smith, Mark
2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts” Oxford University Press.

And be sure to keep a copy of Brown, Driver, and Briggs to hand.

Kevin Miller gets really Expelled

Kevin Miller was the real script writer for the execrable creationist propaganda film "Expelled" (the now dead link went to "Expelled Exposed." The NSCE killed the site rather than defend against the threats from the Expelled frauds). He has had his sorry lying (see "Expelled Exposed") ass fired from a Christian "university" called Trinity Western University. They have a "Statement of Faith" (Link to a PDF) that all faculty must sign.


Here is the "money quote,"

10 God's gospel requires a response that has eternal consequences.

We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace. Amen.

All of us that try to explain to creationists the reality of the universe have at one point or another been promised "eternal damnation in the fiery lakes of Hell!!!111!ELEVENSONE!!!! DIE YOU ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!1111 Bwahaahahhaahawahaahhah etc..." This is apparently what happens if you do evil godless things like invent new medical treatments, or improve crops, or anything that isn't the Trinity Western list such as telling the truth about science. The added ugly hate filled touch popular- in fact demanded- by this Christian university is, "eternal conscious punishment." The Trinity Western University Christians are aware that humans hideously tortured will lose consciousness. These Christians won't want anyone to miss a even moment of the eternal agony they envision in their self righteous wet-dreams.

This is of considerable historical interest, as I have discussed elsewhere. Charles Darwin's autobiography was not intended for publication. But following his death, his son Frank apparently was considering it. In one section regarding C. R. Darwin's religious beliefs, Darwin wrote, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.


Six months after her husband's death Mrs. Darwin annotated the passage above in her own handwriting. She wrote, "I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published (from "and have never since doubted" to "damnable doctrine" GH). It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief, but very few now wd. call that 'Christianity,' "

In 1882, Mrs. Emma Darwin held, that "very few now wd. call that 'Christianity'." Too bad we still have sick sadists like the faculty, and ministration, and students of Trinity Western.

The "Statement" must be signed, but a minor option exists: you could check, "I agree with the above Statement of Faith and agree to support that position at all times before the students and friends of Trinity Western University. However, I wish to clarify my understanding of an article(s) on a separate, attached sheet."

When Kevin "shit stain" Miller tried to slightly distance himself from the evil sadistic bastards he associates with, They fired him.


So sorry Kevie, I must admit that I find this very amusing.

I have found a great resource

tsjok's blog. Long may they blog!

Kent Hovind, 2013

Patriot Bible University has sold another doctorate to Kent Hovind. He has claimed to have gotten two masters and three doctorates in education, theology, and divinity (honorary). He now claims to have added a doctorate in "biblical ministry."

His 'dissertation' titled "What on Earth is about to happen for Heaven's Sake" is available on-line as a PDF. I think it is better to Google for a current URL in case there are copy right issues.

"ScienceInsider: Turkish Scientists See New Evidence of Government's Anti-Evolution Bias"

ScienceInsider: Turkish Scientists See New Evidence of Government's Anti-Evolution Bias

The Turkish goverment's rejection of a proposal for a summer school program on evolution was justified because. "evolution is a controversial subject."

This is the exact phrase used in the Discovery Institute, and Focus on the Family propaganda supporting legislation to supress teaching biology in American schools.

The "Scientific Method"

I was indulging in some creationist debating the other day. As usual, there was a bull creationist (also climate denier, and all-round right-wing loon). He triumphantly presented the following model of "the scientific method" demanding that it be applied to evolution.




This is a lot over simplified as a "model" of the scientific method, but it is found all over the internets. It is about appropriate for third grade. I'll expand it as it seems needed. But just for fun, let's see how Darwin did this.

"Ask a Question"

In Darwin's case, the question had already been asked 50 years earlier. The question was known as "the species problem." In the short form, the 1700s naturalists (pre-scientific biologists) realized that species were not fixed, they varied a lot, and there were many life forms that had existed than no longer existed. So the question was already asked, "How do we properly define a species to reflect the fact that they are changing, and can become extinct."

"Do Background 'research' "

I don't like the use of the word "research" at this step. A better phrase would be, "Do a Literature Search." There are hundreds of scientific journals published every day, and thousands of books published every year. Today you must ask if your question is a real one that has not already been long answered. Also, because there are actual careers in the sciences it has become a long process of professional education and training before anyone gets to propose and carry out a personal research project. I was lucky to have trained when a university undergraduate could still do independent work.

