Lord J-Bar For Democracy, Not Theocracy

Meet Me At My New Blog

2007-11-13T17:53:00.000-07:00

Well, it didn't take very long, but I now have my new blog up and running. I decided to go with The Iron Chariot for a title. To see why, you'll just have to go there and find out for yourself! The new blog's URL is:

http://theironchariot.blogspot.com

Anyway, the PBS special on the Dover Trial is about on. I'll post my thoughts afterwards at my new blog. Hope to see you there!

New Blog in the Works

2007-11-13T15:11:00.000-07:00

Greetings! For anyone who might still have their subscriptions active, I apologize for my extended disappearance. I've been through an long period of training for work, so I haven't had the time or desire to write much of anything. Fortunately, all that is coming to an end, and I am ready to get back into the swing of things. More than anything, I've missed being a part of the atheist blogosphere. It's nice to share ideas with like-minded people.

However, I will be moving to new blog. I've come to realize that this blog's title is a little too narrow and doesn't represent the breadth of the blog's topics. I'm still working on the new blog (I don't even have a name yet), but I'll post a link to it as soon as it's ready.

Anyway, I hope you'll join me as I continue to share my thoughts on living a life of reason.

Wherein I Respond to a Thoughtful Critique

2007-06-07T06:42:00.000-06:00

Throughout the time I've been writing on this blog I've been fortunate not to have encountered any trolls lurking in my comments section. Instead, most comments from theists have been thoughtful and productive. Recently, I just received a extremely thoughtful comment from Jesse V. in response to my recent post concerning evidence. In that post, I was mostly concerned with evidence in the purely scientific sense. However, Jesse's argument is from the historical perspective, using the available sources concerning particular events. Luckily, I majored in history, so I feel more than up to the challenge of debating Jesse's points.

Before getting into the history, Jesse says:

For example, can you prove what word I said yesterday at 12:52pm? No, not by the scientific method. The best you can do is ask those who were around me, IF there was anyone around me. At that point you are relying on the testimony of witnesses, which is not perfect, since someone may have forgotten what I said, or misheard me, or perhaps no one heard what I said. This doesn't mean it didn't happen. Much of written history that we accept would be thrown out the window on the basis of not having enough scientific evidence.

I won't go too in depth on this, but you could consider the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Basically, you have a cat in a box set in a situation where it has a 50% chance of either being killed or still living and you don't know which until you actually open the box. Schrödinger suggested that the cat would be both alive and dead until the act of observing it set it one way or the other. If you want to know more, I recommend reading the Wikipedia article here, but it basically suggests that anything that can happen will happen until the act of observing it establishes the reality. Jesse could have said anything at 12:52 or nothing at all. However, that's not the point of this post, I just wanted to bring it up to tickle your mind a bit.

Now, getting to the history. Jesse says:

You and I agree that "science is the best tool we have for understanding the workings of the universe." However, it is limited and not universal for proving truth as I have just demonstrated by way of example. When this happens, the wise among us would at least consider the testimony of witnesses and any other alternate methods for discerning truth from fiction. If one solely relied on the inadequate scientific method, then one would potentially be dismissing the vast majority of reality and truth.

This ignores the primary problem with history. Namely, historians can never determine the absolute truth of what happened. For the eyewitness accounts of what Jesse said at 12:52, we might have two witnesses relaying completely different accounts. The historian's job is to use his or her judgment and reasoning to determine the most accurate account. However, another historian could come and favor the opposite witness of the first historian. In reality, history never deals with absolutes. All historians can really do is provide what they feel is the most accurate description of the events with the evidence they have. I'll get into some examples later, but moving on:

In the case of the existence of a god, there may or may not be physical evidence. Perhaps there is but we don’t recognize it. In the mean time, one should consider the reliable corroborating (based on my research) testimonies of witnesses collected primarily in the Bible and elsewhere. In the end, it will not be scientific, but it remains that one must either reject, ignore, or believe the testimonies. In researching, one should be careful to read both sides of the argument. Just like anything else, it can be easy to misinterpret and abuse something that was written to a specific audience 2000 years ago in a different culture. Just because it can be misinterpreted, doesn’t make it false. It would be wise to read many different experts commentaries on the interpretations.

First off, I'd like to point out that you cannot corroborate the Bible with the Bible. Also, Jesse left out an important option: historians can accept parts of an account and reject those that seem unreasonable. One does not have to accept or reject the entire thing.

Now, the authors of the Gospels might not have been the Apostles. The apostles might not have ever existed. You can make the same argument concerning Plato. There is legitimate grounds for debate over whether or not Plato was a real person because no sources ouside his writings mention him. Plato may have been one person, several people, or even an Islamic scholar masquerading as a Greek author (unlikely, but you never know). That is the misfortune of ancient history. There’s simply little reliable evidence for what actually happened. We’ll probably never know the reality of those days long gone. This same problem exists for most of the ancient and classical authors including Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus, Livy, etc.

Where the doubt goes away is when various contemporary sources verify the existence of a specific person. For example, along with his own writings, Julius Caesar has multiple, contemporary sources from different authors verifying his existence along with the archaeological evidence. There’s really no doubt whether or not Caesar was a real person.

On the other hand, the Bible does not enjoy any contemporary evidence verifying the events related within. This goes for both Old and New Testaments. That doesn’t mean it’s all false, it just means we can’t be sure that the events described within actually happened. Therefore, any decent historian would treat the Bible with a degree of skepticism. Now, Jesse claims to have reliable outside evidence, and it would behoove him to provide it if he wants to strengthen his argument.

More importantly, the Gospels might not be eyewitness accounts. Historians aren’t sure if those actually are first-hand accounts. The most important rule historians learn is to not take anything at face value. Just because the Gospels say they’re first-person accounts doesn’t mean that they actually are or that they’re entirely accurate. For example, The Book of Mormon claims to be an eyewitness account too. Without the evidence to verify what people say in sources, they must be treated with a degree of skepticism. Even if they are eyewitness accounts, one must consider the author's bias.

Case and point, Julius Caesar’s commentaries on the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars are filled with over-exaggerations and pure falsehoods, and we know by looking at the other sources available that describe the events. Nevertheless, Caesar claims they are accurate. As it turns out, much of what he said was inflated or altered for his political gain. Sure, Caesar's writings are an eyewitness account that have some usefulness, but they are not 100% accurate.

In the same way, the authors of the Gospels might well have taken liberties with the truth to help spread their faith. Until we find archaeological or historical sources to validate what the Gospels say, they’re not particularly useful as historical accounts, especially when the Gospels themselves contradict each other (the link lists all the Bible's contradictions, but you can find the ones for the Gospels towards the bottom).

Now for a little bit about how sources can be used to verify a particular source.

Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War is the best, most detailed account we have for that conflict. We know the conflict happened because there are contemporary inscriptions commemorating the war and several contemporary mentions of it in other Greek writing. Many of these sources reference specific events in Thucydides’ writings. That’s how we know it’s reliable.

The other great Greek source, The Iliad, is the exact opposite. It’s not reliable at all as a pure history. First off, the epic was clearly written in 800 BC even though it describes events that supposedly took place in c.1250 BC. We know this because the style of warfare described in the epic matches ninth century BC style warfare and not that of the 13th century BC based on archaeological evidence. Furthermore, historians questioned whether or not the war even happened until Troy was discovered around the turn of the century and showed signs of having been destroyed. It provided the verifying evidence that the war at least happened. However, we don’t have any other sources for the events, so historians write off most of it as a myth. Instead of being an accurate account of the Trojan War, it teaches us the values and beliefs of Greeks living in the 9th century BC. Also, it has been well copied through the ages, but that doesn’t mean the Greek gods came down and fought with the combatants before the walls of Troy.

The Bible has the same problems as the Iliad. It references people and places we know to have existed. True, it has more references we can verify. It mentions Ramses and Augustus Caesar in the OT and NT, respectively. However, that wasn’t exactly a secret. They were the rulers of the most powerful Mediterranean nations at the time. This doesn't validate the Bible, though. It validates the existence of Augustus and Ramses. The problem is that none of the specific events in the Bible can be verified from other sources. The Egyptians never mention having Jewish slaves. The Romans make no mention of Jesus. Even contemporary Jewish writings make no mentions of Jesus. Therefore, the Bible simply shows that the authors were aware of the most powerful nations around them. Some of the events may very well be true. Unfortunately, we can’t verify that. Therefore, historians don’t use the Bible for an accurate historical account. But they do use it to understand the culture of the people who wrote it.

I guess my point in all of this is that history is not a discipline that deals in absolutes. Due to the paucity of available sources, historians are always seeking the truth, but will never actually find it. The best they can do is come to a bi of a consensus. This is the same in science. It cannot know anything for certainty. That's why it uses theories. They can change as new information comes to light. The same goes for history. It changes as new sources come to light, but nothing is ever absolute. The fact that Jesse suggests historians can discern absolute truth makes me slightly dubious about his historian credentials.

In the end, until some substantial sources arise verifying the Bible, it is pretty much useless as an "eyewitness account." Otherwise, we'd have to accept the Koran and The Book of Mormon as well, simply because they claim to be eyewitness accounts.

At any rate, Jesse, I hope you come back so we can continue this discussion.

Another Dover Seems to Be Brewing

2007-06-05T11:58:00.000-06:00

This time it's in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has more.

The Use of Evidence

2007-05-30T05:05:00.000-06:00

On my post concerning the Creation Museum, an anonymous commenter said:

"Notice atheism really has no evidence at all."

This person said it as if I was trying to hide the fact that atheism has no evidence. That couldn't be farther than the truth. In reality, the absence of evidence is the strongest case atheists can make against the existence of a god. Allow me to explain.

I consider myself a scientific atheist. Therefore, I feel science is the best tool we have for understanding the workings of the universe. Now, science is driven by evidence. Evidence is necessary to support or falsify any hypothesis or theory. Without evidence, no conclusions can be drawn either way. It simply is not considered.

Additionally, something that does not exist will, by definition, be incapable of leaving any evidence. This fact should be self-evident, but many seem unable to grasp this concept.

Anyway, this lack of evidence for a god has two implications. First, science can only work with evidence, and, since there is no evidence of a god, science must remain grounded in naturalistic explanations of the world. It cannot consider supernatural events for which there is no evidence. However, if evidence of a god did arise, then it would no longer be supernatural and would fall into the realm of the the natural world. At that point, science could then consider it. Nevertheless, that evidence has yet to appear.

Second, as a scientific atheist, I base my worldview on evidence and the conventions of science. No, I cannot prove that God does not exist. However, a lack of evidence is as close as science can come to proving the nonexistence of something, as I explained above.

In conclusion, atheism does not have any evidence. But that is the strongest scientific case atheists can make against the existence of a god. The burden of proof remains with the theists because they need to produce the testable, verifiable evidence that would establish God's existence. Until then, I see no reason to spend my time worrying about something that is not powerful enough to leave even the tiniest shred of evidence.

Creation Museum Opens Today

2007-05-28T08:38:00.000-06:00

If you were unaware, Ken Ham's Creation Museum opens today in Kentucky. Personally, I think it's a travesty and intellectual dishonesty in the highest degree to call something based on the Bible a museum of science. Don't get me wrong, Ham has every right to open the museum. This is America, and I won't stand for any censorship. However, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to complain. In my previous post, I already discussed my major problems with the museum, so I won't go into it again.

However, if you want to see what other rational thinkers are saying about this church, check out the Creation Museum Carnival put together by PZ Myers of Phryngula. He put a lot of work into it, so please, tell your friends and send some traffic his way and celebrate rational thought. Then when you're done, go visit a real museum and support legitimate science.

Opposing the Creation Museum is Good Science, Not Intolerance

2007-05-21T18:26:00.000-06:00

Last week the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon) launched a petition campaign against the Creation Museum's efforts to teach Creationism as science. Inevitably, Answers in Genesis (AiG), the organization operating the Creation Museum, has accused DefCon of being intolerant and trying to limit the free speech rights of AiG. Mark Looy, the author of the AiG article, says:

So it begs the question: why is a group that purportedly exists to defend the Constitution's First Amendment’s right to free speech wanting to keep people from being exposed to another view?

First, notice the erroneous use of "begs the question". That's a logical fallacy, unlike the phrase "raises the question", which would be the proper way for Looy to say what he's trying to write (Sorry, had to take that jab).

However, DefCon specifically points out that this is not the case:

[Ken] Ham [founder of AiG] is of course free to believe what he wants, but we are also free to voice our concern over Ham’s nefarious campaign to confuse America’s children and undermine scientific understanding.

Contrary to what AiG would like people to believe, it is not intolerance to point out the error in AiG's view of science. DefCon has every right (thanks to the First Amendment) to point out when AiG takes liberties with the truth. As AiG plainly states on their website in an attempt to explain their version of science:

Biblical creationists start with the assumption that the Bible provides an accurate eyewitness history of the universe as a basis for scientific thought. Evolutionists begin with the presupposition that only natural laws can be used to explain the facts.

Nevertheless, AiG never presents any evidence verifying the Bible, which is necessary to make accepting as true it a valid assumption. The simple reason AiG doesn't do this is because there is no evidence to support the historical or scientific veracity of the Bible. Of course, AiG turns around and states that (real) science starts from the assumption that there is no God and that only naturalistic explanations are accepted. While not necessarily true (many real scientists have a theistic world-view), the purely naturalistic presupposition is the only scientifically acceptable one because non-existent things, by definition, leave no evidence. You can't assume something for which there is no evidence, and, therefore, they are not considered. Conveniently, AiG refrains from this inconvenient truth in all its publications.

