Friday, May 30, 2008

Denyse O'Leary Excommunicated!

Sorry Denyse!

Bad news for Discovery Institute hack Denyse O'Leary.
Apparently the Catholic Church has just brought in a new rule to excommunicate any woman who is ordained a priest.

According to CNN:

"The Vatican announced Thursday in a general decree that it will excommunicate anyone who would attempt to ordain a woman as a priest and the woman herself."

According to the Vatican decree, "the excommunications would take place with immediate effect".

Immediate effect...................?

OK, then lets give it a try!!

Denyse O'Leary, I hereby ordain you into the priesthood!

Arise Father O'Leary, go tend your flock.

And your multiple interlinked websites.

See you in Hell, I guess.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Phil Plait Exposed!

Astronomy for Dummies? I thought he was an expert!!

Nice video Phil, but must you ruin all our illusions too?

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Dunkin Wingnuts?

Worth the trip?

Congratulations to Dunkin Donuts for bravely standing up to assorted rightwing blowhards who complained about their latest advertisement featuring Rachel Rae in a 'black and white scarf' (has that woman no shame!) - for a total of 24 hours!
Rumor has it they have replaced it with the above right wing blogosphere approved version.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Darwin Exposed!

The Institute of Discovery has today shockingly revealed the one letter Darwinists have tried their utmost to hide.
Its contents reveal once and for all the devastating truth of Ben Steins allegations in Expelled and show for all to see the bankruptcy of Darwinian morality.

Tree of Life Hacked Down!

Another scoop for Sneer Review

Institute of Discovery, Molecular Genetics Division, 2008

Tree of Life
Ever since Darwin included his famous ‘Tree of Life’ picture as the sole illustration in 1859’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ the image of branches of speciation originating from a common ancestor has been perhaps the single most important icon of the entire field of evolutionary science. The concept, devised by Darwin over two decades previously as evidenced by this diagram in his notebook of July, 1837, provided a vital and timely framework for the assembly of the gradually accumulating fossil record into a definitive order.

Darwins first tree of life sketch, 1837

In the absence of empirical data that firmly connected the branches however, much of the order remained speculative. While the subsequent development of radiometric dating methodologies provided some degree of temporal resolution all relationships remained tentative and without firm empirical basis until the advent of the genomic revolution in the latter years of the 20th century when Watson and Crick’s famous discovery of the DNA double helix and the elucidation of the genetic code formed the foundation for the development of the entire field of bioinformatics.

Phylogenetic Analysis

The use of the order of primary sequence of the subunits of biological polymers – DNA, RNA or protein – to determine the evolutionary relationship between different species, termed phylogenetic analysis, was derived from earlier techniques of textual analysis developed to study historical manuscripts. Just as the identification of textual alterations, spelling changes and grammatical errors was utilized to determine the history and relationship between the earliest copies of well known texts, similar approaches applied to biological sequences allowed for the assembly of a ‘tree’ of relationship based on sequence similarity in different species.

While the Intelligent Design approach of prioritizing theological rather than biological evidence has been successful in the mass media, this approach has unfortunately allowed non-theological ‘materialistic science’ based researchers to make bioinformatics an virtual preserve of the Darwinian mindset, with the techniques of phylogenetic analysis being exclusively utilized by researchers firmly based in the pro-evolution camp. As a result every phylogenetic tree published, almost without exception, has annoyingly replicated the relationships deduced from the fossil record.

While not publicly admitting shortcomings in the Intelligent Design argument, privately many of us admit to have gotten weary of our standard tactic when faced with numerous questions regarding nucleotide conservation, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral sequences and chromosomal rearrangements. Saying “What’s that over there?” while pointing to a spot over the questioners left shoulder - and then quickly running away when he or she turns to look, is, while not without its charm and utility, hardly a long term strategy that inspires the greatest confidence.

Design Molecular Genetics

With that in mind the Institute of Discovery has taken the important step of establishing a division of molecular genetics with the aim of providing a balanced viewpoint for design proponents to utilize in future discussions involving genetic sequences.

The division aims to provide independent empirical evidence regarding evolutionary sequence conservation from a design viewpoint, finally allowing the human genomic sequence to be analysed in its proper context – as a code written by the designer Himself.

After multiple advertisements in bible colleges and theological seminaries throughout the nation unfortunately failed to attract a suitably qualified molecular geneticist for the post of director we instead turned to a collaborative venture with the computer science department of one of the nations most efficient and well-respected information providers – Conservapedia.

Using the ‘infinite number of chimpanzees and infinite number of typewriters’ algorithm, known to be powerful enough to reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare, we were soon able to complete the first design hypothesis phylogenetic tree (although funding being somewhat limited at present the computing power was limited to one afternoon with two homeschoolers with a Windows 2000 workstation).

The Conservapedia Algorithm in action

While all phylogenetic trees, to date, have been constructed using pairwise comparison of DNA, RNA or protein, the crucial breakthrough came with the realization that Darwinist bioinformaticians had been unfairly biasing their results by only comparing individual types of biomolecules to each other, such as DNA to DNA or protein to protein. When DNA is compared to mRNA the phylogeny begins to look very shaky indeed and including protein in the same analysis amazingly brings the whole tree crashing down.

