The fish is left behind

7 02 2010

I really enjoy looking at cartoons made by creationists to mock with the concept of evolution. But I am not interested at all in cartoons made by evolutionists to make creationists rediculous. And for sure there are thousands of them.

However, this is an exception. This is really soooooo good!

source: this cartoon was found on this facebook site (with many other very good cartoons on this issue).

Een mannelijke aap en een vrouwelijke aap krijgen enkel babyaapjes, evolutie bestaat dus niet!

15 10 2009

Chill out+chips+popcorn and watch this ‘crazy preacher kid’ talking about evolution and creationism…have fun!

Creationism vs. negationism

20 02 2009

is just a matter of hidden agenda…



1. I believe that god created the world in 6 days, that we all descend from Adam and Eve…

2. but for the gas chambers, I still need prove.Richard Williamson, creationism and holocaust

Scientific research and statistics on nine factors that determine your acceptance of evolution: ‘not true’ or ‘false’ so help me God…

14 12 2008

A group of researchers in the USA and Japan performed research on the attitude toward the concept of evolution in USA, Japan and 32 European countries.  Their results are published in 2006 in the scientific journal Science.  The article can be downloaded here (see bottom of this post).

 ‘Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals’ was asked  to the people, and they rated this question as ‘true’, ‘not sure’ or ‘false’.  Of all the USA citizens 60%  said that that statement was not true or false.  Except for Turkey, where approximately 70% said that is was not true or false, all European countries scored better with respect to acceptance of evolution.  Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan scored the highest acceptance of evolution.

Public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries, 2005

Public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries, 2005

 The authors see 3 main raisons why Americans have more reservations on the concept of evolution in the context of a broad acceptance in Europe and Japan.

1.       In the USA, fundamentalism in belief is historically different from that in Europe.  The biblical literalist focus of fundamentalism in the USA sees Genesis as a true and accurate account of the creation of human life that supersedes any scientific finding or interpretation.   In Europe, that has more mainstream Protestant faith, Genesis is seen more as metaphorical, leaving no much of contradiction between their faith and the work of Darwin and other scientists.

2.       Evolution has been politicized in the USA in a manner never seen in Europe.  The Republican Party is using the issue of evolution as part of a platform to consolidate their support in southern and Midwerstern States.  Teaching of ‘creation science’ has been explicitly asked by this party.  In Europe, there is no major party that overtly uses opposition to evolution to gain votes.

3.       The knowledge of genetics (knowledge of DNA and concept of heredity; the authors call it ‘genetic literacy’) is positively correlated with acceptance of evolution.  Lack of this knowledge correlates with reservations on the concept of evolution.  Genetic literacy in the USA is not so good as in Europe.



The authors also investigated nine factors that could have an influence on your attitude on the acceptance of evolution.  Were investigated in USA and nine European countries:

Age (young or old), Gender (female or not), Education (high or low level of college-level science courses), Genetic  literacy (high or low, people were ranked after answering 10 questions about how heredity and DNA works), Religious belief (high or low, people were ranked in 4 categories according to their current religious belief), Attitude toward life (ranking in three categories according to their ideas about beginning of life and the moral and legal status of embryos), Belief in promise of science and technology (high or low, after scaling five items about how science can improve people’s life), Reservation about science and technology (high or low, after scaling 10 questions on the impact of science on life), Political ideology (scaling by means of 10 questions into ‘very liberal’ vs ‘very conservative’). 



path model to predict your attitude toward evolution

path model to predict your attitude toward evolution

How to interprete this map?

All nine items are displayed.  If there is an arrow between two variables, then there’s a significant correlation between them.  This correlation can be negative or positive, it can be small or big.  This is done for the USA and for nine European countries.

For example: in the USA, the education level, defined by the scaling (see above) correlates with genetic  literacy. The correlation is positive, meaning if education is high, the genetic  literacy is high.  It is more correlated in Europe (0.43) than in USA (0.35).

The relationship between genetic literacy, defined by scaling (see above) is significantly correlated with religion, but only in the USA, not in Europe (because there is no arrow between the two items in the map of Europe).  The correlation is negative, meaning that the higher the genetic literacy is, the less religious people are.

Note that there is no significant correlation (arrow is absent) between political ideology and the attitude towards evolution in Europe, while there is one in USA. 

It is important to see that every item is itself related to (several) other items (with the exception of gender and age of course).  Your acceptance of evolution is therefore dependent on many parameters in your life.  For instance in the USA religion has a direct correlation with your attitude toward evolution, but the degree of your religious belief depends itself on your gender, age, education, genetic literacy (same as in Europe with the exception of genetic literacy).


The authors performed now a summary to see the TOTAL effect of the nine independent variables to predict your attitude toward evolution.  

Total effect of independent variables on attitude toward evolution

You can see that in the USA religion (-0,42), pro-life beliefs (-0,31) and political ideology (-0,15)  (three things that have in fact nothing to see with the established scientific method that reveals the existence of evolution – evolution is a fact, just like the fact that the world is not flat and the bible is not a book of science)  all negatively controls your attitude on the acceptance of evolution.  In the USA the acceptance of evolution is twice as much negatively determined by belief, compared with nine European countries.

In conclusion: many people have a look in their bible first, before they can answer you the question if ‘Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals’.  Just like the authors conclude: science teachers, there’s a lot of work ahead!


This work was performed in a scientific way (please refer to Miller et al. Science. 2006 Aug 11;313(5788):765-6).  You can read the article and the methods in these pdf files:



For those with access to Science:

Welke soorten creationisten bestaan er?

15 08 2008

Creationisten nemen zonder meer aan dat de wereld zoals wij hem kennen, geschapen is. Uit geloofsovertuiging zijn er zelfs creationisten die aannemen dat dat in 7 dagen gebeurde (alhoewel ik niet weet of de zondag wordt meegerekend.  Indien niet, dan zijn het er 6).  Wetenschappelijk onderzoek bewijst via wetenschappelijke methodiek dat dit in geen geval zo is.  Hoe en waarom houdt de creationist dit gedachtengoed dan zo hardnekkig vol?  Zijn er schijncreationisten?  Zijn er hardcore creationisten die dit gedachtengoed te allen prijze willen verdedigen?  Om deze twee types van creationisten te onderscheiden bestaat er een eenvoudige test.  Lees meer hierover op deze link.

Creationism vs scientific method

10 03 2008

It is sometimes not easy to explain the scientific methodology to people that are not familiar with science.  It is even harder though to explain this method to creationists, for very obvious reasons of course.  This cartoon is a very good way to explain the difference between a theory and a doctrine.  Note the difference in material used by the two guys! Hilarious…


Creationists create their own ‘scientific’ journal

1 02 2008

Creationists think they found a way to lift their doctrine to a higher level and that their ‘thoughts’ can be compared with the work of scientists (which is called science).  Their Answers Research Journal (ARJ) seems to be a comedy book…  Read further here.