I just read a good mauling of a bigot over at Fundie Watch. The article in question picks apart an especially bad screed by concerned “woman” J. Matt Barber.

Your best bet is to go on over to Fundie Watch and enjoy the bloodshed. The only omission in his article is that he doesn’t call Barbie-Matt on his straw-man argument. In fact, I don’t often hear proponents of marriage equality refuting the marriage slippery-slope argument. I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to it. Here is an excerpt of the comment I left over at Fundie Watch:

We need to push back on these nitwits every time they talk about “The next thing you know, somebody will marry a snake!” That is a straw man. We can’t let them continue to bring that up.

Marriage is NOT on a slippery slope. It is on a staircase.

Ending marriage discrimination now would only have the effect of giving a minority the same rights that the majority already enjoys. Marriage is a civil contract between two people. It’s time to end the discriminatory practice of only allowing heterosexuals to marry.

Polygamy would not and could not be allowed under an extension of the current arguments in favor of gay marriage, for the simple reason that no members of society are currently given that right. Likewise for marrying your favorite sheep.

Incestual marriage is the closest thing to a slippery slope, but because of the inbreeding issue, there is an actual harm to society. This adds an extra burden that gay marriage doesn’t have. The courts usually look at such ramifications, so I think it’s unlikely that a ruling in favor of brother/sister marriage would happen.

Thanks to Atheist Hussy for turning me on to the YouTube videos of cdk007.

You’ll recall that recently I’ve spent some time abusing creationists. For all such abuse, just click on the Creationism category in the links in the sidebar. If you’re new to the blog, maybe you should start with some of my favorite articles:

• Big Valley Creation Science Museum—The Video
• Creation Museum Opens This Weekend (This is actually an old podcast that’s still funny)
• Kangaroos: Jumping to the Wrong Conclusions with Conservapedia
• Kangaroos: Behind the Scenes, Part 1
• Kangaroos: Behind the Scenes, Part 2

I view theocracy and creationism as the two biggest fundie threats to our country. Although both are dangerous and must be defeated, theocracy is inherently tragic. Creationism, though, is inherently funny, so I enjoy making fun of it more.

The video I want to call your attention to today does an excellent job of explaining the weird, fuzzy concept of “kind”. I tried to explain it in my own article Fundie Taxonomy, but cdk007’s video does a much better job. Please watch it. In order to defeat these people, we need to understand their language.

(If you can’t see the video, go to its YouTube page here.)

Hey, boys and girls! It’s quiz-time fun-time! I found a giant page of quizzes over at Christianet. They have one about that big old baddie, evolution. Let’s take it, shall we?

1. The Bible tells us that those who believe there is no Creator are fools.

I don’t see what this has to do with evolution. The Bible says lots of stupid things, so I’m going to guess true.

Let’s check their answer: True. Hey! I got one right! This is going to be easier than I thought.

Here’s their “explanation”:

Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

OK, but can we get to the evolution now?

2. The theory of evolution really exists to disprove that there is a God.

This one is clearly false. The theory of evolution says nothing about God.

Their answer: True. What? I got one wrong! Here’s their explanation:

2 Peter 2:1 - But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

That’s a little obtuse. Something about false teachers. That’s the problem when you homeschool! It’s like that old lawyer’s saying: “The man who defends himself has a fool for a client.” If you fundies want your kids properly educated, you should send them to public school.

3. God declares that He created the earth and heavens by the work of His hands.

This one is also false. There is no credible evidence that God even exists, so he could not have said anything.

Their answer: True. Wrong again!

Isaiah 45:11-12 - Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

God didn’t say that. The semi-literate schlub who wrote the Bible said it.

4. The Bible tells us to believe that the worlds were created from things that are not visible.

That sounds crazy enough to be something that’s in the Bible. I’ll say true.

Their answer: True. I got it right, but I’m a little confused. I thought this quiz was about evolution. Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of the Earth.

5. Evolution teaches that rain existed before man, and Scripture supports this theory.

I don’t remember anything specifically about rain in the theory of evolution, but it had to exist to make the world habitable. I don’t know what looney ideas the Bible has about rain, but I’ll just guess true for this one.

