Fixed It!

Kentucky's Tax Payer Ark Encounter

Last week, Kentucky's state tourism board approved up to $43 million in tax incentives for the construction of Ark Encounter, a creationist theme park.

The tax rebates, which could subsidize up to 25% of the $150 million project, were granted under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act. The state government's website says that the act "allows eligible tourism attractions a rebate of sales tax up to 25% of project capitol costs over a 10 year period," provided that projects have a positive economic impact.

(MORE: Kentucky creates new jobs by building Noah's Ark)

Ark Encounter will include Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, an ancient walled city, and other Biblical renditions. A Christian organization called "Genesis in America" heads the project that is scheduled to break ground in August and open in the spring of 2014. The organization also built the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

The proximity of state funds and religion is admittedly a bit dubious, but proponents of this project argue that the state will reap significant economic benefits, especially in terms of job creation. According to Gov. Steve Beshear the park, "is projected to create 600 to 700 full-time jobs and have an economic impact of more than $250 million in its first year of operation."

But Americans United for Separation of Church and State raises the obvious question — what about that pesky little issue of church and state? You know, one of the tenets our country was built upon? In a statement, the group accused the state of “subsidizing fundamentalist religion” and criticized the decision to approve tax incentives for a religious endeavor, even one that may boost the economy. After all, will said park offer employment opportunities for non-fundamentalists?

Gil Lawson, of the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, told Talking Points Memo the law establishing tax incentives is neutral. "We treated this application like any other," he said. "We can not discriminate against this project based on any religious criteria."

Read More:

To be fair, Kentucky is also going to invest in an Atheist theme park too. But no one believed in it, so now no one knows - or cares - where it is. Besides, waiting around for something to evolve in Kentucky wasn't a very good ride anyway.

Chicken or Egg?

Double funny: the carpenter hired out a roofer.

Good Answer to Stupid

No Creationist Masters Degrees

Judge Tosses Creationists' Effort to Offer Master's Degrees
By MELISSA LUDWIG SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit by a creationism think tank and school that attempted to force the state of Texas to allow it to offer master's degrees in science education.

In 2008, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board rejected the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research's application to offer master's degrees, which taught science from a biblical perspective. The institute's graduate school sued in 2009, claiming the board violated its constitutional right to free speech and religion.

'Disjointed, incoherent'

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin found no merit in the institute's claims and criticized its legal documents as "overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information."

In an e-mailed statement, school representatives said they were reviewing the decision and may appeal.

The National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit that defends the teaching of evolution, cheered the decision.

"The Coordinating Board made a principled decision in the first place, and it is good to see it was upheld in a court of law," said Glenn Branch, the center's deputy director.

The Institute for Creation Research's graduate school, which is based in California, has been offering master's degrees in that state since 1981, according to its website. Aimed at aspiring Christian schoolteachers, the curriculum critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation.

My half a penny, maybe we can start a new school that applies scientific principle to your beliefs? Oh, what's the matter? You don't like that idea?

I am encouraged that there is still a tiny spark of sanity left in Texas.

All the Angles

This table is very well done and sums up most of the usual argumentative angles used by creationists. Have fun!

Thanks to the The Atheist Missionary who sent it our way!

Doublethink? Doubleplus good!

Submitted by Lara.

If you can’t beat them, take their published works, remove what you disagree with, and then add a 50 page ad hominem attack. That’s what one fundamentalist group has done to Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Although there were too many big words, so the Creationist version is handily identifiable by being titled “Origin of Species”.

Think I’m being biased? In their own words, straight from their site:

A recent study revealed that in the 50 top universities in the U.S. (in the fields of psychology and biology), an amazing 61 percent of respondents described themselves as atheists or agnostics. It’s no wonder atheism has doubled in the last 20 years among 19-25 year olds. An entire generation has been (and is being) brainwashed by atheistic evolution, and it’s radically changing the culture of our nation.

In an effort to combat this, we produced a special 280-page full color cover edition of Origin of Species, which contains a 50-page introduction. This introduction gives the history of evolution, a timeline of Darwin’s life, Hitler’s undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin’s racism, his disdain for women, and his thoughts on the existence of God. It lists the theory’s many hoaxes, exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything, points to the incredible structure of DNA, and the absence of any species-to-species transitional forms.

