The anti-evolution creationists often bristle at being characterized as “anti-science”. They are insulted. Why they aren’t “anti-science” at all. They’re just anti-“bad”-science. They support “good” science and have no problem with it, so they say. And they know the difference

We see these objections to being characterized as anti-science all of the time on one of the internet’s “premier” gathering places for anti-evolution creationists, Free Republic (FR). The Dishonesty… err, umm … the Discovery Institute, ICR, AiG, the discredited Dover School Board members, and the rest of the anti-evolution crowd aren’t much different. None of them are anti-science. How dare you say they are.

The fact is, their hatred of evolution, science, and anyone that challenges their attacks on Evolution is one of the only things that keeps them together. If not for that, they’d probably be calling each other idiots and morons while slitting each others throats, ripping each others hearts out, and condemning each other to eternal damnation. That’s why some anti-evolution forums need special rules for their religion sub-forum “discussions” and “debates”. LOL.

Each group of anti-evolution creationists attacks science in their own way for their own reasons. In some cases that should read “each individual anti-evolution creationist”. Most of them don’t agree with each other on many of their religious beliefs and superstitions and on what is and is not “good” science. The geocentrists, the YECs, the OECs, and the IDers are some of the obvious divisions, and there are many, many subdivisions — probably even more than there are Christian sects.

Continue Reading »

In the realm of natural pharmacopeia, German researchers claim St. John’s Wort is as effective as Prozac in treating depression.  This news must be a real downer for Eli Lilly…

• In the forum

Continue Reading »

This week China prepared to put three “taikonauts” into orbit to perform a spacewalk.  Evidently, the Chinese were so confident in the success of the mission they issued a press release that included dialog from the mission… before the launch actually took place.  One might be tempted to make a quip about Chinese quality control, if it weren’t for the tragic scandal involving milk and milk products (including baby formula) unfolding in that country at the moment.

The New Zealanders who worried it was The End Of The World As We Know It got a temporary reprieve when CERN’s Large Hadron Collider suffered a helium leak this week, shutting down its operation until next Spring.  Evidently, a quarter of the Kiwis surveyed were worried the LHC would create a planet-devouring micro black hole.  No worries, mates.  If a micro black hole was created (extremely unlikely), it would evaporate almost immediately.

Continue Reading »

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 »