Atheists: Get Out of the USA!

 
From my [confined] space comes this copy of a letter to the editor. I don't know which paper it appeared in.

Let me know if I can help out. I can arrange temporary residence in Canada and help you find a good job. I'll teach you how to speak Canadian and how to go about cancelling your health insurance. I can even put you in touch with someone who will buy all your guns.

I'll even treat you a curling broom and a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater to help you get adjusted as quickly as possible. Do you like poutine?

DDT Blocks the Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel

 
Monday's Molecule #16 is 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2 bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane, better known as DDT. DDT is a powerful insecticide. It binds to the voltage-gated sodium channel and locks it in the open state. Prolonged influx of sodium ions causes the nerves to fire repeatedly and this causes death of the insect.

The reason DDT is so powerful is due to its specificity. It binds to insect channel proteins but not to those of other animals (or plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria). Thus, it is an effective insecticide used to fight malaria and other insect borne diseases.

Unfortunately, even though DDT is not immediatly toxic to other animals it does have one disadvantage: it is extremely stable—its biological half-life is about eight years. Furthermore, DDT is stored in fatty tissues and its buildup in birds and fish resulted in considerable loss of these species. That, coupled with the evolution of DDT resistant insects, led to a ban of DDT in most countries by the 1970's.

Rachel Carson is largely credited with launching the environmental movement in 1962 with the publication of Silent Spring. The title refers to a world without birds. While I was writing this up I did a quick survey of the graduate students in the nearby labs and none of them had ever heard of Rachel Carson. Not only that, neither had several of my colleagues. I feel old.

One of the main targets of Silent Spring was DDT. By the time the book was published it was estimated that DDT had saved the lives of millions of people through prevention of malaria and thyphoid but it's effectiveness was much diminished. That's why the ban was not as controversial as it might have been.

Let's look at the biochemistry of DDT. We have already learned about the simple voltage-gated potassium channel. The Na⁺ (sodium) channel is closely related to the K⁺ channel protein. Recall that the K⁺ channel consists of four identical subunits surrounding a central hole through which K⁺ ions enter the cell.

The Na⁺ channel protein is much larger than the K⁺ channel subunit because it consists of four of the smaller subunits fused into a single polypeptide chain. The tolopology of the Na⁺ channel protein is shown below.

Each of the domains (I-IV) corresponds to a single subunit of the K⁺ channel. Like the K⁺ channel, the four domains of the Na⁺ channel protein are arranged around a central tunnel through which sodium ions enter the cell. The S5 and S6 helices line the tunnel.

The toplogy diagram above shows the locations of mutations conferring resistance to DDT and similar drugs. Each one represents mutants identified in resistant houseflies, fruit flies, mosquitos, or moths. The important mutations are substitutions at the 932 position normally occupied by leucine (L932) and at the 929 position normally occupied by threonine (T929) (blue dots). For example, the substition of isoleucine for threonine at 929 (T929I) confers almost complete resistance to DDT.

Incidently, the methionine at 918 (M918) is what confers sensitivity to DDT in the insect voltage-gated Na⁺ channel. Other animlas have a different amino acid at this position and they are not sensitive to DDT.

O'Reilly et al. (2006) modeled the structure of the Na⁺ channel using the known structures of the K⁺ channel proteins. This is necessary because the Na⁺ channel has not been crystallized. It's an excellent way to get a structure when you know that two proteins are homologous (descended from a common ancestor).

From the model, the authors were able to focus on the probable site of DDT binding based on the known mutations to resistance. In this case, they looked at the interface between helix S5 in Domain II and nearby helices S6 from Domain II (IIS6) and S6 from Domain III (IIIS6), which packs against IIS5 in the structure. They tried docking various insecticides in this region and came up with a good fit in all cases. The DDT binding site is shown below.

Note that the side chains of T929 and L932 interact directly with DDT. These are the sites of mutations to high levels of resistance. It looks like changes to these amino acids prevent binding of DDT and that's the basis of resistance.

The S4-S5 linker helix is shown in yellow in this figure. Recall that this is the helix that responds to membrane potential by reorienting to a more vertical position. This, in turn, shifts the S5 and S6 helices to more vertical postions and closes the channel. In the presence of DDT the S5 and S6 helices are effectively cross-linked and they cannot shift to a position where they move closer together. This prevents closing of the channel. DDT locks the channel in the open conformation leading to a continual influx of Na⁺, uncontrolled firing of the nerve, and eventual death.

