Welcome to my blog, the purpose of which is to talk... about--stuff. And... yeah. Skeptics and freethinkers welcome. And Lovecraft fans. And Star Wars fans. And Bruce Lee fans. And martial artists. And any one who prays to the Old Ones.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012


Look here.

If you're fat, don't wear revealing clothes. Or if you do, make sure there's a burlap sack over your head. I am tired of going to the mall and seeing women who are not merely overweight, which isn't that big of a deal, but grotesquely fat and repulsive wearing clothes meant for women one tenth their size. Stop it. Nobody, except maybe desperate, horny perverts, wants to catch a glimpse of your cottage cheese ass hanging out of your spandex. If you weigh more than 260 lbs, and you still dress up in tube tops and mid-riff shirts, then not only do you lack even a shred of common decency, but any and all dignity as well. Could dressing up in a pig costume and walking around saying "oink, oink" be any more shameful or demeaning? At least if you did that, you would be the only one to suffer, and not every non-blind person for a fifty-yard radius. And before somebody tells me that I'm being too hard on these poor people, may I remind you that they are only in the fat condition due to their own weakness? Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to eat fifteen tons of Doritos over the last ten years. Morbidly obese people are only fat because they chose to do it, and their lives are so shallow and pathetic that they can't even think of something to do besides eating. When they're bored, they eat. When they're happy, they eat. When they're depressed, they eat even more. They are revolting. They don't deserve respect, they deserve to be ignored, unless they start whining about how cruel life is, in which case they should be slapped. "Cruel"? You pig, you probably eat enough in one week to feed an entire village of starving Africans. Don't even cry about how much your life sucks. If you're morbidly fat, you not only do no real work for a living, but have enough money to buy more food in one day than some people eat in one week. Dressing like a slut is already kind of dumb and shallow even if you're actually hot enough to pull it off, but doing it when you look like Jabba the Hutt wearing a wig?

Just thinking about it puts me off my lunch. Stop it. Or I'll set the dogs on you.

Hate Mail Disclaimer

By sending me hate-mail, you automatically cede all rights to the contents of your e-mail, which can be posted on my blog at my discretion, along with your e-mail address. You also grant me exclusive rights to your immortal soul and the blood of your first-born. By sending me hate-mail, you automatically concede whatever point you were sending me hate-mail over in the first place, and admit that you are intellectually inferior to me. If your message contains any threats or death threats, I will forward it to the FBI, and then dig up as personal information on you as I can, which will then be posted in the /b/ section of 4chan.com. You have been warned. Bottom line; hate-mail is for losers. If you're really such a coward that you can't even rouse yourself into posting an anonymous comment on my blog, but instead send me a badly-spelled, profanity-ridden declaration of worthlessness, then it's a safe bet that you have no life and have either never gotten laid or haven't done it in years due to your pathetic, piss-poor personality and shallow mental capacity.

Saturday, July 21, 2012


So yesterday, I got my latest issue of evangelical shit-rag, WORLD. Thankfully, Marvin Olasky decided to stop embarrassing himself with his moronic, infantile rants over the proven fact of evolution. However, as this is still a Christian publication I'm talking about, it goes without saying that even absent anti-science drivel, the overall concentration of Stupid was still strong. Long story short, Joel Belz, a writer for WORLD, asked of readers this question; "If you could identify just one issue that is terribly askew in our country today,, and then were granted as a gift from God the ability to set that one issue right, what would it be?"

After reading through the replies, Belz decided to divide the vat majority of issues into nine distinct categories. He starts with number one on the list of perceived problems, but because that supposed "issue" is unspeakably stupid, I shall run through the list in opposite order and save the biggest pile of shit for last.

9. Obsession with sex.

    Of course. Because if people actually talk about sex and accept it in movies and books without trying to overturn the Bill of Rights in a public self-righteous shit-storm of biblical proportions, our society is in deep trouble. Seriously? With the economy sinking like the Titanic and our high schools graduating semi-literates, how the fuck did this even get on the list? I realize Christians are inherently delusional, but this--this is just stupid. Get a grip, folks. People like sex, and unlike you, not everyone is afraid of and/or ashamed of what's in between their legs.

