On another website a creationist posted the following:

Students should be allowed to discuss and debate evolution in the classroom. That’s hardly possible when only one side is given. Besides, we’re not even talking about ID or Creationism here. We’re just talking about teaching evolutionary theory in a scientific manner. The whole story needs to be presented.

Only one side?

And which side is that? And which side is being omitted? This complaint really boils down to — the side that is taught is science, and the side that is omitted is religious belief. And not just any religious belief, but a fundamentalist belief in the inerrancy of the bible. That is the “side” that they want taught.

Continue Reading »

It has come to our attention that Jim Robinson, the founder of Free Republic, has been hospitalized and has undergone extensive surgery.  We here at Darwin Central wish him a full and speedy recovery and hope for the best for him in the future.

Rush Limbaugh has managed to pretty much completely misunderstand science
once again, this time in reference to the Higgs Boson, or “god particle.”

Continue Reading »

THIS IS THE SIXTH OF A CONTINUING SERIES examining what is being passed off as science on creationist websites.

This article examines a specific false claim made on numerous creationist websites in an attempt to discredit radiocarbon dating. A list of some of the websites repeating this false claim appears at the bottom of this article.

Claim:

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry', American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140] Source

Continue Reading »

THIS IS THE FIFTH OF A CONTINUING SERIES examining what is being passed off as science on creationist websites.

This article examines a specific false claim made on numerous creationist websites in an attempt to discredit radiocarbon dating. A list of some of the websites repeating this false claim appears at the bottom of this article.

Claim:

Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) — should have been 50 to 135 million years old. C14 gave dates of 30,000 and 34,000, respectively. Source

Continue Reading »

THIS IS THE FOURTH OF A CONTINUING SERIES examining what is being passed off as science on creationist websites.

This article examines a specific false claim made on numerous creationist websites in an attempt to discredit radiocarbon dating. A list of some of the websites repeating this false claim appears at the bottom of this article.

Claim:

Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source

Continue Reading »

ONCE MORE RUSH LIMBAUGH opens his mouth and steps in it.  During a call in to his show today (2007-04-23) one caller took him to task for his claims there is no consensus in science.  Limbaugh has been making this argument on a regular basis in regards to global warming because some article on the subject said there was a scientific consensus on the subject.

Continue Reading »

VIEWING WHAT PASSES FOR “GREAT” ART RECENTLY, I was reminded of Sturgeon’s Law: “90 percent of everything is crap.”    This got me thinking about another pet theory of mine:

90 percent of the human race is non-sapient.

Continue Reading »

CONFESSION TIME.  I STARTED LIFE AS A CREATIONIST.  Both my parents were creationists (though I suspect my father was changing his attitude on this subject toward the end of his life).  I lived most of my life in the South, where religion is a given and most folks are what I call “passive creationists” (they don’t really give the matter much thought, but they’re sure the Bible’s account is pretty much correct).

Continue Reading »

YEAH, I STOLE THE HEADLINE from another article, but it just seemed so appropriate.

A group disillusioned with a perceived liberal bias at Wikipedia have decided to create their own, “conservative” online encyclopedia: Conservapedia. 

Please note the quotes around “conservative.”

Continue Reading »