However, that does not stop AiG from using politically loaded words to get around this problem. As you can see in the quote above, AiG likes to say they are "exposing people to a different point of view". That sounds nice, but science is not democratic. The universe doesn't care what people believe. It simply is, and science seeks to discover its true properties. For example, if a group of scientists sees a clear liquid in a jar, they do not vote on what it is. If they did, the majority might vote for water. However, that does not change reality. If the liquid was originally mineral spirits, it remains so. Instead, scientists actually have to test the substance and and examine the evidence generated. Even though I love democracy, it has no place in the situation I just described.

Unfortunately, AiG doesn't care. They simply want to avoid scientists in general by appealing to the public and gaining their support. They want people to vote on which version of reality to accept, because they know how fickle the masses can be. People tend to vote for what sounds right rather than what actually is right, and AiG is perfectly willing to lie to make sure it happens. That is why people like me oppose the Creation Museum. It's not because we want to censor or take away the First Amendment Rights of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. They're free to build whatever they want on their land and believe whatever suits their fancy. We simply want AiG to stop lying and call their building what it really is: a church.

I also recommend you check out this article from Chris Hedges, which further explains why this "museum" is bad for America.

Quote of the Week

2007-05-18T23:22:00.000-06:00

I've neglected this for a while, but I'm bringing it back. This one made me smile in light of recent events:

"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

- Jerry Falwell, 1979.

Hmm...I guess not.

Enough False Sincerity (Lies)...Just Say What You Mean

2007-05-18T22:28:00.000-06:00

I admit it. I did not know much about Christopher Hitchens. I had seen a number of references to him on atheist blogs, but they usually lament his confrontational style. I just shrugged and never really thought about him again. I wish I had, because PZ Meyers of Pharyngula recently posted a couple of YouTube videos where Hitchens unabashedly shared his thoughts on Falwell. The first clip is what he said on CNN regarding Falwell's legacy:

I applaud Hitchens for being honest. I certainly agree with him that we should not revere evil men just because they've died. Does their mere death suddenly make their terrible acts in life worthwhile? I say nay.

The better clip is when Faux News invited Hitchens to defend his statement on Hannity and Colmes:

This clip actually made me burst out laughing. It's nice to see someone refusing to take the usual Faux News bullshit. I love how Hitchens runs roughshod over Hannity's (or Colmes'? I don't know. I don't watch that worthless network) attempts to distort his words.

I must say I agree with Hitchens wholeheartedly. Honesty is the best policy because fake sincerity won't make Falwell's attempts to subvert the Constitution any less terrifying. I hate making Hitler comparisons (they're usually an association fallacy), but I suppose it's a good extreme example to illustrate my point. Should people have ignored the terrible things Hitler did and focus on his positives merely because his brain activity ceased? I say no. Now, Falwell is certainly no Hitler. Of course, if given the same power, it's hard to say what Falwell might have done. But I digress.

It seems to me we should be true to ourselves and not pretend to feel sincerity when actually feeling the opposite. Sure, a person feeling a lack of sympathy would be wise and civil not to personally tell the deceased's family his feelings. However, we shouldn't close off all debate amongst everyone else. If a man was a bastard in life, the world shouldn't forget that. Otherwise, he can reappear in another form that much easier.

At any rate, after seeing this, I'm definitely going to read Hitchens' book. I'll let you know how it is.

Jerry Falwell Dies

2007-05-15T20:16:00.000-06:00

Today Jerry Falwell, founder of Moral Majority, died at age 73. I'm not going to publically cheer his death, but I will be frank about my feelings on this. In the 1980's Falwell was the face of the Christian Conservative movement. That mantle has since passed to people like James Dobson, but, in his time, Falwell did more to hurt America's civil liberties than anyone else. With his insistence on mixing fundamental Christianity with politics and his demonization of entire segments of society, Falwell's crusade seriously undermined the Constitution, tried to return our society to the Middle Ages, and helped spread "acceptable" forms of hate through his homophobia and dislike for non-Christians. I don't wish death on anyone. I know this life we have is the only one we've got, so everyone's time on Earth is precious. However, I will certainly not miss Falwell and America is better off without him. Good riddance.

Black Sun Journal has more on what Falwell did to harm America. Check it out here.

Thoughts on the Nightline Debate

2007-05-12T23:58:00.000-06:00

This is a little late, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the Nightline debate on ABC where the Rational Response Squad took on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here's the link to part one. You can get to the rest of the debate from there.

First, I want to put forth that I didn't watch all of it. I got bored with hearing the same creationist arguments and decided to do something else. However, I do want to say a bit about the parts that I did see.

The RRS did an excellent job, much better than I expected. They quickly addressed the glaring holes in Comfort's arguments and maintained a cool, light-hearted demeanor thoughout. My hat's off to them.

As for the glaring holes, well, they were pretty bad. For the second proof of God's existence, Comfort used to Ten Commandments, even though he promised to use scientific evidence and not invoke the Bible. Thankfully, the RRS immediately pointed this error out, which drew a great response from the crowd.

What was the eveidence you ask? Well, it was that we know painters make paintings, and builders build houses, so a creator must have made creation. The usual, "Gee, this is so complicated a god must have done it." Not exactly evidence of any sort.

Thankfully, the members of the RRS jumped on this and said that, through Comfort's line of reasoning, since everything must have a cause, then something had to make God. Comfort and Cameron refused to address this part, saying God is timeless and he doesn't apply to the logic that drives their argument. Just the usual dodging the question. Even the moderator came in on the atheist side, trying to get Comfort to address the problem.

As for Kirk Cameron, his arguments came down to: I was driving one day and I felt God, so he must be real. Meh. Whatever.

In the end, it wasn't anything we haven't heard before. I doubt the debate will change any minds, but at least the atheist side was well handled and came out looking like the rational ones. Of course, if you ask Ray Comfort, he thinks he won the debate. Please, click the link and read it so you can see that he's clearly comfortable with deluding himself. I could take him to task for it, but...he obviously deludes himself on a regular basis, so I don't feel like taking the time.

Atheist vs. Christian Debate on ABC Tonight

2007-05-09T04:42:00.000-06:00

In case you haven't heard, ABC will be airing a debate where Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron will take on the Rational Response Squad tonight on Nightline. It will be available online at ABC News Now sometime this afternoon.

Ray Comfort is the creationist who puts forth the unintentionally humorous argument that the banana is proof of God's existence. In case you haven't seen it, here it is:

It's really one of the lamer arguments for creationism that I've ever seen. My rebuttal: what about cows? Those don't come easy to eat. In short, you can probably expect some particularly irrational arguments out of this one.

As for Kirk Cameron, I don't know much about him other than he's a sitcom actor who found God. Whatever.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely enthused that the atheist side is being represented by the RRS. They kind of come across as the "rebellious youth" and probably won't be taken as seriously. I'm sure they'll do a decent job, but I'd rather see an intellectual like Sam Harris there to utterly mop the floor with Comfort. Oh well.

The RRS has released a home video of the debate. Here's a link if you want to watch it, but I'm going to wait for the actual broadcast so I can see it without any biases. I'll post my thoughts on it later.

Book of the Month: The "God" Part of the Brain

2007-05-02T07:47:00.000-06:00

Back in March I received my first ever solicitation from a publisher to review Matthew Alper’s The “God” Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Spirituality and God. Needless to say, I was excited at the prospect. It made me feel like I had finally achieved something as a blogger. Nevertheless, when I received the book, I made a promise to myself not to pander to the publisher and maintain a critical eye throughout the read so that I could provide an honest assessment. To do otherwise would make me feel intellectually dishonest, which is something I refuse to do. What I didn’t expect was how amazing The “God” Part of the Brain would turn out to be. Quite frankly, this is probably the best book I’ve ever read concerning atheism. The writing is great and easy to follow, and, more importantly, the book makes an excellent argument.

As the subtitle explains, Alper sets out to find a scientific explanation for the apparent compulsion humans feel to believe in a god and spirituality in general. Although Alper’s reasoning has drawbacks in a couple of places, which I will cover later, I feel he generally succeeds in his stated task. Not only that, but his logic addresses a number of disparate thoughts I’ve had on my own and ties them together in a comprehensive framework that simply makes sense to me.

The book begins with Alper’s personal reasons for exploring this particular topic, including his battles with LSD, which showed him how easily it was to alter one’s consciousness and personality. Alper saw this as direct evidence that one’s consciousness—what theists consider properties of an immortal soul—is entirely dependent on the electrochemical processes of the brain, thereby making the existence of any sort of spiritual realm a dubious supposition. This observation lays an important framework for the rest of the book. Namely, we are utterly dependent in the chemical and electrical functions of our brain for the basis of our personality and perception of reality.

Next, the book goes into the author’s loss of religion and quest to understand the nature of the universe through science. For the scientifically literate, this is little more than an overview of the current scientific understanding of the universe. Nevertheless, Alper’s writing abilities make it an interesting read.

With the scientific foundation laid down, Alper then moves to the primary hypothesis of the book, a concept he calls biotheology: the human compulsion to believe in a higher power and an afterlife are an evolutionarily evolved genetic trait that serves as a coping mechanism to alleviate our anxiety towards death. For evidence, Alper cites the universality of religion in human culture. Even though each religion has its differences, their basic foundations are remarkably similar in the same way that all languages share specific, essential characteristics. Thus, religion seems to be just another genetically inherited factor amongst several others that make up the human psyche. Certainly, Alper is not the first to suggest such a hypothesis, but he won me over with the novel rationalization behind it (granted, he may not be the first to have come up with this rationality, but it was new to me).

In essence, it all comes down to anxiety. Alper deftly explains how anxiety plays an essential role in the lives of every creature on Earth. It drives us to eat, sleep, mate, flee from danger, etc. Without anxiety, living organisms would feel no compulsion to perform the tasks necessary to our survival as an individual and a species. However, humans had a unique problem. As the first creature to be aware of its existence with the ability to plan ahead and ponder its place in the cosmos, early humans encountered an existential problem. Since we, unlike other organisms, are aware of our impending death, the resulting anxiety would provide a serious problem. After all, what purpose is there to succeeding in life if we’re just going to disappear? Alper argues that this would provide an inescapable source of anxiety with no solution, thereby making everyday function difficult at best. To deal with the problem, natural selection eventually found an end run around this anxiety. As a species, we began to see a spiritual side to ourselves, which we believed would survive death and last for eternity, thereby removing the anxiety of an inescapable demise. Furthermore, the belief that there are all-powerful, paternal figures personally caring for us provides another source of relief from anxiety. Combined, this genetically inherited belief in spirituality and god became the basis for all theistic thought. In an amusing irony, it seems we evolved the need for religion.

For the remainder of the book, Alper tackles the various experiences associated with religion including spiritual experiences, prayer, religious conversion, near-death experiences, speaking in tongues, morality, the existence of atheists, and even why America is more religious than every other developed nation in the world. The best sections come when Alper uses the finds from scientific research to support his hypotheses. His section on spiritual experiences is particularly effective because science has already had great deal of focus on this phenomenon, and Alper has a plethora of documentation to turn to. This includes studies with MRIs that show how meditation has a direct affect on the part of the brain associated with our sense of self. Indeed the sense of “being one with the universe” is nothing more than the restriction of blood flow to the part of the brain that keeps us grounded in reality.

In other areas, Alper deals with logic chains, which are not nearly as convincing. His section on the effects of personal prayer relies on a number interlinked hypotheses that all have to be true in order for the final conclusion to also be true. While he could very well be right that prayer relieves overall anxiety, thereby allowing the body to heal better because there’s less strain on the central nervous system, there’s simply not enough evidence available to support each part.

Another drawback is that Alper is not a scientist. While certainly no fault of his own, he can only rely on what he has taught himself and what the studies of others have found. I’m not saying a person must be a scientist to write about scientific matters. Indeed, I enjoy writing about science, and I’m no scientist. However, for a work that makes such bold, scientifically based conclusions, it would certainly lend Alper a far greater degree of credibility and authority.

Regardless of the shortcomings, I can’t deny that I like and almost entirely agree with Alper’s logic. His arguments are well conceived and well written and almost always backed by scientific research. Even when there’s little evidence to go off of, Alper still performs exceptional thought experiments that maintain their rationality throughout. I could go on and on recounting the great ideas in this book, but, for brevity’s sake, I’ll just ask you to read it for yourself.

In the end, I loved The “God” Part of the Brain. Perhaps it’s simply because Alper provided what I had been looking for. For a while now, I’ve felt there must be a biological reason for the human need for religion, and Alper provided the comprehensive explanation I had sought. While authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris provide excellent reasons to doubt the existence of a higher power, they don’t add much to understanding why we delude ourselves. Alper effectively fills in this gap for those atheists wishing to find the answer. More than anything, it forces nonbelievers to consider the reality of our situation. If belief in religion actually is a genetically inherited trait, then it’s not going away anytime soon. With this understanding, perhaps we can find more effective means of communicating with theists in a way that is constructive for both sides so that we can all work together towards a more positive future.

I want to thank Sourcebooks for providing me with Alper’s book. More importantly, I want to thank them for bringing this book to my attention. It truly is a worthwhile read and I recommend you go out and pick it up.