O'Reilly, Andrias O., Khambay, Bhupinder P. S., Williamson, Martin S., Field, Linda M., Wallace, B. A., and Davies, T. G. Emyr (2006) Modelling insecticide-binding sites in the voltage-gated sodium channel. Biochem. J. (2006) 396:255–263.

Joni Mitchell Sings About DDT

 
Here's part of the lyrics from Big Yellow Taxi. I don't know about the rest of you but I'd much rather watch and listen to Joni Mitchell than Al Gore or David Suzuki. You may not recognize the song until you hear her sing it.

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Hey farmer farmer
Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!

Voltage-Gated Ion Channels

 
Cells have to import and export ions in order to survive. Since ions are charged molecules, they do not pass through the cell membrane. This means they have to be transported by proteins that are embedded in the membrane.

There are many different kinds of transporters. Some of them use up energy to move ions across the membrane by a process called active transport. Some of them simply open a channel and allow ions to pass through. Let's look at some channel proteins.

A typical channel protein consists of several subunits arranged around a central hole that permits passage of ions. In this case we'll be dealing with ion channel proteins that allow movement of Na⁺ (sodium) or K⁺ (potassium) ions from the outside of the cell (top) to the cytoplasm (bottom). The part of the protein that spans the membrane is usually an α helical region. In fact, there are usually several α helices in a channel protein.

The flow of ions must be regulated, so these channel proteins must be capable of opening and closing to allow or restrict the flow of Na⁺ or K⁺. This is why they're called gated channels. There are several ways of controlling the gate. We are going to be discussing mechanisms that respond to the membrane potential—the difference in charge on either side of the membrane. For example, the wave of membrane depolarization that occurs as a nerve impulse, or action potential, moves along the axon of a nerve cell.

These channel proteins are called voltage-gated ion channels.

The simplest kind of voltage-gated ion channels are the K⁺ (potassium) channels found in bacteria and in eukaryotes. The role of potassium channels is to allow influx of potassium if the concentration inside the cell drops below some minimal value. Normally the concentration of K⁺ in the cytoplasm is about 100 times greater than the concentration outside the cell because K⁺ ions are actively transported into the cell as Na⁺ ions are pumped out. The concentration of Na⁺ outside the cell is about 10 times higher than the inside concentration.

From time to time, these concentrations are perturbed (e.g., during the firing of a nerve impulse) and the sodium and potassium channels will open to restore the resting state concentrations. The gates in the ion channels will only open for 1 millisecond but this is enough to allow entry of thousands of ions per channel.

The structures of several bacterial K⁺ channels are known and recently the structure of the homologous channel from rat was solved. The structures are very similar. Let's look at the rat voltage-gated K⁺ channel (Longe et al. 2005a; Long et al. 2005b).

The complete channel consists of four identical subunits colored red, green, yellow, and blue in the figure on the left. The crystallized protein has an additional β subunit at the bottom attached to the T1 cytoplasmic domain but I've removed it in order to simplify the description. The β subunit contains an oxidoreductase activity that's coupled to the influx of potassium.

If you look at the structure of the single red subunit you can see that it consists of a bundle of four transmembrane α helices labelled S1-S4 on the left and two others (S5 and S6) on the top right. The S5 and S6 helices are the ones that form the central channel when the four subunits come together. This is most easily seen in the top view at the bottom of the figure. The black dot in the middle represent a K⁺ ion about to pass through the channel.

The structure shown is the open conformation that allows passage of ions. The closed conformation was modeled from the known structure of the bacterial channels and experimental data that implicated the S4-S5 linker helix in the gating process. You can see this linker helix in the figure above. It joins the S1-S4 bundle to the S5, S6 bundle. It is not one of the transmembrane helices. The results are shown below.

In the closed conformation, the S4-S5 helix responds to changes in the membrane potential by twisting from a horizontal position to a slightly more vertical position. This causes the S5 and S6 transmembrane helices to also adopt a more vertical orientation. Since the same conformational change occurs in all four subunits, the net effect is to make the entire protein more narrow and this closes the channel in the middle of the protein. The switch between the open and closed conformations is extremely rapid and it is very sensitive to changes in the membrane potential.

