Warmists crush dissenter

Johnny Ball, the "English God of Numbers" and science educator was recently on stage at, of all things, an "Atheists' Christmas Show" which sounds turgid enough and I can just imagine what the audience would have looked like, when he made a shocking transgression of the Darwinist Commandments. He dared to doubt Global Warming and point out that the whole charade is a tattered array of fraud and bad science. So how did this "scientific and liberal intellectual" audience receive this heresy? By shouting him down and booing him off the stage.

Ball, 71, claimed that spiders’ flatulence was more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels, and criticised the ‘bad science’ of global warming during a performance at a Christmas show in celebration of atheism and science.

Audience members at ‘Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People’ at the Bloomsbury Theatre, London responded with slow handclaps, whistles, jeers until he left the stage.

That's how they do the science nowadays.

Now folks, I'm a free speech science journalist writer of non fiction who helped write the Canadian Constitution, so I find this shouting down of opposing voices as despicable as the sound of Dr Strangelove's jackboots stamping on a puppy's face. So I'm glad to see that Mr Ball has been given space in The British Express to expand on his claims without being shouted down by an ideologically-driven crowd. He makes worthwhile and substantial points which certainly can't be debunked in less than a minute by anyone with a search engine. For example he describes how volcanoes produce by far the greatest amounts of CO2 which sounds sensible to me, no matter what any so-called "experts" (who are probably paid for by taxes anyway) at the US Geological Service might say.

Chances are any warming there is - which there isn't, because polar bears are fine - is being caused by all the heat from the bonfires that the tax-funded warming alarmist scammers are burning the dissidents on.

After Climategate, how long until Darwingate?

Of course I've been following the Climategate scandal in detail, reading both Rush Limbaugh's and Sarah Palin's careful analysis of the slam-dunk red-handed caught-with-their-pants-down evidence that all the world's climate so-called scientists were definitely engaged in systematic fraud as well as maybe money laundering and possibly treason, although I'm not making any accusation. Of course even before this tsunami of evidence that they were "adding in the real temperatures" to the data to hide the decline in real temperatures the whole "man-made climate change" ideology was transparent nonsense. Changes in the climate are not caused by carbon dioxide (which is plant food) but by warming or cooling. That supposed experts could have been taking their public paychecks for decades without noticing this simple fact is an indictment of the depths to which science has sunk.

But how long until Darwingate? Not long now that their edifice is already crumbling because insiders will have an incentive to leak the academic elite's secrets in exchange for a better deal for themselves.

Find out why there's a controversy!!!

Dawkins poked in the eye

Some people in England still get it and have the backbone to stand up to Dawkins and his followers. Quentin Letts in the Mail of London writes it up in neat:

Not A great week for militant secularists. ... one of the world's top cosmologists distanced himself from Richard Dawkins.
You know Dawkins: that soundbite- savvy Oxford biologist, the ayatollah of atheism whose adherents are as swivel-eyed as Opus Dei flagellants.
Dawkins often wraps himself up in Science with a capital 'S', declaring that the world's great religions lack fact. He loves to belittle us churchgoers as thickos.
Well, this week one of Dawkins's fellow eggheads torpedoed his claim to speak for the world of white coats and test tubes.
Professor John Barrow, director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project, suggested that Dawkins was 'dogmatic' and had a problem thinking beyond the confines of biology.

Read the whole thing. Mr Letts makes a good point that physicists "are used to dealing with uncertainty and being undogmatic", a quality which has sadly deserted too many in other fields.

If Quentin's in Toronto anytime we should meet up for coffee. I can tell him about beefalo and how the polar and grizzly bears have started interbreeding despite supposedly being different species and how wolves and coyotes are living together.






Find out how the intelligent design controversy is!

Coffee!! Darwin resurrects birds

From the you-couldn't-make-it-up department, the holy saint Charles Of Darwin is being credited with saving from extinction a species of mockingbird which went extinct 100 years ago.

