After watching yesterday’s glorious Crash & Burn by Casey Luskin, I’m in the mood for something light. A wafer-thin mint, if you will. I realize that addressing anything posted at Reasonable Kansans is sort of like pulling the wings off of flies, but this burst of stupidity from “For the Kids” can’t go by unnoticed. Under the headline “Articles to Ponder“, FtK posted the following (I’ve quoted the post in its entirety):
Creation science and peer review
Are Creationists anti-science?
Creationism, Science and Peer Review
Do Creationists reject science?
Coming up with an original thought probably causes FtK’s ears and eyes to bleed, so it’s impossible to figure out what, exactly, she thinks there is to “ponder” about these links. The only thing those links make me ponder is how depressing it is to realize that it’s the 21st Century and there are still people who think creationism is the least bit scientific.
Creationists love to bring up the “Evolution is a religion” strawman, yet all the major Creation Science [sic] organizations exist solely to proselytize. Is Answers in Genesis seeking grants to conduct scientific research? No, they’re soliciting prayers and asking readers to “Support the Ministry“. Is the ICR producing any groundbreaking research? Sure they are; they’ve turned the world of botany on its ear with the stunning discovery that plants aren’t really alive.
And what about Creation Science [sic] and peer review? Answers in Genesis recently started their own “peer-reviewed” journal with laughable results. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is passed off as “science” in the world of creationism:
Mutations in the ebg system are clearly not an example of evolution but mutation and natural selection allowing for adaptation to the environment.
Yes, and a BLT is clearly not an example of a sandwich; it’s nothing but bacon, lettuce and tomato stuck between two pieces of toasted bread.
Personally, I have a hard time accepting the concept of gravity because the thought of a battleship falling out of the sky and landing on my head scares the crap out of me. So if someone doesn’t want to accept the theory of evolution, that’s fine and dandy with me. But to think that creationism is somehow a viable alternative to modern biology requires a buttload of cognitive dissonance.
The really amazing thing is, that while vociferously denying evolution, many creationists simultaneously endorse some brand of hyper-evolution.
In other FtK news, I fucked up and invoked her name on the Casey Luskin thread at AtBC and like a bad penny, she showed up and proceeded to try to take a bullet for Casey. How did FtK defend Casey’s “honor”? By trying to create a diversion, of course. Rule #1 in the For the Kids Playbook: If they’re talking about Casey Luskin, mention Eugenie Scott. Rule #2 in the FtK Playbook: When people point out how stupid you sound, say something even stupider:
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the “red herring”. Just curious.
Heil Darwin!!!
Remember, this is a woman who operates a blog named “Reasonable Kansans”. A woman who tells people to “shut the fuck up”, “drop dead” and says this about Abbie at ERV:
You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.
Always keep this in mind when reading anything written by FtK: to her, the Golden Rule is “Do as I say, not as I do”.