Their answer: False.

Genesis 2:5 - And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

What?! That’s just plain idiotic!

6. Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible.

I actually know what their answer is, because I’ve heard other creationists say it. However, I am going to answer truthfully, not the way the want me to. My answer is true.

Their answer: False.

Job 40:15-18 - Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

That’s certainly a big beast, but I can’t tell from the description what the heck it is. You can wish it to be the description of a dinosaur, but you could also claim it describes something else. After all, the Bible is a collection of stories that were already ancient at the time they were written down. There were always tales of incredible beasts from faraway lands. Ancient mariners saw manatees and thought they were mermaids, so I’m not going to believe every last detail of some hearsay fantasy.

7. The Bible teaches that created things do not evolve, but that all things continue as from the beginning.

That sounds stupid enough to be in the Bible. I’ll say true.

Their answer: True.

2 Peter 3:4 - And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

I may have gotten their question right, but the Bible is clearly wrong.

8. Gravity was created by God; He hung the earth upon nothing.

This one is clearly false. The Earth isn’t “hanging” on anything. Maybe the fundies who wrote this quiz could do us all a favor and hang from a tree limb, if you get my drift.

Their answer: True.

Job 26:7 - He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Well, they should stretcheth out the noose over the empty branch and hangeth their empty skulls above the Earth.

9. The sun and stars existed before the earth.

Easy! True. The Universe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 billion years old, but the Earth is a mere 4.5 billion.

Their answer: False. How could they botch something so simple?

Genesis 1:14-16 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Oh, right. They’re idiots.

10. The Bible has no record of an anarchic man living in caves.

I’m starting to detect a trend here. The answer to every question is accompanied by a Bible quote. If the answer is true, there would be no quote. I’m going to say false, because I bet these idiots can pull a quote out of their ass about cavemen.

Their answer: False.

Job 30:3-8 - For want and famine they were solitary; fleeing into the wilderness in former time desolate and waste. Who cut up mallows by the bushes, and juniper roots for their meat. They were driven forth from among men, (they cried after them as after a thief;) To dwell in the clifts of the valleys, in caves of the earth, and in the rocks. Among the bushes they brayed; under the nettles they were gathered together. They were children of fools, yea, children of base men: they were viler than the earth.

See? Fundies never disappoint!

11. Man was created in the likeness of other creatures.

This one is false. We were not specifically created. We just evolved.

Their answer: False.

Genesis 1:16 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Well they got the right answer, but for the wrong reason. BTW, what else would a “creeping thing” do but creepeth? Do fundies fall into this category? They sure creepeth me out!

12. The human race evolved from an ape-like creature.

True! Slam dunk!

Their answer: False.

Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Umm, no.

13. Marine life gradually developed over time.

True! Slam dunk!

Their answer: False.

Genesis 1:21 - And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

These people are clearly confused.

14. Creation was a completed event.

This statement is nonsensical. The Universe wasn’t “created” per se (as in the product of a creator). I’ll have to answer this in the more general sense. The Universe is continuing to expand, and life on Earth continues to evolve. Therefore, my answer is false.

Their answer: True.

Genesis 2:1 - Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

If they can show me that all species have stopped evolving, I’ll reconsider my answer.

15. Originally the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground.

False. I think as water formed in the atmosphere, it would have rained.

Their answer: True.

Genesis 2:6 - But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Cool! God uses drip irrigation!

16. God made every creature after its own kind.

False on two levels. God didn’t poof creatures into existence, and new species evolved out of old. Do two wrongs make a right?

Their answer: True.

Genesis 1:25 - And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I guess they do.

17. Death did not occur until after Adam sinned.

Another meaningless statement. Adam did not exist. I’ll have to say false.

Their answer: True.

Romans 5:12 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I’m not sure I even follow that sentence.

18. The heavens, earth, and sea were all created in seven days.

False. Billions of years.

Their answer: False. Hey! Could it be that they’re actually using real data for their answer? Let’s look what they have to say:

Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Wait! Wait! You’re going in the wrong direction! They’re saying it’s false, because the Earth was made in six days instead of seven? They’re off by so many orders of magnitude that I can’t even count that high.