Darwin's education was quite remarkable as a preparation for his eventual career as a scientist. I sketched it out at "Notes on Charles Darwin’s Education."

The best part of Darwin's training was in Geology. However, his first scientific report was from research he did supervised by Dr. Robert Edmund Grant, who shortly after became Professor of comparative anatomy and zoology at London University (1827-1874). Grant referred in print to two of Darwin’s original discoveries made in 1826; that the so-called "ova of Flustra" were in fact larvæ of a parasitic worm in rock mussels (Mytilus), and that the little globular bodies which had been supposed to be the young state of Fucus loreus were the egg-cases of the worm-like Pontobdella muricata. Darwin had read papers on these observations to the student’s “Plinian Society” founded by Professor Robert Jameson.

An excellent biography was recently published, "Darwin's Sacred Cause" by Adrian Desmond, and James Moore (2009, University of Chicago Press).

"Construct a Hypothesis"

The obvious problem with this step is that hardly anyone knows what a "hypothesis" really is. I recently wrote up a short tutorial, "Scientific Fact, Theory, and Law." I learned from an undergraduate class in the philosophy of science. Our major reading was Karl Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery" published in English in 1959, and Carl Hempel's 1965 book, "Aspects of Scientific Explanation." I still have my copies.

But, Darwin's most famous notebook sketch is reproduced below. He drew it while aboard the HMS Beagle on a 5 year scientific, and navigation mission between December 1831 and October 1836. Here is Darwin's hypothesis for the solution of the "Species Problem."

"Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment"

This is the most easily misunderstood step in the formula above. First, a properly constructed hypothesis must be a logical consequence of your theory. This must be a statement which is observable in principle, and it must be different from any hypothesis derived from alternate theories. For example, Theory #1 "Thunder is caused by Thor." Theory #2, "Thunder is sound generated by the supersonic expanding gasses ionized by the electrical and heat energy of lightening." If we merely watch lightening and listen to thunder, there is no data that select one theory over another. One of the first internationally celebrated American scientists was Benjamin Franklin. In 1750 he published a proposed experiment to test if lightening was electric. His discovery earned him an outstanding scientific reputation. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Science in 1756. Since we know now that lightening was electricity and that sound was energy transmitted by air, the idea that lightening caused thunder is favored. The latter theory was not definitively established until 2003 by spectrographic studies of lightening. So, it is important to remember that a "hypothesis" and its testing can be built on the results of centuries of experiments, and observation.

The second difficulty of understanding the scientific method is the popular misconception of what is an "experiment." The easiest example to describe is from chemistry- mix two chemicals together and determine if they made a new product. You can repeat this thousands of times, and mostly you will get the same result each time. We do similar experiments in biology- increase or decrease the expression of a gene and see how this changes the function of a cell, organ, or animal. But, there is another form of "experiment" which is the repeated observation of a natural phenomena. This is the experimental method of astronomers who don't need to create stars in laboratories. They repeatedly look at the light, or other radiation from stars or planets and note any variation in position, or spectra. Geologists can study tectonic plates without needing to create a planet in their laboratories. They make repeated observations of the chemistry, mineralogy, and structure of rocks from specified locations and compare any variations to other study locations.

The variety and distribution of life on Earth is of much greater complexity than thunder and lightening. Charles Darwin wanted to explain these facts; life forms had existed in the past which no longer existed, life forms had existed that were very different from those found today, plants and animals geographically near to one another were more closely related even when they varied physically, plants and animals geographically distant from one another were less closely related even when they were similar physically. The most popularly recognized research work by Darwin was his five year journey around the world (1832 to 1836). Unless they have read Darwin's best selling book, "Voyage of the Beagle" (1839), most people don't realize that Darwin spent weeks and months at a time ashore conducting research on geology, and the biology of plants, animals and fossils. One of Darwin's first important publications was the 206 page book "The structure and distribution of coral reefs. Being the first part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. Fitzroy, R.N. during the years 1832 to 1836," (1842. London: Smith Elder and Co.). This was followed in 1844 by, "Geological observations on the volcanic islands visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, together with some brief notices of the geology of Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Being the second part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. Fitzroy, R.N. during the years 1832 to 1836" (London: Smith Elder and Co.). In these works Darwin's explanation for the formation of coral atolls was presented which is still our modern understanding.

