No Pity for the Evolution Podcast

by Karl Mamer

What the hell is this?

Welcome to the first installment of Podcasting without Pity. This blog feature will survey True Believer podcasts on iTunes. We skeptics spend so much time listening to our skeptical podcasts that we forget the True Believers are cranking the woo out their WiFi. So, a couple times a month, here in Podcasting without Pity, I'm going to review and summarize what I believe is a representative episode of a True Believer podcast. By representative I mean the easiest ep to make fun of. Many people confuse skepticism with cynicism and Podcasting without Pity will do nothing to clear up that confusion. You'll find no pity here. Dig?

The No Pity Party Begins

First up we have the Evolution podcast. This is not to be confused with the very excellent Evolution 101 podcast by Dr. Zach. This Evolution podcast is by "SermonAudio.com". I guess "AudioSermon.com" was already taken and they decided to reverse the adjective/noun. Like no one was going to notice. Anyway, you know any podcast about evolution hosted by a concern called "SermonAudio.com" is going to be just chock full of logic and science. Why would you doubt otherwise?



Perusing SermonAudio.com's Evolution iTunes page, you notice a few things. First the "Listeners Also Subscribed To" section links only to other informative podcasts by SermonAudio.com. Good to know fans of this podcast represent a really diverse range of iTunes users. I suspect maybe all of five people actually subscribe to this podcast (i.e., the two hosts, their wives, and probably me). Now might I suggest, gentle readers, we could have some good fun if everyone reading this subscribed to not only this podcast but also the Big Gay Sex Show.

Wouldn't it be high fun if these intrepid religious podcasters were exposed to, ummm, alternative views. Now I'll grant you the Big Gay Sex Show might not be work friendly, if you use iTunes at work. So alternatively let me suggest subscribing to this podcast and Dr. Zach's Evolution 101.

Keep reading...

Perusing the show titles offered by the Evolution podcast, I see impressive topics like gene duplication, homology, molecular vestiges, cladistics, radiological dating… no actually I'm fucking with you. We have topics like Creator: Understanding Your World, God's Questions II, and Creation Vs. Evolution Part 3. God's Questions I and Creation Vs. Evolution Part 1 and Part 2 are no where to be found in the RSS feed. I'm guessing they took their title writing tips from the writers of Leonard Part 6.

Anyway, I don't want to feel like I'm coming to the party late, so I decide to download and review the standalone and rather luridly titled episode The Twisted Mind of an Evolutionist.

Ohhh. A twisted Evolutionist! A whole podcast about Trofim Lysenko maybe? This is gonna be good!

Introductions, sort of

But before we find out (and you find out) who this twisted evolutionist is, we have to listen to the intro stuff. The intro tells us the Evolution podcast is hosted by Kevin Swanson (no relation to the TV dinner people, I'll assume) and he's executive director for a group called Christian Home Educators. I'm not sure why they have to put "Christian" before "Home Educators" as are there any other kind of home educators? Isn't it a given? He's also a pastor (really?) and, as the hosts of the Big Gay Podcast might say, he's a breeder. He makes a big point of telling people he's a father. You got motile sperm! Announcing that on your podcast always contributes to your credibility.

But first some news

Swansong starts the show by telling us evolutionists are up 'n' arms and "going ape" (har har!) about a law that has been passed in Louisiana that introduces fundamental Christian religion into the science class. Hey, at least he calls us evolutionists and not Darwinists. Swansong explains that the bill is not about teaching religion in science class but just about, you know, teaching critical thinking and objective inquiry. Like, if a teacher wants to tell his kids he doubts evolution, gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or all the water on earth came from Krishna's tears, he shouldn't risk being fired for not teaching the curriculum he is paid to teach. Oh wait. If he started teaching kids Hari Krishna mythology as scientific fact I somehow suspect this law won't protect his ass.

Comedy gold

Swansong then goes on to rant a bit about evolution being a religion and protected by an orthodoxy. A yet-to-be-identified co-host pipes up that this law has the potential to "make a monkey out of evolutionists". Folks, we're 1 minute 46 seconds into this podcast and twice now they've made hilarious monkey jokes. These guys should be on a stage. The first one out of town. *rim shot* They're real cards. And need to be dealt with. Hiyo!



