31 October 2005


Welcome to the Greatest Show on the Internet. It's all about invertebrates, the rulers of this planet, our distant cousins. We've got the best spineless freaks, monsters, mutants, missing links, evolutionary dead ends and even a bearded lady, though she definitely has a spine.

There is plenty of time before the show starts. In the meantime, we would like to invite you to...

We have fabulous appetizers, sensational meals and scrumpdiddleumptious desserts. Please seat yourself and start looking at our menu. Your server will be with you in a minute. Bon appétit!


Arthropod sampler plate... $3.95

Box Elder Bug on passion vine leaves ... $3.25

Pickled snails ... $2.95

Woolly Bear caterpillars with extra fuzz ... $2.95

"Hi, my name is Sidonia. I will be your server."

Soups & Salads

White crownbeard salad with Swallowtails ... $4.25

Creosote bush salad with katydids ... $4.95

Sexless rotifer soup ... $5.95

Golden Orb Weaver sandwich ... $5.95

Mother and children reunion ... $4.50


Sea spider heads with arthropod segments ... $11.95

Mixed snails in the shell, over a pile of dirt ... $12.95

Sawfly larvae in pungent sauce ... $11.95

Butterflies à la king ... $12.25


Frozen Woolly Bear caterpillar ... $4.95

Ladyfingers with Hologram Moth topping ... $5.50

Pomegranate stuffed with paper wasps ... $5.50

Gulf Fritillary pudding with chrysanthemum ... $3.95

Spider jello flavored with staghorn sumac ... $3.50

How was everything? Please tip your server generously; she needs to buy lots of shavers.

Thanks to all the contributors. The 3rd performance of the Circus of the Spineless will be at the end of November at Urban Dragon Hunters.

A final note: My policy on this blog is not to have any links in any of my posts to any creationist (including "intelligent" design) sites. Hence I turned down a submission from one such site. I offer no apologies.

A final final note (Tuesday evening): OK, folks, we are not taking anymore comments on this post. It's time to move on.


Jenn said...

Awesome job with the Carnival! As fun to read as to visit the great links.

Krauze said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Great Carnival, and good for you for making a stand for science.

Cindy M. said...

excellent carnival Aydin, good job :)

Kingfisher said...

Excellent job and nicely organized. I was disappointed, however, at your fear of intelligent debate and dialogue. Very unscientific.

afarensis said...

Great layout! You are to be commended for not linking to ID or creationist sites!

PZ Myers said...

It isn't a matter of fear to reject empty lies from a discredited ideology.

It certainly isn't unscientific, either. Do you think scientists mollycoddle fools?

Ariel said...

The strange thing was that the site hosting the post accepts evolution. They are interested in exploring the topic of intelligent design, but do so particularly from an evolutionary perspective. So I am curious as to what you mean by "creationist"? Does the word refer to anything particular in the post, or in other posts on the site?


Nathan said...

I second Kingfishers comment on your censorship. Get real man! Are we dealing with science here or not! My view of science is that we look into all plausible hypotheses, not simply the ones which fit your mold of how you THINK this world operates. However, I can hardly blame, you, as this seems to be the mode of operation for the evolutionary theory, suppress competing ideas, and force yours on everyone else.

Nathan said...

pz meyers, you are very uninformed if you think that ID has been discredited. If it had been discredited, there would not be this continuous ongoing debate, and there would not be scientific articles being written on the subject.Get your facts straight.

Mrs T. said...

Nathan writes: 'you are very uninformed if you think that ID has been discredited'.

Nathan is correct, but only in a highly limited sense, and certainly not in the sense he thinks. ID creationism hasn't been discredited because it wasn't, emm, credited to begin with.

Nobody -- nobody -- in the current age has made or is making a good scientific case for ID. In America, various people are trying for reasons having nothing to do with science to get ID creationism into schools: ignorant people for religious reasons, wicked people for political reasons. (The categories needn't be mutually exclusive.)

In America, there is a constitutional reason why state schools cannot teach ID as science. Ironically, although the constitutional prohibition wouldn't be nearly as strong in most other parts of the civilised world, there is no serious agitation elsewhere to teach lies to schoolchildren.