For instance, while Darwinian molecular geneticists claims that human and chimpanzee sequence is up to 98% similar we now show that ‘design phylogenetic analysis’ of human ubiquitin sequence – supposedly the most highly conserved protein, reveals it to be more similar to yeast protein than to chimpanzee DNA!

Design Phylogenetics

This groundbreaking analysis, extended over many branches of the animal and plant kingdom, unsurprisingly reveals no evidence of common descent and finally uncovers the ugly fallacy of the ‘tree of life’ hypothesis.

Design Phylogenetic tree of Ubiquitin

Biblical Genomics
In addition to destroying the tree of life, analysis of human genetic sequence from a design viewpoint has allowed us to make several crucial findings, the most important of which is the ‘biblical genetic code’ – the amazing discovery that messages from the God are encoded within the nucleotide sequence of humans.

Already we have discovered both the first and last words uttered by Jesus (GA-GA and AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGG, respectively), his favourite animal (CAT) and his seating position relative to the right hand of the Lord (AT).

The Establishment Begins to Worry
The Institute of Discovery’s devastating new results, contradicting practically every phylogenetic study of the past forty years, are already sending shockwaves through the Big Science establishment. “Quite frankly, this whole thing is ludicrous” wailed a clearly worried biomedical researcher, currently employed as part of the Human Genome Project. “That’s just not how you do bioinformatics. Don’t they know anything about biology?”
“You cannot just make up stuff like this and claim its just as good as proper science” he said, “either you accept properly conducted scientific enquiry as the only reliable source of empirical evidence or you open the door to all kinds of pseudoscientific nonsense”.

The head of the genome project, Francis Collins, is expected to make a statement later this week after returning from an evangelical service held to mark the Feast of the Ascension, the holy day marking the occasion when Jesus, the son of God, flew bodily up to heaven, forty days after coming back from the dead.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Wedgwood Document

They really must try to avoid leaving these documents in the photocopier.

Again I cannot comment on my sources or the veracity of the document but it shows all the hallmarks of the real thing.

The Wedgwood Document



In a famous 1952 article, ‘Why there is no God’ commissioned by ‘Illustrated Magazine’, the famous atheist Bertrand Russell wrote:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion .............. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

This point, the notorious ‘Russell’s Teapot’ question has been a thorn in the side of religious advocates ever since. Every time we tell atheists that they have not disproved God they invariably bring up Russell’s teapot. We are told that just because we too cannot disprove Russell’s teapot this logically means that any particular invented deity, such as The Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus or Allah, cannot also be disproved and such are just as evidentially based as the one true God. Even Richard Dawkins uses the analogy both in ‘The God Delusion’ and on his frequent media appearances, to mock the basis of believers sincerely held faith.

What these infuriating atheists failed to realize is that if Russell’s Teapot could be disproved then the final defence of atheistic materialism will fall. Far from being a logical deathblow to belief in a personal God, the analogy is the Achille’s heel of atheism, for, if we can indeed detect Russell’s teapot in orbit, then it naturally follows that God CAN be empirically proven.

This crushing defeat of atheisms most compelling argument can only lead to one outcome, the inevitable weakening of materialism and the ushering in a new age of piety and faith-based hope for billions.

But how to do so?

Clearly we require two factors to achieve our aim;

1) Russell’s teapot,


2) A powerful space telescope.

By a quirk of God-given fate, both of these prerequisites have just become available to us, offering a once in a lifetime opportunity to provide humanity with the ultimate proof of Gods existence.

The Teapot

Years of diligent research efforts by a highly motivated team of workers at the Institute of Discovery have finally managed to trace Russell’s teapot. The item in question was last known to be in the possession of members of the family of the late Yuen Ren Chao, the famous linguist and friend of Russell’s, before disappearing from public sight in the late 1960’s.

Bertrand Russell visiting the teapot in the Chao household (1962).

It is only now, more than four decades later, that it was finally uncovered in a San Francisco yard sale and put up for auction in Ebay whereupon it was tracked down and purchased by our crack Institute of Discovery team.

Russell’s Teapot secured by the Institute of Discovery (2008)

The teapot, clearly identical to that visible in this photo of Russell on one of his rare visits to the Chao family, was secured using $2 million of funding from our Templetown grant, provided to show the public practical and beneficial results of ID research.

Space Telescope

While ID proponents have, to date, concentrated primarily on biological sciences - in particular the theory of Darwinian evolution, this is but one aspect of the many faceted materialistic philosophy of ‘science’ that we aim to ultimately overthrow.

We have every hope to emulate our successful approach towards Darwinian evolution (described as “breathtaking” by liberal activist Judge Jones at Dover) in disciplines such as physics, geology and chemistry.

To begin with we turn our attention towards astronomy and cosmology.

The Hubble Space Telescope is widely recognized as being one of the most successful projects in the NASA’s history. Its cameras aimed at the heavens have, for nearly two decades, provided spectacular views of the wonders of Gods creation. The startling clarity of these images of galaxies, nebulae, star clusters and even our planetary neighbors have been, for many, a testament to the ingenuity of NASA’s staff but, unfortunately, an inspiration for many young people to think that materialistic based ‘science’ can provide the ultimate answers to their deepest questions.