Their master plan? To flood college campuses nationwide on November 24th (the 150th Anniversary of the first publishing) with altered copies. Their goal, to give a 1000 copies away per school.

To quote submitter Lara “This is the size of the template at stickerguy.com, in case someone wants to have some printed to put all over the f**ked-over Origin of the Species books showing up at schools.”

A fine idea indeed. For reference, the template she used was for 4.25 x 2.75, and again you should use the full size version linked here.

You can also read the original via Google Books.

Dinosaur Adventure Land: To Be Seized

Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's... Unless you have a great accountant who can set up a offshore tax shelter for you.

Dinosaur Adventure Land, Kent Hovind's creationist theme park in Pensacola, Florida, might be seized by the federal government, the Pensacola News Journal said. Back in November 2006, a federal jury found Hovind guilty of fifty-eight charges, including failing to pay payroll taxes for his employees, structuring financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements, and "corruptly endeavor[ing] to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws." Hovind was subsequently sentenced to ten years in prison and to pay over $600,000 in restitution.

After the judge presiding over the case ordered that two bank accounts and ten real properties located in Pensacola be forfeited to satisfy the financial judgment against Hovind, two claimants filed separate objections. Eric Hovind — who is running Creation Science Evangelism while his father is incarcerated — claimed ownership of a single property, in which he lives, while Glen Stoll — who was hired by Hovind to restructure his ministry so its assets would be managed through supposedly tax-exempt trusts — claimed ownership of the remaining nine as well as one of the bank accounts.

Eric Hovind's claim was upheld by the court in its July 29, 2009, order, which noted that the conveyance of the title to his home was not part of Stoll's scheme for restructuring the ministry. But Stoll's claim was not: the court held that "Stoll has not shown he played anything more than a titular role in the trusts he created, and the court finds he was a nominee title holder for Kent and Jo Hovind. ... As such, Stoll has no legal interest in any forfeited substitute property and lacks standing to challenge the court’s June 28, 2007, and October 8, 2008, forfeiture orders."

Among the properties forfeited appears to be Dinosaur Adventure Land, which describes itself as "a theme park and science museum that gives God the glory for His creation." Reporting on his visit there in the November 2004 Skeptical Inquirer, Greg Martinez concluded, "Dinosaur Adventure Land is just a playground tricked out with dinosaur dressage to attract an audience that can then be enticed, seduced, and eventually duped into accepting superstitions, pseudoscience, and plain nonsense passed off with a patina of both scientific and religious authority."

Genesis Revisited

Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story

See, it's complicated if your Board of Education doesn't allow you to learn science.

Why Earth Isn't Millions of Years Old

"Comets indicate the solar system is less than 10,000 years old"

I'm fascinated with this guy... he can just go on talking about things that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, and flatly just wrong about... and I keep watching. Hypnotized, lulled into his calm but serious voice.

Ken Hovind Creation-Evangalist seminar, excerpt from: "Seminar 1 Why The Earth is Not "Millions of Years Old."



My favorite parts?
"No one's ever seen a sun being born."
"Big Dinosaurs were Mooned To Death"
"Comets indicate the solar system is less than 10,000 years old."

A little about the speaker: He's 57, he graduated from East Peoria Community High School. He is married and has three adult children and five grandchildren. Since November 2006 Hovind is serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Kent Hovind is scheduled for release from prison in August 2015.

Razzledazle

When asked what’s his secret to staying creative, Seth MacFarlane’s answer was very actionable. He said to watch this specific YouTube clip. Really.



"You're going to f**king thank me for that one," MacFarlane said.

And if he’s still creatively blocked? He says he searches for canceled Fox sitcom "Back To You."

"You'll be pleasantly surprised that there are some people even more creatively blocked than you are," he said.

(Actually, this one video alone explains most of the 'humor' of the Family Guy program)

Museums

An Evolution Museum plans to build a museum dedicated to evolution in Petersburg, KY, opposite the Creation Museum.

The Evolution Museum believes that all people must be educated on the theory of evolution. The world needs balance and the Evolution Museum aims to create balance in the Midwestern states of the U.S.

The proposed location for the Evolution Museum is right across the highway from the Creation Museum.