Of course, there is no constitutional prohibition, in America or elsewhere, on linking to ID creationist sites from websites by and for people with a genuine interest in science. There is merely the fact that we don't wish to waste our time on nonsense. A site concerned with zoology would no more link to creationist blather than a site for geologists would link to a flat-earther.

Sometimes it's important for educated and intellectually honest people to link to creationist sites in order to expose them. But I'll let Nathan in on a little secret: doing so isn't fun, it's an onerous chore. The point of sciense really isn't to bash creationism; creationism is merely a vexing distraction. Whatever else is wrong with it, creationism is boring. Real science, of the sort celebrated in this edition of Circus of the Spineless, is exciting. There's no room here for creationism; it simply can't compete.

ScienceAsTruth said...

I'm sorry Nathan. I'm afraid it is you who is grossly uninformed and needs to get facts straight.

Intelligent Design is not a competing scientific idea, as you might suggest. Guess how many research papers on Intelligent Design Theory have been submitted through scientific peer-reviewed journals? ZERO. And answer me this question: What is the measurable mechanism of Intelligent Design? No one can say, apparently not even Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson or William Dembski. Golly gee, how do we test it, then?

When proponents of ID run into an analytical roadblock, their method is to toss a white flag of surrender and say, "we can't figure this out, so there must be a designer." Irreducible Complexity is a sham. When you can't figure something out the only conclusion you can come to is just exactly that you can't come to a conclusion! Would you suggest, under ID, when a complex problem presents itself that we simply stop thinking about it? Cease all investigative analysis, fieldwork and experimentation? Who is to say when we should stop trying to solve a particularly tough problem? What happens if some phenomena so labeled previously as "irreducibly complex" is one day explained through science? The overwhelming trend, throughout history, with science is to fill such gaps with knowledge.

Intelligent Design Theory (so-called) is nothing more than an argument from ignorance that promotes ignorance. It is standard creationist "god of the gaps" thinking belonging nowhere in science. Science rejects ID because it tells us absolutely nothing other than an opinion stemming out of faith and religious conviction. And before you try and nail me with "but everyone has faith" let me offer that science doesn't go beyond what there is evidence and argumentation for. The "extra belief" or faith of an "intelligent designer" goes beyond what there is evidence and argumentation for, which is precisely why it isn't science - it is religion.

You suggest relevance and credibility by the existence of a competing idea and debate. I can think of some other competing ideas out there. Shall we give credibility to the Flat Earth Society? How about Moon Landing Hoax advocates? Should the prognostic "methods" of astrology be taught in astronomy courses? The reason Intelligent Design movement grows has nothing to do with the existence of a debate, nor is its pervasiveness in the media and courts any indication that the scientific community is embracing it any way. On the contrary, the Institute for Creationist Research and the Discovery Institute are well-funded political machines embraced by people who just don't know. That's right- the ignorant.

Lay it on my, Nathan. Give it your best shot. What is the measurable mechanism of Intelligent Design?


If I prevented someone from defacing my property with graffiti, that wouldn't be censorship, would it?

This is my blog & if I don't like the rubbish (yes, that's what creationism is) someone has on his/her blog, I am not linking to it. It's that simple.

Besides, what I didn't link to is already out there. If you want to debate it, debate it on your blog. I won't be there.


I said no links to creationist sites. You are not using my blog to spread your nonsense. Don't you people understand?

Come to think of it, I already know the answer to that question.

Ariel said...


Again, the site hosting the post that you rejected actually accepts evolution. They are interested in exploring the topic of intelligent design, but do so from an evolutionary perspective. Thus, I am curious as to what you mean by "creationist"?

Is it sort of like calling someone whose religious views you disagree with a "funadmentalist"?


Ed Darrell said...

On the one hand, it makes me smile to see Krauze censored, the way I am censored at Krauze's site.

On the other hand, I prefer that Krauze's inanities be on display, even when children can see them, so the inanity will serve as a warning signal to sane folk.

Unless, of course, it was so profanity-laden that it can't be shown in mixed company.