On the Origin of Species voted most influential academic book in history. Oh this is not going to go over well.

Courtesy of the Guardian:

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been voted the most influential academic book ever written, hailed as “the supreme demonstration of why academic books matter” and “a book which has changed the way we think about everything”. 

After a list of the top 20 academic books was pulled together by expert academic booksellers, librarians and publishers to mark the inaugural Academic Book Week, the public was asked to vote on what they believed to be the most influential. With titles in the running including A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft, George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, Darwin’s explanation of his theory of evolution was the public’s overwhelming favourite, with 26% of the vote, said organisers. 

Professor Andrew Prescott of the University of Glasgow called Darwin’s 1859 study “the supreme demonstration of why academic books matter”. “Darwin used meticulous observation of the world around us, combined with protracted and profound reflection, to create a book which has changed the way we think about everything – not only the natural world, but religion, history and society,” he said. “Every researcher, no matter whether they are writing books, creating digital products or producing artworks, aspires to produce something as significant in the history of thought as Origin of Species.”

Yeah religious conservatives are going to lose their shit over this. 

I can personally attest to the influence of this book in my life, and even in my daughter's life.

They say that the best way to create an Atheist is to have them read the Bible. However it is not the only book with that kind of power.

Quite a few years back when my daughter was attending that uber fundamentalist church in Georgia, and coming home with these crazy ideas about evolution, rather than argue about it everyday with her I challenged her to read this book instead.

To her credit she did exactly that, and it did indeed change her mind completely.

Now she is not only a strong supporter of Evolution, and of science in general, but she is an even more ardent Atheist than her old man.

So yes, this book is powerful indeed.

Perhaps THAT is why the Religious Right fears it so.

2011 video of Ben Carson shows him claiming that the flood of Noah was real and that Darwin was encouraged by Satan to come up with Evolution.

Now that video up above is over 48 minutes long so I don't expect anyone to sit through the entire thing without ripping their hair out.

I certainly couldn't.

However here is a brief synopsis by the blog  Danthropology followed by some snippets of Carson's remarks:

Most people know that Carson denies evolution is a fact and instead subscribes to young earth creationism, believing the earth is only 6000 years old and humans were created as is. Whether he is stupid enough to actually believe this or is pandering to the ignorance of the GOP voter base has been up for question among some, but a video discovered from 2011 seems to close the door on that idea.

And here are some of the actual remarks that Carson offered during an event called “Celebrating Creation":

 [20:56] “… there is abundant evidence, geological evidence, that there was a worldwide flood. Go up into the Andes Mountains and see all those fossils on the top of those mountains. I mean, these things, when you talk to the evolutionists about them, they always say the same thing … ‘well, we don’t understand everything.’ And I just say, ‘I’m not sure you understand anything.’ You know, they look at all those layers, and then they find some fossils in one of the layers, and they says this fossil is this many years old because it’s in this layer. So, that means this fossil is like a million years old. And then later on they say, ‘well, this layer is a million years old because this fossil which is a million years old is in it.’ You know, that’s like saying, you know, ‘the sky can be red or blue’. And you say, well, the sky is blue. And you say why is it blue? ‘Because it is not red.’ Well why is it not red? ‘Because its blue.’ Yeh, you know that’s known as circular reasoning. That’s how they explain the age of all these things, its very circular reasoning, and really it has no real scientific validity.” [22:22]

How interesting that he recognizes the term "circular reasoning" but does not seem to understand that his entire argument is based on the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and therefore any evidence which disputes that claim must be rejected, and only evidence which supports the Biblical accounts will be accepted.

By the way that is a consistent theme throughout his Q and A.

[27:24] “You know, according to the theory [of evolution] it [the eye] had to go pukh! and there was an eyeball, overnight, just like that, because it wouldn’t work in any other way. And when you ask the evolutionists about that they say, ‘well, we don’t understand everything.’ And I say, ‘well, I don’t think you understand anything.” [27:48] 

That is of course completely false, and evolutionists indeed have a working understanding of how the various eyes in the animal kingdom developed. (As you can see for yourself in this Ted Ed video.)