The Evolution Museum will be a non-profit and funded through online donations. The pillars of the non-profit will hold the values of transparency and social direction. All activities will be published online and members will be able to give guidance to the non-profit.

That's awesome -- but I thought, don't we already have those? They're called "Museums?"

It was all fun and games...

until I found this picture...

My gads!! Not only is this picture depicting the idea of adapting to one's environment - AKA the notion of Evolution... it's ALSO FUGGING WRONG!!! Horses DIED OFF and went EXTINCT in the Americas. Neither fun, nor facts.

I hereby declare that this form of ignorance should be considered child abuse and prosecuted with vigilance. If you are a believer of such stuff, you should ask for a refund from your grade school.

Creationists Fail in Florida

Creationists: "If you put evolution in textbooks, you have to call it a scientific theory."
School Board: "Um, sure. And let's teach kids what that actually means too."
Creationists: "HAHAHAHA... wait, what?"

The Florida Board of Education officially upheld evolution yesterday.

The board didn't quite mean to do that, of course. In a 4-3 vote, the Board accepted a proposed curriculum that replaced all references to evolution with the phrase "the scientific theory of evolution." In so doing, the board inadvertently made evolution central to public school science education, and also, almost incidentally, mandated education on just what constitutes a "scientific theory." (linky-to-story in Wired)

I love it when Creationists show short sighted and the inability to smell a trap by smart people. Apparently, the opposition only needed to put a brown paper bag on the floor, and the Creationists wouldn't have been able to escape it.

Not only will Florida's students learn about evolution; they'll also learn that the scientific definition of a theory is different from the everyday definition , referring not to wild-eyed speculation but to a vast body of observation and testing that confirms a hypothesis so strongly that it might as well be considered fact.

Thanks and a shout out to religious critics of evolution education. The language change will better help Florida's children understand not only evolution, but science itself.

Suck it.

Masters in Creation

Coming soon to Texas education: A Masters degree in Creation Science
(link, Mother Jones)

You know, it used to be that if you could draw the picture of a duck and a pirate you could be a graphic designer...

And at finally you can respect the Philosophy major. At least there's a method!

I mean, what is the Creationist Method?
Throw your hands up and declare, "It's just too complicated! I believe God must have done it!"

Belief in a thing doesn't make it so. I believe more than three people read this blog - it just doesn't make it so. See, I can add code to the HTML and actually 'record' and 'observe' how many 'hits' Blasphemes takes - and no, I'm not talking about the War on Drugs right now...

Creation Science has got to be like Military Intelligence or Jumbo Shrimp - right?

Frankly, I'd be more impressed if there was a Masters in Magic. That freaky dude with the mustache who was on the Muppet Show, Doug Henning could be a guest speak- oh, he's dead? Really? Liver Cancer? Wow. Bummer.

I'd keep making jokes, but this is Baylor University. A (once) respected institution. Does the Oral Roberts 'school' offer this?

Fine. You know what? Go for it. And that's one more person I don't have to compete with for a real job. Even your typical HR slug will have a red flag for this applicant. You might want to get a minor in 'Frier Technology in the 21st Century." That evolution from Trans-fat oil to non-transfat oil at your fry station is going to be a bitch, dude.

Discussion Evolves

Getting "Creationism" into schools failed. "Intelligent Design" had its day in court, and has lost. Now it's time to "Teach the Controversy."

In 2005, Pennsylvania federal Judge John Jones III handed down a stunning decision that, at the time, most thought would take down the intelligent design movement. But American creationism doesn't die. It just adapts.

It's amazing to me that the Creationist movement has evolved and adapted, but their thinking has not.

A while ago, when the courts deemed creation science -- proto intelligent design -- a religious view and not constitutionally teachable as science in public schools, it adapted by cutting God off its letterhead and calling itself "intelligent design." The argument for I.D., and for "scientific creation theory" before it, is that evolution isn't up to the task of accounting for life. Given biology's complexity, and natural selection's inability to explain it, I.D. thinking goes, life must be designed by a, well, designer. I.D.ers skirted any mention of God, hoping to avoid getting snagged on the First Amendment's prohibition against promoting religion by arguing that I.D. was just a young and outlying science.

In the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge Jones ruled that if you want to teach intelligent design in science class, first you have to show that it is a distinct species from its earlier, creationist form, not just a modified type. You've got to show us the science part.

