A creationist talk in Portsmouth

I've been suffering a surfeit* of creationism recently, which reminded me that I'd not written up the creationist talk I attended locally back in April. It was put on by Creation Ministries International and hosted by Portsmouth Christian Fellowship at the Drayton Institute, which is a community centre cum church hall within walking distance of where I live. (Though I've not written about this before, I did talk about it on Skepticule Extra episode 25.)

The talk was given by Dominic Statham, a name vaguely familiar to me — and more familiar once I realised I'd blogged about an article he wrote on last year's riots. Statham is a good speaker; he has his delivery down pat and "gives good Powerpoint". He sounds British, and is apparently an engineer, not a biologist. His talk was titled "Darwin's Theory: Good Science?" and appears to be one of several he gave throughout a UK tour — apparently he was giving another talk in Plymouth the next day.

His talk in Drayton was well attended; about 50 chairs were laid out, and most were occupied. I arrived in plenty of time and got a good seat near the front.

Dominic Statham

Statham began by stating (in words and on screen) that "Microbes to Man" is contrary to the Bible, and went on to explain the basics of Darwin's theory. This was OK as far as it went, though he slanted his explanation with typical creationist doublespeak. He talked about "survival of the fittest" as if it meant only that the stronger win out over the weaker, but this isn't what Darwin exclusively meant, as I'm sure Statham is aware. "Fittest" in this context means most closely adapted to prevailing conditions, as in "fitting its environment". Statham's implied meaning was "fittest" as in "most fit and healthy", which is clearly a skewed interpretation if not a downright distortion.

Mentioning education, Statham referred to "so-called" science classes, showing his bias, and such loaded language was evident throughout his talk. As part of his explanation of evolutionary theory he said ordinary chemicals "just happened" to come together to form living organisms. His overview of evolutionary theory was specifically set up to be easily knocked down. He described two "steps" to evolution: number one, chemicals evolved to single-cell organisms; and number two, cells evolved to man. That's a very lopsided division, but it enabled him to claim, correctly, that science currently has no proven explanation of abiogenesis, and therefore, even before we begin to discuss evolution from microbes to man, half of evolutionary theory is speculative hypothesis unsupported by evidence. But this is a straw man; abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, and Darwin had little to say about it.

There was no mention of plants in Statham's explanation of evolution, though my understanding is that all plants are part of the evolutionary tree of life. There was mention of "variation within kinds" — but my understanding of "kind" is that it's a biblical term with no scientific validity.

Statham soon moved on to some technical aspects of evolution, beginning with homology — animals sharing similar body plans (same number of limbs, digits, etc., laid out in similar patterns). Despite what evolutionists infer, Statham claimed, homology does not point to common ancestry. He gave three reasons for this:

1. Embryonic development in homologous animals is different. For example, in comparing human hands to frog hands, human hands develop in the womb by the death of cells between the fingers, while in frogs the digits are formed by sprouting new growth. I took this at face value, but later, consulting the Talk Origins archive, I discovered the reason for this is that frogs have webbed feet, which cell-death between the digits would not allow.
2. Similar structures (such as limbs) in homologous animals grow from different segments of the embryo. Again, a bit of research reveals that this is by no means universal — some homologous structures grow from the same embryonic segments, some grow from different segments. Statham was presenting this as cut-and-dried disproof of evolution when it isn't.
3. Similar structures are controlled by different genes, therefore homology doesn't prove evolution. Statham merely quoted an authority for this one, giving no examples.

At the time, of course, Statham's confident statements sounded convincing, and if I'd been on the fence I would quite likely have taken what he said at face value and come away with the idea that evolution wasn't true. Clearly that was his intention, and no doubt it was effective with some of his mostly Christian audience (if they weren't already creationists).

So, having shown to his satisfaction that evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life, Statham stated his own explanation: a designer. He went on to state that "software encoded in DNA" is how cells work, and showed a computer animation of the highly complex structures within a cell, with the clear implication that this was all too complicated to have happened by chance. And such it might be, but it's not by chance alone that evolution works. Variations resulting from faulty copying of genes (mutation — aka the "random chance" part) coupled with natural selection, whereby those organisms less suited to their environment tend to die out before reproducing while those more suited (by virtue of their different genetic information) survive, is mostly how evolution works. As for the complexity of the cell, I would guess that the earliest cells were very much simpler than shown in the animation. The complexity of present-day cells is the result of eons of evolution — but nevertheless creationists want to say it was put there, ready made, by God.