The fact that a medical doctor does not understand this is more than a little troubling.

[answering a woman’s question, 45:07] “I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary [Satan], and it has become what is scientifically politically correct. Amazingly, there are a significant number of scientists who do not believe it but they are afraid to say anything.” [45:38]

So to be clear the man who is currently polling at number two for the GOP presidential nomination, believes that things which disagree with his religious perspective are the work of an evil entity whose job it is to undermine Christianity by introducing doubt.

The thing that I noticed while watching the video is how utterly convinced Carson is that he is absolutely correct in his thinking.

So sure is he that he feels comfortable ridiculing those who dare to consider that science may have the answers instead of the Bible.

That kind of absolute certainty is frightening to behold, and reminds me in no small way of George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq war. In my opinion Carson is a truly dangerous person who should be kept far away from the levers of power.

People of faith seem to feel confident in their belief, regardless of the evidence, while people of science are always searching for that next bit of evidence which will change their minds completely.

Personally I am much more comfortable with the uncertainty of the thinker, over the certainty of the believer.

Private letter in which Charles Darwin admits he is an Atheist goes up for auction.

Courtesy of the Mirror: 

A private letter where Charles Darwin confesses to not believing in the bible or that Jesus was the son of God is set to sell for more than £50,000. 

The esteemed naturalist and geologist was famous for keeping his religious views to himself and very rarely discussed the existence of God. 

It is thought the scientist, famous for his pioneering research on evolution, avoided the subject so he didn’t offend friends and family. 

But in a handwritten letter to a potential reader he shared his honest thoughts.

Here is what the letter says:   

“Dear Sir, I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God. Yours faithfully Ch. Darwin”.

As I am sure many of you know Darwin studied theology at Cambridge with the aim of becoming a member of the clergy.

It was during his voyage on the "Beagle" that his ideas about God, man, and nature were challenged, and perhaps changed forever.

And we can all give thanks that they were. For if Darwin had done what many religious folks still do today and rejected any evidence that God is not the architect of all that we see, we would not have the scientific discipline of Evolution and the wealth of information that it has provided about who we are, and where we come from.

A scientific discipline by the way that continues to provide new information all of the time, such as the recently discovered fossils of an entirely new human like species found in South Africa.

Yet another reminder of why it is so important to educate our children and help them to become freethinkers unburdened with the mythologies and superstitions of their fore-bearers.

House member introduces resolution to designate a Charles Darwin Day in America. About damn time!

Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education:  

House Resolution 67 (PDF), introduced in the United States House of Representatives on February 2, 2015, would, if passed, express the House's support of designating February 12, 2015, as Darwin Day, and its recognition of "Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth's peoples." 

Jim Himes (D-Connecticut), the lead sponsor of the bill, explained in a January 26, 2015, press release from the American Humanist Association, "Charles Darwin's discoveries gave humankind a new, revolutionary way of thinking about the natural world and our place in it. His insatiable quest for knowledge and decades of meticulous observation and analysis opened new pathways for advancements in biology, medicine, genetics and ecology." He added, "Without Darwin's contributions to science, philosophy and reason, our understanding of the world's complexity and grandeur would be significantly diminished.”

Like I said this is way past due, we owe much to the research of Charles Darwin and the publication of the "Origin of Species," and this ides should be embraced by all rational people in the country.

But I also realize that the resolution will undoubtedly fail.

Especially with the Congress overflowing with Republicans.

Michigan State University is allowing Creationists to come to their campus and slay some brain cells.

Courtesy of CBS Detroit:  

A planned event on creationism at Michigan State University is raising concerns among faculty and graduate students. 

The Saturday conference includes workshops such as “The Big Bang is Fake” and “Hitler’s Worldview,” on how evolution influenced the views of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, MLive.com reported. 

