Creation-Evolution Links 11/13/2007

I think I’m at least in the right month this time, which is a good thing because there are some really interesting things to read on the creation-evolution controversy.

Some time ago I wrote about a waste of $25 million represented by the creation museum in Kentucky. As it turns out it was a waste of more like $27 million, though it does appear to have found a purpose in providing some amusement. John Scalzi was persuaded (or paid) by his readers to visit the museum and report, and the result is a quite snarky, but enjoyable piece. For those of my readers who prefer to avoid certain four letter words, be warned–this article uses them. If you can handle that, I recommend it. Scalzi also provides a slide show, which is linked from the main entry.

Carl Zimmer provides some amusement by linking to a slide show on the changes in terminology used by the creationist movement. Is ID creationism or is it creationism? Those of us to followed the Dover trial are already acquainted with this, but the graphics are nice.

I always like links coming in, but when certain blogs put you on their blogroll, it’s a real honor. Quintessence of Dust, Dr. Stephen Matheson’s blog, is one of these. The reason I feel that way is that Dr. Matheson takes great care in his blog writing, and is the very essence of a modern science blogger (OK, apologies, couldn’t resist).

What brought on this complimentary note? Well, he is asking other scientists to informally peer review some of his writing on his blog. They are catching some minor errors, and he’s correcting them. Folks, that is modeling the attitude of a scientist, and I wish I had an award or something I could throw his way, but a compliment will have to do.

Oops, I forgot to mention that I have written the final post in my series on the primeval history in Genesis, dealing with Genesis 11. I color code the traditional source documents and make some literary/exegetical comments.

Similar Posts


  1. Is it complimentary to call Dr. Matheson “the very essence of a modern science blogger”? I’m sure it was intended as such. But your wording brings to my mind the Major-General’s song from the Pirates of Penzance, which is hardly complimentary in its conclusion that in fact the hero lacks even “a smattering of elemental strategy”. I’m sure Dr. Matheson does not have analogous failings.

  2. Well, perhaps my sense of humor catches me. I assumed that it was clear enough that I was stealing the line and using it with complimentary intent. I also assumed that my readers would recognize the allusion, as you did. We’ll see whether I have to apologize, or even perhaps repent in dust and ashes.

  3. Hey, thanks for the compliment! It was nice of Joe Thornton to take the time to provide feedback and comments. And BTW, if Peter hadn’t pointed it out, I would never have known how that song from Pirates of Penzance ends; I’ve still never seen it. (Dang.) Ah well, I’ve seen much worse quote mining than that…

  4. Well, sorry if I disillusioned you, but Henry’s intention was certainly a compliment, well deserved I am sure.

    Henry, I was caught out by the change from “model” to “essence” which made me think you were not deliberately alluding to this song. But of course “essence” goes with the blog name’s “Quintessence”.

  5. That’s the danger of allusions, you have to get them just right, or the whole point gets lost. The rhythm is also just slightly off in my version.

    Oh well . . . 🙂

Comments are closed.