8. Loss of honest and civil public discourse.

    Okay, losing honest discourse is a valid issue. Few things are more boring than watching politicians stumble through interviews by dodging the issue at hand and asserting personal flaws in their critics. It's almost as bad as reading apologetics. But civil? When has politics ever been civil? The presidential election of 1789 was one of unmitigated mud-slinging, and set the tone for every election since. You can't lose something that was never there to begin with. And while it is an admirable sentiment to long for civil discourse, politicians launch personal attacks on each other because that's what the American people, in general, respond to.

7. Loss of specific freedoms.

   I actually agree with them on this. The whole Airport TSA thing is a travesty and has gone on far too long. That's why you won't find me catching a flight, even if I did have the money to do so. In addition, recent attempts to curb free speech are idiotic. If you don't like what someone is saying, you can protest or leave the area. And if people don't like what you are saying, likewise.

6. Loss of a defined dominant culture, with attendant culture wars.

   Okay, that is just fucking chilling. "Loss of dominant culture"? WTF? America is an amalgamation of different cultures; there is no one culture that is or was dominant, and since these cultures have mixed over the centuries into unique combinations not found anywhere else, there can't be one, either. It simply isn't possible. Secondly, culture wars are an expression of free speech; when people are debating the legality and morality of different issues, it means that the culture is alive and well with people thinking and testing for themselves. A complacent culture where no one questions tradition or authority is stagnant.

5. Sense of entitlement, selfishness, and complacency.

   While I agree with all of the above, I find it ironic, especially in light of issue No. 1 and 6, that evangelical Christians are talking about entitlement when many of them feel entitled to display religious symbols and sentiments on state property, or try to have their baseless beliefs taught as fact in public schools despite this being a violation of the Constitution? The same people who claim the America was founded on "biblical", "Judeo-Christian" values when our founding documents are secular, and explicitly state the this government was being formed by the people, for the people, with no mention of Jesus, God, or the bible anywhere in sight. In fact, the Constitution only mentions religion when barring it from interfering in state affairs, and insuring that the government cannot regulate or control it.

4. Loss of tools to educate and shape the rising generation.

   Yes, our education system sucks. For so many reasons that it boggles the mind. What is it? The mindless "No Child Left Behind" policy that dumbs down classroom interaction and standards? The lazy idiots who comprise so much of my generation? Who knows? We just need to fix this shit, and either trim the fat from NCLB, or drop it all together.

3. Abortion.

   I agree. And no, I'm not being sarcastic, either; I think that unless you're facing life-threatening complications, or the fetus is hopelessly deformed, there is no excuse for abortion. And before somebody assembles the lynch mob, let me clarify something; people argue for non-medical abortion on the basis that many people cannot afford to care for their child, and yet, adoption is free; abortions cost hundreds of dollars. And to be honest, the entire debate over whether or not a fetus is human, or at which point it becomes human, is irrelevant. It's a bullshit technicality, nothing more. A fetus may or may not be human; but left alone to develop, it will eventually become one, something that cancer cannot do. While the Religious Reich opposes abortion mainly because they don't like women making choices for themselves, I oppose it because it seems like an excuse to be selfish. Again, I could be wrong, and I welcome any input, just don't waste my time by calling me a misogynist or fascist conservative; I'm not, and my frequent criticisms of the bible for it's overtly sexist view of women as chattels should be proof to the contrary.

2. Loss of distinctive identities of men and women, leading to a loss of understanding of marriage and family.

   What a load of shit. See, this is what I'm talking about right here; how have men and women lost their identities? We still have penises and vaginas, right? Or let me guess, it's because women are now equal to men and can vote and speak in public, and own property. Well, too bad; the Dark Ages are over, and we're not going back. Also, marriage requires no understanding; it's a legal contract/union between two people pledging to only have sex with each other, share and share alike, and not run out when times are tough (which a lot of shit-heels ignore, of course). No more, no less. Family is the spawn of this union, and the responsibility of the parents to take care of and provide for in every way they can. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

And now, for the most excementatious pile of shit I've read in days (since I've been debating Christians on YouTube lately), here is, according to the vast majority of WORLD's readers, the number one thing that is wrong with our country, and that they would fix, that is, remove, if God would only let them.