The Origin Summit is sponsored by the organization Creation Summit, which aims to promote creationism in places it feels have banned teaching it. 

The conference will focus on scientific evidence that points to creationism instead of religious doctrine, according to Creation Summit executive director Mike Smith. 

“We want to show the scientific evidence that shows intelligent design,” he said. “We’re not coming to the campus to promote Bible verses or sermons.”

First off there is no scientific evidence that "points to Creationism." That in fact would be an impossibility. (I am working on a post that will explain why that is.)

Secondly unless this "conference" is presented in a similar fashion to how one might allow KKK members to give a speech to students simply so that their arguments can be picked apart and demonstrated to be fatuous, then there is no reason to allow this bullshit anywhere near university students.

And thirdly the idea that Hitler's holocaust was the fault of Charles Darwin is false.

The "Social Darwinism" that Hitler may or may not have embraced, was the result of a misunderstanding of Charles Darwin's work, and was not something that he created or promoted. Which might explain why Hitler never once mentioned Darwin in any of his writings.

If one is looking for the origin of Hitler's distrust and even hatred for the Jews, that is as simple as can be.

If one is looking for reasons to hate their fellow man, that is rarely found in scientific research. But religion is fairly saturated with them.

Totally need to buy this bumper sticker.

I would really like to see somebody in the Bible belt drive around with this.

It would be awesome right up until they got shot.

You know, for Jesus.

ISIS and Fundamentalist Christians find common ground. They both want to ban the teaching of Evolution.

Courtesy of the Daily Beast: 

ISIS and Christian fundamentalists can agree on something: Charles Darwin is bad. In Mosul, Iraql, the militants have explicitly banned teaching the theory of evolution in new school curriculums, despite the fact that it wasn't taught in Iraq previously. 

Well of course this is the one area that the militant Muslims and militant Christians would agree.

After all an understanding of science threatens the existence of both of them.

Of course that is where the agreement ends:   

The terrorists have also cut history, literature, art, music and Christianity classes from schools. Many parents have been keeping their children out of class as a form of resistance to the new academic programs.

Well actually now that I think about it the similarities really DON'T end there.

I mean sure Fundamentalist Christians would never reject the teaching of their religion in a public school, but they certainly would restrict any teaching about Islam.

And as for history, art, and music, well sure those would be retained just so long the history reflected the Bible's impact on it, the art classes featured religious imagery, and music was used to praise Jesus.

You know you take away the beheadings and genocide and we essentially have our own version of ISIS right here in the good old US of A.

I seriously doubt that they would be comfortable with those who actually brought their minds.

To be honest I am a little interested to find out which "amazing animals" would stump Darwin.

Just another night of slaying straw men, and avoiding uncomfortable facts, at your local house of worship/bingo parlor. 

When is a science teacher NOT a science teacher? When this is the "science" that they teach.

Larger image.

So essentially the argument used here is that since there have been advances in science which disagree with some of Darwin's hypothesis that the entire discipline should be rejected and a return to biblical explanations for life embraced.

And since when is the "true calling" of scientists to master nature for the benefit of mankind?

I thought their calling was to examine and explore facts in order to better understand the reality in which we live.

As for scientists rejecting Darwin, according to the Smithsonian magazine nothing could be further from the truth:  

Perhaps because of that remarkable success, "evolution," or "Darwinism," can sometimes seem like a done deal, and the man himself something of an alabaster monument to wisdom and the dispassionate pursuit of scientific truth. But Darwin recognized that his work was just the beginning. "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches," he wrote in Origin. 

Since then, even the most unanticipated discoveries in the life sciences have supported or extended Darwin's central ideas—all life is related, species change over time in response to natural selection, and new forms replace those that came before. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," the pioneering geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky titled a famous essay in 1973. He could not have been more right—evolution is quite simply the way biology works, the central organizing principle of life on earth. 

