Will the Ark Encounter be exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Update 12-31-14 After rereading the section of North Carolina law, I have decided that it did not claim what I thought it did.  For readability, I just deleted the argument that I made using it.

I am still trying to find a statute that requires that "religious organizations" be non-profits.  So far it seems to me to be more of a recommendation than a requirement. 

However Answers in Genesis's claim that the Ark Encounter LLC is a religious organization may also have more consequences than whether or not they decide to not hire Catholics or Episcopalians as life guards.   "Religious organizations" are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act.

SEC. 307. EXEMPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

The provisions of this title shall not apply to private clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000-a(e)) or to religious organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship.

Maybe the ADA should be the next line of questioning that AiG receives.  I am still waiting on this question:

So you say that Kentucky wants you to hire people who aren't Christians, but is it not true that most people in Christian sects like Catholicism and Episcopalianism would not be allowed to work at your park?

Do these statistics bother you?

Right Wing News posted this to their facebook this April.  First off there was no sourcing.  Second miscarriage is far more likely than abortion.  Years ago, I wrote a summary.

At an hour old, this single cell has an up hill battle. About 19.6 out of every 1000 women annually will have an abortion. This means that 22% of pregnancies will end in abortion [4], but this embryo only has about a 30-70% of even implanting in the uterus to transition from conception to pregnancy. [6] Even if she implants, she may not implant in the uterus. Ectopic pregnancies occur at 19.3 out of every 1000 pregnancies or about 2% of pregnancies. [7] Once implanted correctly, she still has about a 31% chance of miscarrying. [8] Things get a little more dicey when you considered that one out of eight embryos form twins, but only one out of 80 twins make it to birth. [9] All of this adds up to the embryo having as great as a 70% chance of not surviving to birth [8].

 The abortion rate used to be higher, but I think that it is safe to postulate that miscarriages are about twice as likely than abortions since 1973.  So the image should look something like this.

Now, I cannot vouch for the other statistics.  I know enough to know that AIDS, cancer, and heart disease survival rates have been increasing while violent crime has been decreasing.  However. miscarriage is never mentioned even though it is far more prevalent.

The War on Christmas is Over

The War on Christmas is over.  With Michael W. Smith releasing a version of Irving Berlin's Happy Holidays this year, Happy Holidays has officially won. :)

Citations please II

This December, I have written a few blogs on the Ark Encounter controversy.

AiG or the Ark Encounter versus Kentucky

A couple of more points on the Ark Encounter

Citations please

Last night, I started to examine Ken Ham's claim which had one of it's most recent iteration in a video he posted to facebook. 

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here. Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark. So let me say again, that’s simply not true.

I am at a lost to find secular bloggers who are saying this.  At best, they are arguing like Ham himself that the tax incentives would offset the creation of the park.  I cited five secular bloggers that are not claiming this.  These were not low level no names, they were some of the main bloggers arguing against Ham on this issue.  Two of them, PZ Myers and Dan Arel have gotten personal responses from Ham.  Ham knows that at least these two are not making this claim.

I also called into question, Ham extrapolating a particular meaning from an infinitive used by Maddow when he used the same infinitive in his recent video.  Infinitives can have multiple meanings depending on the context.  For some reason, Ham assumes an interpretation that makes Maddow's statement false, when most interpretations would make the statement true.

Well, it is time to add another secular blogger that is not claiming that the Ark Encounter is "asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  The Sensuous Curmudgeon has written a December 18, 2014 blog, Is Opposing Ken Ham’s Tax Breaks Anti-God? on Ham's criticism, Lexington Herald versus God!, of a recent editorial in the Lexington-Herald, Few questions for Answers in Genesis. The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

That newspaper has previously opposed tax benefits for Hambo’s new theme park — see Problem for Ken Ham’s Ark Park? That was back in August, before Hambo was officially notified that the state wouldn’t provide sales tax rebates for his Ark project.

 So the number is up to six which means Ham must provide seven to support his claim.  However Ham's line of evidence is found wanting. He questions whether tax incentives are "tax breaks".  He even parses infinitives for the worst possible interpretations.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon does a great job discussing Ham's over reaction (with even an exclamation mark) to the Lexington-Herald editorial.  He did not deal though with Ham's citation of someone in the media claiming the Ark Encounter "is asking the state for money to complete the Ark", so I will deal with it here.

Ham starts out claiming that the Lexington-Herald "[f]or years, it has spread untruths and misleading information about Answers in Genesis and our life-size Noah’s Ark project."  He then begins the next paragraph:

I suggest that the editors of the Herald-Leader have an anti-Christian agenda. It has resulted in inaccuracies in its stories and editorials concerning the Ark project.

 In the third paragraph, he triples down.

In a recent typical anti-Christian editorial against the work of AiG, we read considerable misinformation and downright untruths. Actually, I believe it’s clear that the editors are really shaking their fist at God.

OK, so he is claiming that the editorial is saying things that are so untrue that they are "shaking their fist at God." What are these untruths?  Well he cites two examples from the editorial which he criticizes by specifically using the word true ("not true" and "doesn't tell the truth here").

Perhaps Answers in Genesis should give up thanking God that intolerant liberals “can’t sink this ship,” and ask the deity instead whether it can be built without more government handouts.

Ham does not quibble over whether or not these tax incentives are "government handouts".  He does argue that "[t]his certainly implies that AiG has already received government funding to build the Ark."  Even for Ham, he can only claim that this "implies" this falsehood.  It only does if you take the worst interpretation.

Ham also accuses this point as being untrue.

Since the Ark park would rely on such secularists [sic] services as highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors, the $18.25 million in taxes it wouldn’t pay to support those services would fall on other taxpayers.

 Ham's response is strange.  He argues that this is untrue, because the rebate "would [only] be given is if the park is operational and is having a positive economic impact, bringing significant dollars into the state." Ham is right, but he is beside the point.  The point is the rebated sales tax would not go to fund  "highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors".  Since Ham is not funding them as much as he would, someone else would need to.  The statement is clearly true.

Ham also disputes the nature of the bonds and his property tax discount.  He disputes that the Ark Encounter has not hired anyone yet and we do not know what the standards would be (even though they are claiming that it is legal for them to follow AiG's standards.)  I am not dealing with those claims, because they are beside the point to this discussion.