1. The secularization of our culture---led by the rejection of a Creator God and the dominance of evolutionary thinking.

   Wow. We've truly come full circle, haven't we? From meaningless trivialities that have very little influence of our country's prosperity, to a mere handful of valid complaints, to this, the final proof that conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist Christians are the most retarded people in the world. First, let's start with secularization or culture; this isn't a Christian nation. Christians may be the majority, but that position is shrinking, with other religious minorities and non-religious numbers rising yearly. How is our culture secular, anyway? Everywhere I go, I see Christian T-shirts, Christian bumper stickers, Christian billboards, and churches. When I turn on the TV, roughly a fifth of my channels are religious, with Catholic, Baptist, and Orthodox Jewish programming (and, of course, the ever-idiotic drivel of Pat Robertson and John Hagee). Secondly, the concept of a "Creator God" is held by over 80% of the population; theists are many things in America, but a minority? Hardly.And finally, fuckwits, if you aren't doing "evolutionary thinking", then you're not thinking at all. I am not going to restate my position. Nor am I going to clutter up this page with links to peer-approved papers and descriptions of basic proofs for evolution; because the debate is over. Evolution is a fact. If you don't like that, I suggest you lobotomize yourself so you won't be offended by the myriad signs of it that fill every facet of the natural sciences. How many farmers were there that provided input for this survey? If any of them of them asserted No.1 as a problem, I suggest they stop updating to increasingly powerful pesticides since doing so is conceding the ongoing process of evolution that allows insects and rodents to develop resistance and even immunity to toxins that would kill a grown human.

Have fun losing your crops, dumbasses.

Friday, July 20, 2012


The title of this guy's blog speaks for itself. His commentary of the Nicene Creed is fuckin' brilliant, especially where Mary, Mother of Jesus in concerned (seriously, has there ever been a Mary porno? You'd think the Catholics would have made one by now, and numerous sequels besides). Here is a man after my own heart. Here ya go, kiddies.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012


There's no need to dignify this with a refutation... but I'll do it anyway.

If you're willing to subject yourself to this guy's smug voice, the first minute and forty-five seconds are just repeating some basic facts about the human brain, such as the fact that while the brain regulates the nerves of the body, it itself has no nerves and thus cannot feel pain. However, Carl Gallups, the pus-bucket narrating this piece of shit, neglected to mention that this propaganda film fails so hard that your brain may just be tempted to grow nerves and feel excruciating pain in response to watching it. Consider yourselves warned.

"...now think, what do you suppose are the chances that this one singular organ, alone, would have come into existence by the process of evolution?"

Pretty good, seeing as how evolution is observed in the fossil record all across the globe in a consistent pattern, and has been observed numerous times in the lab and in nature.

"From a magic mud-pit hit by magic lightning, and given magical billions of years from a single cell from a magical life-form that, supposedly, magically formed from a random conjoining of chemicals."

Etymology: L, evolvere, to roll forth
1 a gradual, orderly, and continuous process of change and development from one condition or state to another. It encompasses all aspects of life, including physical, psychologic, sociologic, cultural, and intellectual development, and involves a progressive advancement from a simple to a more complex form or state through the processes of modification, differentiation, and growth.
2 a change in the genetic composition of a population of organisms over time.
3 the appearance over long periods of time of new taxonomic groups of organisms from preexisting groups. Kinds of evolution are convergent evolution, determinant evolution, emergent evolution, organic evolution, orthogenic evolution, and saltatory evolution. evolutionist, n.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

Now tell me, did any of the diarrhea that Carl spewed into the willing, eager mouths of his mindless YouTube devotees even sound similar to evolution? In even the slightest way? By it's very definition, evolution does not deal with the origins of life, but with adaptations in existing life-forms. What Carl is doing is making a straw-man (and a pretty low-brow one at that) of abiogenesis and trying to conflate the two theories, even though they have no connection. In other words, I hope every dumb fuck who liked this video and posted positive comments for it is beaten into unconsciousness with a heavy hard back edition of the Origin of The Species that has iron studs on it's cover.

"By the way, this entire process has never been observed..."

"...or recreated even under the most manipulative of laboratory conditions."

"Use your brain now, what are the chances?" 

