I should post follow-ups on old posts more often. Minda Berbeco at the NCSE’s new blog, Science League of America, has tracked down the primary author, Morgan Kelly, of a paper that Brian Thomas misinterpreted back in June about adaptation in sea urchins. Kelly answered a few of Berbeco’s questions on her research, including:
Could you explain how the ICR article misrepresented your results?
There were a couple problems with their interpretation of my research. First of all, there is a difference between the potential to adapt and having already done so. It seems that they have misinterpreted our findings to say that urchins have already adapted. That’s not what we were looking at.
There’s more. Of course there’s more. I’ve emailed researchers in the past to notify them of ICR articles, and the typical response notes that the creationist piece does indeed horribly mangle their research and conclusions. Rarer is a detailed explanation of what is really going on – real scientists are busy – but when it happens it’s a treat. Read on!
The ICR is not fond of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, having argued against it in a number of past articles. Indeed there is significant overlap, at least in the United States, between those who would deny climate change and evolution – though it is not entirely clear whether or not they have a common, theological cause. This position naturally colours Brian Thomas’ latest article, Spiny Sea Creature Rapidly Accommodates Chemical Changes. Continue reading →
Your Origins Matter returned from it’s holiday break a more than a week ago now, and it’s about time that I took a look.
The first post was about the end of the world, and wasn’t very interesting. The second – Have you been feeling hot or cold lately? – is much more so. It first challenges a piece of climate research on the grounds that it is based on “millions of years,” before breaking out some of the standard tropes (with a creationist bent): Continue reading →