Ham argues:

Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark.

I am searching, but I still cannot find support for his claim.  Remember, to be true someone must now provide seven examples of individual bloggers.

Citations please

About a week ago, Ken Ham made the following claim in a video he posted to Answers in Genesis' (AiG) facebook. 

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here. Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark. So let me say again, that’s simply not true.

Now I have tried to validate this claim and find out what in the world Ham is talking about.  I admit about three years ago, there was some confusion for me about the nature of the tax incentives.  After doing some research, some on AiG's website, I learned that the incentives were a rebate on sales tax at the park.  The state would only give this rebate if the Ark Encounter (AE) generates a required amount of sales tax and even then they would only refund a certain amount.  There are no tax breaks from Kentucky until after the park has been opened.  Still Ham admits, like any good businessman, he was counting on those rebates similar to how people count on their tax returns.  You do not have to have them, but they sure help.

Still, I find it hard to believe that "most secular bloggers...would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  Who are these bloggers?  They are certainly not PZ Myers, Hemant Mehta, Dan Arel, JT Eberhard, and Michael Stone.  So who is Ham talking about?  I have listed five bloggers, Ham would need to list at least six to validate his claim.  Ham knows that Myers is not one of them, but more on that later.

Ham has taken issue with some in the media, particularly Rachel Maddow.  However, as far as I can tell, Maddow has never said that AiG is using tax dollars to build the Ark.  In this 2010 video, she said "tax breaks" which is what rebates are, though Ham disagrees.  May 28, 2014, Ham had this to say about a May 2014 Maddow segment. (The bold is in the original.)

First—and I don’t know how many times we’ve had to correct the urban myth that is being spread by the secular media and bloggers—no Kentucky taxpayer money is being used to “build” (her word) the Ark Encounter. It’s a lie that won’t die, and the journalists at MSNBC should know better.

So Maddow should know better according to Ham.  Though Ham provides the entire video, he only quotes in this blog one word, "build", that he takes exception.  This word is a "lie" according to Ham. This is the full quote that Ham is referring.

And when the creationist group Answers in Genesis announced their plans to build their Noah’s Ark theme park, the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park.

No where does Maddow claim that "Kentucky taxpayer money is being used" to build AE.  She said, "the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park."  The Christianpost in their May 28, 2014 article seemed to try and help Ham out by providing another quote that Maddow could have meant that "taxpayer money" was being used to build the AE.

There will be dinosaurs on Noah's ark, just as soon as the creationists finish finding the dinosaurs in piles of leaves and plant debris, and putting them on the ark with little assist from state government – 43 million in tax incentives. Your tax dollars at work – amazing.

Still here, Maddow is very clear, saying that AE has received tax incentives. "Your tax dollars at work" is a well known chastisement of government officials and government programs. It does not necessarily mean giving tax dollars to a program.  In his May 28, 2014 blog post, Myers took issue with Ham's rebuttal to Maddow.

[Ham] declares that no Kentucky taxpayer money is being used to construct the Ark Encounter, but that is a claim no one made. Maddow says quite clearly several times that the Ark Park has been given $43 million in tax incentives — that is, Answers in Genesis has been exempted from a requirement to pay taxes on their for-profit enterprise, and will also receive rebates on sales taxes. So all Ham has done is rebut a claim that Rachel Maddow did not make.

May 30, 2014, Ham used his facebook to rebut Myers. After citing the first Maddow quote he wrote,

You can hear Maddow say it for yourself at around the 1:55 mark of the video captured at https://answersingenesis.org/…/media-co…/rachels-rant-msnbc/ . The atheist blogger has once again, as such secularists often do, did not tell the truth—and of course Rachel Maddow didn't tell the truth, either. These atheists realize that if you "throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick." Others sadly believe their lies and then continue to spread them.

Ham is convinced that the infinitive, "to build", makes the sentence a lie. In the comments he states that he does not even want to call the tax incentives, "tax breaks" like Maddow did in 2010.

Like with the ChristianPost, someone tried to help Ham out, but Ham was having none of it.

Further even while rebutting a secular blogger who continues to claim that no one is saying AE is receiving money for constructing the Ark, he concluded with this point.

Now that we've pointed this out for the "millionth time," I fully expect the atheists to simply ignore it and just continue to disseminate untruths--it's the nature of the spiritual battle in which we're engaged.

It shouldn't be surprising that in a sinful world, those who oppose our Christian message will take what is an obvious situation and claim the opposite is true!

Myers responded with a blog entitled, Is Ken Ham literate?

I said, and Rachel Maddow said, that Ham received $43 million in tax incentives. We know exactly what that means: he got tax exemptions and rebates that would total $43 million as an incentive to construct his monument to idiocy...Which I also clearly said in that bit of mine that he quoted.

You know, on the cop shows when a suspect is accused of X, and he immediately starts blustering “I did not do Y!”, you kind of suspect that he’s guilty of something. What is Ken Ham hiding?

 Remember Ham's big fuss is over the word "build".  Do you remember what he said in the quote that I started?

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here.

A little over a week ago, Ham said essentially the same thing that he chided Maddow for saying.  There is not much difference between Ham's comments and this contested quote:

And when the creationist group Answers in Genesis announced their plans to build their Noah’s Ark theme park, the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park.

 So far Ham cannot back up his claim that most secular bloggers "would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  If most secular bloggers would have me believe that, then citations should not be hard to come by.  His argument about Maddow rests on stretching an infinitive that he himself has been caught using.  If these things are really being said, you should not need to rest your arguments on parsing verbs.

A couple of more points on the Ark Encounter

This is a continuation of my research regarding the Ark Encounter.

Can the Ark Encounter discriminate with their hiring?

[I AM NOT A LAWYER]

There seems to be some debate online about whether a for-profit can be a "religious organization" under Title VII.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had this to say in an article entitled, Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

From what I can tell, one does not have to be a non-profit to be classified as a "religious organization", but it does help.  Being a "religious organization" is not a a one trait thing, but a conglomeration of traits that add up to make one exempt.

• whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose
• whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?)
• whether it is not-for-profit
• whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

One does not need all four to qualify.  The Ark Encounter seems to have at least three out of four, but I am not a lawyer.  A judge may rule that they do not meet the criteria.