Since everything you said is a lie, pretty good (and considering the blatant stupidity of the creationists in the comments section, telling them to use their brain is probably a wasted effort). From here, he segues into a long, boring overview of the body's various systems, boiling down down into an appeal to the discredited Cretinist dogma of Irreducible Complexity, which got the shit blown out of it by Professor Lenski and his dedicated team. And no, this didn't happen recently, either; it happened in 2008. As far as I can tell, like the Varangian Glaciation, it is never mentioned by creationists.

"It is not true that humans use only a small percentage of their brain."

Who has ever made that claim? Every time I see it, it's in some unscholarly publication with no citations and no connection to any scientists. Apparently, anything and everything Carl doesn't like is part of evolution. Carl is obviously pretty desperate when pathetic, Kindergarten level lies and straw-men (with NO citations whatsoever, of course) are all that he's capable of. Oh, and he hasn't published the comments I left regarding his drivel, which, according to this page at RationalWiki, is par course for the folks who run "PPSIMMONS", an obscure fundamentalist ministry endorsing YEC and Obama's status as the Anti-Christ. On their various websites, they refer to themselves as "the world-famous phenomenon", even though their blog literally gets zero comments on virtually every post. Sad, really.

"What we is, each part of the brain has it's purpose. Unless of course, I suppose, you are an evolutionist, in which case I doubt that even ten percent of the brain is actually used for constructive thought."

Go fuck yourself, you pathetic moron. It sickens me beyond the power of words to describe that stupid, arrogant globs of shit like you, who doesn't even have a single scientific credential to his name, can make shit up about thousands of men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to studying, researching, and proving the natural processes that you blithely dismiss out of hand. If they use less than ten percent of their brains, then  idiots like you and your subscribers use less than .0001%. What "constructive thought" have you used in your shitty, fourth-rate hack video? At least Joesph Goebbels could make propaganda appealing to someone other than the mentally handicapped. How much brain power is required to lie to the ignorant inbreds in the backwoods by dismissing all evidence for evolution out of hand by pretending that it doesn't even exist when every museum has tons of fossils? When the medicine that you take to save your sorry ass is based upon a evolutionary understanding of biology?  Go kill yourself. And take your friends with you; if they swallow up your YouTube shit this readily, then doing the same with poisoned Kool-Aid should be no problem for them.

Saturday, July 14, 2012


Yep, I actually share my state with fuckwits like this guy. Muslims stone evangelical Christians at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, so let's round them evil brown folks up. Never mind the fact that said evangelicals went out of their way to insult and offend any Muslims at the festival, shouting slogans about how Muhammad was a pedophile and Jesus is better, and all Muslims are evil people who are going to burn in hell. Yeah, they got what they needed. The Muslims should still be arrested for assault with deadly weapons*, but the pricks who stirred up trouble in the first place?  What did they think was going to happen? I guess it was what happens when you combine the delusional Christian persecution/martyr complex with the hatred and general douchebaggery of evangelicals.

*Seriously. They could have just ignored those losers--how pathetic do you have to be to actually get on a plane and fly to another state just to cram your religion down other people's throats? None of them had a sex life, that's for sure. But instead they opted to use violence to try and silence the evangelica's right to free speech, an incredibly shitty (not to mention stupid) act by any standard.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Happy 4th of July!

Don't set yourselves on fire this year. ;)


So, after reading hundreds of offensive and frankly stupid comments on YouTube, I've decided to make my own profile, Walter Bernahrd (It was supposed to be "Bernhard", but I was in a hurry and fuckin' YouTube won't let you alter your user name after it's been set). So I've been arguing with YouTube theists, who seem to be dumber than regular theists, with non-existent spelling, grammar, and syntax. Then, after watching some battle scenes from period movies, I clicked on some lame samurai video, that wasn't even a battle scene but a montage set to really annoying music. That's when I saw this comment from user Martin958;

Lucky Germans then. They stopped short of the English channel as they readied to cross into Britain after a messenger arrived with some personal bereavement news, so they turned back to sort out a new leader. Either way the European knights could barely stand-up in their armour let alone fight a Mongol (or a Samurai) being the main point.