In the 150 years since Darwin published Origin, those "important researches" have produced results he could never have anticipated. Three fields in particular—geology, genetics and paleoanthropology—illustrate both the gaps in Darwin's own knowledge and the power of his ideas to make sense of what came after him. Darwin would have been amazed, for example, to learn that the continents are in constant, crawling motion. The term "genetics" wasn't even coined until 1905, long after Darwin's death in 1882. And though the first fossil recognized as an ancient human—dubbed Neanderthal Man—was discovered in Germany just before Origin was published, he could not have known about the broad and varied family tree of ancestral humans. Yet his original theory has encompassed all these surprises and more. 

Darwin never claimed to have provided all of the answers but the template that he did provide has helped just about every scientific discipline imaginable make incredible  discoveries that benefit mankind in incalculable ways.

We owe Charles Darwin a huge debt of gratitude for his invaluable assistance with breakthroughs in anthropology, biology, zoology, ichthyology, ornithology, genealogy, medical advancements, you name it and it was probably benefited in some way by the work of Charles Robert Darwin.

And EVERY science class in America should make it a priority to teach that to their students.

Son of "Snake Salvation" pastor, who recently died of a fatal snakebite, says he too will handle the snake and refuse medical treatment if bitten.

Son Cody Coots, pictured on the far left.

Courtesy of TMZ:  

Bite me once shame on you ... the new pastor in the "Snake Salvation" church will NOT accept medical treatment today if he's bitten by the rattlesnake that killed his father exactly one week ago. 

Cody Coots tells TMZ ... he will indeed handle the deadly snake during the afternoon Kentucky service. What's more, he says there will be NO anti-venom meds on hand in case the snake attacks again. 

And ... if he's bitten and paramedics rush to the church, he'll send them away ... just like his dad Jamie Coots did. 

Cody tells TMZ, "I will lay right there and say to everyone, it's God's will. It's good enough to live by, and good enough to die by." 

You know it is going to be increasing hard for these simple minded yokels to deny the teachings of Charles Darwin if they are going to keep receiving his awards. 

You know you have to admire a Christian faith that has its own expiration date baked right into its religious practices. Perhaps the only thing that would be faster is a faith based on the belief that God will negate the laws of gravity for the true believers, and whose congregation meets on the edge of a cliff every Sunday.

From the documentary "Questioning Darwin" Creationist admits that if the Bible said that 2+2= 5 he wouldn't question the accuracy. He would accept it as true.

"I cannot even fathom coming from this little thing that crawled on the ground, to apes, to being human. It just doesn't, it just doesn't it--sounds crazy to me."

The lack of intelligence, and the inability to recognize the irrationality of their argument, makes having an actual conversation about the importance of science with these people completely impossible.

So much of their self identity is tied into their blind faith, that they are unwilling, and perhaps even unable, to entertain the possibility that they are incorrect.

Not only that but without the comfort of a faith which promises a place in heaven, these people have to accept that like every other creature, plant, and insect on the planet, they too will someday die, and after a lifetime of being told otherwise, that is too frightening a prospect to consider.

That fear of having their faith shaken in any way, compels them to attack anything which questions, or undermines its validity.

Missouri lawmaker proposes legislation that would allow parents of public school students to opt out of classes teaching Evolution. Because you know, who needs science?

Courtesy TPM:  

A Missouri lawmaker has proposed what ranks among the most anti-evolution legislation in recent years, which would require schools to notify parents if "the theory of evolution by natural selection" was being taught at their child's school and give them the opportunity to opt out of the class. 

The bill had its first public hearing Thursday after being introduced in late January. 

State Rep. Rick Brattin (R), who sponsored the bill, told a local TV station last week that teaching only evolution in school was "indoctrination." 

"Our schools basically mandate that we teach one side," he told KCTV. "It is an indoctrination because it is not objective approach."