Who are the jobs going to?

When the Ark Encounter first began, Ken Ham said:

The Ark Encounter is going to employ almost a thousand people, and the impact on the number of jobs associated with that is going to be in the thousands, and our particular research has shown it will be many thousands, and it will bring millions and millions of dollars into the community. In fact, the research that we did shows that the economic impact of the Ark Encounter project over 10 years will be something like $4 billion.

According to Answers in Genesis' (AiG) letter to the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet (TAHC), the Ark Encounter was originally owned by three entities and intended to not discriminate while hiring.  However two of the three entities abandoned the project leaving Crosswater Canyon Inc, which is run by AiG, as the sole owner.  With the other investors no longer in the picture, AiG decided that Ark Encounter was going to religiously discriminate with their hiring.  AiG claims that they informed the TAHC about this change months ago.

So far Ark Encounter has no employees, but it seems like the requirements will be similar to AiG.

• Salvation testimony
• Creation belief statement
• Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith

When Ham promised a thousand jobs to a city that has less than 4000 and to a county that has less than 25,000, Kentucky's governor was on board.

Kentucky’s Democratic governor supports the tax incentives. He says he wasn’t elected to debate religion, he was elected to create jobs, especially in hard-hit communities like Williamstown near where the ark park will be located and where a majority of the unemployed have been out of jobs for over two years.

Over the last few years, Ham has changed his mind, all of the jobs will only be available to Christians who can agree with among other things, the following statements.

• The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.

Forget hiring Atheists, these jobs will be limited to a minority of Christians.  Catholics or even William Lane Craig need not apply to be lifeguards.  Maybe Grant County is mostly biblical creationists.  However if the county is not, this might not be as big of a boom to the county's economy.

Will the Ark be built entirely of wood?

AiG claims that the pre-flood civilization not only had iron seams, but they knew how to smelt iron.  The Ark was not built by Bronze Age tools, but by Iron Age tools.  Also, Tim Lovett seems to imply that the Ark might have been reinforced by iron.  

AiG or the Ark Encounter versus Kentucky

Ark Encounter LLC is a for-profit corporation that is solely owned by the non-profit Crosswater Canyon Inc which is run by the non-profit Answers in Genesis (AiG). This is why AiG wrote a web release refering to AiG while the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet (TAHC) references to merely the Ark Encounter.  The TAHC only references AiG when in connection with Ark Encounter's actions.  AiG seems to see little distinction which is why they say things like:

By letter on Dec. 10, state officials told the theme park’s developer, Answers in Genesis (AiG), that the only way AiG could participate in the rebate program is if AiG would agree to two conditions: 1) waive its right to include a religious preference in hiring, and 2) affirm that it will tolerate no “proselytizing” at the theme park.

Here is what the TAHC actually wrote:

The first reason the Commonwealth can no longer grant incentives to this Project is the applicant’s changed position as it relates to the hiring of employees. In its original Tourism Development Agreement, Ark Encounter, LLC expressly agreed not to discriminate in hiring based on religion. However, it is now the applicant’s stated intention to discriminate in the hiring of employees for the Project based on religion…The Commonwealth’s position hasn’t changed. The applicant’s position has changed. The Commonwealth has not and does not provide incentives to any company that discriminates on the basis of religion and will not make an exception for Ark Encounter, LLC.

 Here is a portion on proselytizing:

Certainly, Ark Encounter has every right to change the nature of the project from a tourism attraction to a ministry. However, state tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion. The use of state incentives in this way violates the Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.

You can read the letter for yourself. Nowhere does the TAHC extend an ultimatum to AiG, but AiG does not seem to see it that way:

AiG has countered that the state’s new conditions are unlawful because it is well-established under both federal law (Title VII) and state law (KRS § 344.090) that religious organizations and entities like AiG are specifically permitted to utilize a religious preference in their hiring. Moreover, the government cannot show hostility toward religion or discriminate against persons or organizations who express religious viewpoints.

However that is not what AiG actually countered (pg 4):

Your legal counsel should readily acknowledge that it has long been established in federal law and state law that religious entities are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The federal law that prohibits discrimination in hiring practices, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically carves out an exception for churches and religious organizations, which are permitted to give employment preference to adherents of their own religion.

As noted above, Ark Encounter, LLC is clearly a Christian company with plainly religious attributes and ownership. It thus meets the legal standard for the Title VII exemption on religious preferences.

AiG did not counter about Title VII in reference to AiG.  They countered with Title VII in reference to the Ark Encounter, because this is the only argument would make rational sense.  When AiG is talking with the government, they maintain a distinction, but when they are talking to their own followers they maintain no distinction.  At best, one could argue that AiG is trying to dumb things down for their audience.  Clearly it is on the surface factually incorrect to say:

...state officials told the theme park’s developer, Answers in Genesis (AiG), that the only way AiG could participate in the rebate program is if AiG would agree to two conditions...

or

...AiG has countered that the state’s new conditions are unlawful because it is well-established under both federal law (Title VII) and state law (KRS § 344.090)...

In both AiG's letter and TAHC's letter the main conversation was about the Ark Encounter.  At best AiG could argue that technically the Ark Encounter has no employees and AiG runs Crosswater Canyon, so anyone dealing with Ark Encounter is actually dealing with AiG.  Until Ark Encounter has a person to answer the phones, they could be reduced to functionally the same company.  This is the best interpretation.  After all, they did provide both letters on their own website.

Then there is the worst interpretation:  AiG is intentionally trying to confuse their readers into thinking that TAHC wants AiG to start hiring Catholics and to stop proselytizing.  AiG obviously could try and educate their readers about the Title VII and for-profit companies, but for some reason they chose to confuse the issue.

Gardasil and 1 out of 912

This has already been well debunked over at Internet Myths, Lies and Misinformation.  I am going to add my own two cents, but I want to give credit to one of the first things I read on this.  I used to write and link more about Gardasil when Bachmann was running for President.

9/15/11 HPV Vaccine does not cause retardation

9/17/11 12 year old girls might mistake a HPV vaccine for a HIV vaccine
10/19/11 Flashback to Gardasil

11/15/11 Bachmann: "Ravages of this Vaccine"

1/13/12 Many Teen Girls Mistakenly Think HPV Vaccines Cut Risk for All STDs 

Today, I came across this meme from Cancer Truth.  