My Beliefs: We Make Our Own Purpose in Life

2007-04-30T16:08:00.000-06:00

I haven't written one of these in a while, but today I thought I'd write about a belief that's a major component of my worldview. If you've read much of anything I've posted here, you know I don't believe in the existence of a god. I won't go into the reasons why here, but I do not see a grand plan in the universe. However, contrary to what many theists believe about atheism, that does not mean I think that life is pointless. I do not believe we are all doomed to suffer meaningless lives just because there is no paternal figure in the sky watching after us. Instead, I feel we can and should make our own purpose in life.

Obviously, this is an entirely relativist position, which means that different people will come up with wildly different meanings for their lives, for better or worse. While this may not sit well with many people, to make claims against the reality of relativism is to deny the ample evidence of human history. Certainly, the Nazis did terrible things because they made their ideology their purpose in life, and other similarly distasteful individuals have found insidious purposes for their lives. However, that doesn't mean that people can't put forth the same amount of effort towards something positive. Whenever there's a major disaster, people turn out in droves to help, and aid money pours in to finance the recovery. This is not the work of a god showing his mercy. It's the efforts of a group of people working together to do something positive. In much the same way, the Nazis and Japanese were not stopped by an act of god. It took the herculean efforts of several nations over six years to end that nightmare.

Before I get into too much more of a tanget, Id like to make my point. Even though I believe we might be alone in the spiritual sense, there are still over 6 billion other people in this world sharing the human experience. When enough of us come together, we can either do works of great evil or do truly amazing things that greatly improve the richness of all our lives. It's your choice which path you choose. You just have to be willing to deal with how your fellow humans will view your actions. As far as I see it, we don't need to please anyone other than those with whom we share this planet. Technically, we don't need to please anyone. However, my position is that I want to make the world a better place for future generations so they have lives that are even more fulfilling than my own. If you want to suffer trying to appease a being who refuses to reciprocate, that's fine by me. I'm going to enjoy life and do whatever I can to help others do the same. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

My Work is Done!

2007-04-30T16:06:00.000-06:00

I finally finished my thesis and my other minor papers, so the five of you that read this should start seeing regular posts once again...until my schedule fills up again in July. At any rate, I'll be ranting strong until then.

Best Pro-Choice Argument I've Seen in a While

2007-04-25T09:35:00.000-06:00

There's nothing like personal experience to put a debate in context. More often than not the pro-choice/pro-life debate comes down to nothing more than rhetoric and ideology, particularly on the pro-life side of the debate. That's one reason I don't like to get involved in abortion debates. There's simply too much emotion involved. Plus, I'm a male, so I don't think it's my place to decide what a woman does with her body, anyway. However, the aspect that most pro-lifers tend to forget is how their desired results would affect the actual people involved.

I came across a heart-wrenching post (thanks to Pharyngula) about a husband who had to struggle with this very problem. In it, the author relates an instance where his wife and he did not want an abortion, but complications made it increasingly likely the mother would die without one, and, due to her condition, placed the decision squarely on the husbad's shoulders. More than anything, it shows how government involvment in a difficult time would simply make it even worse.

It's an eye-opening article, so check it out.

We All Knew This Was Coming

2007-04-17T09:36:00.000-06:00

It was only a matter of time before some creationist hack blamed the Virginia Tech shooting on evolution. I'm surprised it took this long (of course, it could have come sooner, this is just the first instance that came to my attention). What's not surprising is that it came from Ken Ham, the founder of the creationist organization Answers in Genesis.

Here's some of what Ham had to say:

We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals—and humans—arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking. In fact, the more a culture allows the killing of the unborn, the more we will see people treating life in general as “cheap.”

I’m not at all saying that the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution. I don’t know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin. However, when we see such death and violence, it is a reminder to us that without God’s Word (and the literal history in Genesis 1–11), people will not understand why such things happen.

Now how does Ham support this conclusion? Well, he begins his tirade with this:

When such terrible acts occur (and sadly, random violence is occurring more frequently these days)...

Now that's an unsubstantiated assertion if I ever heard one. Of course, Ham never bothers to offer evidence. If he tried, it would simply counter his claim that things are much worse now than they used to be. Now, I like to live in reality, and the reality is that things are not worse now than they have been before. In fact, violent crimes dropped dramatically in 1994. Unlike Ken Ham, I will use evidence. Here's a good chart from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Hmm. Crimes are lower than they used to be, but the theory of evolution was still taught in schools from 1994 onwards. What do you make of that Mr. Ham?

More than anything, this "it's much worse now than it used to be" is a common myth the Religious Right uses to justify imposing their narrow ideology on the nation. It's simply a lie to justify taking away our freedoms.

Now, we can also look at a time when Western Civilization was completely grounded in Christianity and Biblical principles to test Ham's claim that it would make society a perfect utopia. There's only one problem for Ham. The best example of a Biblical-based society was in the Middle Ages. During that time, there were no random acts of violence whatsoever, right? Oh wait, it was one of the most violent periods of human history.

In reality, the Virginia Tech shooting was a result of one thing: humans are inherently violent. We always have been. We probably always will be. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality of our existence. Violence didn't suddenly appear in 1859 when Darwin published Origin of Species. Certainly, this heinous crime is a tragedy, and we must do everything we can to prevent it from happening in the future. However, it will take a rational look at this particular situation to find proper deterrents. Using it to justify an assault on our free society is not only wrong, but it is a dispicable way of using another's tragedy for your own purposes.

Ken Ham, you make me sick.

Thanks to Respectful Insolence for bringing this to my attention.

Debbie Schlussel: Muslims Must Have Done It

2007-04-17T05:39:00.000-06:00

First off, I want to say how saddened I am by the shootings at Virginia Tech yesterday. It's always despicable when someone decides to use violence against their fellow human beings. My thoughts are with the families of the victims in the hopes that they will find the solace to cope with and overcome this tragedy.

I also hoped that people would not use this tragedy as an excuse to try and validate their intolerances, but I guess I hoped for too much because Debbie Schlussel has already done so.

You may or may not remember Debbie Schlussel. She was the woman who showed her ignorance and bigotry towards athiests on CNN and then continued to look like an intolerant dumbass on her blog afterwards when she insisted that atheism makes people Muslim extremists (see my post on the subject here). Anyway, she has come to my attention once again (thanks to Pharyngula) when she decided to open her mouth on the Virginia Tech shootings. Who did she blame without any evidence? Why Muslims, of course.

Why am I speculating that the "Asian" gunman is a Pakistani Muslim? Because law enforcement and the media strangely won't tell us more specifically who the gunman is. Why?

Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students.

Now, I know she's Jewish, and there's a bit of bad blood between Jews and Muslims, but come on. This is hysteria plain and simple. Without hearing anything beyond the fact that the shooter was "Asian", Schlussel immediately assumed it was the ubiquitous "Muslim terrorist" because the police and media won't say who it is. Right. So the media has stopped all information on this case from reaching the public? Vast, left-wing conspiracy, eh?

Now, I know Schlussel is quite the conspiracy theorist (she also thinks rising atheism in Europe is making Europeans fundamentalist Muslims, nevermind the fact that there's been a massive influx of immigrants from the Middle East), but this is rediculous. In the case of the identity of the VT shooter, the answer is probably the most pedestrian. It's an ongoing investigation and the police rarely release the names of suspects for the first few days. Look at what happened after Columbine. It took a couple of days before the police released any of their findings.

Debbie, how about you wait for the facts and keep your hysterics to a minimum? If it's a problem with anxiety, Im sure your doctor can prescribe something to help you out.

Of course, when it came out that the shooter was actually Chinese and not a Pakistani Muslim, Schlussel immediately posted this update:

The shooter has now been identified as a Chinese national here on a student visa. Lovely. Yet another reason to stop letting in so many foreign students.

Okay, so maybe she not a conspiracy theorist. She's just scared of everyone who isn't white. Damn xenophobe.

Why Fundamentalists Struggle to Maintain Their Numbers

2007-04-17T04:38:00.000-06:00

Daily Kos has a great article by Mary about why fundamentalists struggle to maintain their numbers in the modern, scientific world. The title, "Who Are You Going to Trust, Me or Your Lying Eyes?", basically spells out the central idea of the essay that the younger generation has trouble rejecting reality enough to buy into the fundamentalist nonsense since science and reason does a much better job appealing to a person's common sense.

I can't speak from experience. I grew up in a casually religious family, so there was never an insistence to adhere to any rigid dogma. However, the conclusions in Mary's article seem reasonable to me because, when it came to choosing one worldview or the other, I quickly went with the one that conformed to reality.

At any rate, the article gives me hope that the continued march of science will bring a slow death to the scourge of religious fundamentalism. Call me an optimist, but it keeps me going.

Oh that South Park

2007-04-09T14:34:00.000-06:00

I am moved to post again because I recently view an episode of South Park that had particularly interesting social/political overtones. The recent episode entitled Cartman Sucks had in it, among other crude attempts at humor, a rather interesting social dynamic involving the naive character Butters. After being tricked by Cartman, Butter's father catches him performing what appears to be a homosexual act and immediately questions Butters. Not knowing what is going on, Butters admits that he is confused as to his gender preference referred to in the episode as "bicurious." Butter's parents’ solution is to send him to a camp to "Pray the Gay Away" but unfortunately for the camp administration, the "confused" campers continually commit suicide. Butters, who is not actually gay, eventually saves the life of a fellow camper about to commit suicide by standing up and declaring that it is ok to be "bicurious" because essentially God made them that way. Though he has no idea what is really going on, Butters and South Park, in their crude yet humorous way that we have all grown to love, have hit upon an important point that has long gone un-recognized in society.

Homosexuality is not a choice. People do not choose to face the ridiculing scorn of an un-accepting public. They do not choose to be ostracized, told they are wrong, and forced to either pretend to be something they are not or worse yet, kill themselves. In one instance in the episode the campers are exposed to a clergyman who has been supposedly "cured" of his gayness. Yet he is the most gay of all of them. Homosexuality is not a disease, it is not a choice, and it is not evil. God (editor's note: notice this is GreatScott! and not me who wrote this. I promise I haven't radically changed my worldview in the last few hours--J-Bar) makes everyone; God loves his children. The God I worship does not love conditionally. He does not punish his children for being different. All that should matter is how you treat other people and the world around you, for God has made everyone in his imagine, not just the select few of fundamentalist Christians who see fight to oppress those who disagree with them. I would have thought we Christians of this world to have learned the lesson the Romans taught us so very long ago. That is violence and hatred will not snuff out people. Trying to destroy what you do not understand will sooner destroy you. We treat homosexuals as the ancient Romans treated us and we should be ashamed.

We could all stand to learn a thing or two from the naive idealism encapsulated in the character Butters.

Are Geeks More Likely to be Atheist?

2007-04-09T11:17:00.000-06:00

Okay, I have a confession to make: I'm a huge geek. I mean, I can tell you the name of the fictional company that made the equally fictional Star Destroyers in Star Wars, and that's common knowledge for Star Wars geeks. You don't even want to see how far I can go with this, but I'm comfortable with it.

Anyway, I came across an interesting article (thanks to Five Public Opinons) that talks about the positive correlation between being a geek and having an atheist worldview. The authors rightly avoid the "geeks are smarter" argument and instead argue:

...geeks are not atheists simply because they may know "more" but also because they choose to think differently (whether or not they think superiorly is a question for another debate).

I think the authors make some good points, so check it out and see what you think.

Blog Against Theocracy: The Problem With End Timers

2007-04-07T10:46:00.000-06:00

All this weekend, a plethora of secularist bloggers are blogging against theocracy. To start off my humble contribution, I wanted to repost a little missive I wrote last year to hold you over while I get some new stuff ready:

First, let me tell you who End Timers are. They are the bulk of the evangelical right who believe that the book of Revelations accurately predicts the second coming of Jesus. When this happens there will be plagues, natural disasters, genocide, war, etc. Luckily for Christians, they think they’ll be “ruptured” into heaven to dance and party with Jesus until the end of time. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the Antichrist will call all the nonbelievers to his side to destroy the remaining Christians (poor bastards, I guess they didn’t believe enough in the first place). Luckily, Jesus will come back in seven years as a superhero and smite the forces of the Antichrist, judge all of humanity, and then reign on Earth for the next thousand years. And it’s all going to start in the next fifty years. Don’t believe me? Read the Left Behind series by Tim Lahay. This money grubber lays it out exactly how fundamental Christians think it will happen.

The problem with prophecy is that it can become self-fulfilling. Evangelicals today want to do everything they can to hasten Jesus’ return. They support war in the Middle East, refuse to allow Israel to give up land to the Palestinians, and don’t care about global warming. Why? Because these are the events that will hasten Jesus’ second coming. That’s all well and good…unless it’s not what Revelations means at all.

The idea of the Rapture first appeared in the 1800s. It’s not an ancient belief at all. Furthermore, the author of Revelations was writing for a contemporary audience. The Christians of the time rightly feared the Romans and believed that Jesus was going to come back and destroy the Roman Empire in the same generation. But here Christians are 2000 years later, still waiting for Jesus to save them.

Because of the control the RR (Religious Right) has on our government (not to mention our born again President) through the Republican Party, this belief in the End Time permeates through government policy. Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty to stop global warming, and believes that he is doing God’s work in Iraq. It also widens the division between religions until there is no chance for reconciliation. It’s all ludicrous. When people stop caring about this world, what happens to this one? What do we leave our children? This belief in prophecy must stop if we want to survive as a species and give our descendents a decent place to live.