And as troubling as this is for Missouri schoolchildren, it is even more troubling that similar laws are being introduced all along the Bible Belt.

The bill is one of several anti-evolution proposals that have already appeared in statehouses across the country; the Daily Beast counted four states (Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Virginia) where legislation had been introduced. The proposals would allow for a range of approaches to evolution, from presenting a "debate" over evolution versus creationism to requiring that local school boards allow intelligent design to be included in biology courses.

However Missouri is still in the forefront of sabotaging their children's education.

But Brattin's bill appears to be the only one, and perhaps the first, that would mandate parental notification that their children were being taught evolution in school, the curriculum that most mainstream science teacher groups endorse. 

“It’s an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs,” Brattin told the Kansas City Star of requiring schools to teach evolution. “What’s being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion."

As scientific investigation provides more and more answers about our origins, and the origins of out planet and universe, we are seeing what can only be defined as a panicked response to somehow preserve the teachings of religion by protecting children from the influence of critical thinking.

In year passed, as many of you here have pointed out, there was NOT this great movement to attack science and it was felt that religion and science could live together in harmony.

However today with the climate change debate, the rise in non-theism, and new discoveries being made, seemingly on a daily basis, that disprove much of what is written in the Bible, there has arisen an orchestrated attack on Evolution specifically, and science in general, that threatens to undermine the very future of our country.

You know what sometimes is not made clear in discussions about Evolution is that human being benefited greatly from its discovery in way that many simply do not understand.

It provided a framework and model that has been used in zoology, botany, biology, medicine, and many other scientific disciplines with great success.

Without Darwin that flu shot we all rush to get every year may not be nearly as effective, we may never have mapped the human genome (Which by the way shows evidence of the continued evolution of humans.), or today it is even giving us new insights into dealing with Alzheimer's.

It is NOT important that every public school pupil have a degree in Evolutionary Biology, but it IS important that they recognize its importance and do not disregard it out of hand simply because it does not comport with their religious beliefs, whatever form those might take.

It may be important to note that there are scientists working in the field of Evolution who come from a background in Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholism, Islamism, Protestantism, and virtually every other religious discipline.

But when they put on their lab coats, they are scientists. And scientists deal with facts.

And so should American school children.

South Carolina State Senator does not understand what a scientific theory is, so the teaching of Evolution is removed from the science standards.

Courtesy of The Post and Courier:  

An education committee approved new science standards for students except for one clause: the one that involves the use of the phrase "natural selection." The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee met Monday to review and approve the new set of science standards that the Department of Education will begin implementing by the fall of 2014 for students. Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, argued against teaching natural selection as fact, when he believes there are other theories students deserve to learn. 

"Natural selection is a direct reference to Darwinism," Fair said after the meeting. "And the implication of Darwinism. is that it is start to finish." 

Fair argued South Carolina's students are learning the philosophy of natural selection but teachers are not calling it such. He said the best way for students to learn is for the schools to teach the controversy. 

"To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong," Fair said. "I don't have a problem with teaching theories. I don't think it should be taught as fact." 

Ultimately, the committee approved all measures except that clause, which now gets sent back to the committee level for review. 

Oh and don't think the State Superintendent of Education is going to be of any help in this are either.  

State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais said after the meeting he was not surprised by the debate that took place. 

"This has been going on here in South Carolina for a long a time," Zais said. "We ought to teach both sides and let students draw their own conclusions."

And that is the freaking superintendent! 

God, this kind of think makes me insane!

For those on the short bus, when scientists refer to something as a "theory" they essentially mean a fact that is still being modified with the introduction of new evidence, not something that they just imagined and have no proof to back up.

The closest to that would be a "hypothesis" which is defined as "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

If scientists were calling Evolution a scientific hypothesis this Fair guy might have a point. However even if they did there is still NO room for the introduction of religious mythology to be introduced as science.

HBO's documentary "Questioning Darwin" reveals the fearful mindset of those who reject Evolution.