19. Life is in blood bearing creatures, not plants.

Absolutely false. Plants are more full of life than Billy Graham’s wife.

Their answer: True.

Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls:

Well Leviticus also tells you to own slaves, so I wouldn’t put too much stock into what it says.

20. Plants wither and fade, but do not die.

Has to be false.

Their answer: True.

Jeremiah 12:4 - And the herbs of every field wither,

BFD! They whither. We knew that! You pinheads said they don’t die. Are you trying to tell me that after we grind and pulverize wheat to make flour and then bake it into bread, that it’s still alive? What is it, the great undead wheat stalk? All of the wheat cells that have been cast about creepeth back together like a dismembered vampire? Late at night, in stores all across the country, loaves of Wonder Bread creepeth off of their shelves and slowly maketh their wayeth toward the fields in Kansas whereth they were groweth? Once there, they will reassemble into reanimated wheat fields?

I knew there was some scary stuff in the Bible, but I had no idea just how frightening it all is!

21. Different races evolved from different animal species.

False. Race is not a scientifically valid concept. Furthermore, all humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Their answer: False.

Genesis 11:9 - Therefore is the name Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

This question doesn’t even make sense. Why did they ask it? Are they alleging that scientists claim that the so-called different “races” came from different animals? The fundie grasp of evolution is even more distorted than I thought.

22. The layers of rocks found in canyons prove that the canyons were formed over millions of years.

True. That one is a piece of cake (layer cake, that is!).

Their answer: False.

Genesis 8:3 - And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

That quote says nothing about layers. There they go again, just making stuff up!

23. Life developed from non-life.

False. Life developed from plants, which are undead.

(Actually, the answer is true. Exactly how life started is the haziest part of our understanding of the development of life, but there are some excellent hypotheses supported by good data. This is a lot more than the fundies can offer.)

Their answer: False.

Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Wow. The Earth brought forth grass and herb. I thought they were the same thing. That’s why the fundies flunked science. They spent their days smoking too much grass and herb.

24. There are evolution links between plants and animals.

Definitely true. All life is related, if you go back far enough. Why doesn’t this question include the other forms of life, such as bacteria and fungi? Oh, that’s right. Fundies are simpletons who believe in simple things, like race, talking snakes, and vampire bread.

Their answer: False.

Genesis 1:25 - And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Repeating something a bunch of times doesn’t make it true.

Hey, look! We’ve finally come to the last question!

25. The fact that primates have similar body functions as humans means that man has ancestry to these animals.

The answer is false. Similar body structure is not proof of common ancestry. It could be an example of convergent evolution. The proof of common ancestry between humans and the other primates (fundies repeatedly act like humans aren’t primates) is in the fossil record, our common DNA, and various other evidence.

Their answer: False.

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

They got the right answer, but for the wrong reason.

Now let’s see how well I did! According to their scoring system, I got 32%! Woohoo! A failing grade on a fundie evolution quiz is definitely a passing grade in my book!

In the 1920s and 1930s, Aimee Semple McPherson was a powerful voice in the fundie movement. She was one of the first to effectively use radio to reach the masses, and she was one of the first to try to merge church and state.

She started off life with the handicap of a religious upbringing, but she showed early promise by shaking it off at a young age. According to Wikipedia:

Her mother had been orphaned at an early age, and raised by a couple who worked with the Salvation Army. As a result, young Aimee was raised in an atmosphere of strong Christian beliefs. As a teenager, however, she became an avowed agnostic, and began her public speaking career at the age of 13 in this context, writing letters to the newspaper defending evolution and debating local clergy.

Alas, this was but a remission and not a cure. At age 17, she had a relapse:

In December 1907, she met her first husband Robert James Semple, a Pentecostal missionary from Ireland, while attending a revival meeting at the urging of her father. After her conversion and a short courtship, they were married on August 12, 1908.

They then went to China to try to destroy some lives over there. They contracted dysentery, and hubby died. Ah, those were the days! When Christian missionaries had a significant death rate!