Supreme Court Rules Against Bush Administration

2007-04-03T18:53:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. Between school work and my laziness, I just haven't had the desire lately. However, there was an interesting development yesterday.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court Ruled yesterday on Massachusetts v. EPA deciding 5-4 against the EPA. The case decided whether or not the EPA has an obligation to enforce the Clean Air Act and, if they choose not to, states can enforce it instead.

The Bush Administration had claimed that the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA the right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. However, the states and environmental groups filing suit pursauded enough of the court that carbon dioxide emissions pose a serious threat to their security and that the EPA must follow its own regulations.

Even better, the majority opinion said that if the EPA doesn't want to regulate specific emissions, it must provide valid, scientific proof that the emissions are not harmful rather than a set of unrelated objections. Since the scientific community pretty much agrees on the reality of global warming, that makes it extremely difficult for the EPA to refuse to act.

Perhaps now this ruling will force the EPA to finally do its job regardless of any kicking and screaming coming from the White House.

Read more at the New York Times.

The part of thise ruling is the fact that the court doesn't seem to have become crazy conservative with Bush's appointees. Of course, they were both amongst the dissenters along with Scalia and Thomas, but that's to be expected. Perhaps the Court is less liberal, but I can live with a moderate one as long as it doesn't destroy all the progessive gains that have been made over the past half century. It gives me hope that they'll rule properly in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation over whether or not taxpayers can file suit against the unconstitutional Faith-Based Initiatives. I suppose only time will tell.

Former Senator Santorum Hates Freedom

2007-03-24T07:16:00.000-06:00

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a rather troubling interview with former Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. It seems the man is going through a severe case of denial. I guess that's understandable when you lose the popularity contest that is an election. Here's the first bit of craziness:

"I still believe that this country is a center-right country and not like Europe which is left or center-left," he said during a telephone conversation on Monday. "And the Republican Party still by and large is the majority party."

Riiiiight. Notice how he used the word "believe". So instead of actually looking at the data of the last election--which is available, I promise--he chooses to believe that everyone still unconditionally loves the Republican Party. What a nice, comforting fantasy. So why does he think the Democrats won in 2006?

"It's the war, it's the war, it's the war," he said. "We have an obligation to be more honest with the American public about the nature of the enemy we fight and the gravity of the fight that we have." He says "terrorist" is a euphemism.
"Why don't we say who they really are?" he asks. "They are Islamic fascists. This is a war against a strain of Islam which is not a fringe radical strain but a substantial strain of Islam."

Okay, that's perhaps a little more grounded in reality. The hatred against America is very real in the Middle East, but it seems likely the war in Iraq has only made it worse. However, when Mr. Santorum calls Islamic fundamentalists "fascists", I don't think he realizes his extreme hypocrisy when he says the next statement:

"I have real concerns about the libertarianish-right," Santorum says. "They depart from me on issues that I think are foundational, which is traditional moral values." Those values hold together the American family, he says.

I see. So instead of submitting to Islamic fascists, Americans need to submit to Christian fascists who want to have complete control over what consenting adults do in their private life. Family values/traditional values/fascism...it's really all the same thing. It's a way of making people adhere to a strict doctrine regardless of what the Constitution says.

I'm really glad voters decided to take this asshat's job away. He needed a bit of a reality check (unfortunately, it didn't seem to work). If this country has any "traditional values" then they are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not the government intruding on its citizens' private lives and forcing them to a religion's particular view on human relationships. Keep it in the church where it belongs.

Mr. Santorum, why do you hate freedom?

Blog Against Theocracy

2007-03-22T05:55:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to spread the word about an upcoming blog swarm whose subject is near and dear to my heart (from Neural Gourmet):

I'd like invite you all to Blog Against Theocracy. This is a little blog swarm being put together by everybody's favorite panties blogger Blue Gal for Easter weekend, April 6th through the 8th. The idea is simple. Just post something related to, and in support of, the separation of church and state each of those three days. Something big, something small, artistic, musical, textual or otherwise. The topic is your choosing. Whether your thing is stem cell research, intelligent design/Creationism, abortion rights, etc., it's all good. Separation of church and state impacts so many issues and is essential.
Blue Gal is still putting the finishing touches on everything and tying up loose ends so check in regularly with her for updates. In the meantime, if you need a little information to tickle your muse then you'll want to check over at First Freedom First for a ton of excellent resources. FFF is a partnership of two very cool groups; Americans United For Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation. Also, I can personally recommend this interview on CFI's Point of Inquiry podcast with Susan Jacoby, author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. The Center For Inquiry is just one of many supporters of the FFF project.
So get involved in a little blogactivism and help raise awareness on the need to preserve separation of church and state and protecting the First Amendment. Your help in recruiting bloggers for Blog Against Theocracy is needed and appreciated too.

Since being against theocracy is one of the main points of my blog (after all, it is in the title), I will certainly be taking part in this blog swarm and will save up all my good anti-theocracy rants until then. I hope you join us and do what you can to increase awareness on the thin ice our government has been toeing for the past few years.

The Attorney Purge Controversy Gets Interesting

2007-03-20T17:35:00.000-06:00

After watching President Bush's press conference earlier today, I couldn't help but feel like we're seeing the beginning of a constitutional showdown here between Congress and the Bush Administration.

Now, the firings of the US attorneys are somewhat shady by themselves. All of them had satisfactory job reviews and no reason for being fired, unlike all but two of the ten attorneys asked to retire in the previous 25 years. Clearly, there's an overt political reason here since they didn't pursue Republican goals enough. But that's not surprising or the real problem since US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and he can fire them at any time.

The real problem is that Bush is refusing to allow members of his staff to testify before Congress under oath. The "reasonable offer" Bush kept referring to in the recent press conference is anything but. He will allow a bipartisan panel from Congress to interview Rove and Miers as long as it is not under oath, behind closed doors, and there will be no transcript of the meeting. Clearly, he has something to hide because this offer basically says, "My staff should be allowed to lie to protect the administration." What's the matter Bush? Afriad Rove will have to disclose too much about the corrupt workings of your administration?

The Administration has tried to defend itself by saying that there is no precedent for White House staffers testifying before Congress. There's only one problem: that's not true at all. 31 of Clinton's advisors testified before Congress on 47 different occasions. Hmm. Slight bit of misinformation (read: lie) there.

Bush also said that he, as the head of a separate branch of government, does not have to send his staffers before Congress because they have to be able to say what they want without fear of being held accountable for what they say. That way, Bush says, he can get honest advice to be more effective. I say bullshit. Why should Bush's staffers not be accountable for what they say unless you want to cover something up? Claiming this kind of executive privilege stinks of Nixon to me, and we know how that turned out.

Next, Bush accused Democrats of fishing for political points. While I don't doubt that whatsoever, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Of all those times Clinton's advisors testified before the Republican-controlled Congress, does Bush seriously think it was never for the Republicans to score political points? Saying politicians are doing something for political reasons..well, no shit Sherlock.

The next step Congress can take is to issue subpoenas. If Rove and Miers refuse to appear, as Bush promised they will, then Congress can vote to find them in contempt of Congress, which means it will go to the courts. In short, this could get interesting very fast.

It's obvious that Bush is trying to hide something. If his administration is innocent of wrongdoing, then he should have no reason to fear his advisors testifying under oath. I really hope this is where Bush finally learns that the game is up. He needs to realize that he is not actually the Emperor of America, but just one part of a three branch government that serves the will of the people. Now, I just hope the Democrats see this through to the end and don't chicken out.

Ann Coulter Has a New Book (Maybe She'll Tell Us How She Really Feels)

2007-03-20T05:53:00.001-06:00

Uh-oh. Someone let Ann Coulter near a computer long enough for her to reguritate a new book. From the title alone, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans you can pretty much guess what it will be about. Yep, more of the same: Democrats hate America, true Republicans are the warm, fuzzy example of how to lead prefectly virtuous lives while calling the opposition every bigoted name their god-fearing minds can conjure up. Classy stuff.

Seriously, why would people keep buying her books? She repeats the same unfounded nonsense over and over. Of course, I guess she did branch out into evolution in her last book, but the ignorance she displayed there might actually be the answer to the repetitivness of her books. She doesn't know how to do anything except come up with creative ways to call people she doesn't agree with derogatory names. It's actually kind of sad. Ann Coulter's only real skill in life is to be a name-caller. What a trite and meaningless existence.

Unfortunately, her crass description of John Edwards hasn't affected her publisher's decision to produce the book. From The Book Standard:

Ann Coulter may be dealing with newspapers upset over her use of an anti-gay slur to describe former North Carolina senator John Edwards, but she is having no problems with her latest book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, which is set to be published in October by Crown Publishing Group.

"We have a book with her on our fall list and have no plans on altering our current publication plans," said Steve Ross, Crown publisher and senior vice president, according to the Associated Press. "Every book we have published with Ann has been a major bestseller and we expect the same with the upcoming title."

As if popularity validates someone's ideas. Hitler's ideas were popular for a while too. However, Ann Coulter is certainly no Hitler. She's just an angry woman who gets joy out of calling other people names to make herself feel better. Kind of like the popular girl at school. Sure, people want to be like her now, but in a few years she'll have no friends and will wonder where all her good looks have gone.

My First Book to Review

2007-03-20T05:34:00.000-06:00

I'm a bit excited today because I just recieved my first book to review. If you're a regular reader, then you know that I post books of the month; however, this is the first time a publisher has written to me asking me to write a review. The best part is, that the publisher sent me the book for free as long as I post a review on my blog, which is a small price to pay.

Anyway, the book is The "God" Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper and deals with why humans would have evolved to feel a need for religion. I'm looking forward to the read, and, as promised, I will post a review as soon as I am finished.

Catching Up...

2007-03-18T16:44:00.000-06:00

My my, things have been busy during my time away. Let's see:

John Edwards backed out from a debate in Nevada sponsored by Fox News for that very reason, rightly accusing it of being biased. I'm glad to see Edwards taking this sort of stand.

The best part is the resulting fit Fox has thrown when it continues to assert that it is "fair and balanced." I don't see how they can say that slogan with a straight face. That's my real problem with Fox News. It's not that they're biased--it's inevitable that an organization will have some sort of bias--it's that they lie through their teeth to claim that they are not political whatsoever while at the same time praising conservatives for everything they do while deriding liberals at every turn. I would have no beef with Fox News if they were just honest about their slant. Sure, I'd disagree with them, but I would respect them for being honest. In fact, I think it would be best if all media organizations were up front with their biases. American media should follow the European model and be up front with their biases.

Read more at Daily Kos

Next, we have the Alberto Gonzales scandal. This is probably just the first bit of fruit we're seeing from the Democrat-controlled Congress. The details of the scandal don't surprise me at all but, in case you haven't heard about it, in early 2006 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fired several US Attorneys even though they had positive job evaluations in order to replace them with more Republican-friendly attorneys. Since this is extremely unethical, Gonzales will probably step down in a matter of days, but what's more interesting is how far this seems to go. The latest inquiries have turned to Karl Rove and his certain involvement in the scandal. We'll see how far this goes, but I really hope the law can finally nail Rove for his shady (and probably illegal) activites.

Read more at Daily Kos, Time, and The New York Times

Finally, the Secular Coalition of America announced that Representative Pete Stark of California acknowledged that he is the highest-ranking atheist in the US government. First off, I want to applaud him for his courage. In today's political climate, this was a bold move. Secondly, I'm surprised it was someone so high in the government. I was expecting a rather minor political appointee. Needless to say, I'm pleased. I just hope it doesn't cost him his position in the next election. I fear that it will.

You can see the press release at the Secular Coalition of America's website.

Well, that's the major events of the previous week and my thoughts on them. More to follow as I get caught up.

The Caribbean Is Not Overrated

2007-03-18T13:55:00.000-06:00

Whatever you might of heard about how great the Caribbean is...it's all true. I just got back from St. Croix in the US Virgin Islands and I had an amazing time. The scuba diving was especially grand. If you're ever there and want to find a quality dive shop that deals with you on a personal level, then I recommend going to N2 the Blue on the north shore of the island. It's an awesome little shop that will help you do pretty much any type of dive you'd like to do.

Anyway, now that I'm back, the blogging will resume once again.

Going Out of Town

2007-03-08T20:46:00.000-07:00

I'm going on vaction for the next week, so you won't find anything here until the 19th. Until then, keep up the good fight. Science be praised.

At Least We Can Stay "In" the Country

2007-03-07T16:13:00.000-07:00

Here's a little something that will make your hang your head in disgust. From a reader in Soldotna, Alaska, this letter was published in the Peninsula Clarion (click on the picture to see it clearer):

I shouldn't even waste my time to address any of this, but I can't help myself. First, if you must do something, then that is not freedom. In fact it's compulsion, which is the opposite of freedom.

Second, "In God We Trust" was not added to our money until the Civil War. Even then, it appeared sporatically until the national motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unim" to "In God We Trust" in the 1950's to show those dirty communists that America has morals (sigh).

Third, how does having prayer in school actually solve any problems? Please, I would like to hear a good, rational explanation for that one.

Fourth, I don't know what evil it is we practice since we don't actually practice anything. That's part of being an atheist. However, if thinking rationally about the world is evil, then I'd have to admit that you've got me there. I guess I'm evil.