The source cited is a blog written by Dave Hodges, September 17, 2013. Hodges wrote.

Merck and the CDC have determined that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil in a large study, (see page 8) died. Yet, the cervical cancer death rate is only 1 out of every 40,000 women per year. In other words, girls are better off not taking the shot because the Gardasil shot kills the girls in greater numbers than does the disease it purports to treat.

The study linked is a great study.  They analyzed seven clinical trials which used placebos as a control.

• 29,323 received injections.     
• 15,706 received Gardasil
• 13,023 received a placebo

With both the Gardasil and the placebo only 0.1% died: 21 in the Gardasil group and 19 in the placebo group. (In case you were wondering 1 out of 912 is 0.1%.)  Honestly if Gardasil was increasing mortality rates, you would expect to see more people dying with vaccines than injecting someone with a placebo.  However that is not what the data shows.  The meme could just as easily read:

Still you might say that 0.1% is still pretty bad right? Who cares about the 99.9% if you are the 0.1% right?  Well, lets look at the causes (plural) of death. 

The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations. The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (5 individuals who received GARDASIL and 4 individuals who received AAHS control), followed by drug overdose/suicide (2 individuals who received GARDASIL and 6 individuals who received AAHS control), gunshot wound (1 individual who received GARDASIL and 3 individuals who received AAHS control)

That's right the most common causes of death break down like this:

Hodges is such a honest guy *cough* that he is including 5 traffic accidents, 2 suicides, and for good measure, a gunshot, in his statistic, because in his own words "the Gardasil shot kills the girls"...with traffic accidents and causing girls to get shot.  He is literally arguing that "the Gardasil shot" gets you shot.  Again going back to the placebo, our control group, one could just as easily say that the "[placebo] shot kills the girls".  By injecting people with essentially nothing, they managed to get three times as many suicides and three times as many gunshot victims.  If Gardasil was really killing people, we would expect to see greater rates of death among Gardasil than placebo.

So what about these 13 and 6 deaths that are left? Well, both Gardasil and Placebo had a death attributed to pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis. So that brings us to 12 and 5 deaths.

In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, 1 case of arrhythmia, 1 case of pulmonary tuberculosis, 1 case of hyperthyroidism, 1 case of post-operative pulmonary embolism and acute renal failure, 1 case of traumatic brain injury/cardiac arrest, 1 case of systemic lupus erythematosus, 1 case of cerebrovascular accident, 1 case of breast cancer, and 1 case of nasopharyngeal cancer in the group that received GARDASIL; 1 case of asphyxia, 1 case of acute lymphocytic leukemia, 1 case of chemical poisoning, and 1 case of myocardial ischemia in the AAHS control group; and 1 case of medulloblastoma in the saline placebo group.

Dying after taking a vaccine or a placebo does not demonstrate cause and effect.  In order for cause and effect to be demonstrated cause of death must occur more often in the vaccinated community than in the non-vaccinated community.  One or two cases is not enough to demonstrate that.  Remember what the paper blamed?

The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations.

Now it would be one thing if Hodges was arguing honestly. However:

• He excludes the placebo group which had the same mortality rate
• He includes traffic accidents, suicides, and gunshots in his statistic
• He rewords the paper to argue Gardasil kills when the paper actually attributes the causes to "events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations."

Remember, this is Hodges' source.  He even gave the page number.  At best his "1 out of every 912" is actually 1 out of 1208 without any real evidence to imply cause and effect.  In case you were wondering, the death rate in the US is actually 807.3 out of 100,000 or about 1 out of every 125 (yes, I know there are reasons not to reduce it that much).  In the mean time cervical cancer killed 4,092 in 2011.

For further reading I found these on NPR.

HPV Vaccine Doesn't Raise Risk Of Blood Clots, Study Finds

Parents And Teens Aren't Up To Speed On HPV Risks, Doctors Say

Cervical Cancer Vaccine Also Helps Prevent Genital Warts

Girls Vaccinated For HPV Not More Likely To Be Sexually Active

Carl Werner's blatantly misrepresents information

I came across Dr. Carl Werner earlier this year. I did not have time to deal with his particular claims, so I just stated them and moved on.  In that post and in the follow up post, I dealt a lot with the distinction of being "like" something does not make you that something.  For example, the fossil record has many dog-like predators, but most of them are not dogs.  Hyenas may be like a dog, but they are not dogs.  I remember learning about simile in Junior High, but it is a problem that I keep running into dealing with biblical creationists.  Again being like something does not make you the same as that something.

Given my reading of parts of Werner's, Evolution: The Grand Experiment this inability to understand simile is not a glitch, but a feature.  (I found this book, when a biblical creationist referenced it as his "biology textbook from college".)  In chapter 4, he says,

They now theorize that whales evolved from an animal similar to a hyena [Pachyaena]  or a cat [Sinonyx] or a hippopotamus through a complicated sequence of chance mutations in a series of animals over 10 million years.

First before we move on, I read this kind of argument a lot.  "Scientists say this animal and other scientists say that animal, so which one is it?"  However one must consider the level of disagreement.  If the disagreement is within the same order or sub-order there is really little disagreement.  It is like arguing over which county in the same state an event occurred.  For example, we may not know exactly where Pocahontas lived, but we know that it was not in California or even in North Carolina.   Still, you read things like this from Dr. John D. Morris, which implies greater disagreement.

One such evolutionary claim that has been around since the days of Darwin asserts that whales (which are mammals, not fish or reptiles) descended from some four-footed land mammal. Darwin thought that it was a bear-like animal that evolved into whales, but today evolutionists disagree. Some speculate that hoofed animals (like cattle) or wolf-like carnivores were the ancestors of whales. Others insist that DNA evidence indicates that the ancestors were hippopotamus-like. More recently, evolutionists claimed deer-like, raccoon-size animals had evolved into whales.