Many biological studies were also published (1838 to 1843) by other scholars with Darwin having provided the collected material, and their geological contexts. What will surprise most people is that once back home in England, Darwin undertook an 8 year intensive study of barnacles. From 1846 to final publication in 1854, Darwin wrote a total of 4 books, two on the modern species, and two on the fossil. While this work was seen as a distraction by Darwin's friend Thomas Huxley, Darwin was obviously testing his ideas about evolution by the systematic study of a globally distributed, and easily collected group of species. It should also be known that these studies are still highly regarded by professional specialists today.

So, from 1832 to 1854 Darwin was actively "conducting an experiment" in the proper sense of making systematic observations of nature.

"Analyze your data and draw a conclusion"

"Report your results (Was your hypothesis correct?)"

It is getting time to wrap this up. There are several plain mistakes in the "scientific method" model above and this is from either the practical approach favored by Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," or the abstract philosophical approaches of Popper, or Hempel. And it is contradicted by my 40 years of scientific work, and publication.

First, in a properly conducted research project, the result of your analysis is your conclusion. There should not be any large step between the results and your conclusion. For example, my most recent publication was last month. In it, I and my collaborator Prof. George E. Miller analyzed the elemental composition of clays, and pottery from archaeological sites, and river drainages in S. California using neutron activation analysis. These geochemical data were then subjected to statistical study used to match the ancient pottery to clays and minerals which identified the source materials used by pre-historic potters. The results were our conclusions. There was categorical evidence that the pottery had been manufactured at, or near the locations where it had been found. There was no evidence that this pottery had been traded in from distant locations. We had designed the project so that whatever the results were, we could state them as an either/or contrast.

Darwin's problem was much more complex. He in fact did need to organize his thoughts to present first the pattern of the biological data, and then how his theory of natural selection on inherited traits, produced new species following common descent, and extinctions. We know that he worked on the resulting publication between 1854 and 1858. What caused him to stop worrying at minor details was the letter he received from a fellow biologist, the young Alfred Russel Wallace on 18 June 1858. In that letter, Wallace sent a manuscript of a paper about evolution. Darwin saw that it was essentially the same ideas he had been working on for decades. As a result, the paper by Wallace, and one by Darwin were read at the London meeting of the Linnaean Society the following month. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," was completed and published on 24 November 1859.

Scientific Fact, Theory, and Law: A creationist tutorial

 

There is a common error made by creationists discussing evolution regarding the ideas of "fact," "scientific theory," "hypothesis," and "scientific law." It is common enough to warrant a separate comment.

Quoting from the National Academy of Science (USA):

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. 2008 "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"

Now lets consider the idea of a hypothesis. In science, it is a statement that there exists an unobserved phenomena, or event which is a critical prediction of a scientific theory. This was proposed as a way to test the validity of a scientific theory called "the experimental method." We trace this back to Francis Bacon in the 1600s. By the 20th century, the notion that a "good" theory must generate experimental tests became a central topic of philosophers like Carl Hempel, and Karl Popper. Even before actually testing a hypothesis Hempel and Popper in a rare point of agreement between them, thought that a "good" theory had to generate hypotheses.

When asked if evolutionary theory was testable, J.B.S. Haldane famously replied, "Show me a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian." This was reportedly in reply to a question about the falsifiability of evolutionary theory.

Next there is the gross misunderstanding of what a "scientific law" is, and how it is related to a scientific theory. A scientific "law" is a generalization of empirical observations that is typically reduced to a mathematical formula. These "laws" are always bound within the observational frame, or external conditions of the observations. They are not explanations of the observed phenomena. My favorite example is Ohm's Law, I = V/R. It will always work under the conditions that Ohm used to observe electrical current (I), voltage (V), and resistance (R). However, you cannot find in Ohm's Law a theory of the electromagnetic field. You cannot even derive one. Further, Ohm's Law is invalidated at extreme temperatures- the classic example is resistance free superconductors- variable voltages, and extreme voltages. This does not mean that Ohm's Law is not useful, but it is only useful for the external conditions that allow it be applied.

A scientific theory does not "graduate" to being a "law" or a "fact." There is a second common error made by creationists which is repeated in nearly every discussion with creationists, and that is that evolution has not been expressed in the mathematical precision of a "law." It will surprise some people, but this was published in 1908, over a century ago. The exact example is the generalized Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. For computational reasons, they presented it as, "IF evolution did NOT occur, then ...Equilibrium" which can confuse some students.