Fifth, if atheists are the reason crime is rampant...Jesus, this is just stupid. Why do I bother?

Finally, clever use of the phrase "get off my country." Never heard that one before. I guess Ms. Shannon wants us to fall off into the ocean.

Christian, atheist, whatever...it doesn't matter. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks like this, no matter what he or she believes. I can't even get angry at this one. It's nothing but sheer ignorance.

The Proper Way to Counter the "Hitler and Stalin Were Atheists" Argument

2007-03-07T09:15:00.000-07:00

Alonzo Fyfe of Athiest Ethicist recently addressed the proper way to counter the tired "Hitler and Stalin were atheists" arguments. Fyfe correctly argues that finding evidence that Hitler and Stalin were actually theists is irrelevent. In reality, it's just the same flawed argument in reverse or like saying all theists are bad because of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Instead, Fyfe takes the following tack:

My sound-byte answer: "I'm sorry, but blaming me for the crimes of Hitler and Stalin is like blaming the Amish – or blaming you, by honorable adversary – for 9-11.”

If my opponent will grant me a few more seconds, I would add, “You would certainly object if I were to accuse you of being responsible for these crimes. You would scream that any who would make such an assertion is bigoted and unjust. You would be right. Such a person is, in fact, bigoted and unjust. So is the person who blames all atheists for the crimes of Stalin.”

It's an excellent read, and I encourage you to read it. It's probably the best counter I've ever found to the Hitler and Stalin argument.

Thoughts on the Jesus Tomb

2007-03-05T05:35:00.000-07:00

Last night I watched the Discovery Channel documentary on the supposed tomb of Jesus. Initially, the evidence seemed fairly convincing...until I really thought about it (damn filmmakers making me feel the way they want me to). Plus, the critical debate afterwards was far more enlightening since the viewer got to see a couple of actual archaeologists speak on the subject. They brought up several concerns I hadn't considered. Another reason why one should always listen to the professionals. Of course, after the archaeologists came the theologians. Basically, their argument was, "This doesn't agree with my interpretation of the Bible, so you're wrong." I got bored with this part rather quickly and found something more productive to do. Okay, fine, I watched Scrubs.

Anyway, these are my major concerns with the film:

1. The conclusion that Mariamne Mara is Mary Magdalene is based on a copy of the Acts of Phillip (one of the books excluded from the New Testament) that was found in the 1970's. How certain are they that this copy of the Acts of Pillip is the original translation? Since many of the books were written several decades after the fact, is Mariamne really what Mary Magdalene would have been called in life? The filmmaker's conclusion seems to be a leap of faith. Worse, this is the key piece of evidence. Without it, the whole hypothesis falls apart.

2. The statistical analysis is based on the names from ossuaries (boxes used in the first century to store bones) of the time. While it might provide a reasonable sample of contemporary names, it's far from exhastive, and the margin of error must be fairly large. There's probably still a lot of ossuaries out there which could drastically change the frequency of specific names, thereby altering the odds. Of course, I'm no expert on the subject, but it's a concern of mine. I'd like to know more before making any conclusions either way.

3. In the "Critical Look" section after the documentary, Koppel brought the fact that the film portrayed many of the forensic experts speaking out of context. The film was actually edited to make them say what Simcha Jacobovici, the filmmaker, wanted while discarding the parts that shed doubt on the conclusiveness of his findings. Then Jacobovici was extremely evasive when confronted with these facts. It seems real shady to me. For example, the film was edited to make it look like the forensic experts said the differences in the mitochrondrial DNA between Jesus and Mariamne meant that they were husband and wife. In reality, it simply means that they did not share the same mother. It could mean they were husband and wife. It could also mean that Mariamne was the wife of any other man in there, she was a cousin, etc. It's a piece of evidence, but not a damning piece.

4. The entire conclusion rests on an evidence chain, meaning one piece of evidence leads to the next. If any single piece of evidence no longer supports the conclusion, then the whole thing falls apart. For an acceptable conclusion, there will have to be several pieces of evidence that can stand on their own.

5. The suggestion that Jesus had a son. Sure, that's entirely possible, but its an example of the filmmaker using the Bible when it helps him and ignoring it when it doesn't. In some ways, this reminds me of Young-Earth Creationists. They love to use any scrap of evidence they can find that loosely supports their conclusions, yet they ignore everything else. It's the same thing with the Mariamne name. They found it in a single copy of a book excluded from the New Testament. However, every other reference to Mary Magdalene uses a different name. It seems extremely selective.

In short, the documentary was interesting, but not convincing by any means. Certainly, I think there should be more research on the ossuaries and the tomb, because it could be the real deal. However, it's far too early to make any conclusions. More evidence is necessary. And no, this is not because I have hidden affinity for Christianity. I think it would be cool to actually find Jesus' remains and force Christians to think about their faith just a bit. However, it has to be done with a scientifically sound conclusion. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking and not any better than the claims of Creationists.

Ann Coulter Is Real Classy

2007-03-04T20:14:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter always amazes me with how easily she turns crass, obnoxious slurs into eloquent terms for a political debate. Except it still sounds crass and obnoxious.

As you might have heard, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter showed her insidiousness once again at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C. At the end of her speech she made the following comment:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

After a short pause, the audience then erupted in applause. Here's a video of the incident:

Now, I'm all for Coulter being able to say whatever she wants. It's her right. However, this sort of name-calling is exactly what's wrong with Coulter and politics today. First off, Edwards is not gay, so it has no basis in reality. Second and more importantly, the term is incredibly offensive to homosexuals and serves nothing more than to alienate them, especially when it's said publically at a Republican function. It's the sort of thing that doesn't belong in political discourse because makes a bloc of citizens within a democratic republic feel unwelcome. This should not happen. All citizens should feel welcome within politics.

Maybe Coulter doesn't know it's so offensive because she said the following in the Q and A session after the speech:

I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media -- how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being pro-gays, and that's going to upset the right wingers. Well, you know, screw you! I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against.

I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us.

Coulter must simply be clueless. She uses a slur against gays, the audience cheers, and then a little while later Coulter can't understand why gays do not support Republicans.

At any rate, it's refreshing to see the leading Republican candidates for president denouce Coulter's statement. McCain's spokesman said, “The comments were wildly inappropriate.” Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.” Romney's spokesman said, "It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect."

Call me an optimist, but it's my hope that Ann Coulter has gone too far on this one, and her fifteen minutes of fame will come to an end. However, her brand of hate has become popular these days, and I'm fairly certain her fans will just eat it up like they always have when Coulter says something outrageous.

Read more from CNN.

Elizabeth Edwards, John Edward's wife, also has a great post on her blog about Coulter's statement.

James Cameron Found Jesus!

2007-03-02T09:11:00.000-07:00

No, he hasn't been born again, but he does have a new documentary coming out this Sunday on the Discovery Channel where he claims to have conclusively identified Jesus' final resting place. However, I'm skeptical about the whole thing.

Sure, I don't think Jesus' body disappeared and ascended into heaven, and I'm sure his remains are out there in Israel somewhere. I just don't think enough evidence would exist to prove it one way or another. It not like he was royalty or anything, so his final resting place would be a little difficult to distinguish from the countless others out there. Plus, Cameron's documentary claims ot have used DNA evidence to validate the claim. Right. To use DNA for establishing a person's identity, one needs to have a known sample to compare it to. Where did they get Jesus' DNA to make the comparison? Did the researchers get a priest, some wine, some crackers, and have a communion? Or maybe the Da Vinci Code was right and they found the long lost descendent of Mary Magdalene living in France?

I'll watch the documentary to see what it says, but at this point, I'm not impressed. I need to see the evidence first.

Read more from the BBC here.

As an aside, a was a little peeved by a quote in the BBC article from Stephen Pfann, a scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem where he said:

"But sceptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

I would hope this is not the case with a true skeptic. It sounds more like what a conspiracy theorist would do. An actual Skeptic doesn't just go around trying to destroy people's beliefs. Instead, they don't personally believe something until they see the evidence to support it. Big difference there. That is why, despite my lack of belief in the tenants of Christianity, I will not immediately jump on this boat. Like I said, I need the evidence first.

What a Terrible Doctor

2007-02-27T08:29:00.000-07:00

A pediatrician in Bakersfield, California recently denied a child treatment for her ear infection because her parents had tattoos. Why should that matter? Because the doctor wanted to create a "Christian atmosphere" for his patients.

I can't even find the words to describe how angry this makes me feel. I mean sweet Jesus, aren't doctors supposed to help people?! Even then, this "doctor" punished the child for something she had no control over. What a loser. I bet he claims ot be the exemplar of Christian charity, but then he refuses to give a child medical treatment because her parents have a bit of ink in their skin. How does the presence of a person with tattoos ruin the "Christian atmosphere"? How does it make them less worthy as a person? Please, I wish someone would explain this to me, because it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Man, this pisses me off. Just another prime example of religion making someone a judgmental asshole for no good reason. Then again, it might not be the religion. Maybe he just has an irrational fear of tattoos and uses religion as an excuse.

Here's a Good Sign: Religious Right Can't Find a Republican Presidential Candidate to Support

2007-02-26T14:10:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, the New York Times had an interesting article on the Religious Right's current political woes. After a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a group comprised of several leading Fundamentalist Christian leaders, they all agreed on one thing: they don't have a winning Republican to support.

Obviously, they can't turn to Democrats since the RR has painted them as evil baby killers. That might look too hypocritical (never say never, right?). However, the leading Republican candidates aren't much better from a Fundamentalist Christian's point of view. McCain, despite his recent pandering, was pro-choice in 2000, so that leaves him out. Guliani is currently pro-choice and pro-gay rights, so he's definitely out. Romney is a Mormon, a religion that most fundamentalists view as a cult, so they can't support him either. Of course, Brownback, Huckabee, and Sanford all say the right things to soothe the RR's ears. Too bad they're losers and are lagging far behind the others in the polls, and no one wants to bet on a losing horse.

More than anything, the RR might have to admit that most of the country really doesn't give a damn about their "family values" agenda. There's much more important problems with this country: war, massive deficits, individual liberty abuses, incompetent government, etc. The last thing people should be worrying about right now is "sinful" activites between consenting adults that harms nobody. This nation has real problems, and blaming it on abortions and homosexuals is not a solution.

Sorry Fundamentalist Christians, but you've had your opportunity and you couldn't do anything but mess it up for everyone. It's time to put rational people back in complete control.

Case to Watch: Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation

2007-02-25T09:45:00.000-07:00

This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments for Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. The purpose of this case is to challenge the Bush administration's appropriation of funds raised from taxpayers to religious groups in such projects as the "Faith-Based Initiatives". The Bush adminisration's side will argue that they used general operating funds for these initiatives and that taxpayers cannot challenge such action.

I have one word for the administration's stand on this: bullshit. The day US citizens can't challenge the government's use of their taxes is the day the government no longer belongs to the people. Basically, the administration is saying the the law does not apply to its actions since only it knows the people's best interests. It's downright scary.

Of course, this has been happening for some time, but the Faith-Based Initiatives are one of the most flagrant manifestations of this lawlessness. Even though the money given to religious groups is said to be for charitable purposes, there's no oversight whatsoever. Religious groups can do whatever they want with the money. It is in direct violation of the establishment clause of the Constiution, and should not be allowed to stand.

Unfortunately, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation will not challenge the Faith-Based Initiatives directly. Instead, it will determine whether or not taxpayers can challenge such governmental action. The fact that this is in question should be enough to concern people by itself. At any rate, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Constitution, then we should finally see some direct challenges to the administration's poorly veiled attempt to bring us closer to a theocracy.

Read more at Americans United

Another Reason Religion is Not for Me

2007-02-24T09:40:00.000-07:00

This bit of news shows just how dangerous faith can become. Last week in Pakistan, female government minister Zilla Huma Usman was shot in the head right before deliviering a speech. Why did the man shoot her? Because she refused to wear a veil and she's a woman in politics. So the man who murdered her, Mohammad Sarwar, decided to end another human being's life because the woman wasn't wearing a scrap of cloth over her head and tried to enjoy some semblance of equality. Dispicable.

Even more frightening is Mohammed's complete lack of remorse:

I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah’s commandment. I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path, if I am freed again.

The police statement also said:

He considers it contrary to the teachings of Allah for a woman to become a minister or a ruler. That’s why he committed this action.

The worst part is that, religiously speaking, Mohammed is completely justified in his actions. That's why he has no remorse. The Koran says he has a duty to kill "disobedient" women. This is why fundamentalist faiths are so dangerous, especially those with guidebooks written before the modern era. The fact is that those books were written in a different time by people who had different moral views of the world. If you tell an impressionable individual that a particular book tells you exactly how to live, you shouldn't act surprised when that person does exactly what that book tells them to do.

I just hope this tragedy causes others to rise up in outrage, making equality for women closer to reality in the Middle East.

Book of the Month: Monkey Girl

2007-02-22T17:17:00.000-07:00

If you want the definitive history of the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial, then Edward Humes' Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul is the book you need.

First off, the book is one of the most enjoyable non-fiction books I've read in a long time. It reads like a court drama in the way that Humes interweaves the various events leading up to the trial and fleshes out the people involved. Even the account of the trial itself is remarkably entertaining, especially when he discusses Eric Rothschild's cross examination of Michael Behe. It's one of the few times in an actual trial where you'll see a Hollywood style "Gotcha!" moment, and Humes describes it beautifully.