She returned to the U.S., and couple of years later met her second husband, Harold Stewart McPherson. She almost died in 1913, which somehow made her think that God wanted her to run around the country annoying people with her preaching. This paragon of Christian values was divorced from hubby #2 in 1921.

In 1922, she got tired of roaming the country as an active predator and decided to settle in Los Angeles as a passive predator. In 1923, she opened Angelus Temple, which eventually became the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Wikipedia says:

As of 2000, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel … had grown to 1844 churches with 218,981 members in the United States. Worldwide membership is over 3.5 million in almost 30,000 churches in 123 countries.

This shows that her stink is strong to this day.

She was known for the showiness of her sermons. This helped her reach people who would otherwise be reluctant to attend a sermon. Wikipedia again:

Her illustrated sermons attracted people from the entertainment industry, looking to see a “show” that rivaled what Hollywood had to offer. These famous stage productions drew people who would never have thought to enter a church, and then presented them with her interpretation of the message of salvation.

She was also a pioneer in radio, not just radio preaching:

She also began broadcasting on radio in its infancy in the early [1920s]. McPherson was the first woman in history to preach a radio sermon, and with the opening of Foursquare Gospel-owned KFSG (now KXOL) on February 6, 1924, she also became the first woman to be granted a broadcast license by the Federal Radio Commission….

She gained notoriety in 1926, when she disappeared for 35 days. She claimed she had been kidnapped, but all of the evidence points to her having run off with a married man for a month-long tryst. Way to set an example, oh Christian leader!

Continuing with her sterling examples of “do as I say, not as I do”, this moral leader remarried.

On September 13, 1931, McPherson married again, this time to an actor and musician, David Hutton. … The marriage also caused an uproar within the church. The tenets of Foursquare Gospel, which were set up by McPherson herself, stated that no one should remarry while their previous spouse was still alive (which Harold McPherson was at the time). McPherson and Hutton separated in 1933, and divorced on March 1, 1934.

She died in 1944 of an (apparently accidental) overdose of barbiturates.

Finally, here’s a profile of her, aired recently on public radio (it’s the second story on the page). It’s worth listening to, because it goes into a little more depth on her attempts to merge church and state.

Another one of those retarded creationist museums is opening tomorrow. This one is in Alberta. I guess the United States is having such a rapturous orgasm of creationism that we ejaculated some fundies into Canada.

The Big Valley Creation Science Museum has a promotional video on their web site. I thought it would be fun to take a look at that. (If I have time in the next few days, I’ll write a post about their web site. It has a few laughs on it as well.)

The video starts off with “In the Beginning… was DARWIN”:

It then spends some time trying to discredit him. Nothing new here. Here are a couple of interesting claims, though:

“He was a trained theologian, not a scientist…” So what? Are they saying that people are only good for one thing? If you’re a theologian, you can’t do anything else? If you’re a mechanic, all you are capable of is fixing cars? If you’re a woman, you’re only good for making babies? Oh wait. I guess that is consistent with their beliefs.

If evolution was proposed by a non-scientist, that means it’s bogus? Well just about everybody who has worked on evolution since then has been a scientist, so I’d say that pretty much solidifies its credibility.

“…and science became his greatest adversary and judge.” I have no idea what that means, because science has proven almost everything he said. This must be a mistake. They must have combined two slides. The first was about Darwin, and the second was about Bishop Ussher.

Next comes a showy computer graphic:

OOO! AHHH! Seeing the Earth there with our big sun shining down upon us fills me with the spirit of the LAWD! Hallelu— whoops! It just passed.

Umm, guys? That’s not Alberta. It’s Africa. I know they both begin with “A”, but — Oh wait. It’s a rotating globe. They had me worried for a moment. I know fundies are stupid, but I didn’t think they were that stupid.

Wow! Now I’m getting excited! A sleeping giant! This is big news! It’s… It’s…

WTF? What kind of sleeping giant is that? It’s a God-damned 600-square-foot house, for Christ’s sake!