Morris knows that even-toed ungulates encompass many things from hippos to goats, deer, and yes cows. It also includes now extinct carnivores like Entelodont, Pakicetus and Andrewsarchus. All three had hooves. Darwin placed whales in Carnivora, but they have been in Artiodactyla since the discovery of Pakicetus inachus. The argument is over where in Artiodactyla they fit. The connection to hippos, a webbed hoofed, even-toed ungulate is not a major surprise. Morris' representation suggests things are "either or" when in fact they are all true. Whales descended from hoofed animals, somewhat like cattle, somewhat like wolves, somewhat like deer. Some were the size of raccoons. P. inachus was about three feet at the shoulder. DNA notes that whales closest non-extinct land relative is the hippo. It is hard to convey, because pigs are the closest thing today to an even-toed carnivorous ungulate.

Coming back to Werner's statement, Sinonyx (similar to a cat) and Pachyaena (similar to a hyena) are both Mesonychids from the order Mesonychia. Along with hippos all three are hoofed animals, ungulates. Mesonychids are a sister group to the clade Cetecea which includes several families (Pakicetidae, Ambulocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, Protocetidae, Basilosauridae, Aetiocetidae) of fossil animals showing the transition from land animal to ocean dweller. For example, two species of Aetiocetidae even have both teeth and baleen.  

Sinonyx and Pachyaena are being used to try to connect the ungulate orders Artiodactyla to the Mesonychids.  Essentially they are trying to connect North Carolina to Virginia, but we are still talking about the South East. Unlike the Mesonychids, hippos are already in the same order as whales, Artiodactyla, so there is less of a leap.  Bear in mind as you continue reading that Werner is a biologist so he understands everything that I just wrote, but he will misrepresent it anyway.  In the next sentence, he completely drops the word "similar".

Scientists who oppose evolution think the idea of a cat or a hippopotamus or a hyena becoming a whale by a series of chance mutations is even more preposterous than Darwin’s idea that a bear could become a whale through natural selection and acquired characteristics.

The contrast is strange.  No one other than Werner's strawman is arguing that whales evolved by a series of chance mutations instead of by natural selection and acquired characteristics.  Werner knows and understands that acquired characteristics come from chance mutations that are selected by natural selection.

Further by dropping the word "similar", he leaves his reader with the impression that whales are alleged to have evolved from a member of the order Carnivora, like Darwin proposed.  He continues to intentionally confuse his reader by referring to Pachyaena as "a hyena". In order to not confuse the reader, he only needs to refer to Pachyaena as Pachyaena instead of "a hyena". He never even once mentions that they have hooves.

Werner then gives a list of random mutations that would have to happen turn Pachyaena into a whale.  Remember Werner knows that natural selection works through selecting acquired characteristics, but he is making a strawman. His calculation begins on page 51, but is irrelevant because this ridiculous mechanism is not how evolution works.  However most of the mutations that he mentions can be found in the whale fossil record or one can at least find an analog that creationists accept.

In chapter 5, he talks about wrong phylogeny based on homologous traits.  His first example is red pandas (Family Ailuridae) and panda bears (Family Ursidae) which both possess the Panda's thumb (a wrist bone modified into a thumb).  However genetics established that Panda bears are true bears and red pandas are more closely related to raccoons (Family Procyonidae).

source

Werner seems to imply that they are not "closely related".  True, they no longer occupy the same family, but they continue to occupy the same order, Carnivora, same sub-order Caniformia, and the same infra-order Arctoidea.  Using our state analogy, they were wrong about he city, but had the right county.  

Werner's next example is also from the infra-order Arctoidea.  

Seals [Phocidae] and sea lions [Otariidae] are very similar in appearance. Both have front flippers and finned feet. They are so similar it is difficult to tell them apart. Because of their similarities, it was logical for scientists to believe they shared a common ancestor with similar features, namely front flippers and finned feet. Now proponents of evolution believe seals descended from a skunk or otter, and sea lions evolved from a dog or bear, meaning they do not share a common ancestor after all.  

There is some disagreement over what super family in Arctoidea that Pinnipeds are most closely related.  Some hold a duel origin hypothesis with seals being more closely related to the super family Musteloidea and sea lions are more closely related to the super family Ursoidea.  However some hold to a singular origin for both from either Musteloidea or Ursoidea.  The jury is still out, but Werner knows the argument is not over whether or not they share a common ancestor.  The argument is over how they are related.  Werner knows, "they do not share a common ancestor after all" is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument.  

Epistle of Barnabas and Hyenas

Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena; thou shalt not, saith He,
become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such
persons. Why so? Because this animal changeth its nature year by
year, and becometh at one time male and at another female. ~ Epistle of Barnabas 10:7

I came across this verse today in my reading through the apostolic fathers.  Believe it or not there is actually some science to explain the alleged gender swapping hyenas.   Like elephants, female hyenas essentially have a long phallic clitoris like structure that must be inverted for males to gain access to the vagina since the labia are sealed off.  Dr. Carin Bondar explains in the video below.



Now I am still unsure of what the previous verse means.

Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare. Why so? Thou shalt not be
found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons;
for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year; for
according to the number of years it lives it has just so many
orifices. ~ Epistle of Barnabas 10:6

An American Carol and George Washington

You might remember this scene from An American Carol.  Here Washington is right, President Washington did attend church more frequently than non-President Washington.  At Mt Vernon, he went about once a month, but as President he attended every Sunday to set an example. Even still, in New York, Washington refused communion as was his custom during his adult life.[1] Perhaps in an age before automobiles, Washington did not want to make the journey.

Here I raise my Ebenezer

Robert Robinson's Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing has a line, "Here I raise my Ebenezer, here by thy great help I come."  Thanks to Ken Ham and recent events that line has been in the back of my mind now for a while.  The Creation Museum has recently unveiled their Allosaurus fragilis,Ebenezer, and have invited scientists from around the world to come study her.  

Her name literally meaning, "stone of help", Ebenezer has a long complicated past in the evangelical world.  Though sources differ over when between 2000-2002, she was ultimately unearthed, in 2002 by the Vision Forum and a group of homeschoolers.  According to a creationist article at WorldNetDaily, Ebenezer was found with unfossilized or at least not completely fossilized plant debris.  

