For the last few weeks I have been privately following the extended demise of the ICR’s K-12 “educational” blog, Science Essentials. The TL;DR of this post is that science-essentials.org now redirects to a page on the main ICR website, but there is more to the story than that. Continue reading
The new ICR logo (here’s the old one, for comparison) has finally made it to the main website – here at the top of Guliuzza’s most recent article, as the flash on the main page does not screenshot well. Amusingly, the change takes it away from the style of the “Idelogical Education Essentials” banner which I use from time to time, and closer to the “That’s a Video” one.
To help compare the new style to the old, here’s a random screenshot of an article from late August – it’s a fairly gradual change when you look at it in context. We’re still waiting for Science Essentials to follow suit, but they might not.
In unrelated news, “germs to Germans” is now my favourite variation on that alliterative phrase.
That, in effect, is the admission from Rhonda Forlow in her latest Ask Dr Rhonda post, Evolution and Science:
Q: Is evolution a scientific fact?
A: In a short answer, no. But, by the strictest definition, neither is creationism, theistic evolution, or any other origin (historical) science.
Of course her “historical science” logic is flawed, as simply dealing with the past does not make a field unscientific. If evolution isn’t science, then what is it? (It’s certainly not a religion, whatever the creationists like to say.) You can define science in such a way as to purposely exclude evolution but that’s a silly definition to use. Semantic arguments such as this do not invalidate a field either, which is the intention.
But it’s still nice when a person using this line of argument takes it to the logical conclusion and turns it on “creation science” itself. Because, evolution and historical science aside, creationism isn’t science.
Exams are over (until November) and it’s time to return to blogging. I wonder what I missed?
Surprisingly little, it would seem. While for the other creationist outfits that I’m more aware of the last week or two have been dominated by the continued fallout from both the Bill Nye videos and the ENCODE results, I would probably have been rather bored with the Institute if I weren’t otherwise preoccupied. They haven’t really done much on their main site, and they haven’t managed to make up for it elsewhere. Continue reading
A few days ago Bill Nye did an interview with CBS, following up on his earlier comments on not teaching creationism to children. Your Origins Matter has once again produced a (partial) transcript, writing Rebutting Bill Nye – Round 2. There’s a little less crazy here than in last ’round,’ so I’ll go into a bit more detail on the actual arguments.
Once again, YOM misses the point. Nye is apparently fine with people believing in creationism, he just doesn’t want kids taught it. His argument rests on the fact that he wants said children to grow up to become scientists. YOM claims that you can be a creationist and a scientist, but they have missed why you don’t want the kids being indoctrinated if that’s the outcome you want. Continue reading
I’m not sure it’s a quite a trend as such, but there’s something I’ve been noticing lately: an apparent attempt to deny, or at least ignore, the fact that most scientists don’t believe the nonsense that creationists peddle. For example, consider the latest Ask Dr Rhonda, on polar bears (last seen here):
Q: Where did polar bears come from? Did they start out as brown bears and then turn white, or what?
We have all been waiting for the reactions of the various creationist groups to the recent Mars Science Laboratory landing. While both Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute have taken the ‘there’s no life there – but if there is we’re still not wrong’ line, the ICR has previously stated that it is firmly convinced that life on Earth is the only life. Today Rhonda Forlow, in a post entitled Ask Dr. Rhonda – Life on Mars on her Science Essentials blog, states bluntly:
Q: Is there life on Mars?
A: No. Earth was uniquely and specially created for life, not Mars.
It’s the 22nd of February. 365 days since since the earthquake in Christchurch. At time of writing it’s getting closer and closer to 365.25 days, as it happens.
The Student Council at my school decided to hold two minutes of silence to commemorate the anniversary. This was thoroughly mucked up.
For one, they got the wrong time: the quake happened at 12:51 pm, and not 12:57 as they thought. Secondly – due, ironically, to earthquake strengthening – parts of the school are inaccessible and various bells aren’t working. Thus, much of the school did not hear the bell ringing to signify the beginning and end.
But it still happened, albeit as much as 10 minutes late in my Chemistry class.* And that’s all that matters.
I warned you that this week of posts from Science Essentials would be boring – even despite the introduction of two new posts a week. Why? Because Dr Forlow is just regurgitating her old stuff. Paradoxically, this is quite a long post. Continue reading