Long, Stephen B., Campbell, Ernest B., MacKinnon, Roderick (2005a) Crystal Structure of a Mammalian Voltage-Dependent Shaker Family K+ Channel. Science 309:897-903.

Long, Stephen B., Campbell, Ernest B., MacKinnon, Roderick (2005b) Voltage Sensor of Kv1.2: Structural Basis of Electromechanical Coupling. Science 309:903-908.

Ann Coulter Finally Gets Something Right

 
A Gentleman's C (love that title!) quotes Ann Coulter from her book Godless,

...Professors are the most cosseted, pussified, subsidized group of people in the U.S. workforce. They have concocted a system to preemptively protect themselves for not doing their jobs, known as "tenure." They make a lot of money, have health plans that would make New York City municipal workers' jaws drop, and work -- at most -- fifteen hours a week.

At last she gets something right ... or almost right. Well ... maybe a little bit right.

Tenure doesn't protect us from not doing our jobs, it protects us when we're doing our jobs. If you don't do your job you're going to lose it and tenure won't, and shouldn't, protect you. Tenure means that if Ann Coulter were a Professor she couldn't be fired for being such an ass, as long as she works hard at it. But that's a minor difference. For Ann Coulter, being 180° wrong is close enough.

Some Professors make a lot of money, but only when they get old. Most Professors make far less than they could if they were in the private sector. Some make less than a high school teacher. But that's a minor discrepancy. Ann Coulter is probably not familiar with how the real world lives.

Canadian Professors have a good health plan. But that's not very special since all Canadians have a good health plan. It's one of the benefits of living in a civilized society. Ann Coulter ought to try it sometime. Maybe she should move to Great Britain or Australia. They are pro-war staunch American allies. She'd like it there.

As for workload, I checked with my colleagues and they all agree that 15 hours a day is too much. The average seems to be closer to 10-11 hours a day during the week and another 10 or so hours on the weekend. The total comes out to about 60 hours. In this case Ann was being too generous. Professors put in a lot of hours but 15 hours per day is not sustainable over the long haul.

[Hat Tip: John Lynch]

Joni Mitchell Inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame

 
Joni Mitchell was born in Fort Macleod, Alberta but moved to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan at a young age. She's really a Saskatchewan girl.

Famous not only as a singer-songwriter but also as an artist, she was inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame on January 28, 2007 at the Toronto Convention Centre Gala. The performances, including James Taylor singing Woodstock, were just broadcast this evening on CBC.

Here's Joni singing one of her most famous songs Both Sides, Now also known as Clouds. Look below the fold to see her singing Woodstock. Here's a link to Chelsea Morning [lyrics], one of her signature songs. They just don't write 'em like that any more.

By the time we got to Woodstock
We were half a million strong
And everywhere there was song and celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bombers
Riding shotgun in the sky
And they were turning into butterflies
Above our nation

We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
back to the garden

Centre for Inquiry

 
Visit the Centre for Inquiry, Ontario. The new facility is just two blocks south of the main University of Toronto campus, and just a short walk from my office.

The grand opening is this Saturday night. I know you've got nothing better to do on Saturday night (the Brier semi-finals are in the afternoon) so come on out and help them get the ball rolling.

Don't forget to keep Thursday, March 22nd free for "God and Evolution."

God and Evolution

 
This is in my building. I'm going. Email me if you want to meet for dinner before it starts. (That includes you, Denyse. I'm buying!)

Brian Alters

Dan Brooks

The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls

 
I watched the TV show [ABC Special] on the The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa. It's very impressive. I'm certain that by educating the best and the brightest girls in South Africa (and perhaps all of Africa) Oprah is doing more to ensure the future of Africa than most others. The empowerment of women in Africa was a constant theme in the speeches of Stephen Lewis. I'm sure he's right and Oprah is helping. You can't help but be impressed by these young girls.

But this is the same Oprah Winfrey that fell hook line and sinker for "The Secret" [Oprah Winfrey Has a Secret]; a point that PZ Myers returns to today in Shame on Oprah. An article on Salon [Oprah's ugly secret] makes the same point. (PZ's comments are based on the Salon article.)