“We found a complete section of vertebrae more than 12 feet in length, which was fully articulated. The dinosaur appears to be in much the same position as he was at the time of his death and burial, which must have been virtually instantaneous, and caused by a catastrophic event. Not only was this fully articulated dinosaur found lying in a bed of leaves and plant debris, but there is wood from trees mixed in among the bones, some of which contains petrified and unpetrified elements in the same piece of wood. If this creature were millions of years old, the evidence would look quite different.”

According to Rachel Maddow, Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis will not vouch for the unfossilized plant debris.  He does however continue to date the fossil to the flood year by the position of the bones.

Dr. Snelling added that the intact skeleton of this allosaur is a testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer has found soft tissues within dinosaur bones.  However Vision Forum's claims are even more profound.  Still the supposed discovery of unfossilized Mesozoic material that supposedly disproves an old earth is far from new.  I remember in High School attending a creationism conference in the late 90's.  One of the speakers said something so remarkable that I thought I knew that creationism was about to supplant the Theory of Evolution.  The speaker noted that during a 1994 expedition, Buddy Davis claimed to have found unfossilized dinosaur bones complete with unfossilized ligaments.  The man, who most of his sculptures reside in the Creation Museum, claimed to have discovered things that Schweitzer can only dream.   

Why is Ken Ham not inviting researchers to study unpetrified Mesozoic wood or dinosaur ligaments?  Surely if Ham had such things or if such things have been discovered, he would surely have invited Schweitzer herself to study them.  Twenty years later I think we can safely conclude that Ken and Buddy have no such thing.

I am more of a West Virginian...

In the 1861 Virginia secession debate, former governor Henry Wise put his pistol on the podium informing the conference that Virginian militias had taken up arms against the federal government. The Western Virginians demanded to know by what democratic authority did he bypass the legislature and even the governor of the state. Wise and his allies explained that this was war and democracy was too slow for the needs of the state.

The governor (Wise's allies had plans to kidnap him if he did not go along) ultimately retroactively sanctioned the attacks, but this breach of trust ultimately caused West Virginia to secede from Virginia.[1] Likewise, in Nevada and now Utah, Bundy and his allies have taken up arms against the federal government without any democratic authority from Nevadans or Utahns.

[1] Freehling, William W. and Craig M. Simpson, ed. Showdown in Virginia The 1861 Convention and the Fate of the Union (Charlottesville; University of Virginia Press, 2010) 193-195

Hashtags have done better than anything so far

I do not understand why we need to tell these parents that "hashtags will not bring back your girls". They tried everything they could and resorted to hashtags as a last resort to shame Nigeria into getting their daughters back. So far, this hashtag by a Nigerian lawyer has done more than anything else they tried. You are right, these fathers and this lawyer are not warriors, but they needed to shame the warriors into doing something.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet

Facebook

I am sure ACLJ knows and has googled this, but there is not a good source that Washington ever said this. This is probably a telephone game of a Washington quote from a 1835 history book which honestly sounds more like Washington.

"It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.

It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.

It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one." [1]

Bundy, Fischer, Jeffress, Islam, Christianity

In the comment section on someone's fan page I made the following comment about this image.

Like Christianity, Islam is a spectrum. There are still Christians who argue that the 1st Amendment only applies to Christians, that women should stay home/submit to their husbands, and that homosexuality should be illegal. How few of these Christians condemned Cliven Bundy's call to arms.

There were two replies.

I have ministered to and have met many, many Christians from various denominations, and have never met one who said the 1st Amendment applies only to Christians. Do they teach that at Kent State or what? Cliven Bundy did not call anyone to arms. Quite the opposite. Hope you get an "A: in PolySci for that liberal whopper.

And this one.

Hi, [my name]. An essential difference between Christianity and Islam is found in the two Basic Manuals; the Bible makes it clear that noone must be coerced into believing in Christ; the Koran makes it very clear that people must be coerced into believing in Islam. Examples of coercion in the history of Christianity were carried out by people who knew their position was not supported by the Bible. Note too that the greatest freedoms, starting with freedom of conscience, religion and expression, happened first in Christian countries. There too you find the greatest and longest sustainable development in culture, arts, sciences, philosophy, economy and government. As people uncritically accept secular humanism (atheism by another name), these things erode quickly, as noted by 20th Century atheistic movements of fascism, communism and nazism--not to mention Vorwoerd's most virulent Apartheid. I expect our American political leaders to know history, philosophy (especially ethics, moral philosophy) backwards and forwards. We unfortunately have not always elected the best in this regard. Best regards.

I made the following reply.

One, I am not a liberal. Two, Fischer, radio host for the AFA and Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas both argue that the word "religion" in the First Amendment only applies to Christianity. I doubt they teach it at Kent State, but it is taught on Christian radio and in a pulpit at Dallas. Bundy never condemned the idea of these militia preparing to kill police officers. Hundreds of armed people gathered to stop officers from enforcing the law. American Islam has never done such a thing.

[His name omitted], I said that Christianity is a spectrum. Yes there were deists arguing the Renaissance and Baptists arguing for separation of church and state. One of the reasons that we needed separation of church and state was forced conversion. Children were required to be baptized by law in many places. Fascism and Nazism were not necessarily Atheistic.

 I would like to also note that no one challenged that there are still Christians who argue "women should stay home/submit to their husbands, and that homosexuality should be illegal."  I am more worried about these Christians, because there are more of them in the states.

He looked just like us

This weekend, I was flipping through Ken and Mally Ham's A is for Adam: The Gospel from Genesis (Spiral Bound).  Now I make no bones on this blog about the fact that I am not a "biblical creationist", so you can imagine that I did not agree with a lot of the book.  Still one thing struck me.  I know that it is a children's book, but Adam is depicted as a white man with a beard and shoulder length hair.  Then the book tells the reader that, "He wasn't a monkey, he looked just like us."

I know that this is a children's book and I do not want to make the same mistake that some "biblical creationists" make when they take a children's book and try to make a mountain out of the author's attempt to simplify a subject (see Carl Kerby).  I do not wish to argue whether man is a Homo sapien, hominid, or primate.  What struck me was the phrase "he looked just like us".  I discussed this briefly in a post, Contradictory Messages.

Homo erectus

Like Ray, the Hams believe that both individuals in this picture are fully human and I suspect they believe that both could have been what Adam looked like.  It seems a little misleading for the authors to depict Adam as a Homo sapien who "looked just like us" when they also believe that he did not have to "look just like us."

