I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Creation story makes more sense than the rest of the Bible

Francisco Ayala said,

"As I see it, scientific knowledge is consistent with a religious belief in God. More so than the 'creationists[']' assertion that everything in the world has been precisely designed by the Creator. Because, then, how to account for human crimes and sins (including the Biblical Fall) and for all the catastrophes that pervade the natural world?"

Well, Francisco, if you cannot answer that question, why do you expect the creationists to be able to answer it? The question of why the world is imperfect is beyond the scope of biblical creationism. According to the Bible, the world as it was originally created was perfect -- for example, there was a Garden of Eden and even the snake had legs.

As I have discussed before, the Bible's creation story actually makes much more sense than some other parts of the Bible, such as the gospel. The creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. And the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.

Anyway, to me the big problem is that the Darwinists ignore fair scientific criticisms of Darwinism and pretend that science vs. religion is the only issue in the evolution debate.


Friday, March 19, 2010

U. of Wisconsin student newspaper censors holocaust-revisionist ad

The story is on Bradley Smith's "One Person With Proof" blog.

The newspaper's board of directors' reaction is political correctness run amok. The board had a golden opportunity to support freedom of expression, and blew it. The board members should be ashamed of themselves.

The ad made no incitement to anti-Semitism and Bradley Smith is not responsible for threatening or hateful anti-Semitic comments that were made in response to the ad.

It is obvious that the biggest purpose of condemning holocaust denial/revisionism as anti-Semitic is to attempt to suppress debate on the subject.

My own view of the holocaust is that whereas there was persecution of Jews and atrocities were committed against Jews, a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impractical because the Nazis had no objective and reliable way(s) of identifying Jews and non-Jews. What is anti-Semitic about that viewpoint?

If the newspaper receives financial support from the university, which is a public university, then I think that Bradley Smith has grounds for a lawsuit over the board's declaration of refusal to publish the ad in the future.



Monday, March 15, 2010

In public opinion polls, only 12-14% accepted unguided human evolution

In discussing a recent public opinion poll in Texas, the NCSE said,

Among the questions on the poll was the standard Gallup question — "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?" — with the choices (1) "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process"; (2) "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in the process"; and (3) "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago."

In the Texas poll, 38% of respondents chose (1), 12% chose (2), 38% chose (3), and 12% chose a fourth option, "Don't know." Comparing the results with a national Gallup poll conducted in 2008, in which 36% of respondents chose (1), 14% chose (2), 44% chose (3), and 5% offered a different or no opinion, it might seem as though Texans are slightly less inclined to creationism than the nation at large — but the explicit presentation of a "Don't know" option in the Texas poll and not in the Gallup poll is probably responsible for the discrepancy. (Also, the Texas poll was only of registered voters.)

I think that the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision by a crackpot activist judge has gone to Darwinists' heads, giving them the impression that the fundies and other critics of evolution are pushovers. These opinion poll results certainly show that such an impression is utterly false -- the Darwinists are the ones who are behind the 8-ball.



Thursday, March 11, 2010

Favorite Kitzmiller-related quotes

Here are some of my favorite quotes that are related to Kitzmiller v. Dover:

The court offers convincing evidence that some members of the Dover school board would have been delighted to promote their old time religion in the classroom. These board members apparently accepted intelligent design as a compromise, the nearest they could come to their objective within the law. . . . The court seems to declare, "Because we find that you would like something you can't have, we hold that you can't have anything."
-- Albert Alschuler

Although there was general jubilation at the ruling, I think the joy will be short-lived, for we have affirmed the principle that a federal judge, not scientists or teachers, can dictate what is and what is not science, and what may or may not be taught in the classroom. Forgive me if I do not feel more free.
-- J. Scott Turner

. . . if one judge can practice philosophy of science, what is to stop others from doing the same? Perhaps the next judge to hear an ID case will decide that science simply means "the process of searching for the best logical explanations for observed data." In that case, schools might be allowed to teach … ID…
-- Jay Wexler

If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?
-- William Jennings Bryan



New awards: "Friend of Hitler" and "Friend of Jefferson"

In response to the National Center for Science Education's ridiculous "Friend of Darwin" and "Upchucky" awards, I have decided to institute the "Friend of Hitler" and "Friend of Jefferson" awards.


Awarded for outstanding contributions to the suppression of freedom of expression and freedom of thought.


Awarded for outstanding contributions to the promotion of freedom of expression and freedom of thought. Named in honor of Jefferson's famous statement, "I have sworn eternal hostility . . . . against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."


Judge John E. "Jackass" Jones III, Eugenie "Evil Genie" Scott, Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Stupid Steven Schafersman, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, Brandon "Haughty" Haught, Josh Rosenau, Kevin Padian, Jerry Coyne, Chris Mooney, Chris Comer, Carl Zimmer, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, National Center for Science Education, Florida Citizens for Science, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Freedom Network.


Jim Sherwood, David Berlinski, Casey Luskin, John West, Don McLeroy, Bill Buckingham, Cornelius Hunter, Discovery Institute.

I welcome the names of nominees for these awards.


Wednesday, March 10, 2010

NCSE's "Friend of Darwin" awards conferred at annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science!

The website of the National Center for Science Education says,

NCSE is pleased to announce the winners of the Friends of Darwin award for 2010: David Hillis, Gerald Skoog, and Ronald Wetherington, all scientists in Texas who have fought for the integrity of science education in the Lone Star State. Hillis, Skoog, and Wetherington received their awards in San Diego, on February 12, 2010, during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Scientific American's Steve Mirsky emceed the ceremony.

That's ridiculous -- the "Friend of Darwin" award is much too controversial to be conferred at a meeting of a general organization like the AAAS.

Also, there appears ot be a double standard here -- controversial people like Judge Jones and NCSE Director Eugenie Scott have received honorary degrees from universities, but the University of Vermont offered an honorary degree to Ben Stein and then withdrew the offer because he is considered to be too controversial.