Hardy, G. (Jul 1908). "MENDELIAN PROPORTIONS IN A MIXED POPULATION.". Science 28 (706): 49–50. doi:10.1126/science.28.706.49. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17779291

Weinberg, W. (1908). "Über den Nachweis der Vererbung beim Menschen". Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg 64: 368–382.

Kent Hovind's resume derived from public documents

This is a short examination of creationist Kent Hovind's phony "Doctorate," and claims of being a "high school science teacher for 15 years." Between 1976 and 1989, Hovind was the "teacher" of unaccredited church schools he often started himself. Plus, he rarely lasted long even then. I am linking this from "Big Daddy is Dead," in recognition that Hovind is essentially cited as a co-author of "Big Daddy." and nearly all of the pseudoscience found there is referenced to Hovind's video "seminars."

Hovind opens his public presentations, videos, and weirdly, his bogus dissertation with nearly the same words every time, "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976." He added "I have a doctorate in Education," starting in 1991.

Kent Hovind's Teaching Experience

Recorded in Public Records 08/10/2005 at 1:30 PM OR Book Page 878, Instrument #2005406964, Ernie Less Magaha, Clerk of the Circuit Court Escambia County, FL.


"In 1972 I transferred to Midwestern Baptist College, in Pontiac, Michigan." Midwestern Baptist College is an unaccredited Bible school.

"I completed by (sic) Bachelor of Religious Education at Midwestern in 1974" Ordained by Emmanuel Baptist Church in Pontiac, Michigan, May 25, 1974.

Bethel Baptist Academy, Pekin, Illinios [1976-1978]
"I returned to Pekin, Illinois and became Assistant Pastor of Bethel Baptist Church. In 1976 the Pastor resigned and I was voted Pastor (Bethel Baptist Church). My first accomplishment as Pastor was to start a Christian school, Bethel Baptist Academy."

Faith Baptist Academy, Bourbonnais, Illinois [1978-1981]
"In 1978 my family and I moved to Bourbonais, Illinois, where I continued to minister for the Lord as a teacher."

Longview Christian Academy and Texas Baptist College, Longview, Texas [1981-1985]
"1981 we moved to Longview, Texas, where I took position teaching science and math at Longview Christian Academy and at Texas Baptist College." Today, LCA is a K-5 - 12th grade school that uses A Beka creationist curriculum. The entirety of "Texas Baptist College" is a single building that houses the dormitories, classrooms, library (if any), and laundry. Married students are forced to enroll their children in the unaccredited "Christian Academy."

Calvary Baptist Christian School, Fairfield, California [1986-1989]
"... we moved the family to Fairfield, California, where I became Assistant Pastor and principal at Calvary Baptist Christian School as well as a science teacher." This school has a current enrollment Pre-kinder to 12th grade of 59 students. The most students they ever had was 149. EVER!

East Hill Christian School, Pensacola, Florida [1989-?]. This is another church school created by Hovind. (A commenter, JohnLake has posted that East Hill Christian School was founded in 1958. They expanded to a K-12 in 1987. This of course raises the question of how long did Hovind teach there?)

"In 1989, I took a vow of poverty and to commit all my resources to spreading the word of God and truth about God’s hand in creation. That event gave birth to Creation Science Evangelism."

Hovind went on to boast that he was soon on the road giving lectures, sermons, and debates nearly full-time. Hovind verbally amended his biography in several videos recorded in the early 2000s to add 16 years after 1989 as a full time evangelist. In his 1991 "dissertation," Hovind claimed to be making 400 creationism presentations to schools and churches around the nation. He filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in 1996 claiming to have been a full time evangelist since 1989. There is also the question of "academic years, versus "calendar years." For example, Hovind's first teaching was at a church school he started in 1976 and left in 1978. That could be counted as 3 calendar years, but only 2 academic years: Sept. 1976 to June 1977, and Sept. 1977 to June 1978. Even giving Hovind the broadest interpretation, and allowing him the sham title of "science teacher," 1976 to 1989 is not 15 years.

Kent Hovind's "Doctorate"

Hovind claims a doctorate in "Christian Education." Hovind's dissertation is a bad joke written at a low high school grammar and vocabulary level. This vacuous work was sold to Hovind from "Patriot University," an unaccredited mail order degree shop.

In fact, Patriot U. has had to publish the following disclaimer regarding their "degrees."