Yeah, it's that ignorant. While I generally avoid stupid, pointless locker room debates about pirates vs ninjas, or Vikings, or whatever, this is the kind of ignorant Hollywood bullshit, that, as a history buff, I find deeply offensive (it's like creationism to biology, geology, and paleontology students). Like the people who insist that Vikings wore horned helmets, or had really slow heavy swords, the whole "medieval knights were really, really slow in plate armor" is just too fucking stupid for words. So, I responded.

"Wow, really? Again with this shit? If knights could barely stand up in armor, please explain to me how they were able to sprint across battlefields in it and ride horses. If they couldn't fight in it, then why did they successfully fight in it for over a thousand years? DUH. Let's stop the stupid samurai vs knight debate; knights have better armor, better swords, and they don't kill themselves when they lose a battle. And since there's no way to know who would win, the entire thing is pointless." [I'd like to be the first to point out that I was inaccurate when I said "a thousand years". Full plate didn't become popular until the 12th century]

His reply to me;

Yes really! Again with this shit indeed it seems. When was the last time a Knight could sprint across a battlefield. If you knew how to read a history book you'd see some were even lowered onto their horses with various contraptions as they were too heavy to climb up themselves. DUH! They fought in them for hundreds of years because all they ever had fights with were defenceless concript foot-soldiers or other over-weight Knights. Brain-power is the key to knowing my dear.

 "Most suits of armor weighed between 50 and 70 pounds. That's about the same weight carried by modern soldiers, and it was equally distributed around the limbs, allowing them to mount and ride, and run. You're the one who needs to learn how to read a history book, dumbass. The really heavy suits were only for tournaments, not real combat. Also, idiot, if armor was so heavy that they could barely fight, then lightly armored or unarmored knights would have finished them off, since tactics evolve."

I then elaborated my position.

"Throughout European history, tactics change with technology. That's [why] the advent of firearms in the 16th century eventually led to armies dispensing with full suits, keeping only their breastplates for defense against musket balls. So if full plate armor was so restrictive, it would have been discarded long before then. So, you're wrong."

"Brain-power is the key to knowing my dear."

"In that case, you better start reading a lot more books."

 And then again.

"And just to compound the stupidity of the whole Otaku "samurai are invincible!!" shit, there's also the fact that knights were trained from early childhood to fight and ride in plate. Because as all samurai nuts must *know*, repetitious exercise over the course of your entire life doesn't make you any stronger. Riiight."

His replies to these last two comments?

 "Go cry to mommy.", and "boo-hoo".

Followed by,

"I thought the discussion was Medieval Knights vs. Samurai's and you're talking 16th century musketballs now. Keep moving the goalposts."

The funny thing is, completely ignoring the context of a post like that is what creationists have been doing to me since I first started debating them. So it's truly enlightening to step out and realize that pompous, immature, condescending douhe-baggery is not limited to fundies and Cretinists, but also to weird otaku freaks who are convinced that samurai are the greatest warriors ever, even though they were never tested against any other power except Korea (which they were forced to abandon just a few years later). And seriously; this Deadliest Warrior shit has got to stop. I don't know why comparing ancient warriors who never met in battle to each other is so fascinating, but it has resulted in some truly sad people who have absolutely no grasp on how historical research works.

Monday, July 2, 2012



In the past, I have done refutations of the asinine, childish propaganda published by long-time liar for Jeebus, Marvin Olasky. However, I recently found an old Cretinist article that is set in the future, 2025, where the fake science of creationism (or "Intelligent Design") has supplanted the truth of evolution. Of course, the entire article, written by some loser named Jonathan Wells, is just childish day-dreaming, that lies, distorts facts, makes bare assertions, and fails to even attempt addressing the research supporting evolution--of course--but, since I enjoy exposing creationist fuck-buckets for the walking stereotypes they are, let's proceed, shall we?

IN 1973, GENETICIST THEODOSIUS Dobzhansky wrote: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." By "evolution," he meant the synthesis of Charles Darwin's 19th-century theory that all living things have descended from a common ancestor through natural selection and random variations, and the 20th-century theory that new variations are produced by mutations in DNA.