Here's some of the things Peter Birkenhead says in the Salon article.

Oprah's TV special about the Leadership Academy, essentially an hourlong infomercial, was just as well-coiffed and "visuals"-heavy. In fact, when Oprah was choosing her students, her important criteria must have included their television interview skills. On-camera interviews with the girls were the centerpiece of the special, but as one spunky, telegenic candidate after another beamed her smile at the camera, I couldn't help wondering how Joyce Carol Oates or Gertrude Stein or Madame Curie would have fared -- would they have "shined" and "glowed," or more likely talked in non-sound-bite-friendly paragraphs and maybe even, God forbid, the sometimes "dark" tones of authentic people, and been rejected. Sadly, the girls themselves (and who can blame them, desperate 12-year-olds trying to flatter their potential benefactor) parroted banal Oprah-isms, like "I want to be the best me I can be," and "Be a leader not a follower" and "Don't blend in, blend out," with smiley gusto.

When the special was over, I found myself equally impressed and queasy, one part hopeful, one part worried. I was happy the school was there, but disturbed by the way it created an instant upper class out of the students, in a country that doesn't exactly need any more segregation into haves and have-nots. I was hopeful for the students but nervous about what, exactly, they will be taught in a place called the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy. Will it be more "best me I can be" bromides? Will "The Secret" be on the syllabus? Oprah herself is going to teach "leadership classes" at the school, after all.

Has Oprah ever done anything that didn't leave people with mixed feelings?

Good point. The answer is yes, and no. I don't have any mixed feelings about her descent into superstitious nonsense and her gullibility when it comes to being duped by modern snake-oil salesmen. She's just plain wrong about "The Secret" and that other nonsense, and her popularity is hurting the cause of rationalism.

On the other hand, I really admire what she's trying to do in South Africa in spite of the "elitist" criticism. I'm not afraid of elitism when it's based on merit and achievement. But that admiration is tempered by the mixed feelings that Peter Birkenhead refers to. I wish there was another rich woman who felt passionately about educating black girls in Africa but who didn't come with Oprah's baggage.

I never thought about the kind of girls Oprah is selecting. I wonder about a 12 year old Gertrude Stein, or even a young Madeleine Albright. Would Jane Goodall have made the cut? What about Jane Fonda—would she have been picked? or Anne Frank?

There's no doubt that Oprah's doing a lot of good with her South African project, and with many other charitable works. And yeah, I know, her book club "gets people to read," and yadda yadda yadda. But there's also no doubt that a lot of us have been making forgiving disclaimers like that about Oprah for years. And that maybe they amount to trains-running-on-time arguments. Maybe it's time to stop. After reading "The Secret," it seemed to me that there were basically three possibilities: 1) Oprah really believes this stuff, and we should be very worried about her opening a school for anyone. 2) Oprah doesn't believe this stuff and we should be very, very worried about her opening a school for anyone. 3) Oprah doesn't know that any of this stuff is in the book or on her Web site and in a perfect world she wouldn't be allowed to open a school for anyone.

The things that Oprah does, like promoting "The Secret," can seem deceptively trivial, but it's precisely because they're silly that we should be concerned about their promotion by someone who is deadly earnest and deeply trusted by millions of people. It's important to start taking a look at Oprah because her philosophy has in many ways become the dominant one in our culture, even for people who would never consider themselves disciples. Somebody is buying enough copies of "The Secret" to make it No. 1 on the Amazon bestseller list. Those somebodies may be religious zealots or atheists, Republicans or Democrats, but they are all believers, to one degree or another, and, perhaps unwittingly, in aspects of the Oprah/"Secret" culture. And yes, sure, a lot of the believing they do is harmless fun -- everybody's got some kind of rabbit's foot in his pocket -- but we're not talking about rabbits' feet here, we're talking about whole, live rabbits pulled out of hats, and an audience that doesn't think it's being tricked.

This is a tough one. In an ideal world we would like to think that Oprah would come to her senses and realize that her personal philosophy is flawed. We would like to believe that she can change her mind and become rational. Then we would have the best of both worlds—a rich rational woman who is willing to spend her fortune to improve the world.