Statham went on to cite ATP Synthase and the bacterial flagellum as examples of complexity. I know nothing of ATP Synthase, but the flagellum is a favourite of creationists in general, and of engineer-creationists in particular — and Statham is one such. We know, despite the best efforts of Michael Behe that the flagellum is not "irreducibly complex". But if you deny stepwise refinement, as Statham apparently does, the development of such structures must be highly mysterious. He quoted Michael Denton describing the complexity of the cell, and then edged into conspiracy-theory mode, claiming that academics are not free to voice doubts about evolution. He promoted the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, understandably omitting to mention that it's pretty much outright lies from start to finish.

Having already appealed to authorities, Statham quoted several more. Prof Sir Ernst Chain FRS apparently said that evolutionary theory had "…no evidence and was irreconcilable with the facts," (though I'm unable to verify this quote). Statham put up a slide with big letters reading "Evolution is a Faith" and stated that if the Bible is not right about creation, people will question it about other things. Well, yes, that's the logical thing to do. It's not logical to believe something is true just because you don't like the consequences if it's false.

Statham moved on to yet another authority, this time William Provine of Cornell University. The quote on screen contained lots of ellipsis, which immediately set alarm bells ringing — creationists are notorious for quote-mining. Back home I looked up the quote and found something a bit strange.

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."

That's pasted directly from CMI's website, and yet it isn't what Statham showed. Looking at the screen he explained that when Provine says "modern science" he means "evolution". But Provine doesn't say "modern science", he says "modern evolutionary biology". I've no idea what's going on here.

Still quoting, now from the Bible; Romans 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

This is basically, "Look around you, of course there's a creator!" (We'll leave aside the inherent problem of clearly seeing qualities that are invisible…)

Then Matthew 7:13-14:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Creationists, thankfully, are in the minority.

Rounding off this trinity of Bible quotes we have 1 Peter 3:15:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

This is the apologists' verse. (Too bad some of them forget the last sentence.)

Statham suggested members of the audience might like to subscribe to the quarterly Creation magazine — a year's subscription would get you an extra issue; a three-year subscription would get you an extra issue plus a DVD. (But only if you paid in full on the night.) Statham showed several examples of the articles in the magazine — on, for example, "modern science" — though here that doesn't necessarily mean "evolution", apparently. Another article was on refuting Richard Dawkins — which I was pleased to see. Dawkins got several mentions in Statham's talk, indicating that the infamous god-hating militant evolutionist baby-eater is still rattling cages.

Then it became a bit farcical. Statham showed some testimonials for Creation magazine — after all, you wouldn't simply take his word for how great it is, would you? The first testimonial was from that well-known arbiter of all that's worthwhile in scientific literature, the comedian Peter Kay. The second was from someone named Pat F. The third … there was no third — we have two testimonials: a comedian, and anonymous Pat F. (I'm convinced — here's my credit card.)

Finally before the break, Statham promoted the website (Creation.com) and a book titled The Creation Answers Book by Batten, Catchpoole, Sarfati and Wieland, disturbingly suggesting it could be bought for teenagers setting off for university.

During the break I looked at the merchandise, of which there was plenty: books and DVDs, including the despicable Expelled.

There were six questions in the Q&A, all answered by Statham with confidence, giving me the impression that there was nothing he hadn't heard before. He even had additional Powerpoint and videos to address specific questions — almost as if the questions were planted (but I don't think they were). I've paraphrased Statham's responses below, and added appropriate links.

Q1: Darwinism is bad science — why is it still taught?

• Because animals are observed to change. But this is micro- not macro-evolution. Genetic information for micro-evolution is already present.
• Evolutionists are committed to philosophical naturalism.
• Secular scientists say natural processes today means natural processes for origins.
• They are looking for reasons not to believe in God.
• The Intelligent Design movement is doing a lot of good, but they don't present an alternative. We do; the alternative is Christ.

Q2: There's lots of evidence for the Earth being older than 10,000 years.

