I live in Boulder, Colorado, which is a bastion of scientific research. There are four major space science centers here (CU-Boulder, SwRI, the Space Science Institute, and Ball Aerospace), two major atmospheric research centers (UCAR and NCAR), as well as NIST and many other well-known science research centers.

Continue Reading

This is the third post demonstrating an example of anti-science propaganda bolstered by attempts to push pro-Christian ideas into the state classroom.  Don’t ask us why we target Christianity; look at these examples for yourself.  The answer is clear.

Continue Reading

The media need to understand the difference between a genuine scientific debate, and the fact that a very vocal minority can disagree with an overwhelming consensus of evidence

One thing that seems to crop up regularly in both bad science journalism and in pseudoscience and non-science is the idea of a scientific debate. We see creationists talking about “teaching both sides” or the idea that there is “a debate over evolution”, but there’s also more than enough reports in the media with statements like “this study has reignited a debate” to make it a more general pattern. The implication in each case is that there is a genuine split in the scientific community over the relevant issue, and that perhaps one might go to a conference and see a room full of researchers split down the middle with a good number on each side of the divide advocating their position. By extension, if unspoken, this also rather implies that there is a major stack of evidence for each position, if not, surely there would be no split? After all, if all or the vast majority of the data and analyses pointed the same way, there’s not much scope for disagreement.

Once again, Evil Scientists have thwarted a plan by those vile Creationists to take over the world.

Creation Science and its more moderate offspring, Intelligent Design (ID), have never been taken seriously by scientists. This is because most of the actual science is poor, and in ID, at least, is never about the designer. Because of this, ID’s supporters have difficulty publishing in the scientific literature, so they have to resort to other methods of getting their message out, like starting their own journal. Their latest ruse is to hold a conference and publish a book of conference proceedings.

Read More

On Tuesday the Indiana Senate approved a bill, S.B. 89, that would have allowed schools to teach “various theories on the origins of life.” It didn’t specify whether the instruction should occur in a science class or in another setting, but its sponsors made clear that they saw it as a way to challenge prevailing views on scientific evolution. The bill, which passed 28 to 22, drew widespread media coverage and triggered condemnations from scientific organizations in the state and across the country.

The original measure had mentioned “creation science” as one idea that could be taught. But before the vote it was amended to require that teachers also discuss “theories from multiple religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.”

The Universe Was Created Recently

Many clock-like processes operating in the solar system and beyond indicate that the universe is young. For example, spiral galaxies should not exist if they are billions of years old. The stars near their centers rotate around the galactic cores faster than stars at the perimeters. If a cosmology based on long ages is correct, they should have blended into disk-shaped galaxies by now.

Comets pose a similar problem. They lose material each time they pass around the sun. Why would they still exist after vast eons? Saturn’s rings still look new and shiny. And many planets and moons are very geologically active. Surely the energy they continually expend should have been spent long ago if they are as old as they are usually claimed to be.

Instead, the more astronomers learn about the heavens, the more evidence there is that the universe is young.

source

Yet there are no references for any of the claims made in this article.  Below this article, one will find more articles written by Brian Thomas.  See, in college, one is required to attach footnotes to said claims and quotes.  One is also to draft a citations page.  That is how information maintains its credibility.  What good is it if I say, “George Washington said x, y, and z” if I don’t cite my source(s)?  So I ask, where are his footnotes?  Where are his citations?  As far as I’m concerned, he’s pulling these claims from where the Sun don’t shine.  Brian Thomas is deceiving an under-educated audience.  It saddens me, but more so, it angers me.

Who is this Brian Thomas?

Brian Thomas received his bachelors degree in biology from Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, in 1993. After teaching at

Angelina Christian School

and beginning graduate studies in science education at the

Institute for Creation Research Graduate School

, he returned to Stephen F. Austin, where he earned a masters degree in biotechnology in 1999. From 2000 to 2005, he taught 9th and 12th grade biology at Ovilla Christian School in Ovilla, Texas, as well as biology and chemistry as an adjunct professor at Navarro College in Waxahachie, Texas. He taught biology, chemistry, and anatomy as an assistant professor at Dallas Baptist University from 2005 until 2008. Mr. Thomas is the Science Writer at ICR, where he is responsible for contributing daily news, magazine articles, editing, and speaking on creation issues.

Is he not biased?  Is he not a pseudoscientist?  Is he not a liar!?  Yes he is.  ICR.org is a site full of lies.  What’s worse, Thomas references actual science articles to make his articles appear more credible.  It is pure slander.  How can someone reference a science article to then deceptively use the information found in the article?  Here’s an example:

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernovas.^{2, 3}

This piece is in regards to the supernova remnant PTF11kly.  The actual article can be read here.  I ask a question:  when reading the actual article, how the hell can anyone come away with what’s written in that section?  We haven’t found all of the supernova remnants in our galaxy; moreover, he makes it sound as if our galaxy is alone in our universe.  I posit that some of those remnants may no longer be observable.  Once again, Thomas is using gaps in knowledge to discredit science and bolster his faith in god.  It’s deceptive.  He’s a liar.  I guarantee you all one thing, if I ever meet hackers, I’ll know exactly how to utilize their skills.  Creation science is bunk; it’s an incompetent antagonist parading itself as a truthful alternative.  There is no alternative to science.  End of story.