It ain't gonna happen, is it? At some point we need to make a choice. I'm hoping that the school will be taken over by more rational people when Oprah loses interest. I'm hoping that those bright young girls are too smart to fall for the pseudo-intellectual nonsense of "The Secret" (or religion, for that matter). Maybe they're a lot smarter than the women who show up for the taping of the Oprah Winfrey Show in Chicago. Wouldn't that be wonderful? How delicious it would be if five years from now a bevy of graduates from the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy were to denouce "The Secret"!

Here's the bottom line. It's scary when you put it like this.

Not that any of this is new. Aimee Semple McPherson, "The Power of Positive Thinking," Father Coughlin, est, James Van Praagh -- pick your influential snake-oil salesman or snake oil. They were all cut from the same cloth as Oprah and "The Secret." The big, big difference is, well, the bigness. The infinitely bigger reach of the Oprah empire and its emissaries. They make their predecessors look like kids with lemonade stands. It would be stupidly dangerous to dismiss Oprah and "The Secret" as silly, or ultimately meaningless. They're reaching more people than Harry Potter, for God-force's sake. That's why what Oprah does matters, and stinks. If you reach more people than Bill O'Reilly, if you have better name recognition than Nelson Mandela, if the books you endorse sell more than Stephen King's, you should take some responsibility for your effect on the culture. The most powerful woman in the world is taking advantage of people who are desperate for meaning, by passionately championing a product that mocks the very idea of a meaningful life.

That means something.

Six Reasons Why You Shouldn't Elect a Christian

 
John Wilkins makes the case for not electing a Christian to public office in the USA [Why Christians don't make good politicians].

1. They are exclusive, and will favour their own over the welfare of all. Minorities like Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other religions, as well as those who lack any religion, will be marginalised.
2. They have no moral sense, and will do whatever anyone in their faith community tells them they should do. They are religious relativists.
3. They try to impose their own views on others by law. They will try to make religious dogma binding on those who don't share their faith. They will "normalise" their own religious beliefs.
4. They are hypocrites, and will say one thing and do another. They will espouse Christ's teachings, and yet do the exact opposite - no fraternising with prostitutes or tax collectors, no care of strangers, no poverty vows for them.
5. The constitution (American or Australian) prohibits the establishment of religion.
6. They will try to impose religious holidays on the social calendar. Secular government must not make religious decisions on behalf of all people.

Are you convinced? Find out where these six reasons came from by going to John's blog.

Saskatchewan Beats New Brunswick 6-5

 
Team Saskatchewan beat New Brunswick last night to move into a three-way tie for third place with a record of 2 and 1 [CURLCAST].


The lead for Team Saskatchewan is Steve Lacock. Steve was the skip of the Canadian and World's Junior Champion teams in 2003 (left). He was born in my hometown of Yorkton, Saskatchewan and is the son of Gary Laycock, my cousin on my mother's side.

Mendel's Garden for March

 
The latest edition of Mendel's Garden is up on Behavioral Ecology Blog. Read it at Mendel's Garden: March 5, 2007.

There are articles on sex, milk, and spiders. You can also read about the future of evolution, how to decipher genomes. and DNA fingerprinting. There's an interesting article about what molecular biologists should be doing but in order to see it you have to join MySpace and that ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

I'm pleased that I was the only contributer who actually mentioned that famous monk, Gregor Mendel, in my submissions! I love religious scientists.

Atheists on ABC

 
ABC News broadcast a segment on the growing influence of atheists/ You can see it at Atheists Take On Religion. (If you're lucky, you won't have to watch the disgusting anti-drug commercial.)

The fact that a major network is addressing this issue relates to the debates on the blogs about appeasers, and "fundamentalist" atheists. The ABC segment mentions "The God Delusion" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. Sam Harris is interviewed by an ABC reporter. Does anyone doubt that it's the publicity generated by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that's driving the debate into the open? Here's what the ABC News reporter says,

This is just one example of the mounting assertiveness of atheists who are arguing loudly that religion is not only false but also a threat to civilization.

The main thrust of the story is the US Supreme Court case on Bush's faith-based initiatives. We've seen these type of challenge in the past and they've made the television news. But there's a big difference today. Look at this video clip to see the difference. What you're now seeing is some debate about atheism and the existence of God. Atheism is moving into the public consciousness and the media is starting to take it seriously.