• Yes there is evidence for an ancient Earth, but dating methods are unreliable. Carbon 14 dating shows the Earth is young. [My understanding is that radiocarbon dating is good for up to 60,000 years, so it can't be used to prove an old Earth, but neither does it show the Earth is young.]
• The Moon's orbit is increasing, but at the rate it is, for an old Earth it ought to be farther away by now.
• There's not enough salt in the sea for an old Earth.
• Dinosaur remains are evidence for a young Earth. In Montana, dinosaur bones (not fossils) have been found with organic soft tissue still in evidence, which should have decayed if they were millions of years old.
• Science cannot tell us how old the Earth is.
• An old Earth conflicts with the Bible. Statham recommended another book: 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History.

Q3: Where are dinosaurs in the Bible?

• Dinosaurs were made on the same day (the sixth) as Man.
• Dinosaurs were on the Ark, and lived contemporaneously with Man.
• Dinosaurs were called dragons, and some were fire-breathing.
• Carlisle Cathedral has a picture of a dinosaur on the tomb of Richard Bell, dating from 1496.

Q4: Has the universe been around longer than the Earth?

• The stars were made after the Earth.
• Billions of light years away should mean they are billions of years old, but relativity accounts for the apparent age of starlight.
• The Bible says God "stretched out the heavens" — meaning cosmic inflation.

Q5: Did Darwin have a deathbed conversion?

• Probably not, but either way it makes no difference.

Q6: How were the fossils created?

• A global flood; there is lots of evidence that fossils were buried in flood conditions.
• Fossils in the Grand Canyon are all aligned, as if carried by a current.
• Jellyfish fossils must have fossilised in hours, because they are very soft and would otherwise decay or be destroyed.
• There is an absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, such as between invertebrate marine animals and vertebrate marine animals (fish).
• The order of fossils in rock is virtually a formal falsification of Darwin's theory.

Statham made that last point (or rather, assertion) as his final comment to the final question at the end of the evening. There was no opportunity to challenge him on it before the organiser from Portsmouth Christian Fellowship got up to thank him for his talk and to lead the congregation — pardon me, the audience — in a prayer, after which I made my escape.

What did I learn from this talk? I learned that a creationist lecturing to a sympathetic audience can sound very convincing. Dominic Statham was quite clever in not stating some things outright; instead he let the audience infer what they wanted to believe from his tacit implications. I recognised his use of loaded language immediately, but only because I've heard such disingenuous slanting before. Creationists, however, are at least open about what they're up to — they want God back in our culture, and have no truck with secularism. The Intelligent Design crowd on the other hand are more insidious in their aims, all the while claiming that ID has nothing to do with religion.

---

*Watch this space...

Phillip E. Johnson — father of ID — lax, unpersuasive and simply wrong

I'm now up to chapter 13 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God, which is approximately one-eighth of the way through its "50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science". As I feared, it's proving a tedious affair. Given that this is a recent book I'd hoped it might contain some really good up-to-date arguments, or at least a challenge of some sort. So far, however, it's been disappointing. The first section, The Question of Philosophy, should have been challenging, but seems to comprise what I (a non-philosopher) can only describe as philosophically bankrupt arguments. The current section, The Question of Science, appears to be all over the place; some of its chapters don't offer an argument at all, so I fail to see how they count towards the "50 Arguments".

Nor do I understand why every one of the first 13 chapters is either identical or very similar to an article on 4truth.net. That website doesn't reference the book, and the book only briefly references the website (in the introduction) as a place to find "still more articles". Shouldn't there be at least an acknowledgement that the book contains reprints? Or that the website does? (At this stage I'll not be surprised to discover that the whole book is available on the website, which could explain why there's nothing new.)

Curious though that is, what of chapter 13? It's titled "Darwin's Battleship — Status Report on the Leaks This Ship Has Sprung" and is by Discovery Institute co-founder and major intelligent design proponent Phillip E. Johnson. He begins by citing his 1993 book Darwin on Trial, quoting the epilogue in which he predicts that ID will win out over evolution. He then goes on to list how he perceives progress in this regard. It's actually a bit comical:

Science organizations regularly mischaracterize ID, calling it "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." They dream up conspiracies and make false accusations. They try to make sure that no one who is friendly to ID is allowed to publish articles in the peer-reviewed literature and then use the lack of such articles to prove that ID is not science. They try to prevent ID-friendly scientists from attaining research or teaching positions. They enter into local school district decision-making processes to make sure that Darwinism is not allowed to be questioned in any way, bringing in the ACLU if there is any attempt to offer an even-handed approach to the teaching of evolution. (p. 74)

Who's "dreaming up conspiracies and making false accusations" here? I seem to remember a somewhat disreputable film (that's putting it mildly) called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that was chock-full of conspiracy theories, every one of which was promptly debunked by people who actually investigated the facts.