Sorry, "random" variations? Evolution is, first and foremost, an adaptation to the environment. However, some traits are not as useful as others, and some mutations are harmful. This is where natural selection kicks in, which is basically just describing the law of averages, since the fittest organism in that environment will survive and pass on it's genes. Darwin lived in an era when DNA was unknown, as was cellular mechanism. However, he understood traits well enough, and since traits are carried in genes, your pathetic and dishonest attempt to try and divide past and present versions of the theory into completely separate ideas is noted and laughed at. *laughs at it*

 "By 2000, the biological sciences had become almost totally dominated by this view. Millions of students were taught that Darwinian evolution was a simple fact, like gravity. Oxford professor Richard Dawkins even proclaimed that anyone who doubted it must be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Since, by this point, we have observed evolution not only in the lab, but in nature as well, Mr. Dawkins was right, as usual.

"Surprising though it may seem, Darwinism did not collapse because it was disproved by new evidence. (As we shall see, the evidence never really fit it anyway.)"

Hey, I'm looking forward to it. I'm sure you'll even have a better explanation for the changes in the fossil record than any of those evil scientists--uh, "Darwinists".

"Instead, evolutionary theory was knocked off its pedestal by three developments in the first decade of this century—developments centered in the United States, but worldwide in scope. Those developments were: (1) the widespread adoption of a "teach the controversy" approach in education, (2) a growing public awareness of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory, and (3) the rise of the more fruitful "theory of intelligent design.""

*ah-choo!* Oh, sorry, don't mind me; I'm allergic to bullshit. Intelligent Design is not a theory. It has no central, observable, testable mechanism, and has no explanation for the obvious adaptation in the fossil record, apart from saying Goddidit (which doesn't count). So on the two main criteria that must be passed in order for an idea to be considered a scientific theory, ID[iocy] dismally fails both.

"The first development was a reaction to late 20th-century efforts by dogmatic Darwinists to make evolutionary theory the exclusive framework for biology curricula in American public schools. Biology classrooms became platforms for indoctrinating students in Darwinism and its underlying philosophy of naturalism—the anti-religious view that nature is all there is and God is an illusion."

Here, we see the ethical and intellectual inferiority of the creationist exposed. Naturalism has never claimed that God doesn't exist; it simply exhibits intellectual curiosity, intelligence, and integrity of a type that creationists are incapable of understanding. One cannot objectively prove the existence of gods, including the mass murdering tyrant of Hebrew mythology. Such matters are unfalsifiable, and fall outside the boundaries of science. Therefore, science doesn't address them or waste time since nothing can be proven or disproven. Likewise, naturalism has never said that nature is all there is; i.e., the supernatural does not exist. It simply focuses on the natural world, which is the only observable and testable portion of reality. Materialism is the philosophy that dismisses the possibility of the supernatural. Of course, lying over such definitions holds no barriers for people like Mr. Wells; who needs honesty when you can just redefine words you don't like?

"In the ensuing public backlash, some people demanded that evolution be removed from the curriculum entirely. A larger number of people, however, favored a "teach the controversy" approach that presented students with the evidence against evolutionary theory as well as the evidence for it."

He admits there is evidence for evolution just two paragraphs after saying that evolution does not fit the evidence. And yet, if evolution does not fit, how can there be evidence for it?

"The U.S. Congress implicitly endorsed this approach in its No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A report accompanying the legislation stated that students should learn "to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science," and that students should "understand the full range of scientific views that exist" with regard to biological evolution. Despite loud protests and threats of lawsuits from the Darwinists, hundreds of state and local school boards across America had adopted a "teach the controversy" approach by 2005."

 And "Intelligent Design" was found lacking evidence, full of holes, and reliant on personal interpretation. That's why it can't pass peer review.

"In the second major development, students who were free to examine the evidence for and against evolution quickly realized that the former was surprisingly thin."

How thin? Why, as thin as the geological column.

"Although Darwinists had long boasted about having "overwhelming evidence" for their view, it turned out that they had no good evidence for the theory's principal claim: that species originate through random mutation and natural selection."

Why even bother with [citation needed] at this point? It's not like this retard cares. None of 'em do. Never mind the fact that evolution provides the only viable explanation for the fossil record, where all species that have ever existed appear, and then die out. The ID(iot) alternative? Goddidit.