Even though Humes establishes which side of the issue he supports early on, he never demonizes those on the side of Intelligent Design. He carefully describes every major player in this drama, allowing the reader to better connect with the real person behind each name. It helps the reader understand each individual's motivation and rationale, thereby creating a clear and honest picture of what happened in Dover where both sides felt they were doing the right thing.

Additionally, Humes provides an excellent summary of the evolution wars. He ranges from the Scopes Monkey Trial onwards. For those who know little about the history of evolution and creationism in the US Court system, it really is an excellent starting point for those who want to learn more. Plus, it obviously helps reader better understand the issues and precedents surrounding the case.

In the end, Monkey Girl is the book you should get if you want to know what happened at Dover without reading the trial's transcripts. If you have an interest in the Creation/Evolution debate, I think you'll find it's one of the few histories of a civil suit trial that you can seriously call a page-turner.

William Dembski Needs to Stick to Math

2007-02-22T15:45:00.000-07:00

Here’s a great example of when you should understand what you’re criticizing before you criticize it. William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design recently left a post on his blog, Uncommon Descent, where he makes two arguments that vestigial structures in organisms are better evidence for design than evolution. Yes, you read that right. Dembski thinks that evolution would never have vestigial structures. Here’s his first argument:

Vestigial structures in biology are commonly cited as evidence for evolution, and it may well be that they did evolve. But if it is evidence of evolution, it is evolution in the wrong direction — it’s not the sort of function enhancing/innovating evolution that is supposed to give evolutionary theory its bite. Vestigial structures, after all, are structures that have lost their function. If all of evolution proceeded in this fashion, we’d quickly descend to a world of nonfunctionality.

Like most creationists, Dembski obviously thinks that evolution must have a set order of progression, hence his insistence on “direction”. Of course, he believes that a god directs everything in existence, so it’s not hard to see why he can’t escape the paradigm that everything must have a set path. However, the theory of evolution does not say that there is an inevitable progression of speciation. In fact, it says the exact opposite. Species will either survive or they won’t, depending on how well they are equipped to deal with the environment. This simply favors those that can reproduce enough to survive, and it means that the slightest environmental change early on could completely alter the outcome down the line. If evolution were to start over, life would certainly progress much differently and would be quite alien to anything we know today.

Additionally, Dembski refuses to acknowledge the fact that new features can arise through adoption. This undoubtedly comes from his belief that natural processes cannot add information to DNA, which relies on his rather dubious interpretation of information theory (for more, read here). I won’t go into this much further, but the idea that new features cannot arise comes from Dembski’s own hypothesis rather than the actual theory of evolution, creating yet another mischaracterization of the theory.

A great example of vestigial structures along side new ones can be seen in whales. Most modern whales have the remnants of hind legs. In the picture below, you can see the vestigial hind limbs of a humpback whale. The tiny bones hanging below the vertebra are the remnants of femurs (picture courtesy of http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/).

However, with Dembski’s version of evolution, that means all whales must have lost their hind limbs and should be stuck with nothing more than a pointed tail for swimming. However, this is not the case. As whales evolved, the tips of their tails flattened. Initially this probably helped with steering, but eventually the flukes became more efficient at providing propulsion than the hind limbs. As a result, whales’ hind limbs began to shrink since they became more of a hindrance than a help, and today whales have no externally visible hind limbs, if any at all.

As you can see, just because some structures disappear due to evolution does not mean that the same process cannot alter existing structures to the point where they become something new and more useful like the flukes on the tails of whales.

For more on whale evolution, click here.

Dembski’s second argument highlights Intelligent Design’s complete inability to usefully explain anything:

But vestigiality need not evolve by purely material means — it can also be designed. I was delighted to be informed (after my recent debate with Michael Shermer at Bridgewater College) of a nifty example of vestigial structures that arise not through “devolution” but rather through design, to wit, vestigial running boards on older automobiles.

He then shows a series pictures with old Fords that portrays a progression from useful running boards to small fairings in later models where running boards would normally go.

This brings us to an important question: why would an intelligent designer keep these vestigial features? Does he find them aesthetically pleasing? I guess Dembski’s god must find something interesting in whales with tiny, useless bones in their tails. Of course, Dembski can’t tell us why. I’m sure he’d say we can’t understand the Intelligent Designer’s (read: God’s) reasons. And that brings us to the ultimate problem with ID. It creates more problems than it solves and then declares the new problems unsolvable. This is not how science is supposed to work. It’s supposed to help us better explain the world, not fill it with more unknowns. Just saying “God did it,” is nothing more than a copout. With Dembski’s reasoning, we might as well shut down all scientific research and return to the Middle Ages because God does everything and we can’t understand it.

Now, I’m certainly not an expert in biology, but Dembski, as a leading advocate for a biological origins theory (however unscientific it might be), shows a remarkable degree of ignorance towards modern biology. Obviously, he would never accept the prevailing views on modern biology since evolution forms its foundation, but he should at least understand the theory if he seriously wants to challenge it. Clearly, Dembski hasn’t bothered to actually learn about evolution, or he wouldn’t have made such ridiculous arguments about vestigial structures or insist that evolution has a direction. This just shows why he can’t be taken seriously. A true scientific innovator would understand the prevailing theories, not completely ignore them. Clearly, Dembski either needs to do a bit more reading or stick to math.

Rep. Chisum Needs to Check his Sources

2007-02-21T16:29:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, I told you about Texas state representative Warren Chisum and how he distributed a memo to the rest of the state house claiming that modern science is nothing more than a Jewish cult, and that the website fixedearth.com proves it (you should check the website out, but be ready for the obnoxious clash of text colors and the even more obnoxious ideas). More importantly, the website has a number of anti-semitic remarks. This, as the Dallas Morning News reports, quickly caused Chisum to change his tune. In his defense, Chisum said:

"The stuff that causes conflicts between religious beliefs, you know, I'd never be a party to that. I'm willing to apologize if I've offended anyone."

How absent-minded can you be? He officially distributed something without even checking the information it contained. Is he really that desperate to remove evolution that he distributes the first thing that comes across his desk? Good job Texas, this is one of the men making your laws.

I suppose Chisum must have assumed the memo was legitimate enough, since it originally came from Georgia state representative Ben Bridges. It makes me wonder just how fundamentalist Bridges must be. I wonder if he actually believes the nonsense from fixedearth.com? Of course, I shouldn't assume Chisum disagrees with it either since he supports teaching Creationism in public schools. With that, you never know how far his beliefs go. This might just be an effort to save face. Silly Republicans.

Quote of the Week

2007-02-21T09:40:00.000-07:00

"Seek those who seek the truth. Avoid those who have found it."

- Anonymous

Bush Knows Nothing About History

2007-02-19T16:25:00.000-07:00

MSNBC had an article today that caught my eye titled "Bush Compares War on Terror to US Revolution." My first thought was, "How do you figure?" Then there was this mind-numbingly stupid quote from Bush:

“And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone.”

I about pulled my hair out at this point. Washington was a strict isolationist. And I mean strict. He felt that America should have nothing to do with the rest of the world, much less try and spread democracy throughout it. No, he wanted freedom for his own nation, and the rest of the world could deal with their own problems. Besides, if you want to draw any parallels between the Revolution and Iraq, then we'd look more like the British. Unfortunate as it may be, we're the ones trying to impose an unpopular government one the people. No, Washington would punch Bush in the face if he were here to see what Bush had done with this country.

Either Bush slept through his US history classes (probable) or he's trying to put a good spin on a sinking ship (almost certain). His presidency will undoubtedly be seen as one of the worst in history, and this must be his way of trying to make himeself look better than he actually is. He draws completely false parallels to truly great men in history to try and piggy-back off their success. The only problem is that you can't use mere rhetoric to make something better. You actually have to make a change and take action. Mr. Bush, has proven incapable of changing his course and wonders why everyone is pissed. If it wasn't so harmful to the country, it would almost be sad.

Carnival of the Godless #60

2007-02-18T22:33:00.000-07:00

Carnival of the Godless is up at Brent Rasmussen's Unscrewing the Inscrutable. There's some good stuff there (including a little something from yours truly), so check it out.

Repeal the Military Commissions Act!

2007-02-17T20:47:00.000-07:00

A while a go I wrote a post concerning the Military Commissions Act and the negative implications it would have on Habeas Corpus. Well, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) is now sponsoring a new bill called the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 that would repeal the Military Commissions Act and restore Habeas Corpus. From Senator Dodd's website:

On Tuesday, I re-introduced the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. The bill will restore Habeas Corpus protections to detainees, bar information acquired through torture from being introduced as evidence in trials, and limit presidential authority to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

Also, Dodd released a YouTube video to further explain the bill:

Please, go here and take the time to become a citizen co-sponsor of the bill and help end this unethical travesty that the 109th Congress and President Bush have brought us. Help this country once again become a nation of law that obeys the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise, we're no better than the bad guys.

Out of Town for a Few Days

2007-02-16T15:29:00.000-07:00

I'll be out of town for the weekend, but the discourse will resume Monday evening. Science be praised.

Excellent Evolution Resource

2007-02-15T09:34:00.000-07:00

I just found this excellent resource, and I had to share it. This website contains a collection of videos where actual scientists talk about the evolution/creation controversy and point out what's wrong with the entire thing. They also provide the evidence for evolution and refutations for Creationism. They can go a long way in helping you imprive your knowledge on the subject.

For example, in the first video, Professor Kenneth Miller explains why teaching ID is not actually fair when it is rejected by science:

The proponents of intelligent design, or creationism, who say it’s only fair to consider their ideas have a very curious idea of what fairness is, because they’re not interested in developing evidence. They’re not interested in engaging in this process of peer review, of publishing their work, of going to scientific meetings, and trying to win a scientific consensus. In effect, what they want to do is to do an end run around the entire scientific process by appealing to boards of education or legislatures to insert their ideas into the classroom even though they haven’t won a scientific consensus. So, you have to ask yourself: what’s fair about that? Every other idea in science has to fight its way through the criticism and analysis of the scientific process. But these IDists claim that they want to be exempt from that process in the name of fairness. In reality, what they’re asking people to do is to cheat on the process of science and give them a shortcut that will get into classroom and textbook. That would be very bad science policy and be even worse in terms of educational policy.

If you love science as much as I do, then I suggest you check it out.

Texas Legislator: Evolution is Just the Beliefs of a Jewish Sect

2007-02-15T07:58:00.000-07:00

In an amazing display of ignorance, Texas State Representative Warren Chisum passed around a memo from Georgia State representative Ben Bridges aruging that modern science is nothing more than the religious beliefs of Kabbalah, an ancient Jewish sect. From the Dallas Morning News:

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.

He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism."

It's amazing how low these legislators have sunk to "prove" that evolution is a religious belief. They use the website of Gerardus Bouw (You can see it here, but be careful because your head might explode from a massive overdose of ignorance), a quack "scientist" who claims the Earth is the center of the universe because the Bible says so. That's right, a couple of state Republicans are trying to use the "research" of a real-life geocentrist to support their agenda. Not only that, but Bouw actually uses the claims of a few Kabbala loonies who assert that modern science has verified the beliefs of the Kabbala religion (see Bouw's "evidence" page). I suppose if you're stupid enough to begin with, you'll fall for the claims of an obscure religious sect that's trying to prove its validity to a world that doesn't care.

Seriously, do Chisum and Bridges really think the Earth is the center of the universe? Is that really what they want to associate themselves with? I hope this gets them laughed out of office. Plus, I think this qualifies as a new low for American Fundamental Christianity.

My Beliefs: The Promise of Science

2007-02-14T21:29:00.000-07:00

I believe that science is the greatest tool we have for understanding the world around us and is our only hope for making the world the better place we want it to be. However, that doesn’t mean I worship science. It is not meant to provide a person with a basis for morality or to codify how one should live his or her life (I’ll address that in another post). Instead, it’s more like a tool whose purpose is to gain knowledge of the universe around us through observable and testable evidence. By itself, that might not seem like much, but it’s what we do with that knowledge that can make all the difference.

For example, just two centuries ago we never would have suspected the existence of asteroids, much less the threat they pose to our survival. If one had appeared over the Earth at any point in our history except for the last couple of decades, we would have been powerless to stop it. Today, we not only recognize how dangerous they can be, but we are also coming up with better methods to detect them, and we can even theorize ways to divert them to save ourselves from extinction. All thanks to science.

I shouldn’t even have to tell you how science has made our daily lives better. It has given us effective medicine, rapid transportation, empowered people with access to instantaneous communication, etc. What has religion done for us? Not so much. It unifies some people, but makes them bitterly opposed to others, and it resists all change, no matter if it’s good or bad. Since the serious pursuit of science began shortly after the Middle Ages, we have seen more positive progress than 5000+ years of organized religion could ever dream of achieving.

In its purest form, science allows us to understand who we are and what we can do while keeping us free from the ancient dogma that forms the basis of our irrationality. In its ideal form, science starts with a blank slate and asks, “Why?” Then, instead of giving up when the search becomes difficult and deferring these questions to the supernatural, it continues to push forward in search of answers, never content until it finds a satisfactory explanation. Even then, that explanation can change radically as new discoveries are made, thereby always keeping science relevant and moving forward. In the end, it teaches us to never be satisfied with not understanding the world around us, a lesson we should all appreciate, because without understanding, everything is nothing more than wishful thinking.