The principle of the Hubble’s operation is the acquisition of photons of energy originating from distant objects that are focused on a powerful digital detector within its main camera.
This allows the telescope to convert these collections of photons into the awe-inspiring images we are all familiar with.

The success of Hubble has not come without a cost, however, and the telescope is designed for a limited functional lifetime that can be extended only though costly and dangerous repair missions.

The recent failure of the main camera and associated stabilizing gyroscopes has, fortuitously for our plan, necessitated a repair mission to Hubble, scheduled for late 2008.

While repair of the Hubble as originally planned would provide for the continuing employment of hundreds of astronomers worldwide, the continuation of the USA’s pre-eminence in the field of astronomy and the inspiration regarding science of further generations of American schoolchildren it can be argued that it may indeed provide some positive benefits too. Unfortunately these are not enough to outweigh the destructive effects of scientific materialism.

Indeed it can be logically argued that, based on the consensus view of the origin of the universe amongst the American public, the Hubble has now collected all the available data from objects within 6000 light-years distance from the earth.
of Discovery
scientists have devastatingly pointed out that, since the speed of light is constant in the vacuum of deep space, it naturally follows to be worthless looking for objects further away than the 6000 light-year ‘creation-horizon’.

We, in conjunction with our political allies have proposed a unique solution to NASA’s evident embarrassment over the pointless Hubble repair mission.

Instead of taking the heavy replacement camera and gyroscopes to Hubble we will instead use the upcoming mission of NASA astronauts to tether Russell’s teapot to a position directly in front of the main aperture (see attached picture).

Institute of Discovery artist impression of newly modified Hubble Space Telescope

The use of an inexpensive and reliable webcam is that’s required to capture and transmit live pictures of Russell’s teapot back to earth. These will be broadcast live on a 24 hour constant showing on NASA TV, which at the moment is cluttered with materialistic based ‘science’ from pointless missions such as Cassini-Huygens, Chandra-Xray telescope, Mars Rovers and Explorer and the International Space Station. The genius of our plan is the simultaneous elimination of the current objectionably materialistic NASA TV broadcasts and their replacement with live pictures that destroy the ‘Russell’s Teapot’ analogy.

Our project (Mission Wedgwood) has been favorably received by our many influential supporters in Washington. While we anticipate some minor resistance amongst the astronomy community we feel hopeful that the project is approved and scheduled for blast-off this coming year. We ask all our supporters to continue to lobby their local congressional representatives to approve ‘Mission Wedgwood’ and to pray for God’s help on this critical matter.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Expelled ! The Deleted Scenes

OK, don't ask how I did it but I've managed to get
hold of the original screenplay for 'Expelled - No
Intelligence Involved' and can now bring to light
the notorious 'deleted scenes' I'll try to add more
if and when I can find time.

First up is this strangely familiar scene in which
an older model car pulls up outside the Discovery
Institute in Seattle. Inside John Travolta and
Samuel L Jackson, wearing dark suits, begin to speak.


Okay now, tell me about “Intelligent Design”.


What so you want to know?


Well, it’s stupid, right?


Yeah, it's stupid, but it ain't a hundred percent stupid.

You can't walk into a school, open ‘Pandas and People’,

and start lying away about it. But you can make a very

living talking about it in certain designated places.


Those are churches?


Yeah, it breaks down like this:

it's legal to believe Intelligent Design, it's legal to

preach about it in a church and, if you're the

pastor of that
church, it's legal to tell your congregation

that it explains
how snakes can talk, people can live in

whales, and that
T.rex was a coconut chomping

vegetarian who gave children
joyrides. But doesn't

really matter 'cause -- get a load of

-- because its religion, it's illegal for the IRS to tax

you when you do so! Taxing churches is a right that the IRS

don't have.


That did it, man -- I'm fuckin'

doin' it, that's all there is to it.


You'll dig it the most. But you

know what the funniest thing about

Intelligent Design is?


Casey Luskin?


It's the little differences. A

lotta the same shit we got here,

they got there, but there they're a

little different.




Well, in the Discovery Institute, you don’t

need ‘evidence'
to back up your ideas. And I don’t

just mean ideas about what
happens in the real world.

They give you the chance to completely

really stupid crap. At the DI you can just claim

“The Designer Did It”, if you get stuck.

Also, you know what they call peer review in the



They don't call it peer review?


No, they’re not scientists, they wouldn't

know what the
fuck peer review is.


What'd they call it?


"Denial of academic freedom".



"Denial of academic freedom"?

And why did David Berlinski
give that

interview while lying on his back?


Big Dave's a big twat, he just hates

‘le Big Science’.


How about the Whoppers?


I dunno, I've never read ‘Icons of Evolution’

by Jonathan Wells.

But you know what they really want to teach

in biology class
instead of science?








I seen 'em do it. And I don't mean a little bit in

philosophy of science class, they’ll fuckin'

drown 'em poor
kids in it.