Well, let’s go inside:

Oh yes, I see the evidence! This dinosaur has massive, razor-sharp teeth, which it evolved for the sole purpose of tearing flesh. That’s funny. I thought this was supposed to be a creationism museum.

This next shot claims to be challenging evolution:

All it does is prove evolution to me. Here is that fossil’s modern-day descendent:

As you can see, the vestigial wings eventually evolved away. (For you young-uns out there, that’s Jane Fonda giving the Black Power salute in her mug shot. She was arrested in 1970 for pissing off conservatives.)

Now we’re treated to single words appearing on screen and then creeping toward us like the unsettling realization that we’re actually wasting ten valuable minutes of our life watching a creationist propaganda film. We see:

Evolution

has

been

FALSIFIED

It hasn’t, but they’re hoping you’ll be stupid enough to believe them.

By the way, you can see the reflection of several overhead lights and a window in this photo. This is a first class outfit. They spared no expense making a first-rate video.

Then comes a series of shots of alternately boring and tacky displays. The text is “Come see the scientific evidence that other museums don’t want you to see…”

That’s because other museums are in the business of displaying facts.

This is a model of a bacterium’s flagellum. Somehow this proves that God exists. Just because the fundies lack the brainpower to see how this could evolve, it doesn’t prove that God made it.

This electric motor bears a passing resemblance to the flagellum. The motor was designed; therefore, the bacterium was designed! Isn’t life grand when you don’t need to go beyond simplistic comparisons?

This next shot is the old creationist claim that species can’t gain genetic information over generations. It’s another fundie lie. But look at the picture:

That’s the reflection of the photographer’s hand and camera. Sheesh! Amateurs!

Then there’s some more drivel. Then the wrap-up. In sales, this is called the “closer”. In fundie-ville, it’s called the “mind-closer”:

There was information, but the fundies were too stupid to see it.

And concepts like evolution were too complicated to be understood by the retarded.

But it looked nothing like the life of today, for it had not yet evolved.

The next image says “In the beginning, there was…”

This image is accompanied by a bunch of fake stars shooting toward the viewer. I guess God is in his star cruiser and is lobbing photon torpedoes at us.

Oh, please! Do us all a favor and stay closed!

Thanks to Ain’t Christian, I found the Goon Bible Stories (actually, it’s just one story right now) on YouTube. Enjoy. (YouTube page is here.)

Thanks to Pharyngula, I found this academic article titled Why Do Some People Resist Science?. Here are some excerpts and my reactions:

But evolution is not the only domain in which people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination.

And it seems like all of them are my neighbors and co-workers!

There are two common assumptions about the nature of this resistance. First, it is often assumed to be a particularly American problem, explained in terms of the strong religious beliefs of many American citizens and the anti-science leanings of the dominant political party.

If they’re suggesting that’s not true, then how do they explain this?

Yes, we’re special. Not as in “precocious”. I mean as in “special class”.

Second, the problem is often characterized as the result of insufficient exposure to the relevant scientific facts, and hence is best addressed with improved science education.

That would help some people, but if your mind is closed, I doubt better science classes can open it.

We believe that these assumptions, while not completely false, reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of this phenomenon. While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults’ resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.

That’s the end of their introduction. I’ll now try to grab a highlight or two from the main article.

What Children Know

The main source of resistance to scientific ideas concerns what children know prior to their exposure to science. The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as  “blank slates.” Rather, even one-year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a “naïve physics”) and the social world (a “naïve psychology”).

This explains why fundies stay naïve their whole lives.

[T]hese intuitions also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. [… ] Children’s belief that unsupported objects fall downwards, for instance, makes it difficult for them to see the world as a sphere — if it were a sphere, the people and things on the other side should fall off.

This is different from unsupported claims such as “Intelligent Design”, which somehow manage to stay aloft.

Our intuitive psychology also contributes to resistance to science. One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. […] Just as children’s intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that the Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.

This is something I’ve noticed in fundies. Their understanding of the world seems to be completely intuitive. They can’t imagine the Universe without a creator; therefore, there is no creator. In prehistoric times, people couldn’t imagine a round Earth. That didn’t mean it wasn’t.