Marital Rape Still Legal in Nigeria

Just researching a little extra context on the Nigerian girls abduction. While child marriage and unconsensual marriage have been illegal in Nigeria for years, it still happens for cultural reasons.[1] Marital rape however is still legal in Nigeria. Specifically in the Northern states, it is still legal to use pain and threats of death to obtain sex from your wife. Still the girls were ages 12-15 and it is always considered rape in the Northern States to have sex with a girl who is not your wife or is under the age of 14 unless she is your wife. Let us pray for their quick return. [2]

I have written quite a bit about marital rape and you can read more by clicking here.

What are you trusting God for?

My head has been a little twisted. I am reading Virginian secessionist/unionist Civil War arguments while paying attention to the mess out in Nevada.  This argument for Virginia's secession sticks out.

God means, through the instrumentality of African slavery, to accomplish His great purpose of Christianizing and civilizing that race. You may throw impediments in the way, and thereby bring down punishment on your own hands, but you cannot stop it…Every consideration of duty, of interest, of high Christian moral obligation, conspires to make us cause Virginia to secede at once, settle our difficulties peaceably afterwards, if we can – and if we cannot, forcibly.

If I find that you will not go with me, if you are determined to wait, wait, wait,…I will…go with you for the next plan which I think will best promote the great object I have in view…I mean to stand by my principles and doctrines to the bitter end. If that day shall come – which God in his mercy avert – when you and I will have to be exiled or yield to this horde of Northern Vandals,…I will not be exiled…I will stand on the shores of my own native Rappahannock, and there I will fall…I will die in Virginia, and trust to God and to posterity to vindicate what is just and what is right. ~ Robert Montague – April 1861 [1]

The phrase "Trust God" (or in this case "trust to God") means very little.  The question is the value and validity about what you are trusting God for.

[1] Freehling, William W. and Craig M. Simpson, ed. Showdown in Virginia The 1861 Convention and the Fate of the Union (Charlottesville; University of Virginia Press, 2010) 120-121

Contradictory messages

Recently ICR posted the image above to their facebook.  As I wrote in Millions of these part two and Ray's take on humankind, I think that some creationists like to pull a bait and switch.  The gentleman on the far right is clearly Homo sapien and he tells the other three that "We're not related".  However the gentleman second from the right is generally Homo erectus or a Neanderthal and both are considered part of humankind by most creationists.  

There seems to be two contradictory messages here.  Homo sapiens are related to Homo erectus, except when they are not.  

The Nevada Ranch Stand Off

“We the people in this area have nothing to fear,” said Bundy, wearing a cowboy hat and a T-shirt bearing his family name. “We can carry our weapons if we like because we have Second Amendment rights, and those are God-given rights. Those Second Amendment rights are our rights. But, and I say ‘but,’ because we don’t have to carry them right now because we’re afraid. I’m telling you that right now. Because there’s been a lot of people who’ve been afraid, and I know that feeling. Just yesterday evening I was really afraid. … Today, we have been confirmed by our creator that we do not have to be afraid.

Then read a little further down

Just afterward, rancher Bundy demanded that Gillespie disarm all National Park Service employees who work on federal lands, saying that the land belongs to the people and that they should not have to endure federally armed agents while enjoying tourist sites such as the Red Rock National Conservation Area.

He asks the National Park Service employees to surrender their "God-given rights".  I agree that the 2nd Amendment has reasonable limits, but who made a guy with a small army the judge for the nation?  I do not understand the conservatives who back this guy or other would be tyrants who would appoint themselves the judge of our constitution instead of the legislature, executive, and judicial branches that document enshrines.

More creationist compliant than you might think

Tyrannosaurus rex VS Struthiomimus by haghani on deviantART

Oddly enough this picture is more creationist compliant than many creationists might already know.  Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell has speculated that ornithomimids might actually have been birds and have had feathers.

Extraterrestrial Iron

But the LORD selected you and brought you out of Egypt's iron furnace to be a people for His inheritance, as you are today." ~ Deuteronomy 4:20 

I thought this was strange to mention iron furnaces during the Bronze Age, but it is cooler than that. By 3200 BC, Egypt had begun smelting iron meteorites, 2000 years before they figured out how to smelt native iron.

Lately I have been watching Derren Brown's Messiah again

In Derren Brown's Messiah, Brown poses as a man with supernatural powers to psychics, a Christian, Atheists, a New Age author, an author on alien abduction, and someone who claims to be able to talk to the dead.  He attempts to prove that experts in their fields do not vet the information they give to people.  Only one expert, a Christian evangelist, refused to endorse him, because he wanted a second meeting.

Whether we believe in psychic ability, crystal energy, alien abduction, talking to the dead, or Christianity, we are rightly or wrongly buying into a very powerful belief system. Now I am not interested in attack anyone's belief, but I think as intelligent human beings we should be prepared to question our beliefs and the people who encourage us to make our life decisions based on the information they give us. That's what this show is about...You're sharp enough to question what I do, because you know I deal in illusion. It's all about questioning. But there are beliefs we are not encouraged to question and these are often the beliefs upon which we are asked to make important life decisions. These are the areas where we should test and look for misinformation and where the big names in those fields should apply the same rigor, because often we are making those life decisions based on the information we get from those people. - Mentalist Derren Brown - Messiah

People's beliefs are not the issue, it is the way we relate to those beliefs and certainly the people out there who have those beliefs, the people who are getting their information, and forming those beliefs and living those lives; they're not the people "to have a go at them" or to laugh at. The people who are putting the beliefs out there, the industry behind them as it were. [We're] just taking a look at them. ~ Mentalist Derren Brown - Messiah

Beth Moore is just another degree

[The following is something I wrote in response to a great blog Beth Moore Prophesies a Coming 'Outpouring,' Warns of 'Scoffers' written by Erin at Donotbesurprised.com.]

"The astute viewer will notice that the message Moore is sharing allegedly was given to her directly by God, thus it cannot be questioned lest we question the Lord Himself."

