Are you a bored scientist looking to spank a few confused creationists for money? Then why not take up this challenge:

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance.

The problem with this minitrial, as you might have already surmised by now, is that a ‘judge’ is supposed to weigh the merits of the argument and rule on whether or not evolution is a scientific theory. If the guy has ever taken antibiotics, then it should be a five minute affair. Fossils, modern genetics, geology, and a host of other disciplines have already proven the reality of evolution to the satisfaction of anyone not already married to a fairy-tale cosmogony. What exactly does this moron thinks constitutes proof, anyway? What kind of vigorous research was he engaged in?

Mastropaolo started making public arguments in favor of creationism about 13 years ago, after reading an article about evolution in the newspaper.

We all know what a great job newspapers do when reporting scientific news. Sounds like this guy probably read a poorly written article about something that (inevitably) conflicted with his “magic man done it” explanation of the world, and he became so passionate about it that he decided to devote his time, energy and money trying to disprove gravity evolution.

Mastropaolo believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically. “It turns out that there is nothing in the universe [that] is evolving, everything is devolving, everything is going in the opposite direction,” he said.

See, even if that were true (which it isn’t), that would be a mechanism of evolution itself, and not proof of the Bible at all. For this clown to be correct, species would have had to ‘appear’ out of thin air, with no ancestral lines. In fact, it’s not just biological evolution you have to look at: even our own solar system went through its own change, from a giant cloud of gas to a complex solar system with 8 planets, countless moons and an as yet unknown amount of planetoids. According to the Bible, this process was also fairly instantaneous, with light appearing 4 days before the Sun. Are we to expect that he would need to prove his fairy tale bullshit in order to win as well? Somehow, I think not.

This gigantic waste of time – designed once again to try and bring attention to infantile ideas about the mechanism of life – isn’t likely to draw much attention from anyone, nor should it. It’s yet another attempt by creationists to pretend like there is something intellectual about the notion that “God did it”. Maybe we should send Kenneth Miller over there to school their asses? Sure, he has his own share of idiotic beliefs (such as quantum indeterminacy being the mechanism with which God gave the first monkey man a ‘soul’), but there’s no denying the fact he’s got enough experience with creationists that he could knock this one out of the park. What do you say Ken? Want to make a quick ten grand?

You all know by now that the educational system in Louisiana is rapidly deteriorating thanks to Governor Bobby Jindal and his relentless crusade to institute voucher programs that end up benefiting religiously run schools. He may have come out recently begging for the GOP not to become the ‘stupid party’, but he’s actively working to ensure his constituents are ever more ignorant about the real world.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. So let’s take a look at a sample curriculum that someone going to school in this state is exposed to. Let’s start with facts about evolution and creationism:

Fact or Theory?

Man makes judgments about the evidence of fossils based on his beliefs. A man who believes God’s record of Creation and history will look at fossils one way. A man who believes in evolution will view fossils in a different way…

Creationist Viewpoint: God created the heavens and the Earth
Evolutionist Viewpoint: Earth and space were the result of a sudden explosion

Magic man done it, as most of you are aware, is not actually a theory. It’s a claim without proof, made by people who are convinced the book of fairy-tales they call the Bible is a factual account of the history of the world. Yeah, and the Iliad is totally true too…

Creationist Viewpoint: The Earth is thousands of years old
Evolutionist Viewpoint: The Earth is millions of years old

It’s pretty sad when creationists can’t even be bothered to learn the actual arguments. No, ‘evolutionists’ don’t think the Earth is millions of years old. Maybe Lord Kelvin thought so in the 19th century, but since then, we’ve learned it’s actually BILLIONS of years old. Get your fucking facts straight if you’re going to try and disprove one of the most tested scientific theories ever devised, morons.

Creationist Viewpoint: Fossils are probably the result of the great flood in the Bible
Evolutionist Viewpoint: Fossils show the great geological ages of the earth

If I was a creationist, I would try to avoid fossils altogether. You can’t really help but create suspicion in your own worldview when your explanation for weird and alien bones in the ground is a catastrophic flood that happened only a few thousand years ago. Eventually people will start to ask why there’s a predictable pattern of where specific bones are buried in distinct strata (their answer is usually “Satan put them there to trick people”). In any case, fossils show geological ages, but more than that, they consistently show different animals buried in successive layers of rock, pointing to a pretty obvious succession of transitional forms over time (besides, if you want to know more about geological ages, you look at rocks for that, not fossils). It’s like a gigantic puzzle that only requires a little bit of thought to put together.

Creationist Viewpoint: God created all kinds of animals in the beginning
Evolutionist Viewpoint: Different kinds of life have gradually evolved over long periods of time

So here at least the choice is simple: either all the animals were created magically in the span of a few days by Super-Dad, or organisms gradually evolved over time to better adapt to their environment and the struggle for survival. One you have proof for, the other is stated plainly in a boring book most people can’t even finish reading through. What a tough choice!