Model of Adam in the Garden of Eden sporting a bellybutton. Because fuck science!

Courtesy of Slate:

Intellectual freedom is one of humanity’s greatest gifts—and biggest burdens. Our ability to ask questions, to test ideas, to doubt is what separates us from our fellow animals. But doubt can be as terrifying as it is liberating. And it’s the terror of doubt that fosters the toxic, life-negating cult of creationism. 

That fear is on full display throughout HBO’s new documentary Questioning Darwin, which features a series of intimate interviews with biblical fundamentalists. Creationism, the documentary reveals, isn’t a harmless, compartmentalized fantasy. It’s a suffocating, oppressive worldview through which believers must interpret reality—and its primary target is children. For creationists, intellectual inquiry is a sin, and anyone who dares to doubt the wisdom of their doctrine invites eternal damnation. That’s the perverse brilliance of creationism, the key to its self-perpetuation: First it locks kids in the dungeon of ignorance and dogmatic fundamentalism. Then it throws away the key. 

I actually missed this documentary when it aired last night, only happening upon it afterward, and I have just now finished watching it.

As a result my head is now hurting so bad I can barely stand.

There is quite a lot of interesting information about Charles Darwin, and the trials that he went through in order to write and publish "The Origin of Species." Not to mention the challenges to the teaching of Evolution that have presented themselves in the years since the book was published.

However what struck me, and caused my mental anguish, were the statements from those who rejected the teachings of Darwin, and the idea that man evolved over time, outright.

"I cannot imagine life without knowing that God has a plan." Quoted the Head of Women's Ministry Christ Community Church.

To me that speaks volumes as to the mindset of those who choose to ignore all evidence which supports Evolution and undermines their ability to have faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Over an over again the message from the faithful is "We don't understand Evolution so it cannot be true." Or, "We cannot accept that our faith is baseless so we will not entertain contradictory information." Or, "I cannot accept that we were not specifically designed by God. and are no more important, or special, than the other creatures with whom we share this planet."

Essentially the argument is that it is much easier, and comforting, to believe that man was created specifically by God to hold dominion over the planet and the animals that live upon it. And that after they die their soul will live on forever at God's side.

While I can understand the impulse to accept a story that rescues us from death and feeds into our innate egoism, I simply cannot excuse the rejection of information based solely on the fear that it may one day prove the fallacy of that faith.

What the documentary illustrates more than anything is an image of mankind as a shivering frightened child, cowering under bed covers and crying out for its powerful father to provide assurance that all is well and that there is nothing to fear. Not even death.

Simply put that saddens me beyond measure, for we have the capacity to prolong our lives well past the life expectancy of our ancestors, to rid ourselves of diseases that crippled and plagued our species for thousands of years, and to increase our knowledge well beyond what could have been imagined even by the greatest minds of the past, and yet we still fear the darkness as if we have not chased it into the shadows with the light of our creativity and intelligence.

At this stage we should be the ones to chase away the monsters and stand bravely facing the darkness, and yet our confidence is undermined by our reliance on the safety of myths and superstitions.

We can, and must, do better.

A rap guide to Evolution. Six minutes of pure brilliance.

Cynic, skeptic, a man of no faith, I have been called them all.

But in truth I am just a man who feels driven to brush away the fallacies and myths in order to better appreciate the miracle of life that is all around me.

And what better way to appreciate then to realize that I am a part of it all, as wondrous as the star matter which whirls around inside of me, and as simple as the individual cells that give me this shell to call me own.

I don't need religion to tell me I am special, I already know that.

In fact so are we all.

I would never let anything as provincial as a god, or a pantheon of gods, come between me and the magnificence of our universe.

Nor, in my opinion, should any of us.

Why Republicans reject Darwin's theory.

Well, that DOES explain it.

Charles Darwin has a special message for the Republicans.

Happy Darwin Day my friends.