The Supreme Court challenge is backed by an organization called "The Freedom from Religion Foundation" led by Dan Barker. He's a former fundamentalist preacher and when asked, "what are you preaching now," he replies,

Separation of state and church and reason and kindness in place of superstition.

Yes! That did not get edited out of the segment and the reporter didn't even flinch. That's progress folks. And make no mistake, we owe it to the "extremists" like Dawkins and Harris. The "kinder and gentler" approach of the atheist appeasers didn't drive any of this publicity.

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.NET]

Monday's Molecule #16

 
Name this molecule. You must be specific. We need the correct scientific name.

As usual, there's a connection between Monday's molecule and this Wednesday's Nobel Laureate. Bonus points for guessing Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s).

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

Why Intelligent Design Creationism Will Survive, According to the IDiots

 
Denyse O'Leary is worried. People are claiming that Intelligent Design Creationism is in trouble. Denyse disagrees [Why the predictions of ID’s demise are false].

The many predictions of ID’s demise, based on current theories, have been so completely and systematically falsified that it is time to look for explanations with better predictive value. Not only did ID not die out after various court cases in the United States, but it is now pretty much an international thing - contrary to many predictions.

ID is not happening because the folks at Discovery Institute are clever and nefariousor because American fundies run the planet. Four factors mainly account for its continued growth:

This is going to be fun ...

Let's see what four factors tell us that the IDiots are going to be around for a long time.

1. The general acceptance of Big Bang cosmology focused attention on the mathematical probabilities of Darwinism. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the world inside the cell turned out to be much more awesomely complex than anyone had realized. So, just when it should have triumphed, Darwinism received a one-two punch from reality. It is no accident that so many of the ID guys are in math, information sciences, and biochemistry, bioinformatics, etc.

As usual, the lead-off reason has nothing to do with intelligent design. It's all about so-called problems with evolution. Now this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. The IDiots are always telling us that they have solid scientific evidence for God the intelligent designer but when they get a chance to show us the evidence they always fall back on whining about evolution. How pathetic.

We scientists are not the least bit worried about the "awesome complexity" of cells. It all fits nicely with evolution. Furthermore, it's very misleading to suggest that there are "many" IDiots who are genuine researchers in math, biochemistry, etc. You can count the number on the fingers of two hands.

2. Not surprisingly, the current generation of Darwinists operates on faith, mostly. The recent involvement of key ultra-Darwinists in the activities of the Church of Atheism is, under the circumstances, a normal and foreseeable development. You see, once you commit to materialist atheism, something like Darwinism must be true. That lifts a crushing burden from the shoulders of the Darwinist.

Reason #2 for IDiot survival has nothing to do with evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism. It's just more complaints about so-called "Darwinists" and atheism. If you read #2 carefully you'll see nothing that suggests why IDC should survive.

Why are the IDiots such hypocrites? Why do they always claim to have positive evidence for IDC but the evidence turns out to be just anti-evolution diatribes?

3? And the Darwinists themselves are largely responsible for the success of ID. The ID guys are smart enough to serve their turn, to be sure, but they have also been lucky in finding so many meatheads among their opponents. The persecutions of Rick Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez, to name two, left little doubt that Darwinists did not expect to succeed by convincing anyone of the sweet reasonableness of their cause or their methods.

Are you seeing a trend here? Reason #3 for why intelligent design creationism will survive is because the "Darwinists" are meatheads. Sheesh! Is this the best she can do?

4. The fact that Darwinism is the creation story of materialism says nothing, one way or the other, about whether it is an accurate account of origins - but an important consequence follows. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it was an accurate creation story. The fact that it is any kind of a creation story at all means that it tends to be treated as both science AND religion. Those who affirm Darwinism often have a heavy emotional investment in it, in a way that they do not have in, say, continental drift. People notice this fact (it’s hard not to). That raises the justifiable suspicion that many arguments for Darwinism are put forward to boost faith, far beyond the argument’s actual strength.

Well there you have it, folks. The top four reasons for the success of intelligent design creationism are:

                  1. Darwinism is bad,
                  2. Darwinism is atheistic.
                  3. Darwinists are meatheads.
                  4. Darwinism is faith.

And you wonder why we call them IDiots?