Bodie, go cut yo'se'f a switch, boy. It's time for a whuppin.

I appreciate many things about the Creation Museum. That it is in neither St. Louis nor Atlanta for starters. But most of all, it is the comic gold of a misguided, uneducated, staggeringly self-defeating pile of cretinous offal that keeps me slurping greedily at their trough like a...porn star slurping at whatever a porn star slurps.

But most of all, I like Bodie. Hi, Bodie! Bodie's just an average guy. He shows up to work at Jesusland, probably has a cup of coffee with him (he's not a Mormon, after all), and sits down at his desk like the rest of us. I imagine that in social situations, he is a lot like the guy from Office Space. No, not Ron Livingston's character. The guy who is obsessed with his Swingline stapler. Only instead of mumbling the same thing over and over about setting fires, Bodie is babbling about being unable to test evolution or some other ignorant rot.

(I was recently informed by one of my students that "ignorant" is taking on a meaning close to "clever." Somebody let me know when I should start calling Bodie "clever.")

Bodie apparently tried to make himself look better by answering a letter from a bottom feeder. No go. If nothing else, it only added depth to the multilayered stupidity which characterizes Bodies failed attempts at useful discourse.

I'm not going after to the ineffectual tit that Bodie is answering. At least they are, on the whole, more likely to leave the world a little better for their presence when they kick off, unlike Bodie.

I do not intend this as an attack on any of you, I simply wish to comment on many of the flawed accusations you throw at “evolutionary scientists”

Such as? What accusations are you referring to and where are the references?

Fuck you, Bodie. Take a goddamned look at the vast about of data out there on evolution, you soggy contraceptive sponge. Pretending to be scholarly doesn't mean shit when you cite lots of crap. Ask that failure Snelling. However, I never get tired of putting up my list of the idiot claims that AiG has made on its website:

You said that unicorns are real. You claim that the Beowulf story is evidence of human cohabitation with dinosaurs. You say that sometimes religious genocide is OK. You think that the government is training people to talk to aliens. You believe that evolution is a random process, a process of blind chance, which is just factually wrong. You target children because they can't defend themselves and trust you (talk about a cowardly act). You believe if a 2-year old understands it, it must be cutting edge science. You believe that observation and measurement cannot trump "common sense." You believe you do the type of science that you need "faith" to understand instead of, you know, "understanding" to understand. You believe...whatever the fuck this is. You employ the nanny-nanny boo-boo defense. Your ilk does not even try to publish outside of its little circle, and you set up a bogus journal to pretend that you were scholars, THEREBY AVOIDING THE DEBATE YOU CLAIM TO CRAVE. You stare at evolution, describe evolution, and then say, "It's not evolution."

What hope is that you would even benefit from citations, you feeb? Maybe he was just talking down to your level.

Let's get on with the stupid, Bodie. AND FUCKING PAY ATTENTION! I'M NOT GOING THROUGH THESE AGAIN.The writer says, "Evolution is not a belief...it is a fact. Religion is a belief." To this the slackwit replies:

Considering that evolution is a subset of the religion of humanism as clearly outlined in Humanist Manifesto, this puts you in a predicament.

Why do you assume that he subscribes to...whatever the humanist manifesto says? Did he sign it? Did he author it? If that's how you're going to play, I'm just going to call you a Mormon, since the Mormons believe the Bible and you know, more crazy shit, you are clearly a subsect of Mormonism. Idiot.

Evolution is a framework about the past that can never be repeated or tested and must be accepted by interpretation and authority. That is, by all measures, a belief.

Every mutherfukin time a fucking fossil is dug up, it is a fucking test of evo-fucking-lution. Can we replicate the shatter patterns of a brick dropping on the sidewalk from 4 stories up? No. Does that mean that the brick didn't hit the ground? No. Idiot.

Evolutionary belief violates some basic laws of nature.

Ooh, let me call the Nobel committee. Bodie Hodge gets his very own category for shattering all of the laws of the universe. Dick, your conception of information theory is metaphorical at best and ridiculous all the same; it violates no law of entropy; it has been observed. What fucking planet have you been living on? Oh, yeah, Kentucky. Sorry. You equivocate on the meaning of "belief." In one sense it is something that is accepted as true after studying the evidence and asserted until disconfirming evidence comes along. In your sense, it means, "Favorite asshat theory which thrives among idiots, independent of the millions of published observations in dozens of disciplines which you refuse to look at." Can you even name ONE peer-reviewed biology journal that you read on a regular basis? You can't, can you? You have nothing to teach anyone about facts. Idiot.

But note that good science is observable and repeatable—unlike evolution and its historical postulates.

Again. It has been observed. You are a transitional form (one shudders to think on the way to what, however). Idiot.

But for objectiveness to be valid requires a correct worldview with which to interpret empirical facts. There are two worldviews competing here. Science is a useful tool for examining the universe, but humans are not objective.

This is why we take ourselves out of the equation when we do experiments, you vomitious drinker of toilet water. Let's say you throw a dead jackrabbit and a copy of Ken Ham's new book (Why I Like to Do It With Girls) out off of a low bridge at the same time. They will accelerate at the same speed and hit the ground simultaneously, regardless of whether anyone sees or believes it. There is something out there to be measured, something independent of us and completely non-subjective. And...fuck...and! Fuck! Just because humans can misperceive things does not mean that they are misperceiving things when it comes to evolution. Idiot.

Also empiricism (that all knowledge must be obtained by experience), is self refuting. In other words, empiricism can never be proven empirically.

If you don't believe that emprical studies are possible, why do you pretend to do "creation science"? And I hate your definition of empiricism. Idiot.

when the most well acclaimed scientists and associations such as the National Academy of Science is doing nothing to dismantle the foundations of religion.

First, this is the fallacy of appeal to majority.

NO IT ISN'T! THIS USING EXPERT OPINION TO COME TO A IS AN APPEAL TO CREDIBLE AUTHORITY. This makes it more likely to be true than something espoused by a bunch of bathwater toe-lickers. It's not an ad populum. Now, it's not true because they believe it; they happen to subscribe to peer reviewed journals. One of the ways in which we muddle our way toward to probable truth is through looking at who says it and evaluating their expertise to make such a statement. This is why we can trust someone like, Eugenie Scott (call me, Eugenie!)...She has expertise. You have a stupid first name, and that's about it. Idiot.

I'm done.

HJ