A Great Bit of Wisdom from Sam Harris

2007-02-14T20:33:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to share this excellent excerpt from Sam Harris' recent email debate with Andrew Sullivan. In it, he almost exactly sums up my feelings (and much more eloquently than I could manage) on why we should discard our ancient myths and engage in a rational, evidence-driven pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of us all:

I’m asking you to imagine a world in which children are taught to investigate reality for themselves, not in conformity to the religious dogmatism of their parents, but by the lights of truly honest, fearless inquiry. Imagine a discourse about ethics and mystical experience that is as contingency-free as the discourse of science already is. Science really does transcend the vagaries of culture: there is no such thing as “Japanese” as opposed to “French” science; we don’t speak of “Hindu biology” and “Jewish chemistry.” Imagine a world that has transcended its tribalism—racism and nationalism, yes, but religious tribalism especially—in which we could have a truly open-ended conversation about our place in the universe and about the possibilities of deepening our experience of love and compassion for one another. Ethics and spirituality do not require faith. One can even achieve utter mystical absorption in the primordial mystery of the present moment without believing anything on insufficient evidence.
You might want to say that every religion offers a guide to doing this. Yes, but they are provisional guides at best. Rather than pick over the carcass of Christianity (or any other traditional faith) looking for a few, uncontaminated morsels of wisdom, why not take a proper seat at the banquet of human understanding in the present? There are already many very refined courses on offer. For those interested in the origins of the universe, there is the real science of cosmology. For those who want to know about the evolution of life on this planet, biology, chemistry and their subspecialties offer real nourishment. (Knowledge in most scientific domains is now doubling about every five years. How fast is it growing in religion?) And if ethics and spirituality are what concern you, there are now scientists making serious efforts to understand these features of our experience—both by studying the brain function of advanced contemplatives and by practicing meditation and other (non-faith-based) spiritual disciplines themselves. Even when it comes to compassion and self-transcendence, there is new wine (slowly) being poured. Why not catch it with a clean glass?

You can see the rest of the debate here.

How Dare You Suggest We Defend Our Views!

2007-02-13T20:26:00.000-07:00

Representatives John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) just released a "dear colleague" letter with the following astounding statements:

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

I can't believe the sheer ignorance this letter displays. These men actually think that they have no need to show why the surge will work--a an action that will cost millions of dollars and more lives lost--because America will lose if we dare question it's chance of success? America is not a dictatorship where a small group of men get to make decisions while the rest of the people are ignored. We are a democratic republic where open debate is necessary to reach a satisfactory compromise. Since the American people are the ones shouldering the burden of this war both in terms of cost and lives, we should damn well have a good reason to keep doing it.

Plus, using fear just a convenient way of trying to divert attention from the actual issue at hand. Speculations of what may or may not come to pass without good evidence is nothing mroe than scaremongering and does not belong in a rational government. It's thinking like this that shows just how poor the current state of American politics has become.

Daily Kos has more.

Kansas Removes Anti-Evolution Science Standards

2007-02-13T16:37:00.000-07:00

It's official, the Kansas state school board has removed intelligent design and the fraudulent claim that evolution is widely challenged by science from their public school curriculums.

Let's give three cheers for science!

Read more here.

Let's Make an Example of Bill Donohue

2007-02-13T15:49:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard of Bill Donohue, he is the head of the Catholic League who demanded that Senator Edwards fire two of his staffers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, for posting anti-Catholic statements on their personal blogs. The only problem is that these statements were not anti-Catholic in the intolerance sense. They were simply critical of the Catholic Church's stance against women's rights. Donohue is also a habitual anti-Semite and is the last person who should even consider pointing the intolerance finger.

Sadly, Amanda Marcotte resigned on her own (she was not fired as Donohue demanded) to protect Edwards' campaign (read about it on her blog here).

Now, where this gets interesting is the fact that the Catholic League is a non-profit organization and, by law, cannot influence politics, and Donohue using the Catholic League to demand that a political candidate fired some of his employees is definitely influencing politics. This is a perfect opportunity to make an example of the political preachers who tell their congregations how to vote while enjoying the benefits of tax-exempt status. It's time we show them that they are breaking the law through their actions and we will no longer stand for it. Daily Kos has more. I'll try to get more information as I find it.

As an aside, Amanda Marcotte has recieved some downright disturbing emails from supposed Christians, and several of them deal with sexual violence. You can see Marcotte's post on the subject here. It just goes to show how low of an opinion many Christians have of women. It's disgusting and immoral and we decent people should not tolerate it.

A Response to One of My Critics

2007-02-13T14:53:00.000-07:00

An individual with the screen name Healtheland recently left a criticism to my post concerning Dr. Marcus Ross. I'd like to use it to elaborate further on the matter. The criticism starts with:

Sir, this may come as a shock to you, but Christians (and Jews and Muslims who also believe in creation but funny how no one is trying to keep THEM out of graduate school based on THEIR beliefs, hmmm!) who adhere to creation have been earning advanced degrees in physics, paleontology, and other disciplines that have required them to "compartmentalize" their beliefs and their studies for decades. As a matter of fact, many Christians believe in creation but teach evolution in public school and in college! So, this is nothing new.

Healtheland's first mistake is to assume that I'm talking about all Christians. That couldn't be farhter from the truth. I'm simply talking about the minority of theists that reject modern science and its conventions in favor of Bible-friendly Creationism, which Dr. Ross reportedly does. The same critcism would apply to Jewish and Muslim Young-Earth Creationists. However, Healtheland left no evidence (names, links, etc.) to verify his or her claim that there are such individuals out there. As for Creationists who teach evolution in public schools and colleges...well public is the key word. It's unconstitutional to teach Creationism in a public school science class, so these Creationists have no choice. It's different from someone seeking a PhD where they should have to endorse what they study.

What is new is radical atheists advancing the notion that a person who holds certain religious beliefs cannot and should not be educated, and hence such a person either should not be allowed to pursue an education or should "do the honorable thing" and not seek one. It is hilarious how so many are completely ignoring the perfectly RATIONAL stance of this fellow: if a Marxist can earn an economics degree at Milton Friedman's University of Chicago, then certainly a Christian can earn a paleontology degree.

Once again, I am not talking about Christians in general. Just ones who try to distort science for their own theological ends. As for a Marxist earning an economics degree, Marxism is not antithetical to economics in general, only free market capitalism. Economics themselves remain valid to both systems.

And another thing still: atheists and similar earn degrees in theology, divinity, religion, etc. for the sole purpose of using what they learn to undermine and attack religion. Happens all the time. Anything wrong with that? Should they be prevented from doing so? Or should they openly declare their disbelief and hostility to the subject matter on every test and assignment, thereby ensuring that they will not successfully complete the program or perhaps even get admitted, to "earn your respect?" Or is your respect and integrity standard different for Christians?

Once again, we have no evidence to back up an assertion, but if an atheist writes a dissertation antithetical to his beliefs in order to earn a PhD with the goal of undermining a religion, then
he is just as wrong as Dr. Ross. The only way evolution could be seriously overthrown is from within science itself by following the conventions of science. It happens all the time. Just look at the Big Bang Theory. Before, the accepted idea was that the universe was eternal. However, scientists using the scientific method successfully proved that the universe did have a beginning.

If Dr. Ross really disagrees with evolution, then he has to find scientific reasons to support it. This should have been his dissertation instead of writing something he sees no use in beyond a means to an end. He could have brought up legitimate questions about the theory of evolution and done research to back it up. It would have been intellectually honest. Is this what he did? No. He wrote a paper that goes completely against his beliefs, and then once he had his PhD, he scurried away to a Creation-friendly institute (Liberty University) that engages in propaganda instead of real science.

This is not an attack against Christians. This is a criticism of Dr. Ross. His actions and his methods seem suspect because he did not even try to support his own "theories." It seems clear he knows that Creationism is not real science, so he needed to go through the motions to obtain his ultimate goal. What is his goal? Beyond earning a legitimate PhD, hard to say. Now, if he starts to produce legitimate research that follows the conventions of science, then I will stand corrected. Until then, I won't hold my breath.

Fossils: The Devil's Handiwork

2007-02-13T10:57:00.000-07:00

To help brighten your Tuesday a bit, enjoy this bit of comedy from Lewis Black:

Chimps Learned to Use Tools on Their Own?

2007-02-13T10:40:00.000-07:00

MSNBC has a fascinating report on recent archaeological finds suggesting that chimpanzees learned to use tools on their own instead of simply copying humans. It's pretty cool, so check it out.

This discovery also comes on the heels of DNA research which suggests that chimps should be reclassified to the Homo genus, thereby doing away with the Pan genus. Read more here.

Personally, I think this is an amazing find. I always wondered what it would have been like to live alongside another member of the homo genus, such as when early humans lived alongside Neanderthals. Now, it seems as though we've been living with some all along, and they've been starring in our commercials:

Where do you get your morality?

2007-02-12T22:23:00.000-07:00

Some atheists seem to have trouble answering this question. In the recent Paula Zahn program on CNN I was depressed to find that the President of the American Atheist Associate Ellen Johnson was posed the question of “where do you get your morality” but Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson. She stumbled in her answer and seemed to avoid the question. The answer of, “where do Atheists get their morality” though is so very simple I am surprised an educated women of her stature was unable to enunciate it.

Society, yes society dictates morality. Murder, rape, theft, all things condemned by society in law, all things condemned by morality. One does not need guidance of a God to appreciate what is fair and what is just. As early as Hammurabi’s code, law has dictated the morality and the morality has impacted law in mutually beneficial relationship which fostered the growth of societies across the world.

The Golden Rule is in fact a very secular idea. “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” is an excellent bit of logical reasoning which any thinking society can and have arrived at without the help of morals imposed by religion. The fact that different societies, with different religions still arrive at this logical conclusion… that people seeking to have their rights respected need to respect others, speaks more to the logical abilities of the societies than to their religion.

Religion does not dictate morality. Society does. Hence why, in a relativist world, different societies will accept different standards of morality, yet they all have them. Atheists will not remove morality from our society; they will add their logic and reason to it allowing morality to better change with the changing of society.

To those who fear changes in morality I say that moralizing persons are responsible for prohibition, one of the most ludicrous and failed policies in American history. Society did not see alcohol consumption as immoral, thus legislating its immorality did not stick.

Where do Atheists get their morality? They get it from the society they live in.

My Thoughts on Paula Zahn's Show Tonight

2007-02-12T21:15:00.000-07:00

Tonight Paula Zahn's show (she wasn't on tonight) expanded upon the show two weeks ago that featured a panel with no atheists talking about discrimination against atheists (see my post about it here). Tonight's show featured a short interview with Englishman Richard Dawkins who was as eloquent as always, but not exactly relevant considering this was about discrimination in America. Plus, I didn't like the fact that CNN did not show any clips from the previous show to highlight just how bad the last panel was.

Now the nice thing was the composition of the panel. There was actually an atheist, Ellen Johnson, and Air America radio hostess Rachel Maddow who actually knows the Constitution. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson formed the opposing opinon.

The most telling part was that Peterson refused to let the other panel members finish speaking. He constantly talked over them, throwing out the stupid question, "Where do atheists get their morals?" Before atheist Ellen Johnson tried to answer, Peterson insisted she wasn't answering the question and continued to talk over her. He did everything he could to prevent the pro-secualr side from talking because he know they had limited time. It was intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Of course, I'm not surprised. This is what theists always do when religion comes up in an honest debate. More than anything, it shows their fear. It shows they are afraid to let atheists talk because we might actually say something that makes more sense.

Update: One Good Move has a video of the entire sement here.

Guess Who Else Had Birthday Today

2007-02-12T16:33:00.000-07:00

Those who normally read my blog probably already know that today is Charles Darwin's 198th birthday. However, I just found out that another great man in history was born on the exact same date of February 12, 1809: Abraham Lincoln.

So take some time today and raise a toast to these great advocates of science and freedom.

Quote of the Week

2007-02-12T15:25:00.000-07:00

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

- Isaac Asimov

I'm Really Starting to Like John Edwards

2007-02-12T14:24:00.000-07:00

The lastest issue of Newsweek has an interesting article on Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards. Here's some more enlightening quotes:

In the fall of 2005, John Edwards sat down with a pad and pen and scrawled out three simple words: "I was wrong." It was nearly three years after he'd joined a Senate majority in voting to authorize war in Iraq. After an unsuccessful run as John Kerry's vice presidential candidate in the 2004 election, Edwards had returned home to North Carolina and watched as the war descended into chaos. Increasingly filled with regret, he concluded that the three-word confession would be the right way to start a Washington Post op-ed admitting his vote was a mistake. But when a draft came back from his aides in Washington, Edwards's admission was gone. Determined, the senator reinserted the sentence. Again a draft came back from Washington; again the sentence had been taken out. "We went back and forth, back and forth," Edwards tells NEWSWEEK. "They didn't want me to say it. They were saying I should stress that I'd been misled." The opening sentence remained. "That was the single most important thing for me to say," Edwards recalls. "I had to show how I really feel."

On Feb. 4, in an appearance on "Meet the Press," he broke the cardinal rule of presidential politics and admitted that his proposal for universal health care would require raising taxes. Then, last week, he refused to fire two campaign employees who'd criticized Roman Catholics and religious conservatives on their personal blogs, despite pressure from conservative leaders.