Creationist Viewpoint: Man is God’s special creation. He is different from the animals because he is created in God’s image
Evolutionist Viewpoint: Man is the highest level of animal.

I don’t know what shitty scientists the authors of this joke of a textbook met, but I can tell you anyone worth his salt wouldn’t dare say something that dumb. No, man is not the “highest level of animal”. We may be smart and a dominant predator, but we pale in comparison to the awesome power of bacteria. Without these little power factories, we wouldn’t be able to digest food, or even have a functional ecosystem. I won’t deny that we certainly are the smartest, but when a bunch of us write this kind of stupid drivel in the Age of Information, it doesn’t make a strong case for it.

There’s a part of me (a small one, I assure you) that admires the conviction of creationists. They, at least, are honest about the fact that the science of evolution is a pretty huge slap in the face to the notion of a creator God. Not only does it completely invalidate their silly mythology, it also clearly indicates that human beings are a product of descent with modification, and not some special creation of a sky daddy.

Of course, my ‘admiration’ quickly fades when I’m forced to listen to their inane, pathetic arguments. Most fall in the category of “evolution is bad science” or “just a theory”, with proponents convinced that every single scientist is really just another faithful idiot like themselves. There’s rarely any attempt to actually argue the evidence, since none of these clowns actually understand any of it.

This presents a problem for creationists bent on removing evolution from science classrooms. Enter Tom Ridder, a former high school chemistry teacher who gained some notoriety a few months back when he sued the Blue Mountain School District in Pennsylvania for teaching evolution, which he argued amounted to teaching atheism, which this idiot thinks is a religion.

You see evolution is bad science. It proposes that sexual species can evolve and that the human brain evolved from lower forms. Neither has been shown to be even possible, no one was there to see this “evolution” even if this did happen, and the fossil record is no help. Therefore the only objective approach to evolution is to say, “Maybe; maybe not. I do not actually know”.

Maybe in the 19th century – when Evolution was still finding its legs – could you claim with any scientific credibility that we “did not know”. But with the discovery of millions of fossils, DNA, and the various other sciences which all converge together, the weight of the evidence for evolution is so great you’d have to be a complete ignoramus to claim that we still “do not know”. Speaking of ignoramus…

But most evolutionists do not say this. To the contrary they declare that evolution is a fact. Some science! They say this because they cannot fathom a Creator had a hand. And no Creator means there can be no God. Thus most evolutionists are Atheists.

Only a man blinded by his religion could say something this dumb. Sure, most scientists who study evolution will admit to irreligiosity, but this is actually a consequence of their field of study. The notion of a creator God (especially one who supposedly cares about us) evaporates rather rapidly when you study infectious diseases and parasites.

So what is this guy’s deal, exactly?

To prove this claim [that atheism is a religion], I challenge anyone in the continental USA who teaches middle school science or above, anyone running for state or federal office, or anyone who is big in the evolution community to debate the following:

Evolution is Bad Science. I, of course, will defend the affirmative.

Additionally, this debate is to take place before a jury of previously undecided people and each debater is to place five (5) ounces of pure gold in escrow, the winner, as determined by the jury, to take the pot.

Who exactly is supposed to make up this jury? Also, since when do ‘juries’ decide whether or not something is true in science? I think this guy just wants to play the odds. In America, less than half of the population believes in evolution (and roughly 10 percent also think the sun revolves around the earth). With odds this good, it plays to bank on the ignorance of your fellow Americans.

So, who wants to take this moron up on his offer?

There’s a part of me (a rather small and insignificant part) who admires the time and effort creationists employ trying to refute evolution. Think of how much time and effort these morons put into trying to prove that their invisible friend is in fact responsible for all the diversity of life on Earth. It’s an ambitious goal to say the least, but do you know what makes it easier? Inventing shit!

If Evolution is truly occurring, vestigial organs would not only exist, but they would greatly outnumber the fully functional ones…Since Evolution is a random, chance process, there must be numerous trial and error combinations until a functional organ or appendage is produced. Any of these “vestigial” organs would still be in existence in a multitude of species and individuals and there would be no doubt that Evolution is fact.

Why would vestigial organs outnumber functional ones? Because this guy thinks entire organs spontaneously appear due to random mutation! Forget the fact that his little ‘diagram’ seems to indicate a rather strong propensity for phalluses (just how many vestigial dicks can one man have?), why is ‘Evolution Man’ so damn wide? Are those eyeballs for nipples? Is it just me or would that be fucking awesome?

However, in the late 1800′s there were an estimated 150 vestigial parts in the human body. Supposedly anyone can claim that something is vestigial because it serves no apparent purpose and the individual can survive without it. Today there are no vestigial organs claimed for the human body! That is because in the last 100 years, medical science has found that there is indeed a purpose to everything in the human body.