Swansong notes with some surprise that this bill has been opposed by every scientific society in the nation. Hmmm. Odd that. Reading from a news story, Swansong rants the reporter called the Discovery Institute (those whacky "intelligent design" proponents) a "religious organization". Swansong takes some umbrage at that label. I guess Swansong didn't notice a federal judge in Dover ruled intelligent design as put forward by the DI is religion. It's important not to give your listeners the full story, of course. Swansong continues his rant by noting people also make the mistake of calling Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis a religious organization, not a scientific organization. Errr. Answers. In. Genesis. We should not assume. This. Is. A. Religious. Organization? I'm guessing Swansong's goalpost for when you can legitimately call a religious organization a religious organization is when they actually take the name "We're Not A Science Organization But A Religious Organization". Even then he might have some doubts.

Swansong stresses the DI and AIG simply have a different metaphysical view of things. So I guess if Swansong took his car to a mechanic and the mechanic suggested carburetor demons were keeping his car from starting and some Shinto prayers will fix it up, Swansong would sympathize with this man's metaphysical view of engine repair and pay his bill anyway.

Swansong complains science has all the money. After "the sun comes up in the morning" one can make no truer statement than the claim science is well funded in America. Why just ask any scientist applying for a grant. One merely needs to tell Big Science where to bring the dump truck of money. Until now I never realized the religious right view themselves as poor and penniless.

He then breaks the opposition to this bill down into a logical proposition:

All scientists would oppose this bill.

Therefore all those who would oppose this bill are scientists.

Yep. And all cats have tails. Rover has a tail. Therefore Rover is a cat.

His still yet-to-be-named co-host, who I'm starting to pictures as wearing a Pulp Fiction gimp outfit, is silent for a second while he tries to work through his master's logic, gives up, and issues a subservient "right!"

Swansong then reads an American Association for the Advancement of Science statement about this bill. Swansong of course doesn't read the huggy feely position papers by the AAAS about how science and religion are not at odds and can happily coexist. Again, don't give your audience the full story. Anyway, the AAAS views it as important not to water down science in the classroom as it will leave students unprepared for the high tech workforce. I noticed Korea, Japan, China, and Taiwan didn't climb to the top of the IC, automotive, consumer electronics, and ship building industries teaching their kids the world was created in six literal days. Imagine how much more ahead of the economic game East Asia could be if the kiddies went on to university understanding Einstein was just spreading deceitful Jewish science.

Swansong decides, when it comes down to brass Jesus nails, the AAAS is saying a belief in evolution and global warming are important for the workers of tomorrow and then he proceeds to demolish this straw man, showing us what an intellectual giant he is. And I'm not sure where he got the whole global warming thing. Clearly another bug up his ass.

Oh, and I was worried?

The gimp, I guess tired of being relegated to simply cheering on his dom, pipes up that science fears this bill because it might prompt budding creationists to start doing scientific experiments to establish their metaphysical view of the world. Errr. You mean this bill, after a hundred years of scientists saying "well, if you think creationism is a better explanation then start a research program and publish your data", might actually prompt creationists to subject their religious beliefs to empirical testing? It might actually get them to adopt the scientific method and lay out what it would take to falsify their beliefs? Fuck. Write this sucker right into the constitution then.

Swansong returns to his rant about money bags science not wanting to risk their five trillion dollar propaganda campaign. Wow. Five trillion? That's over 1/3 of the USA's GDP. Someone in the scientific orthodoxy is sure flying first class a lot, as this five trillion isn't trickling down much.

The gimp (at this point I'm hoping we don't get his name as I like calling him the gimp) floats the old canard that evolution says since we're related to bacteria and it's okay to kill bacteria then it's okay to kill humans. Christianity, on the other hand, says we come from God and therefore all true Scotsmen, I mean Christians, reasonably conclude killing each other is a bad thing. And then they never do this. And how's that belief been working for you Christians?

Bring out the Gimp

Swansong decides to throw the gimp a bone and lets the gimp know he's right for a change. And Swansong also, finally, after 5 minutes into this travesty, lets us know the gimp is named "Dave". Well, he's still the gimp to me. Swansong runs with the gimp's slippery slope and tells us evolution leads to a world without ethics and then, of course, Hitler. His use of the future tense seems to imply we're waiting for some prophesized Hitler guy to rise up just as soon as we do away with those ethics. Then you just wait. This mysterious Hitler character is really going to go to town on humanity. Whatever could Hitler have planned for us? Swansong quickly answers that question. It's preparing us for euthanasia! Massive bloody purges! Again, he sort of speaks of these things as if these are new concepts unheard of before Origin of Species.