Johnson goes on to state that the "Darwinian mechanism of evolution" has no explanation of how the complex living world came about. This is just plain false. Anyone who reads Richard Dawkins' latest, beautifully illustrated book, The Greatest Show on Earth, cannot fail to understand the stunning simplicity and elegance of Darwin's idea. As for explaining "how life came into being from chemicals" — Johnson must surely know that evolutionary theory has practically nothing to say on the subject because that's not what it's about. He complains that Edward O. Wilson gives no concrete examples of evolution in an article in Harvard magazine, while providing no examples himself — nor does he provide a reference to Wilson's article. In fact the only reference Johnson gives is to his own book. His final paragraph is telling:

Recently, Harvard opened a new major research project, especially to study the origin of life. This may be in response to the criticisms of the Intelligent Design movement. Other recent articles suggest that scientists in the biological establishment are doing research specifically to answer the challenges raised by ID. If this is the case, it should be seen as a good thing by everyone. We in the ID movement are proponents of good science. If our criticisms and questions lead to better research, we are unafraid of the results. In the meantime, our current concern is to keep evolutionary scientists honest about the current state of the evidence and to allow young people to understand why there is a controversy about the subject of evolution. (p. 75)

It sounds entirely reasonable, until the last sentence. In evolutionary science — the kind supported by peer-reviewed research — there isn't a controversy about the subject of evolution. The controversy is entirely in the minds of ID proponents who want biological science to be based on a religious idea.

---

4truth.net
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952913

Premier's screening of Expelled — 27 February 2010

I was initially reluctant to take up Premier's offer of attending a screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed followed by a debate about the issues it raised. I'd already seen the film (thanks to the wonder of the internet) and I knew what a pile of (ahem) misrepresentation it was. But I'd never been to Imperial College, despite passing it scores of times over the years on my way to the Royal Albert Hall. Then I hit on the idea of going to the Darwin Centre at the Natural History Museum in the morning, which I felt would be an appropriate precursor to (and inoculation against) the horrors to come. (I'll post later about the Darwin Centre and the Cocoon.)

Just in case anyone doesn't know what the film is about, the theme of Expelled is that scientists in America who espouse intelligent design are being systematically expelled and excluded from universities, and journalists who write articles sympathetic to ID — or its proponents — are losing their jobs, and that this whole thing is a Darwinist conspiracy. I won't go into the merits or otherwise(!) of the film here as I've made my views on it clear enough elsewhere.

The debate panel comprised, on the pro-ID side: Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University, who appears in Expelled, and who also testified in the Dover trial in favour of ID; Alastair Noble, an ex-schools-inspector, who not so long ago wrote a disturbing piece for the Guardian exposing his ID credentials. On the panel against ID were: Susan Blackmore, Visiting Professor in the School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, and whom I've seen debate before (this time she was without her signature multicoloured locks); Keith Fox, Professor of Biochemistry, Southampton University, a theistic evolutionist — he's a Christian who doesn't believe ID is a valid proposition for explaining the presence of complexity in DNA. Justin Brierley, host of Premier's Unbelievable? radio programme, moderated. At the end of the debate Mark Haville, responsible for bringing Expelled to the UK, read a statement (see below).

I'd met up with MSP and a friend of his in the foyer, and as the three of us sat down in the third row of the Alexander Fleming lecture hall at Imperial College (I wanted to be sure of being able to hear) I joked that we ought to have a label in front of us reading "Atheist Contingent". I actually had no idea of the audience make-up and it remained unclear even during the screening, when there was a good deal of laughter at certain points in the film.

Once the debate began, however, it became clear that we were much in the minority. Sue Blackmore was interrupted in her opening remarks (though Justin Brierley is to be commended for his instant quelling of any potential for heckling). Alastair Noble began by congratulating Premier Radio for bringing Expelled to the UK (not an entirely accurate portrayal of events as I understand them) and hoped that every student in the country would see it. This brought a round of applause.