Scientists believe they have found the "Holy Grail of Human Evolution."

Courtesy of the New York Daily News:  

Feast your eyes on what a group of scientists call the Holy Grail of human evolution. 

A team of researchers Tuesday unveiled an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes. 

Officially known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws. 

Scientists say the cat-sized animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright - a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. 

"This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists," lead scientist Jorn Hurum said at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History. 

"It is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years."

This is why I ALWAYS choose facts over faith. Faith locks me in a box while facts hold the key to my release.

Handsome fellow don't you think?

Can I just mention how much I LOVE that they named this little guy Darwinius masillae?

I would almost like to allow myself to believe in an afterlife so that I could imagine Charles Darwin looking down form heaven and smiling at how well his theories are holding up.

Kirk Cameron fights back against critics of his idea to distribute Creationist friendly copies of "Origin of Species" on college campuses.

He's used to getting love letters and high-fives as a former teen heartthrob, but onetime Growing Pains actor Kirk Cameron isn't letting the mockery and criticism dissuade him from promoting his controversial project to dispute evolutionary theory.

"Atheism has been on the rise for years now, and the Bible of the atheists is The Origin of Species," Cameron tells PEOPLE. "We have a situation in our country where young people are entering college with a belief in God and exiting with that faith being stripped and shredded. What we want to do is have student make an informed, educated decision before they chuck their faith."

First off "Origin of Species" is NOT the Atheist's Bible. This is.

Second isn't it possible that the reason so many young people "chuck their faith" by the time they exit college is because of the first time they have the tools to "make an informed, educated decision" ABOUT their faith?

I am guessing that for many teens raised in small towns, and educated by people who for the most part attend the same church and share the same faith, college is the first time they are exposed to the idea that not everybody in the world embraces their particular brand of faith.

With eyes now wide open they are finally able to make a choice concerning their own religious point of view based on a potpourri of new and exciting information. Many college graduates still return to the church of their childhood. In my opinion religion is less an intellectual choice than it is an emotional choice. If students feel an emotional connection to a church that made them feel safe and loved, chances are pretty good they will return. If they are looking for something that they cannot find sitting in the pews, or kneeling with their head pointing toward Mecca, or burning incense in their temple, they will look elsewhere.

But what Cameron is doing is providing fallacies about the impact of Origin of Species, and attacks on Darwin himself, to scare students away from learning about Evolution.

But never has he ruffled so many feathers, especially among academics, as he has this week, slamming evolutionary theory as untrue, inherently un-Christian and the driving force behind some of the most horrendous catastrophes of the 20th century, including Adolf Hitler's plan to destroy "inferior races." "You can see where [Hitler] clearly takes Darwin's ideas to some of their logical conclusions and compares certain races of people to lower evolutionary life forms," Cameron says. "If you take Darwin's theory and extend it to its logical end, it can be used to justify all number of very horrendous things."

This of course is bullshit!

In fact Hitler had books about Dawinism removed from German libraries:

The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:

Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)

On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":

c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.)

It is widely known that Adolph Hitler was a Catholic (Well widely known by those of us that read, that is). However I would certainly NOT blame the Catholic church, or Christianity in general, for the horrific things that the Nazis did. That would be ignorant.

So why bring up Hitler and try to connect him to Darwin?

Because Hitler is universally reviled. If you can somehow connect the actions of that mass murderer with a guy you are trying to denigrate it makes it that much easier to do so.

Which is also why you saw those posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache and the word "fascist" underneath, which by the way may be an even stupider comparison than the Hitler/Darwin association.

So what exactly is Kirk Cameron's major malfunction anyhow?

"I am proud to bring this to people's attention," he says. "You see things in the world that are truly distressing and you think, 'What can I do?' Well this is something I can do."

So something he "can do" is to make himself a laughingstock while perpetrating a lie in a desperate attempt to suppress a widely accepted truth? Is that how he wants his kids to remember him?