All this will happen, Swansong notes, because evolution tells us Little Green Men brought life to earth. Errr. Really? And to make this silly idea seem even sillier, Swansong says evolutionists believe in the space alien hypothesis even though we don't have any transitional fossils. I'm not sure what transitional fossils we would need to confirm space aliens seeded life on earth but that's what he says. Of course he probably just means there simply are no transitional fossils to support any facet of evolution. Of course there are loads. But it's pretty easy to say there are no transitional fossils if you simply label all transitional fossils "not transitional" without scientific support.

Break for commercial

Before we go to a commercial break, Swansong leaves us with the thought that evolution has destroyed science as we know it today. I guess since evolution is at the core of modern biology these days, modern biology must be in total shambles. All those crazy Nobel prizes in medicine they've been awarding for the last five decades have just been for breakthroughs in tongue depressor design.

We're played out into the commercial break with a bouncy little tune that sounds suspiciously like the theme to that 1980s NBC TV show Taxi.

The commercial break turns out not to be, as I hoped, a Christian themed Bud Light Real Men of Genius ad ("Here's to you, oncologist man, curing cancer by understanding the mechanism of evolutionary biology"). No, it's Swansong promoting something called a "Malachite IV revival". What's a Malachite IV revival? Much to my disappointment it doesn't involve a cage match ("Two go in, one comes out born again"). I guess it's some father/son retreat. This has the makings of the world's lamest tailgate party. Swansong then rattles off a series of noted speakers who will be at Malachite IV. Each speaker's name sounds like something you'd see on a shoulder patch worn by guys in a NASCAR pit crew: Richard "Little Bear" Wheeler, Jeff Bodkin, and Ricky "Suds" McGee. This Swansong could not be more of a redneck hick stereotype if he started reading us his favorite recipe for a squirrel barbeque sauce.

After this small break we're back to the Taxi theme and then Swansong repeats again he's a father. This dude is really proud his boys can swim. I'm suspecting trouble at home. Damn that Madonna and her video sex for destroying the family!

Nasty Stereotypes All Around

Swansong notes he was trained as an engineer and knows something about science. Again, he has no clue. He's only reinforcing another stereotype about creationists. As the stereotype goes, not only are all creationists redneck southern hicks but if they do have any scientific training, they're more then likely to be engineers. Swansong also notes the gimp has an "engineering background". Sanitary engineer? Domestic engineer? That's pretty vague. But when the Bible is your ultimate authority, you don't have to establish your scientific credentials.

Finally, with the show 1/3 over, Swansong reveals the twisted evolutionist. Why it's none other than John Rennie, editor of Scientific American. Oh. Not an evolutionary scientist per se. But I guess if you believe in descent with modification you can call yourself an evolutionist, just as if you believe Jesus was the son of god you can call yourself Christian, unless you're Mormon or Catholic or Episcopalian, or a fundy who believes in a post-tribulation rapture.

Finally, unmasked

Alright, so this isn't a show about Lysenko, but maybe we get to find out underneath all of Rennie's good humor he really has a twisted, twisted mind. So what did he do to make himself so twisted? Pull the wings off of flies? Something involving newborn kittens and latex paint? No. I guess he wrote an article for Scientific American called "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".

Doesn't seem so twisted to me. But let's give Swansong a chance to explain himself. You know, as skeptics we read these articles about why the other side's arguments are just plain stupid ("15 snappy answers to stupid moon hoax questions: Why are there no stars in the moon photos? Because they sent astronauts to the moon, not Bobby Darin and Sal Mineo.") and we kind of think "well, once those creationists/Face on Mars nuts/Moon Hoax whack jobs/9-11 troofers read the logical facts, they'll realize how wrong they are!" But of course we never get to read the whack job rebuttal. So this should be good 'n' educational.

It's just a theory

Rennie's first answer is to the creationist claim that evolution is a theory and not a fact. Creationists like to imply a theory is akin to a "guess" and theory is not a fact. Rennie explains many established, uncontroversial theories, like Relativity, are established by indirect evidence and inference. We can't see subatomic particles but we have a nice theory of physics that works quite well based on indirect evidence of their existence.

Swansong's rebuttal of Rennie's rebuttal (heretofore simply known as Swansong's woo) is Relativity is not the same as a theory of gravity. Rennie, of course, never made this claim, so this is a non sequitur and I struggle to understand his point.

Swansong then ignores what Rennie says about a theory not being a definitive statement about what is true and goes on to create another straw man that scientists come out of the lab and proclaim truth.