In Lynchburg and at Liberty, we were taught to have these experiences. Now some would chide experience for being unbiblical or that it needed to be reigned in by biblical teaching, but few were the ones that would dismiss them. I remember one pastor doling on about how you don't question the postman, because he had a message from God. Then when he finally started his message, he took a verse out of context, so I immediately started questioning this postman. God "told" people everything from quitting the football team to real time messages for someone in the congregation. At Liberty and then at Calvary Chapel, they would describe experience as the muscles and the Bible as the bones and then argue about who had the correct balance.

But I am generally alone when I question their God. Generally everyone, is like I used to be, questioning the postman. Everyone makes mistakes, I hear. (Nowadays I think that you can use God claims to question the validity of their God.) We live in this plural evangelical culture advocating this experience (generally your personal one) and perhaps obliviously throwing out the experiences of most of the world. Like Moore though, these are supposed to be beneath scripture.

"The scoffers, I believe that God put on my heart, please test the spirit, pray and see if this is confirmed to you in prayer and in the study of the word."

If one does not buckle and tries to defend their experience, they say test it with prayer and the Bible. Unfortunately, they never say test it against reality, but then again most experiences stay away from being testable in that way. Word salads like "spirit", "downpour", and "revival" are great, because you can say them and listeners hear different meanings. Moore is just another degree of this issue.

h/t Here I Blog

Why are Australian marsupials more closely related?

Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson does a great job laying out the differences between evolutionary hypotheses and creation hypotheses in his new article New Genetic Findings Tackle the Toughest Evolutionary Questions.  Evolutionary theory predicts that Australian marsupials should be more closely related to each other than placentals even though they have similar adaptations.  The fossil record shows marsupials migrating from North America to South America to Antarctica, and finally settling in Australia which became a genetically isolated continent.

Just like the fossil record and taxonomy predicted, genetics established that a marsupial mole is more closely related to a kangaroo than a European placental mole.   This seems like an open and shut case.  Three lines of evidence seem to demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution best explains Australian marsupial diversity.  

In his article, Jeason fields probably the second most common creationist apologetic to this conclusion.  "Perhaps wombats and kangaroos are similar at the protein level because the sequences that were compared between these two species play a role in marsupial physiology."  Jeason does a great job of explaining why this is not probably the case.  The proteins that are used for this genetics testing perform the same function in cells.  It would be useless to test a protein that could vary depending on the length of an animal's nose.  The ones with similar noses would appear more closely related.  

After explaining this, Jeason goes on to say that this is exactly his hypothesis.  First, he tried to model genetic variation over time and determined that under that model marsupials should appear more distantly related than closer.  Then he had the following insight.

This negative result was actually the first step toward discovering new insights into DNA function, and it turned the tables on the evolutionary argument. By eliminating the hypothesis of functionally neutral change over time, I was able to clearly identify the hole in modern molecular biology thinking. Though each protein has historically been thought to perform a single function inside the cell—like energy transformation—these negative results required a modification to this rule. Combined with preliminary data from the secular literature, these results suggest that each protein might perform several functions. For example, proteins involved in energy transformation in fish might also play a role in fin formation and underwater respiration. It’s as if a light switch were designed not only to control electricity but also to simultaneously support the ventilation system, maintain the foundation, and repair the roof.

Hypothesizing multi-functional proteins stretches the imagination and even seems to strain credulity. But the Master Designer has no such intelligence limitations, and He appears to have designed numerous proteins for multiple purposes.2

 He goes on to say that genetic relationships strongly correlate with taxonomic relationships.  According to him this provides another line of evidence.  So who has the better hypothesis?  The evolutionary hypothesis is held up by the fossil record, taxonomy, and genetics.  Plus it is predictive.  Jeason's hypothesis is held up by maybe taxonomy and does not explain the fossil record.  Also Jeason even admits that he at this junction has not found any other functions for these proteins.  He is just hypothesizing that they might be there.  Jeason hints that he may provide more evidence at a later date.

In a future issue we’ll tell you about a startling discovery we made when comparing genetic similarity among members of the same kind.

There was already over 80 comments, so I thought that I would respond here.  Someone in the comments is hailing this as the "right answer".  This same person says that the evolutionary explanation has been "refuted".  Let's be clear, Jeason has not demonstrated that he has the "right answer" and has not "refuted" the evolutionary explanation.  He has merely guessed that the proteins used in genetic testing have many other functions.  Until he manages to demonstrate these functions for these proteins he has not refuted anything.

Let's address one last comment.

This is not really anymore of a challenge than explaining similarities between a kangaroo and a kangaroo rat.  Convergent evolution produces similar traits through similar mechanisms.  In fact, the stinky striped possum is related closely to the Sugarglider.  As far as I can tell, unlike a skunk, striped possums stink, but do not spray.  Even Lightner places them into the "Gliding and striped possum kind".  So according to AiG, they are the same kind as a gliding marsupial.  

Correcting my orchard post

I try to be fair with people I disagree.  On that note, I want to publish a correction to a previous post about the creationist orchard.  You can read the full post by clicking on the next link.

Creation Orchard to Nowhere

...I am unclear about the bird.  Certainly there are pre-cenozoic birds, and some that would fit into one of the avian kinds. 

Correction 3-6-14:  Originally the last sentence said that no Mesozoic bird would fit into one of the avian kinds.  However, this probably is not true.  The entire order of Psittaciformes is considered the "Parrot Kind" by Lightner.  A Cretaceous parrot was found in 1998.

Also, a fossil Anseriformes has been found.  Here, it gets more complicated.  Lightner divides the order Anseriformes into three kinds.  While the fossil appears more closely related to the family Anatidae which Lightner calls the "Duck Kind" it is unclear if Lightner would place the fossil in this group.  In fact, the initial kind estimates as a rule tend to avoid all fossils.  Also, if there were Cretaceous Anseriformes, that seems to suggest that there were Cretaceous Galliformes, because molecular data suggests that Anseriformes and Galliformes both belong to the clade Galloanserae.  Lightner, of course, believes that Galliformes coexisted with dinosaurs, but for other reasons.  While she subdivided the order Anseriformes into three kinds, she kept the order Galliformes as one created kind.  She was forced to do this, because four of the five families have examples of cross family hybridization.   

[1] Wang, Xiaoming and Richard H. Tedford Dogs Their Fossil Relatives & Evolutionary History (New York: Columbia Press, 2008) 23