But Americans really are special when it comes to certain scientific ideas—and, in particular, with regard to evolutionary theory.

The authors then reproduce that chart that I showed above. See? Even they admit Americans are “special”!

How Children Learn

Part of the explanation for resistance to science lies in how children and adults process different sorts of information. […] Some culture-specific information is not associated with any particular source. It is “common knowledge.” As such, learning of this type of information generally bypasses critical analysis. […] [I]f the existence of supernatural entities like gods, karma, and ancestor spirits is never questioned by adults in the community, the existence of such entities will be unquestioningly accepted by children.

So children in fundie households start out behind the eight-ball. Actually, I think the Magic Eight Ball is what their parents consult for answers. (“Is there a God?” “Signs point to yes.”)

(This is a real product. You can buy it here.)

Other information, however, is explicitly asserted. Such information is associated with certain sources. […] When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. […] So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source.

Some of us think that thousands of trained scientists examining mountains of consistent data are credible. Some of us think that a fat Southern anti-Semitic charlatan spouting ancient superstitions is credible.

This deference to authority isn’t limited to science; the same process holds for certain religious, moral, and political beliefs as well. […] Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe. Do children do the same? Recent studies suggest that they do….

This means that merely telling children that life evolved isn’t going to work, if once they get home their parents tell them that what they are learning in school is just a homosexual-atheist conspiracy to kill God. (This isn’t true, of course. The Jews are also involved.)

Implications

In sum, the developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology.

In other words, we don’t stand a chance.

The study’s authors are less pessimistic:

To end on a practical note, then, one way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.

Yes, that would help some, but you’d have to raise science’s credibility above that of the Bible. In a population that is convinced that the Grand Canyon was created by God sneezing, I don’t see that happening.

The Institute for Creation “Research” is moving in on Sally Struthers’ turf. They now offer a correspondence course!

They’re calling it the Creationist Worldview Program. What they don’t tell you is that a creationist’s worldview is of a flat Earth. No creationist will admit that, of course, but creationism was invented right around the time of the flat Earth “theory”. If you’re going to accept creationism, you might as well buy the whole hog and accept its contemporary.

I was looking at their web site, and a couple of things jumped out at me. First, here’s a partial screen capture of the site. It depicts a list of the five “platforms” of this training.

You can see that I flagged the fourth item. Fundie irony. Gotta love it.

The next paragraph says:

Distinctive to ICR’s Worldview studies are the more than thirty engaging courses […] all from top scientists, academicians, and theologians.

I sincerely doubt that any “top scientists” are involved in their pathetic little correspondence course. No top scientists who work in any field touching on biology reject evolution. Of course, these retards don’t give us any names. I guess we’re just supposed to take it on faith that they have some “top scientists”. Taking things on faith is an easy thing for their target audience to do.

Next comes a list of all of the courses. Unfortunately, there’s no description here. Classes such as “Science and Geology” sound benign, but I’m sure they’re full of denials of geology.

They also offer classes whose very names scream their bogus nature. “Science and Intelligent Design” is the most glaring example.

Student Agreement

Another page lists the Student Agreement. If you’re stupid enough to sign up for this course, this is what you’re agreeing to. Here are a few excerpts:

If you successfully complete the Program you will receive Certification in Creationist Worldview Studies from ICR.

Hot damn! A certificate! I hope it’s suitable for framing! They didn’t say that it was. What they really need to do is print the certificate on toilet paper, so it’s actually good for something.

It is your responsibility to verify if any portion of the Program qualifies for Continuing Educational Units (CEU) by your professional organization.

That’s because as far as they know, no organization would be stupid enough. I certainly wouldn’t want to be a member of an organization that would accept this course for CEUs.

The Program does not grant accredited transferable college credits.

Well there’s a freakin’ surprise!

The Program does not grant associate, bachelor, master, or doctoral degrees.

I was ready to make a joke about this being a stupidly obvious statement, but they have a link to their other site that offers “advanced degrees in science”!! Holy crap! (literally, in this case) Isn’t it great to know that there are creationists out there granting advanced degrees in biology? I hope your child’s school doesn’t employ any of their graduates!