Happy new year!

So I burnt out. Oops. It’s happened before, it will happen again, but this is certainly the longest so far. But I’m going to try to come back to it now – we’ll see how it goes.

But besides its length, the other unusual part of this hiatus is that for the last five and a half months I’ve been completely out of the loop – neither answering emails, moderating comments, or following the creationist news at all. So if anyone wants to update me on what’s happened since early August, the comments are open.

18 thoughts on “2015

  1. Umm … hopefully I’m going to get published in Answers Research Journal soon? 😀

    I submitted a paper a couple of months ago about Jeff Tomkins 70% similarity.

    • Negative! I got the editor’s word though, that if I make valid scientific points, then it will be published. Obviously I’m coming up against some resistance, but I think they are running out of objections.

  2. Welcome back 🙂

    Don’t feel bad. This is a hobby for you and hobbies can begin to feel like a burden when you feel compelled to keep them up for the sake of others.

    I’m glad you’re back and I look forward to more exciting content this year.

    If you’re interested, I’d be happy to contribute from time to time as a guest contributor. Here is something I researched and wrote about 6 months ago in response to a Jeffrey Thomkins paper challenging the existence of a fusion site on human chromosome 2.

    • Thanks!

      I’ve thought about accepting guest posts in the past, but for some reason I don’t think many of the spam emails I get offering are genuine. 🙂 If you want to offer me anything to post I’ll definitely consider it!

  3. Welcome back.

    So if anyone wants to update me on what’s happened since early August, the comments are open.

    Nothing much has happened. Creationism seems to be slowly dying.

    Oh, Ken Ham lost his tax subsidy for his Ark Park, and is having a fake persecution complex about it.

  4. > So if anyone wants to update me on what’s happened since early August, the comments are open.

    Here’s a doozy

    What the scientists found:

    > We performed comparative genomic analyses representing lineages of nearly all extant bird orders and recovered shared, inactivating mutations within genes expressed in both the enamel and dentin of teeth of other vertebrate species

    How ICR spun it (lied about it):

    > Besides, if all birds descended from a single ancestor that had lost the integrity of its tooth genes, then shouldn’t all 46 of the birds they tested have inherited the same genetic mishap? Instead, the study authors found an array of gene alterations.

    They did find the same genetic mishaps in all 46 birds – these were found across 2 genes (enamel and dentin)

  5. Correction, the shared inactivating mutations were found across 6 genes: ENAM, AMEL, AMBN,
    MMP20, AMTN and DSPP.

    Here is the paper

    Quoting the researchers: This shared pattern of pseudogenization across living birds supports the hypothesis that the common ancestor of modern birds lacked mineralized teeth

  6. Glad to see you back! Life does distract from our favorite or most important “missions” on occasions, and absences are understandable and unavoidable, and the best we can do is return to our passions when time and mood suits. Those of us who share your perspectives understand and we appreciate your work here and understand your interruptions from it, for Life does the same thing to all of us!

    For starting the fourth decade I’ve been thinking YECism will soon die from the the combination of crushing avalanche after avalanche of objective knowledge that crucially corroborates old-Earth evolution (historical fact and valid scientific theory), but Noooo… new YECs come upcropping right regularly and every one of them assumes that an OEEist like me has never read and considered the arguments of so-called “creation science” (when indeed ’tis they who have not read what evolutionists have abundantly written explaining the what and why we think as we do). Work like yours here makes it as lot easier for us to introduce such YECists to the veritable mountain of counter-arguments and contrary (to YECism) empirical evidence by referring them to your very thoughtful articulations here.

    So Welcome back, stay as long as you can, and hurry back when time and mood suits as Life distracts you understandably and unavoidably in the future — we’ll understand, and we are grateful for what you do when you can!

  7. Welcome back Peter. Frank, while I think YECism is struggling in some ways, and ICR is one of the groups that seem to be in decline, I think YECism is going to be around for a long time. One sad reason why is that so many people are scientifically illiterate, and thus easy marks for YEC propaganda. Plus, many of the YECs creating and spreading the propaganda, including several ICR staff and authors, are themselves poorly informed in the relevant scientific evidence or seem to have no hesitation to present evidence in misleading or dishonest ways.

  8. I posted this in another part of the blog, but I think this may be the better place for it. In case anyone has not heard, John Morris, who succeeded his father Henry as president of ICR in 2006, recently suffered a stroke, and is no logger serving as president as he focuses on his recovery. Has anyone heard how he is doing, or who the new president of ICR is? I could not find this on their website. Thanks.

    • That’s a bit tragic – when did it happen? I can’t find who they picked either, so I wonder if the Praetorian Guard hasn’t finished deciding yet…

    • I fear you are right, Glen, YECs may well be with us always; we both know some who know better yet remain YECs (’tis a great and frustrating mystery for me, such resistance to reason and/or trashing of intellectual candor).

    • Yeah, the term “cognitive dissonance” comes to mind. Amid the “crushing avalanche” of evidence you mention, many YECs have the stones to claim the evidence is overwhelmingly on their side, and that more and more scientists are abandoning the “theory.” Many of their audience just don’t know enough science to see through this steaming pile of malarkey, nor care to research it in any depth– trusting whatever YEC leaders say over those pesky, godless “evolutionists.”. Another factor is that YECs are cranking out their propaganda faster than ever, and in new formats (websites, ebooks, etc), and packaging it increasingly slick and professional-looking ways, despite the lack of scientific substance. For example, compare what ICR’s “Acts and Facts” looked like years ago (a plain little flier) to what it looks like today –a large, colorful magazine full of photos, charts, and scientific jargon, and bristling with innuendos against mainstream scientists.


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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s