"Bacteria were the best place to look for such evidence, because they reproduce quickly, their DNA can be easily mutated, and they can be subjected to strong selection in the laboratory. Yet bacteria had been intensively studied throughout the 20th century, and bacteriologists had never observed the formation of a new species."

 Oh, really?

Has anyone ever told you what a lying piece of shit you are? Now go sit on the Dunce stool with Mr. Olasky.

"If there was no good evidence that a Darwinian mechanism could produce new species, still less was there any evidence that a Darwinian mechanism could produce complex organs or new anatomical features."

But alas, as much as deluded Anti-Darwinists tried, their poor little fantasy realm just wasn't strong to combat the truth that there was evidence for these things. Example: this. Notice, if you will, the vestigial eyes that are no longer needed, being blind and useless, and yet they are still there (since, as scientists know, they simply haven't been selected out yet). One wonders why is is "intelligent design" to leave useless dead eyes on a creature whose very skin has grown over them. But I'm not holding my breath for an intelligent explanation from the ID[iot] crowd.

"Darwinists discounted the problem by arguing that evolution was too slow to observe, but this didn't change the fact that they lacked empirical confirmation for their theory."

Or appeared so, to ignorant Cretinists who had never taken a class on the subject or studied geology (hint; somebody did). But what am I saying? Of course we can't expect the Intelligent Design crowd to suggest a testable, observable alternate mechanism for the fossil record. Who could possibly expect such an intelligent group of people to actually engage in intelligent discourse; it's not like the word "intelligence" is part of their title, right? Right?

"Of course, there was plenty of evidence for minor changes in existing species—but nobody had ever doubted that existing species can change over time."

Which is evolution. *trollface*

"Domestic breeders had been observing such changes—and even producing them—for centuries. Unfortunately, this was not the sort of evidence that evolution needed. After all, the main point of evolutionary theory was not how selection and mutation could change existing species, but how that mechanism could produce new species-indeed, all species after the first-as well as new organs and new body plans. That's why Darwin titled his magnum opus The Origin of Species, not How Existing Species Change over Time."

Indeed; which is why Darwinists simply pointed to the emergence of new species, like this new species of mouse, blasting anti-evolution tripe into oblivion, except in the minds of the uber-deluded, who still insist that the debate is not over (even though they lost it a hundred years ago).

"A growing number of people realized that the "overwhelming evidence" for evolutionary theory was a myth."

A big chunk of creationist time is spent fantasizing about an alternate reality where everything that is true about creationism is now true about evolution, as evidenced by the sentence above.

 "It didn't help the Darwinists when it became public knowledge that they had faked some of their most widely advertised evidence. For example, they had distorted drawings of early embryos to make them look more similar than they really are (in order to convince students that they had descended from a common ancestor), and they had staged photos showing peppered moths on tree trunks where they don't normally rest (in order to persuade students of the power of natural selection)."

What's funny is that these drawings, contrary to the lies of creationists, were not faked, but exaggerated by  Ernst Haeckel.

In order to support his theory of Recapitulation ("—is a biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors."--Wikipedia), Haeckel deliberately exaggerated the similarities between different embryos. However, he certainly did not fabricate the similarities entirely. While his theory has been refuted in biology, different embryos do have certain similarities to each other. And of course, it's fascinating that Mr. Wells follows the typical ID[iot] approach to evidence for evolution, focusing his attacks on weak targets that aren't even central to the proof claims of the theory. Why doesn't he mention the Geologic Time Scale and transitional fossils like Tiktaalik? Eh? Or "macro"-evolution being observed by scientists right now?

"In the first few years of this century, the cultural dominance of Darwinism was so strong, especially in academia, that critics were slow to speak up. By 2009, however, when Darwin's followers had hoped to stage a triumphal celebration of their leader's 200th birthday, millions of people were laughing at the emperor with no clothes."

Yeah, I remember that. It almost made me pity the creationists receiving the brunt of the scorn. Almost...

"The third and perhaps most decisive development was a series of breakthroughs in biology and medicine inspired by the new theory of intelligent design."

[citation needed].

 "Everyone, even the Darwinists, agreed that living things look as though they were designed."

[citation needed].