Besides, Jones declared, your intelligent designer is obviously God.

The six-week trial -- the focus of a Nova documentary, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," aired Nov. 13 -- addressed a host of heady questions. What is science and how does it work? Can evolution account for the diversity of life we see on earth? What is religion? Can science say anything about the existence of a creator and still be science? It also examined the motivations of a local school board that tried to smuggle creationism into its high school biology curriculum. The judge's decision -- that I.D. was not science and that the school board was trying to promote its members' own religious views -- was followed by a short period of shock from the I.D. community. But now they're reorganizing and is now attacking Evolution through the expanded coverage of the controversy.

"Evolution remains under attack," says Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist and a director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit dedicated to teaching evolution in public schools. "If creationists have their way, teachers will eventually just stop teaching evolution. It'll just be too much trouble. And generations of students will continue to grow up ignorant of basic scientific realities."

(Here's all of it)

The Evolution of Creationism

I was surprised by the question, because it was the very same one I've been wanting to ask people like her for a looong time...

I was listening to Anderson Cooper 360 (CNN) last week. With Time carrying us all toward the culmination of one of the most, um, grave religious seasons of the year, when all of Christendom celebrates the resurrection of the man-sized, clown-faced, egg-laying Easter Bunny by filling brightly-colored plastic eggs with candy and then hiding them, Cooper was running a series of... segments, I guess you'd call them, entitled, "What is a Christian?"

In one of these... segments, Cooper was moderating (fueling the fire of) a debate --which on cable news means a verbal splooging of finely-honed dogma that escalates into a shouting match of not so finely-honed dogma before the host cuts them off and reminds everybody that this is, after all, America in the twenty-first century and, therefore, commercialism trumps news or views or discussion, every time, and we'll be right back-- moderating a debate over whether or not the Theory of Intelligent Design should be taught alongside the Theory of Evolution in public schools.

The Theory of Intelligent Design is a prime example of the latest, ahem, evolution in the shaping of the message being pushed by the Religious Right. It is the next step up the ladder from simple spin doctoring-- one of the best examples of which is the labels applied to the abortion issue.

Most supporters of Roe v. Wade refer to themselves as "pro-choice." It's an accurate enough term: While they're not in favor of abortion per se, they are in favor of keeping the option legal, if only for others to use. The implied rhetorical logic, of course, is that opponents of the Roe v. Wade decision are "anti-choice" --which is also accurate. If you need proof of that, all you have to do is read enough bumper stickers that say "It's not a choice. It's a child."

Anti-abortionists, realizing early on that they weren't getting anywhere by labeling themselves "anti-abortionists," or by labeling their opponents "murderers" and "baby killers" --not to mention the hypocrisy of killing abortion clinic employees-- decided to give themselves a positive label: "Pro-life." Apparently, their views on capital punishment are an entirely separate issue.

As I said before, the Theory of Intelligent Design represents the next step-- a far more sophisticated mechanism for introducing theology into the secular world. Fully realizing that they run the risk of being branded as kooks and superstitious crackpots if they do nothing more than thump The Book of Genesis down on the debate table, the Religious Right and others who desperately want there to be something more than a great big empty out there have carefully crafted an argument which they hope will seem more reasonable and be more palatable. It is a somewhat clever (insidious?) argument, because it utilizes one of the basic imperatives of the scientific method itself: The imperative to question and to challenge that which is accepted.

The Intelligent Designists, you see, do make a valid point when they say the Theories of Evolution and Big Bang --no matter how widely they are accepted-- should be continually explored, questioned, and challenged with alternatives. The very same scientific method which led to the acceptance of those theories says so. One thing many people tend to overlook most of the time is that the word "theory," within the realm of science, has a weighty definition: It means that while the evidence would seem to support a particular idea, that while all the data seems to fit, nothing has been proven.

Furthermore, Intelligent Designists are also accurate when they accuse evolutionist of having a knee jerk negative reaction to any theory that isn't Darwinism and the Big Bang. Most evolutionists, seeing a lamb in wolf's clothing --theology in the guise of science-- do have that reaction.