But within 50 years of the great naturalist's voyage on HMS Beagle, the tame little birds had been wiped out on their native island because of the dogs and rats introduced by Darwin himself.
However specimens remained at the Natural History Museum in London and with the California Academy of Sciences. Now thanks to DNA samples taken from the stuffed birds naturalists have been able to find mockingbirds with a similar genetic make up to return to Floreana island for the first time in 120 years.

Notice it was Darwin himself who wiped the birds out in the first place. Hardly the behaviour of any "great naturalist", but don't let that get in the way of the hero worship.

It's the first time this science journalist has seen Darwin credited with bringing something back from the dead. What's next - walking on water?

Ideas aren't made for stealing

Given that their prophet lifted whole parts of “his” work from the less attention-seeking Wallace it's no surprise that Darwin's acoloytes think it's okay to steal people's ideas. Dr William Dembski, Professor of Mathematical Complexity at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the leading visionaries in information theory and its applications to ID, draws attention to the latest terrible example of this intellectual piracy.

RationalWiki is reprinting large portions of an article I did with Robert Marks that far exceeds anything permissible under “fair use” copyright protections. I was getting ready to contact my attorney about having them remove our article from their website (go here — I’ve saved this page in case it changes as a consequence of this post), but couldn’t find any contact information on the site.

Question: Who is running this site and how to contact them?

That the thief tries to hide their identity behind the anonymousness afforded by the internet is simply sickening and a clear indication of what my father would have called “girly yellow cowardliness” but that was back in the day when people still had a moral backbone and went to church on Sundays. And do the darwinbots feel any shame when this pilfering of Professor Dembski's words has been exposed? Of course not; some number-juggler at "scienceblogs" even claims that it is Professor Dembski who is being unreasonable in simply trying to control who can read the fruits of his research. Of course it's easy for them to talk a good fight, but I doubt they'll be sounding so confident when the case goes to law, because one thing the Intelligent Design movement is renowned for is its record of performance in the courtroom.

Find out why there is an Intelligent Design controversy.

Into the minds of infants

The Guardian of London is reporting that in Britain the Darwinianist establishment which is increasingly losing its grip on adults and teens is shifting its aim to catch future believers when they're at the youngest and most impressionable by peddling their dogma in junior school

The government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists.
The schools minister, Diana Johnson, has confirmed the plans will be included in a blueprint for a new curriculum to be published in the next few weeks.
It follows a letter signed by scientists and science educators calling on the government to make the change after draft versions of the new curriculum failed to mention evolution explicitly.

And who are these "scientists and science educators" who were so up in arms that a government might actually serve children with an education instead of an indocrination of atheist fairy tales? Hold onto your hats and prepare to be shocked, shocked, shocked:

Among the signatories were the Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
The letter expressed alarm that the theory of evolution through natural selection, which it describes as "one of the most important ideas underlying biological science", was ignored in the revamped curriculum.
"We consider its inclusion vital," the letter said.

Of course Dawkins considers it vital. It's the atheist Creation myth and he knows there's no better time to get someone to believe that molecules somehow turned into fish somehow turned into men than when they still believe in Santa Claus.

That this is proposed in England, the home of Saint Darwin and coincidentally a country with single payer government healthcare and where homeschooling is practically illegal, is hardly surprising. It's more important than ever that people realize what's at stake.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism sinks lower in public mind

Despite the ongoing indoctrination and hero worship being foisted on the British people at the moment about that old racist and noted kitten-drowner Charles Darwin, people are still waking up to the glaring flaws in his outmoded theory and demanding a more even approach in the science classroom.

Some 54 per cent of Britons want biology teachers to discuss 'alternative perspectives' on human origins alongside traditional explanations of evolution.

They also want children to be told about intelligent design, the idea that aspects of the universe are too complex to be explained by science and natural selection.

And these doubts about Saint Charles' infallibility are spreading wider, even getting as far as the pages of World Net Daily where influential cultural commentator sums up his problem with the whole stinky edifice:

I don't believe the Earth is billions of years old. I don't believe animals have transitioned from one species to another. And I certainly don't believe that nothing created everything.

I once believed it. I don't anymore.

Why? Because I looked at the so-called "evidence." And found none.

Learn why there's an intelligent design controversy!