He said, "I have found it to be the most interesting, the most thought-provoking, in many ways the funniest film I have seen in a long time, but also a film with a deeply serious message." He stated his opposition to the materialistic "bias" of science as follows: "In the area of origins, you cannot limit yourself only to material and physical explanations. You must consider intelligent causation, and that's what lies at the heart of intelligent design, and that is what is ruled out by an arbitrary definition of science." (In his opening remarks he didn't suggest — given what the endeavour of science actually is — exactly how scientists might be expected to investigate anything that wasn't material or physical. If we wanted to know how science might investigate the nature of the soul, for instance, I guess we'd have to wait.) He did give us his definition of ID: "a minimal commitment to the possibility of intelligent causation." But just how minimal is minimal? Goddidit? I-don't-know-who-or-what-didit? Calling this "science" is a bastardisation of the term.

Keith Fox's opening remarks answered Alastair Noble directly, making the obvious point that the physical and material is all that can be addressed by science, and ID is therefore not science. He went on to criticise the film for its distortion of the idea of freedom of speech, and for its offensive muddling of the relationship between belief in God and evolutionary theory. He also condemned its erroneous linking of evolutionary theory with eugenics, and other misappropriations.

Steve Fuller began by excusing the tone and style of the film as comparable to anything produced by Michael Moore (as if that was somehow a recommendation), and went on to maintain that what happened to Michael Reiss (when he was ousted from the Royal Society for his soft approach to creationism in the classroom) is comparable to what was portrayed in the film with regard to scientists losing their jobs if they so much as mentioned ID.

The ensuing debate was hopelessly muddled — confusing creationism, intelligent design and abiogenesis, and included disagreements as to whether IDers actually were being expelled from academia. The panel represented a mix of overlapping views and beliefs, with Steve Fuller (who appeared in the film) seeming especially hard to pin down, despite being extremely vocal on the side of the film's producers. In contrast, ex-schools-inspector Alastair Noble was responsible for the most egregious and forthright comments of the afternoon. He's an unabashed IDer, plainly parroting the buzzwords of William Dembski and other ID ilk ("functional specified information", "front-loaded with information" etc) but did not follow his argument through to its next stage. He claimed that DNA code is evidence for a designer, stating that all examples of coded information that we know about come from an intelligent mind, so why should that be different for DNA?

It could well be different, and here's why. It's because his characterisation of "all examples of coded information that we know about" as originating from an intelligent mind leaves out a vital corollary of that intelligent mind, which is this: it's a human mind. All examples of coded information that we know about originate from intelligent human minds. Does Alastair Noble believe, therefore, that the coded information in DNA comes from human minds? Apparently not, and neither do I. But the only intelligence we know about, that's capable of producing coded information, is human intelligence. The commonality here is not "intelligence", but "human intelligence". How many different types of intelligence do we know about, that are capable of producing coded information? One: human intelligence. (I'm sorry to belabour this point, but the IDers really need to get it.) It's invidious to attempt to extrapolate from the capabilities of the single example we have of an intelligence that is capable of producing coded information, to claim that all coded information of any kind must therefore be produced by intelligence.

To put it another way — there are too many variables in this equation; coded-information-produced-by-non-human-intelligence is one. Non-human-intelligence is the other. Since one of these variables is contained within the other we will get nowhere in speculating about cause and effect. It's a bit like trying to solve simultaneous equations in algebra — you need at least as many independent equations as you have variables to solve. With intelligent design you have at least one more variable than you have equations. The scientifically correct, current answer to the question of where the coded information in DNA comes from, is "As of now, we don't know".

The IDers claim they have an answer ... wait ... no they don't, they claim they have a question — the same question that legitimate science has: where does DNA code come from? The difference is that while legitimate science says "we don't know but we're working on it", the IDers say "we don't know but we're not working on it".

And they expect this stuff to be taught in schools.

There was a significant exchange towards the end of the Q&A, when Alastair Noble invited Keith Fox to read Department of Education & Science guidance of a few years ago, about how intelligent design was to be handled within science. He said it stated that ID was "not to be regarded as science." He then went on to say, "And that's the problem — we do not have freedom of enquiry in this matter." Keith Fox effectively rebutted this saying that in schools, when teaching at a basic level, only accepted science should be taught.