Such was the case last Wednesday night when Anderson Cooper was doing a not very good job of referee-ing the barnyard squabble between an evolutionist named Robert Boston (Americans United For Separation of Church and State) and a creat-- uh, intelligent-designist named Charmaine Yoest (Family Research Council). Had it been a debate competition, held in a vacuum, where it didn't matter who was right or wrong but only how well they represented their assigned point of view... she would have royally kicked his [donkey]. Whereas she came across as reasonable and fair-minded, he was the one who seemed dogmatic, exclusionary and nit-picky. During one near-hysterical exchange, he repeatedly interrupted her-- badgering her about the age of the planet. For her part, she chose to ignore the question on the grounds that her personal opinion regarding any one detail was beside the point of the larger argument.

This debate, however, was not and is not being held in a vacuum, and there are, I think, some important points to be, uh, pointed out...

Among many other things, Yoest, regarding what she referred to as the "censorship of anything non-Darwinian," said: "I think our children have more robust intelligence and, and questioning to be able to cope with looking at all the different theories that are out there."

Then she said: "I just have to ask: What is he [Robert Boston] so scared of?"

Later, as the squabble became more heated, she addressed Boston directly with the same question: "What are you so scared of?"

I was surprised by the question, because it was the very same one I've been wanting to ask people like her for a looong time: What are you afraid of?

Because I'll tell you what I'm afraid of. In fact, I'll go you one better, Charmaine: I'll tell you what you're afraid of, too...

Children --especially young children-- often do have a more robust intelligence than they are given credit for. However, they are sorely lacking in skepticism and critical thinking. In some ways that's good: It fuels creativity. In some ways, though, it's bad: It makes them gullible, impressionable. As children grow into adulthood, some of that early intelligence morphs into "common sense" and rote, the growing skepticism warps into a certain jadedness and, apparently, Charmaine, their critical thinking develops some major-league blind spots. You'd be appalled if you really knew how many walking, talking and otherwise clear-headed people there are in this country who are utterly convinced that all rivers flow south.

The Theory of Intelligent Design presupposes the existence of a supreme being. Any such theory is --by definition!-- theology, not science. Theology belongs in theology class, not science class.

The following passage is from the first chapter of The Book of Genesis: "God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night..."

Clearly, this passage refers to the sun and the moon. Notice the poetic --dare I say metaphorical-- use of the word "govern." If the god you believe in does exist, Charmaine, then neither the sun nor the moon govern anything at all-- He does. So much for a literal reading of the text.

Moreover, the moon is not a light source; it is a planetary body whose soil is appreciably reflective. It does not glow with light of its own; it reflects the light of the sun. The Book of Genesis is not a scientific text; it is an ancient collection of often rather stilted bedtime stories. In fact, that's all it was ever meant to be. Why, I got a phone call from God just last week, and he told me that he's very disappointed in all you creationists' failure to grasp the concept of allegory. He finds it strange that the very same people who think He invented, well, you know, Everything find it so hard to believe that He invented storytelling. He wonders why Jesus is allowed to use parables to make a point, but He isn't.

He also thinks Howard is a jerk.

And Dick Cheney, too.

So, Charmaine, what am I afraid of?
I'm afraid of superstitious, fairy-tale believers like you, with your heads in the sand and gaping holes in your critical thinking, filling the minds of impressionable young souls --that are already destined to have low test scores-- with bedtime stories masquerading as scientific fact. I'm afraid of you and your kind pushing this country and its people toward the very kind of theocracy we're supposed to be fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm afraid that you True Believers are the harbingers of a new Dark Age.

And now, Charmaine, do you know what you're afraid of?
Death. It is cold and dark out there and it lasts a long, long time, and you just can't face the very real possibility that when the end comes it will indeed be The End. You are afraid of the astounding insignificance that bespeaks-- that your existence was an accident to begin with and someday all too soon it will be Over, completely, forever, and your life will ultimately mean no more to the universe than the life of an ant in Timbuktu means to you...

Ah, but take heart: For while most evolutionists seldom speak of God and, indeed, very well may not believe in one, the Theories of Evolution and Big Bang do not preclude His existence. They don't even try to do that. What they try to do is explain the physical mechanics of the world and the universe, nothing more. Oh sure, in doing so they reaffirm that The Book of Genesis is a theological text, neither science nor, for that matter, history. But that's not the end of the world.

Heck, it's not even the beginning.

------------------------------
P.S.... Bud "The Serpent" Selig must go.