DISCLAIMER

ACI accreditation (Accrediting Commission International which is as phony as Patriot U. and has been successfully sued for fraud) is not to be confused with regional accreditation which is governed by the U.S. Department of Education. A school or employer which requires a regionally accredited degree will likely not accept a non-governmentally accredited degree. Patriot Bible University nor ACI are responsible for a student's employability.

Student Advisory:

1. PBU's accreditation may or may not allow you to receive transfer credits to a secular school. If you are seeking a secular education degree, you would be best served to attend a secular institution. We grant Bible and religious degrees. If you hope to apply your Bible degree towards a secular degree at some time later on, the PBU courses and degrees are not likely to be fully applicable.

If you are going to seek employment with a particular church denomination or wish to transfer to a certain Christian college or university, you might confer with them first. Please consider what YOUR educational goals are.

2. A Patriot Bible University degree is recognized by many churches and ministry organizations. It will demonstrate to employers a higher level of study through the attainment of a degree. We have trained thousands of students during the last 30 years.

3. PBU's accreditation with this agency is a religious non-governmental accreditation, rather than secular - voluntary, rather than mandatory. The laws of Colorado give us the authority to grant religious degrees. The authority to grant degrees comes from the individual State, not the school's accrediting agency.

4. ACI monitors educational and religious standards for PBU, and their accreditation is accepted by many religious organizations. However, this accreditation would not be accepted by some secular organizations, as ACI is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as one of the seven official regional accrediting agencies.

This non-recognition may have some implications that include, but are not limited to:

1. Patriot Bible University is not eligible to participate in the Federal Student Loan/Financial Aid program.
2. Patriot Bible University is not authorized to accept the GI Bill.
3. Patriot Bible University is unable to guarantee acceptance of its degrees in other postsecondary institutions, except those also accredited by ACI
4. Corporations are not required to recognize degrees from Patriot Bible University.
(down loaded on 8 April, 2013 from Patriot U.'s website).

I downloaded Hovind's "dissertation" from wikileaks. To anyone familiar with Hovind's videos, the text will be very familiar. It is in most ways a transcript of Hovind's standard presentations. I am always impressed by how consistently bad it is.

Kent Hovind's Current Career

Kent Hovind, Federal Prisoner Register number 06452-017, began serving a ten-year prison sentence in 2007 following his conviction on 12 tax fraud offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of illegally structuring cash transactions. He is scheduled for release from prison on August 11, 2015 after serving the minimum allowed portion of his 10 year sentence. If you have a taste for court documents, this court's reply (PDF) to a petition filed by Jo (Mrs. Kent) Hovind gives the business structure of Kent Hovind's fortune.

Recently, Patriot Bible University has sold another doctorate to Kent Hovind. He has claimed to have gotten two masters and three doctorates in education, theology, and divinity (honorary). He now claims to have added a doctorate in "biblical ministry."

His most recent 'dissertation' titled "What on Earth is about to happen for Heaven's Sake," is available on-line as a PDF. I think it is better to Google for a current URL in case there are copy right issues.


Obviously Kent Hovind's account of his "doctorate" and "15 years teaching high school science" are as bogus as his creationism, and tax filings. As the courts found repeatedly, the numbers don't add up.

Kent Hovind released to Home Confinement, July 8, 2015.

There are several people who have been writing detailed reviews and assessments of Kent Hovind's legal woes. Rather than rehash what they have documented, I suggest you read their sites. Two I particularly recommend are Hovindology, and income tax expert Peter J Reilly. Mr. Reilly has two separate blogs, one for Forbes dot Com, and "Your Tax Matters Partner."

Kent Hovind is fresh out of prison. He has a one month home confinement up in August 2015. However, he has wasted no time in posting YouTube videos that contain many of his old lies. The first is of course that he "was a high school science and math teacher for 15 years."

A big frustration

I have said for years that I would not get sucked into the global warming debate. Warming is real. It is likely to end the current global civilization, to the extent one can say there is a global civilization.

But, there is only so many hours in a day to deal with ignorant assholes.

But this, 2010 – where does it fit in the warmest year list? is just too much.

Not just the stupidity of climate change denialism, but Easterbrook has manipulated data, and just plain lies as much as any creationist ever did. Even the recently departed Duane "Galloping" Gish would have respected this pile of bullshit.

The main issues are with Easterbrook's selective and dishonest manipulations of data. The main problem I have is in using graphic software to illustrate his lies. But I will keep working on it.