If the IDers want intelligent design taught in schools, they need to provide evidence that it's a viable theory. So far they've not done so. For a movement that talks so much about science, it has remarkably little actual scientific research of any kind to show for itself. Alastair Noble stated that Alexander Fleming (for whom the hall we were in was named) noticed something that no-one else had noticed. He maintains that likewise IDers have noticed something. Very well then, show us the evidence. Evidence is what the scientific community needs in order to consider a theory viable; until that scientific evidence is presented ID will continue to be treated, rightly, as unscientific, and no amount of bleating about unfairness and ostracism will change that fact.

As the Q&A session came to a close the make-up of the audience had become a little clearer. Several of Alastair Noble's emotive but puerile comments were applauded instantaneously, as were some smart-alec interjections from Steve Fuller, including an entirely gratuitous, unjustified denigration of David Attenborough. Some of the questioners were obviously creationists who denied evolution outright, and at least one questioner self-proclaimed as a fundamentalist. Given that the event was put on by a Christian organisation, with the assistance of a pro-ID DVD company, to promote a pro-ID DVD, it's not surprising that the majority of the audience would favour the faith-based viewpoint.

What I did find surprising was the low-key wrap-up provided by Mark Haville, responsible for the promotion of Expelled in the UK. He announced some generous discount offers on his company's range of ID and creationist DVDs, then went on to read a prepared and somewhat long-winded statement. I've transcribed it from my recording — I omitted to ask for a printed copy — so there may be transcription errors in what follows. He said it was aimed at the press, so I assume it's OK to post here:

Once again, welcome to the debate. I hope, and dare I say pray, that this event will bring much-needed change, and promote truth in science where it is lacking. Science can mean knowledge, and many people rightly expect truth to go hand-in-hand with that knowledge. Winston Churchill once said truth is incontrovertible, panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. Knowledge and truth are important for a stable society, and whilst it is beyond the remit of empirical science to speak to every kind of knowledge, especially metaphysical things, it is therefore an undeniable hypocrisy when atheism, materialism and scientism are being promoted by so many today under the guise of authentic science. Atheistic philosophies and world-views, which have no foundation in empirical science, are routinely forced upon students, professors and the general public alike without the logical, ethical and moral implications of those ideas being explored or explained. Magical and mythological hypotheses like inanimate molecules producing life, and eventually consciousness, while time, space and matter coming into existence from nothing, or the eternal existence of matter, are only a few of the invisible fabrics woven together to form the atheists' new clothes. Such theories are not testable science, based on observation and experiment, and people who have this religious faith in such notions have no right to continually force their world-view or agendas on everyone else, while simultaneously denying free scientific enquiry from those who doubt Darwin's dubious deductions, or to castigate those with opposing world-views. As you heard in the film, evolutionists are free to believe there is no evidence for morality, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no free will, and that for some it may be better to shoot yourself in the head than to endure prolonged suffering from a brain tumour. Or to believe a person who doubts macro-evolution means that he is insane, stupid or ignorant. But these are implications evolutionists believe science reveals and are not scientific facts in and of themselves. And so the question that must be allowed, without boilerplating, additional distortion, misrepresentations or even lies, is where does the evidence lead. There must now, more than ever, be the freedom to challenge unsound theories, examine new evidence, and most importantly there must be the liberty to follow that evidence wherever it may lead, or conversely the individual freedom to ignore the moral and ethical implications if one so chooses. But not to fear investigation or worse still to silence, ridicule or vilify those who question materialistic concepts dressed up as science. Those scientists who hold such radical views should not dictate what is scientific fact, as this is the clearest case of the foxes guarding the scientific hen-house. This must change, as negative effects of scientific atheism on our society are now far reaching. So today I would like to announce the beginning of a national campaign to expose this bias to the public and to hopefully legislate necessary changes, so that science can have the freedom to advance and serve mankind to its fullest extent, whether in our schools, our laws or our lives. And again, thank you for attending, and for listening.

I have to say that it was a bit sneaky, putting this in at the end without the chance of a reply, chock-full as it is with fallacies, straw men and most of all projection. But hey, that's ID for you.