"Darwinists insisted that this was merely an illusion, produced by the combined action of random mutation and natural selection; but design theorists argued that the design was real."

Actually, it's been proven most gracefully by Richard Lenski and his team that organisms can mutate astonishing traits with no interference whatsoever from intelligent designers. Furthermore, thus far, Mr. Wells has failed to provide any logical argument against natural selection. He speaks as if his religious fantasy has been proven, and yet it has not; 99.999% of the scientific community accept evolution. Thus far, proponents of ID have yet to even get one paper past peer review.

"For years the controversy remained largely philosophical; then, in the first decade of this century, a few researchers began applying intelligent-design theory to solving specific biological problems"

This is gonna be good, I can tell!

 "One of these was the function of so-called "junk DNA." From a Darwinian perspective, "genes" were thought to determine all the important characteristics of an organism, and gene mutations were thought to provide the raw materials for evolution. When molecular biologists in the third quarter of the 20th century discovered that certain regions of DNA encode proteins that determine some of the characteristics of living cells, and equated these with "genes," Darwinists assumed that their theory was complete. They even proclaimed DNA to be "the secret of life.""

Go on...

 "Yet molecular biologists learned in the 1970s that less than 5 percent of human DNA encodes proteins. Darwinists immediately declared the other 95 percent "junk"-molecular accidents that had accumulated in the course of evolution."

[citation needed]. And why are you arguing from out of the 70s? I thought this was supposed to be a put-down of ToE, not a history lesson.

 "Since few researchers were motivated (or funded) to investigate garbage, most human DNA was neglected for decades. Although biologists occasionally stumbled on functions for isolated pieces of "junk," they began to make real progress only after realizing that the DNA in an intelligently designed organism is unlikely to be 95 percent useless."

Citation... oh bugger it. This guy is just lying now. How stupid are the readers of WORLD anyway? Do they really swallow this shit without any sources whatsoever? Really? So much for "intelligent" design. Who says that research scientists making break-throughs in genetics were convinced that DNA was intelligently created? I doubt it; I think if that were the case, our friend Wells would have quoted them, or given a source, or better yet, both.

"The intensive research on non-coding regions of human DNA that followed soon led to several medically important discoveries."

So how does this suggest creation? All you're doing is interpreting the evidence to suit your views; pretty dishonest, not to mention unimpressive.

"Another insight from intelligent-design theory advanced our understanding of embryo development. From a Darwinian perspective, all the information needed for new features acquired in the course of evolution came from genetic mutations. This implied that all essential biological information was encoded in DNA. In contrast, intelligent-design theory implied that organisms are irreducibly complex systems in which DNA contains only part of the essential information. Although a few biologists had been arguing against DNA reductionism for decades, biologists guided by intelligent-design theory in 2010 discovered the true nature of the information that guides embryo development."

Citation. Needed. Badly. As we already saw earlier, Irreducible Complexity has been debunked. It's actually kind of funny how all of this hinges on the discovery made by Professor Lenski and Co. When have biologists ever been guided by ID? When has any research been done supporting it? If DNA only has part of the code, where is the rest?

"All three of these developments-teaching the controversy, educating people about the lack of evidence for evolutionary theory, and using intelligent-design theory to make progress in biomedical research-were bitterly resisted by Darwinists in the first decade of this century."

"Defenders of the Darwinian faith engaged in a vicious campaign of character assassination against their critics in the scientific community."

Is that "character assassination" in any way similar to the kind directed by creationists against Darwin? You know, he was racist, he recanted, he supported eugenics and slavery, he hated religion, he felt guilty, etc., etc., etc.? Just checking. And by the way, what happened to you showing us how evolution doesn't fit the evidence, and never did to begin with? You haven't even mentioned the Time Scale.

"Meanwhile, their allies in the news media conducted a massive disinformation campaign, aimed primarily at convincing the public that all critics of Darwinism were religious zealots. More and more people saw through the lies, however, and within a few short years Darwinism had lost its scientific credibility and public funding. By 2015 it was well on its way to joining its intellectual cousins, Marxism and Freudianism, in the dustbin of discarded ideologies. By 2020, Darwinism was effectively dead."


Meanwhile, in the real world...