GermsGermsGerms

There is the frequent assertion that evolutionary biology is wrong because.... well, just because. Mostly because creationists don't like it, they invent a lot of absurd objections, one of them that there is a difference between a "scientific theory," and a "scientific law." Now this is an ignorant and silly thing to say, but it seems to be emotionally gratifying to creationists. In public debates, the pro-science advocate commonly replies that "Evoluiton is as well established as the "Theory" of gravity, or the Germ Theory of Disease."


Of the two, I think that the germ theory is a far better example, because "germ theory" is in fact weaker than evolution. Consider that "germs" are very far from the cause of all medical diseases. Plus, there are typically individuals with sub-clinical infections, and in cross-species transmissions, there are wild-type reservoirs. Even expanding the notion of "germs" to any infectious agent- nematodes, protozoa, yeast, fungal, bacterial, viral, or prions- there are still major and common diseases that are caused by totally different agents. Take for example environmental toxins. Arsenic in ground water, selenium in "loco weed," particulate carbon, or asbestos are all inorganic causes of serious, and common diseases. Traumatic injuries, malnutrition, and genetic accidents are leading causes of death today. Ironically, over eating is gaining in industrial nations as a cause of death. These events are exceeding the deaths caused by infection, although they may have been more evenly matched with infectious disease prior to the development of antibiotics.

We enfold all of these etiological factors in medical practice, and theory. The parallel to evolutionary theory is fine grained. Not all mutations are positive, not all negative mutations are eliminated. Even positive mutations are not necessarily spread through-out a population if they are beneficial. The pace of evolutionary change can be rapid like an epidemic, or very slow and environmentally conditioned like secondary hypertension, or trace-element poisoning. A particular mutation can be beneficial in one habitat to one sort of organism, and lethal in another. And, all of life on earth has been profoundly altered by shear accidents. Meteors smashing into the planet are not conditions that are adapted to, or predictable.

(Random thoughts waiting for the truck to get fixed).

This is too good to miss

I have recently written a brief comment on the ENCODE project, and the great joy the creationists have taken with their overstated "product."

Here is the fully orchestrated four part harmony exposure of the gross errors of fact and logic made by the ENCODE project leaders. This is how real science works. Free download PDF: "On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE."

"The ENCODE results were predicted by one of its authors to necessitate the rewriting of textbooks. We agree, many textbooks dealing with marketing, mass-media hype, and public relations may well have to be rewritten." Downloaded from http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ February 24, 2013.

I must give love to any scientific paper that can open with Frank Zappa, "Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, wisdom is not truth," —Robert Royar (1994) paraphrasing Frank Zappa’s (1979) anadiplosis.

This came over the transom from a Christian site:

Hello
i am Christiana by name a young pretty girl is my pleasure to meet you,so
how are you doing i hope all is well with you.I come across your profile today
in this site them i decided to contact you,i want us to have a good
relationship together if you do not mind i will like you to E-mail me at my private
Address(christ_lugard@yahoo.com.sg)so that i can tell you more about my self and my photo.i will be waiting for your mail soon,because i have something very important to tell you,thank you?

Do I play the fool, or just flag the come-on?

While I have been busy, I came across Chris Rodda

A teahadist creationist named Linda Athens has been writing extremist bullshit for the Kingman, Az "Daily Miner." Here is an example. I had never run head on into a follower of the revisionist "historian" David Barton before, and I was rushing off to start a major debunking. After a very interesting week or two, I found the work done by Chris Rodda. She saved me from any further need to debunk Barton. Her website is Liars for Jesus, which is also the title of her book debunking Barton. She has posted a slew of short YouTube videos well worth the time spent.


David Barton Lies About Chris Rodda - Part 1

Winter fishing

I have maintained some psychic equilibrium by fishing. Even the winter bite has been fairly good, especially when we have good bait.

The fish went back into the ocean, and the $135 jackpot went to the crew of the Sum Fun out of Dana Point Wharf.

Ms. Chatman goes balistically stupid

She watched the propaganda film, "Expelled." And because we know Ms. Chatman so well, her tiny brain predictably exploded.

For the reality based world's opinions on "Expelled," see Expelled Exposed. And, I egotistically hope you enjoy my article on Expelled for the National Center for Science Education, Why Re-Invent the Crystal?

We had a great day fishing

Dec. 31, 2012 aboard the Clemente out of Dana Warf.

In other news, life goes on.


Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!

By the way, I added a new post to Big Daddy is Dead