Ummm, no it hasn’t. Of course, this moron has no real obligation to tell anyone the truth, but this idea that every human organ serves a purpose can quickly be disproven if you’ve ever had to go to the dentist to remove your ‘wisdom’ teeth. The reason they exist is once upon a time, your ancestors had bigger jaws, but thanks to the genius of evolution, there was no evolutionary pressure to loose these painful molars, and so every year, dentists pull out millions of those little suckers.

Creation says there will be zero vestigial organs while Evolution requires millions of them.

Creation also says the Earth is 6000 years old, about a few millenia after the invention of agriculture and the domestication of the dog. Now, it’s time to set up a straw man and knock that sucker down, baby!

This car engine [picture of a car] also has no vestigial parts because, like the human body, it too had a Creator! If something so complex as the human body could evolve by chance, then even more so could this automobile evolve by chance.

Evolution isn’t real because man invented a car! My logic is infallible! If that wasn’t enough to convince you, this bombshell will!

If you don’t believe God created all living things, male and female, in 6 days….
How many millions of years was it between the first male and the first female?

See, isn’t it easier to assume that magical daddy-man in the sky did it all over the span of a long work-week than the hard-to-understand process of evolution?

It’s only been a few days since it’s been up, but already the forums* are lighting up like the fourth of July. One topic that immediately caught my eye came courtesy of user DexM felt too important not to promote:

The Christian club at my high school has invited creationist Bill Morgan from http://www.fishdontwalk.com/ to speak at one of their meetings. Needless to say I’m organizing a rapid response team to kick his ass with words – including trying to get one of my school’s biology teachers in on the action – but I really have no idea on how to go about doing it. There’s no shortage of atheists and skeptics on campus but getting them organized well enough to go toe-to-toe with a seasoned creationist debater is pretty dangerous. Any thoughts or advice?

Taking on a creationist, eh? I like your moxie, kid. Just understand that debating creationists can be a tricky business. Many intelligent individuals have been caught totally off guard in these kinds of debates, and looked foolish as a result. Academics are often unprepared for the kinds of tactics creationists employ to try and win arguments. One of these include what I like to call “The Seed of Doubt”. This strategy usually involves undermining some scientific theory they poorly understand. By focusing on some tiny minutia of a theory that isn’t very well understood, they try to convince the audience that “science doesn’t really know what it’s talking about”. Rather than attempt to construct an argument based on evidence of their own, creationists instead try to exploit uncertainty, masquerading their obvious disdain for scientific discovery as skepticism. And because science invites this process on itself, we must be honest when admitting that there are many unknowns and a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to human knowledge. These are not concepts a religiously minded person like Bill Morgan is willing to accept.

A a quick glance at Bill’s website, hilariously named “Fish don’t Walk” (a quick youtube search easily destroys that false statement) reveals that the guy doesn’t seem to have any real clue as to how evolution actually works. Here he is explaining the supposed difficulty of sexual reproduction in nature:

if the theory of evolution is true, the male and female would have to evolve their reproductive systems at the same TIME. Imagine the female is fully evolved, but the male is not. Does she start hen pecking him by telling him “hurry up and evolve, we are going to be dead in a few years?”…Creationists believe in “instant chickens.” Creationists believe a Creator with a lot of power and intelligence instantly made males and females at the same time, and put them at the same place.

As you can see, he’s got a rather weak grasp on the sexual theory. He’s apparently completely unaware that sex is a relatively recent “invention” in the history of life. So his “bombshells” are really just indicative of poor education on his part, most likely the result of his religious upbringing (surprised?). Remember, Bill’s “dude with a lot of power and smarts” explains everything he doesn’t understand, and that seems to encompass quite a bit.

My prediction is that if he’s shown his ignorance on the matter, he will turn to the remaining scientific mysteries that we haven’t yet solved as a final means of sowing doubt in scientific theories. I wouldn’t attempt to try and explain these. I would merely point out that he’s creating a false dichotomy; he’s attempting to reason that because we don’t know the answer to A, B must be true.

Time is not a scientific explanation, it is blind faith. I call it “the magic wand of time” When I ask an Evolutionist “how did birds evolve from reptiles?” I imagine them waving a magic wand as they say “It took millions of years!”
Believe whatever you want to on Creation vs. Evolution, but base your belief on observation (Science) not blind faith (time).

Translation: I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about, so God did it

Finally I would end by trying to make it clear what degree of acceptance in any given theory is acceptable. It should be contingent on how much evidence each one relies on. The more lines of evidence which converge, the more likely it is to be true. Genetics, geology, paleontology and a host of other sciences are all consistent with Evolution. The important thing for people to remember is that science is a set of tools we use to decode the laws of nature. It allows us to construct models to help explain how objective reality behaves. Creationism is merely poor rhetoric meant to substantiate baseless supernatural claims. It has no predictive powers, and any statements it does make about nature contradict all the observations we’ve already made. If this clown is trying to argue that he’s only trying to “make people decide for themselves” what is true and what isn’t, then I would instruct him to continue to educate himself: he’s obviously not done.

(Update: The forums no longer exist)