And speaking of his children:

And if his own kids ended up believing in evolution? "Could I accept it? Yeah sure," he says. "I accepted a lot of things that are not true before I was able to sit down and listen to more then one side and think things through the issues. I would sit them down and tell them that I was happy that they were thinking about this stuff, now let's look at all of the information and see if we don't come to a better conclusion. If after that, they still come to the same conclusion, so be it."

Well good, at least Cameron sounds like a loving father. I can respect that.

However Cameron's mission is doomed before it starts.

Handing intellectually hungry young adults these books will certainly get them interested in the subject, but if Kirk were to sit in on one of their conversations about his "gifts" I doubt very seriously he would like which direction it took.

How long do you think it would take, in the age of Google, for these inquisitive young minds to research Cameron's claims? And how much longer until they read up on recent findings in Evolution? My guess is that in less than an hour they would have educated themselves well enough to realize that Kirk Cameron is completely full of shit. But hey no loss, because then they would still be in possession of one of the most important books in the history of science. (Gee thanks Mr. Ex-teenage idol!)

They could always rip out that stupid introduction if they wanted, but if I were them I would leave it in to serve as a testament to the importance of getting a well rounded education.

If only Kirk Cameron had taken the time to get one.

Kirk Cameron to fight evolution by giving away the book "Origin of Species" on college campuses with attacks on evolution included within.

There is so much stupid in this video that I don't even know where to begin tearing it apart. But the one point that I do want to make is that attacking the "Origin of Species" in order to tear down the theory of evolution is kind of like attacking modern aviation by pointing out that the Wright Brothers never flew more than 24 miles. Clearly the study of Evolution has, if you will, "evolved" through continued discovery and testing and has grown far beyond the initial hypothesis of Charles Darwin. Just like ALL sciences, it has been vastly improved by further investigation. If its initial premise had proven false it would have quickly been replaced by a competing scientific theory.

If you have never heard of Kirk Cameron, other than as the wisecracking older brother on "Growing Pains", and his buddy Ray Comfort then let this groundbreaking, "Atheist's Nightmare" video be your introduction.



So did you get that? Bananas, easy to open and shaped to fit the human hand, are proof positive that there is a God.

Of course following that same line of logic then doesn't the existence of the coconut, almost impossible to open and hard to hold onto, prove just the opposite? (Damn those Atheistic coconuts!)

But if that wasn't enough of a problem with Ray Comfort's ridiculous theory than his complete lack of knowledge concerning bananas proves his undoing.

Look here is the thing. Science is science, and religion is religion. One depends on verifiable facts and theories that are reinforced by newly discovered information, the other depends on faith. Period.

Science could not survive a faith based approach to research, and religion cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.

So stop trying to defend your religion by pretending science supports it. It doesn't! Nor does it support Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, or any other religious belief. If you are seeking a religion that is supported by scientific data then I do not see church attendance in your future.

If your religion makes you happy, and makes you feel connected to your community, and provides you with a sense of security, then go with God. Or Gods. Or animal totems. Or spirit guides. Or saints. Or whatever you identify as your connection to a world beyond your own. I do not fault you the beliefs that bring comfort to your life.

Just so long as you do not expect everybody else to agree with you. Or insist that your chosen religious views be taught in public schools. And if you keep your God off my science, I will keep my science off of your God. Sound fair?

P.S. I know this is not the topic that brings MOST people to this blog, however it is one of the topics that I started this site to discuss. For the last few years I have focused mostly on politics and current events, and even more recently on Alaskan politics and Sarah Palin, but you can expect a few forays into the topic of religion or philosophy occasionally.

If you, like me, are fascinated with the topic of Evolution vs Creationism then you may enjoy this debate that occurred back in 1997, and featured the powerful intellect of William F. Buckley on the side of Creationism/Intelligent Design. (The link takes you to the first of eight videos in the series, you will have to look to the right side of the screen to watch the remainder of the debate.)