The gimp pipes up that scientists never question the probability that their suppositions are wrong. Although, they actually do. The gimp uses an example of a fossil in a rock. Science dates the fossilized bones by dating the rock the fossil is found in. The gimp claims science doesn't first ask "hey, could another process have put the bone there?" His point is the bone could be much younger but just sitting in a layer of old rock. The two did not form together, but some process, I dunno, like a great flood, put the bones there. But of course, scientists do question that supposition. Since they've found no process that could account for bones to get buried in solid rock, it's a safe assumption that the two formed together. So, it's easy to say they don't question their assumptions if you simply wave your hand and say they don't. But of course, science questions assumptions all the time. That's why we have things like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. If we didn't question assumptions, even core ones like cause and effect or time is a constant, we'd not have these theories that have real world applications, like GPS and computers.

Swansong then notes finding a bone in a rock isn't like experiments with subatomic particles. While both are indirect evidence, the subatomic particle experiment can be repeated and one can show cause and effect. Ergo, Rennie can't compare indirect fossil evidence to indirect evidence in physics. First, this is like saying since we can never repeat the exact murder, all the evidence found at the scene of a crime doesn't constitute good inferential evidence. Second, Swansong's unstated premise is evolution rests only on the fossil evidence. Fossil evidence was but one example of indirect evidence Rennie gave. Clearly, Creationists really haven't kept up with what's been going on in evolution, notably genetics, and still seem to think evolution has not advanced since the 19th century. Put simple, there are many repeatable "cause and effect" experiments one can run in evolution. For example, scientists recently ran a "cause and effect" experiment on how a mouse limb could transition into a bat wing.

Evolution is not testable

Swansong skips over Rennie's second rebuttal, not even mentioning it, and proceeds to his third rebuttal, although Swansong calls it Rennie's second point. Creationists like to claim evolution is not scientific because it is not testable and not falsifiable. Rennie points out evolution is testable. We can see it in a lab. Creationists like to point out that's micro evolution, not macro evolution (change above the species level). For macro evolution we have to return to Rennie's first point about inference. We can't see stars, galaxies, or planets form, but we can infer from observation and testing mechanisms how they form. We can't see iron and uranium being created but we can infer from experiments in nuclear reactors and atom smashers that a similar process is going on in stars and supernovas and forming these elements.

And Creationists seem to think evolution is un-falsifiable because it always seems to have an answer for whatever clever refutation creationist cook up. That a theory stands the test of criticism doesn't mean it can't be falsified. Of course, evolution could be falsified tomorrow if they found an undeniable bed of horse fossils in the Cambrian layer.

Further, if you examine the 29+ evidences for Macro Evolution overview, you clearly see each line of evidence comes with what it would take to falsify that line of evidence. Knock 'em all down, Swansong, and you got your falsification. It's pretty easy to claim something can't be falsified if you don't ever bother to even ask a scientist what would it take to falsify his/her evidence.

Swansong's woo response is Rennie's magazine article does not, in a succinct paragraph, tell us how macro evolution happens, and therefore Swansong dismisses it. Err. People need to get Ph.D.s to get a grasp on one small aspect of how macro evolution happens, and Swansong has a problem that Rennie can't summarize a dozen plus mechanisms of evolution in one short paragraph? That's his basis for dismissal?

The gimp, seeking approval from his dom, offers yet another straw man of evolution. "Once upon a time there was a rock and it turned into a frog and it turned into a prince." Well, technically, once upon a time organic molecules became self replicating and eventually led to man and all other species. I've never heard anyone researching the origins of life claiming rocks evolved into anything.

Swansong rages that Rennie merely assumes micro evolution given enough time leads to macro evolution. He repeats, that's an assumption. Errr. No, that's a hypothesis, one that is then subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Thank you for pointing out the very question science is trying to answer piece by piece. Given all the evidence micro evolution can lead to macro evolution, maybe Swansong would like to present evidence that this can't happen, that there is some natural barrier that prevents it.

The gimp jumps in with some non sequitur about Archaeopteryx being a lizard with bird-like features. Which is the very definition of a transitional fossil so I'm not sure how this is helping his case. I think the gimp realizes he's about to score on his own goal and then asserts the only thing we can say about a fossil of a lizard with bird-like features or a bird with lizard-like features is that really it's just a rock. How insightful. I know why the gimp is the catcher in this relationship.

Swansong then claims evolution doesn't make testable predictions. Oh, I thought that was a weakness of Intelligent Design. Since real science, like physics, makes testable predictions and evolution doesn't, then it's not science. But of course evolution does make testable predictions. Evolution predicts as species diverge from a common ancestor we should see a similar divergence in genetic errors. And we do. Evolution predicts a similar pattern in amino acids that make up Cytochrome c. Humans and chimps should have a more similar amino acid coding and humans and rats less so. But humans and rats should have a more similar coding than humans and fish. These are all tested and verified predictions of evolution.

A theory in crisis

Swansong then moves onto Rennie's next point, which Swansong labels point 3, although it's actually point 4. The creationists like to claim evolution is a theory in crisis. Scientists increasingly doubt evolution. Rennie points out scientific journals are filled with papers on evolution and there are very few papers that oppose evolution.

Swansong's woo is citing Expelled. Wow, that movie really convinced America there's a vast conspiracy of Big Science to silence dissent. Didn't it?

Swansong intimates there are no such papers opposing evolution because scientists won't let them publish those papers. Creationists always like to bring this up. They tried to float that claim in the famous McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education trial. Creationists can't get their papers published because of a conspiracy to reject their papers. The judge considered this claim back in 1982 and found:

Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of "what scientists think" and "what scientists do." The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.

Now wouldn't you think an important court case would be the place to really show the world the Big Science conspiracy? I mean, there must be piles of evidence. You can depose people, you can force them to testify, and yet… the creationists brought no evidence to back this claim? Maybe because there is none?

Sadly, this claim by creationists about a conspiracy to silence them was given a fair hearing and refuted a quarter century ago but they just keep on claiming it.

Swansong notes Answers in Genesis has a peer reviewed journal now, but scientists won't accept this journal. Well, anyone can publish a journal and put it out there. There's no acceptance or rejection system. If a journal offers good science, scientists will look. And actually, scientists do look at AIG's journal. And they've found the arguments unconvincing. Shitty science is shitty science. Sorry.

Your gaps are showing!

Swansong then skips over another one of Rennie's rebuttals and proceeds to Rennie's seventh rebuttal "Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth". Again, this is another canard creationists like to float. Evolution is, of course, a theory about the origin of species, not the origin of life. As chemistry presupposes the existence of the elements, evolution largely assumes the existence of life. Rennie delves a bit into hypotheses about the origin of life, one being organic molecules came to earth on comets. This is the source, apparently, of Swansong's earlier claim evolution was started by Little Green Men. Oddly, earlier the gimp was claiming evolution says life evolved from a rock. Of course, evolution does not say life itself was seeded by comets. Complex organic compounds, the Lego^TM of life, have been found in abundant quantities in space. It's not hard to imagine them getting on earth via comets.

The gimp makes an un-signaled jump to Rennie's eighth rebuttal where creationists claim the mathematical odds of amino acids forming into complex proteins is such an amazing long shot that it could never happen during the life of the universe. Of course, no one in science says proteins form by taking a bunch of amino acids, shaking them up, and hoping something useful comes out of the mix. A couple amino acids come together under very likely circumstances and do something useful. Another gets added and does something else useful and so on. Eventually you have a very complex structure. Creationists, to wit, like to claim life came about in a card game where we kept getting one royal flush after another. Evolution, however, is a game where you start with a hand that's very much unlike a royal flush but is still good enough to be the winning hand. But each new round of this poker game, you get to keep winning cards that will get you closer to a royal flush and throw back cards that don't get you closer to a royal flush. And the cards you throw back you get to replace with new cards. You can then keep new cards that get you closer to a royal flush and toss back the ones that don't. And so on. It might take a while, but you'll surely get a royal flush by this process.

Light at the end of the tunnel

Swansong and the gimp start to wrap up, having either now run out of time or they simply can't pick apart Rennie's other ten arguments. Of course, maybe they just wanted to concentrate on their strongest rebuttals, but as we've seen, their rebuttals amount to the same old "God of the gaps" and straw men every creationist has been using without change for the last century.

Swansong bemoans that modern man can no longer imagine a god and has substituted science. Oddly this claim flies in the face of surveys where 80% of Americans believe in a personal god, and more than half of Americans believe in creationism. So who is he referring to exactly? A minority of Americans? And he's troubled by this?

Swansong continues to preach about the glory of god and putting god in the science classroom and is finally played out by the now familiar Taxi theme. Swansong does take a moment to remind you who he is but forgets to thank the contributions of the gimp. Swansong must be a great guy to work for.

Karl Mamer is host of The Conspiracy Skeptic podcast, a 12 part look at conspiracies of today and the not too distant past. Karl is also the world's greatest living proponent of Franglais. He also likes to bait Nigerian Bank Scammers and hosted his own podcast about teaching English in Seoul, South Korea. Karl lives in Toronto, Canada and works as a senior technical writer to pay the bills.