If John Edwards is actually this committed to honesty, then this is exactly what we need in a President to fix the problems of the current one. Here we have a man who seems unafraid of speaking the truth and will stand by his principles. Furthermore, it's nice to see a candidate who refuses to pander to the Religious Right. Only time will tell if he maintains this promising stance, but so far, Edwards has my vote.

Addendum: DavidGX also has a post expressing similar sentiment.

How Do Creationists Earn Legitimate Phds?

2007-02-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

A front page article in the New York Times this morning caught my eye. Titled "Believing in Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules", the article is about Dr. Marcus Ross, who's 197-page dissertation was about the distribution of mosasaurs 65 million years ago. "So what?" you might ask. Dr. Ross is a young-earth creationist who believes the Bible is the literal word of God and the world was made 6,000 years ago.

This is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. He basically lied his way through his doctorate to gain a legitimate PhD and obviously didn't care enough about his own work to accept his findings. He was simply pretending. The real clincher is where he works now: Liberty University, the ultra-conservative school founded by Jerry Falwell, which teaches young-earth creationism as actual science.

In Ross' defense, the New York Times reports:

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

I don't buy it. I seriously doubt a person can find a way to agree with two completely opposed views.

This is just my speculation here, but Creationists are desperate to legitimize their views. A major way to do this is to gain more PhDs who agree with them. Is this what Ross has done? Perhaps.

Now, Creationists might defend Ross by saying he never would have earned his PhD without faking it because of the scientific community's dogma against new ideas.

That sounds nice, but it's bullshit. Evolution is accepted because the theory is derived from observation of the natural world. Creationism is not accepted because it is a mythological story that looks for evidence to prove it. The scientific one came from connecting the dots, the theological one already has the lines and tries to find the dots. It's the opposite of science.

The most upsetting part for me is that Ross went through all the work it takes to become a PhD by pretending to be someone he's not. It's deceitful and dishonest and should instantly discredit him in the scientific community. Furthermore, while he was a greaduate student, he appeared in a DVD endorsing intelligent design, so we already know where he stands.

In my opinion, he should stop pretending to be someone he's not and actually stand for what he believes in, no matter what it is. I'd respect him more since what he's doing now is simply dishonst.

Evolution of New Species Does Occur and Here's How to Picture it and Support it with Evidence

2007-02-11T22:55:00.000-07:00

Since tomorrow is Charles Darwin's 198th birthday, I decided to take some time to pass on an excellent visualization of evolutionary speciation that my high school biology teacher utilized.

Before I begin, let me define speciation. Also called macroevolution, it is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. For creationists, this is one of their largest points of contention. They argue that no species of animal has ever been observed giving birth to a different species. While certainly true, this is not how the theory of evolution says new species will arise. If an animal's offspring were a different species, that would probably serve better as proof for Creationism more than evolution. As a rule, an animal will always be the same species as their parents. Then how does evolution say new species will arise? Well, come along and I'll relate the excellent example my biology teacher told me.

Let's say you have a species of frog that lives in Florida. It's particularly successful and multiplies quickly. This obviously causes competition for food and forces the frogs to spread out so they can find more food. This spread serves as a form of migration and eventually these frogs and their descendents spread out so far that they span from Florida to New York (obviously, this is a bit large for frogs and they would more likely spread east and west since the climate changes aren't as extreme, but follow along for the sake of argument). However, the environment at each latitude is a bit different and favors certain mutations within the frog population. They might have to eat different foods, the climate might change their mating patterns, their coloration might change to blend in with the different vegetation, et cetera. Sure, these are all examples of microevolution and do not make it a new species, but with enough changes you start to get something different with the variations becoming greater the farther away you get from the original habitat.

Now, the frogs in Virginia will be a little different than the original population, but the Florida frogs and the Virginia frogs will still be able to breed with each other since they are not as different and might still intermingle. On the other hand, the New York frogs will have taken much longer to get where they are and have a much different climate than Florida, causing them to change even more than the Virginia frogs, but they can probably still interbreed with the Virginia frogs since the separation in time and space is once again not terribly large. However, the New York frogs cannot interbreed with the Florida frogs since they have had too many changes to successfully interbreed and produce viable offspring, thereby making the New York frogs a new species. It wasn't quick or sudden, but it eventually led to speciation. Put simply, the frogs can breed with their neighboring populations, but not the next population over.

Of course, this is just a theoretical illustration and would be useless if it didn't have any evidence to support it. So, is there any evidence? Yes. Just look at mules. Mules are created by breeding a male donkey with a female horse. However, donkeys and horses are still separate species because mules not viable, i.e., they are sterile (except for extremely rare cases). This shows that horses and mules were once part of the same species. However, there were population migrations and the group that lived in the Asian steppes eventually became horses that adapted to living in open grassland while the group that settled in northern Africa became the wild ancestors of donkeys and adapted to subsist on more meager resources. However, they are still similar enough to interbreed and produce young, albeit sterile. It's an excellent example of recent speciation. The ability to breed a lion and a tiger to produce a sterile liger is a similar example.

Now that we've seen evidence for recent speciation, can we find evidence for speciation in progress? Yes. All you need to do it look at ourselves and the existence of different races. Early humans spread out from Sub-Saharan Africa to span the reaches of the globe. As they moved to different climates, they began to adapt. Sunny Africa favored dark-skinned humans, Asia favored a similar adaptation, although to a lesser degree, and cloudy Northern Europe favored humans with paler skin. Nevertheless, human populations weren't isolated from each other long enough to develop different species, and the devlopment of transportation technology allowed us to intermingle once again, finally preventing it. However, if the different races had remained isolated from one another, then we certainly would have seen the speciation of different humans with homo sapiens as the common ancestor. Of course, you could compare this to the Bible-friendly explanation from Answers in Genesis. I'll let you be the judge.

In conclusion, speciation or macroevolution is really not too hard to understand and accept when you just look at the world around us. The evidence for it is easy to find.

P.S.: In my discussion, I used the out of Africa hypothesis to explain the existence of different races. You can see the other scientific hypotheses here.

Update: Here's a good article about a new find that supports the out of Africa hypothesis.

In Celebration of Evolution Sunday

2007-02-11T08:30:00.000-07:00

Today is Evolution Sunday and some 600 churches will be discussing evolution in a positive way to try and reconcile science and religion. While I don't really feel science actually can be reconciled with religion, it's better than what most other churches are saying.

Anyway, to help further this event, I would like to provide this link to Talk Origins about the 29+ evidences that macroevolution exists. You'll always hear creationists accept microevolution (small physical changes, like a bird population gaining longer beaks) but completely deny macroevolution (the change from one species to a different one). Hopefully, this resource can aid you in your struggles.

Vladimir Putin Makes a Good Point

2007-02-10T19:21:00.000-07:00

Russian President Vladimir Putin might be a freedom-hater who longs for the return of the Soviet Union, but he made an excellent point in a speech earlier today. From CNN:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday blamed U.S. policy for inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves from an "almost uncontained use of military force."

"Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem, they have become a hotbed of further conflicts," Putin said at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, an annual forum attracting senior officials from around the world.

The Bush administration said it was "surprised and disappointed" by Putin's remarks.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who was also attending the conference, described Putin's remarks as "the most aggressive speech from a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War."

I'm sorry Senator McCain, but the truth hurts. Even though he's critical of US policy, Putin's comments are entirely valid, especially in relation to Iran.

Let's use an analogy to better understand Iran's situation. Say you're chilling in your house when the rich guy in the mansion down the street who you've never gotten along with starts calling you a member of the "Club of Evil" because you don't adhere to their neighborhood covenant. That alone might not be a big deal, but you consider buying a couple of guns you've always had you eyes on to protect yourself whenever your financial situation allows it. However, the rich guy down the street then sends in his personal security detail to take over your next door neighbor (who was also labeled a member of the "Club of Evil") and forces him to adhere to the neighborhood covenant regardless of the fact that most of the neighborhood is against the action in the first place. Would that not make the purchase of a few guns your primary priority? Would you not put all other needs aside when your way of life is threatened? Sure, the rich man will warn you not to buy the guns, but he already announced a public hit list with you on it. Why should you listen to him when you can buy a proven deterrent?

In much the same way, Iran knows it is in the Bush administation's crosshairs. They were included in the "Axis of Evil" in 2002. They watched the US ignore world opinion and invade another nation in this "Axis". Sure, Iran probably wanted to develop nuclear weapons long before 2002, but now the Bush administration has shown the willingness to use military force when most of the world opposes it. What's the only thing that can deter the US from doing the same thing to Iran? Nuclear weapons. They worked in the Cold War. They made warfare between the US and the Soviet Union unthinkable and prevented World War III. In the mind of most Iranians, the US poses a clear and present danger, making the development of nuclear weapons extremely attractive because diplomacy and world opinion obviously did nothing to deter the US from invading Iraq.

Now I certainly don't agree with Iran's policies or form of government. Afterall, they are a theocracy. However, Iranians are human, and they will react like threatened humans, so we shouldn't be surprised by their actions. President Putin is simply telling the truth that needs to be told. The US has scared Iran into developing nuclear weapons because Iran sees no other effective methods of protecting itself.

The best thing we can do now is admit our error, stop pretending like we're blameless, and actually talk to Iran. The truth might hurt, but it's better than living in a delusion that will only make matters worse. Furthermore, rejecting criticism outright is simply a refusal to adapt and improve. It's dogma and doesn't belong in sound foreign policy. Of course, why should I expect anything but dogma from a born-again Christian in the White House? Alas, these are the times we face.

My Beliefs

2007-02-10T12:28:00.000-07:00

Vjack at Athiest Revolution just came up with a great idea, and I'm extremely jealous I did not think of it earlier. On his post "What Do You Believe?" Vjack correctly points out that, unlike religion, atheism has no distinct set of beliefs apart from our views on the nonexistence of gods:

As we consider this question, one critical disclaimer must be offered at the outset. Because atheism has no doctrine, set of core values, or even shared vision of the world, no honest atheist will have much to say about how his/her fellow atheists think. Since atheism implies nothing besides a lack of theistic belief, one must expect tremendous diversity among atheists. I have met atheists who believe in ghosts and others who do not. All they necessarily share is that they do not believe in gods. This may be difficult for some Christians to grasp because they do have at least some shared doctrine.

Those of us who think it is important to provide believers with an alternative worldview are going to need to offer something beyond atheism.

To do my part, I am going to use this post as a springboard to periodically address what I do believe in and the values which inform my worldview.

I think this is a great idea. Like Vjack, I will also start posting my beliefs on life, the universe, and everything from time to time. Eventually, I hope it will provide a reasonably comprehensive belief system of at least one atheist. Of course, my beliefs could certainly change over time. That's the great part of being an atheist. Without religious dogma, we're free to reevaluate the world and our place in it as we encounter new ideas. You'll be able to access all my posts on the topic from the link on the right sidebar.

New Human Evolution Exhibit at American Museum of Natural History

2007-02-10T10:06:00.000-07:00

Today the American Museum of Natural History will open a new permanent exhibit on human evolution. The cool part is that it will be the first exhibit of its type to combine fossil and genetic evidence to provide a much more comprehensive view of human origins. Read more about it here.

Of course, Creationists won't buy it. They probably won't even go. The Christian Post has its own article about the new exhibit, and it asserts:

The findings presented should not shake up the creation museum organizers, however. Much like evolutionists, the creationists study the same fossil and DNA evidence that the AMNH will present. They argue that, if studied subjectively, the evidence will only back up scriptural authority.

Ha! I guess by research, they mean read the Bible really hard and make stuff up. Notorious creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis shouldn't even be allowed to call himself a scientist when he makes statements like this:

The Bible, where it touches on science or any subject including same-sex marriage, race or abortion, is totally trustworthy. As a revelation of history from the beginning to the end of time, the Bible is the foundation that enables us to construct the big picture and have the right approach in geology, biology, physics and astronomy.”

If that's the case, perhaps Ham can show me where the Bible lays out the proper way to understand radioactive decay. What a loon.

Anyway, since I'm going to school in New York, I'll probably be checking out the new exhibit at the AMNH within the month, and I'll give you some of my thoughts on it.

Haggard Signs Banishment Agreement

2007-02-09T07:47:00.000-07:00

In a further attempt to cover up all the details of Haggard's homosexual activities, Haggard has signed an agreement with the New Life Church stating he can no longer live in Colorado Springs. From 9News in Denver:

9Wants to Know has learned the New Life Church in Colorado Springs has reached an agreement on the conditions of Pastor Ted Haggard's relationship with the church.

The agreement calls for Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor at the New Life Church, to not rejoin the ministry at New Life, for him and his family to relocate from Colorado Springs and requires Haggard to refrain from speaking publicly about the scandal.

The agreement also includes a financial settlement, but as part of the deal, the church and Haggard cannot disclose how much was included.

Despite the fact that such an agreement would fail miserably in court since the Constitution says that Haggard can live wherever he damn well pleases and say whatever he wants, this whole thing stinks. Why should Haggard allow a church to dictate what he does in life? This is America. Be free. Plus, if Haggard is "cured," what is the New Life Church so afraid of that they have to force Haggard to stay out of town and keep quiet about the incident? I wonder. Once again, here we see a fundamentalist Church trying to close their eyes and hope everything bad just goes away.

At least they gave him some money. He was the one who established the church, afterall. It's nice to see all of his efforts didn't go to waste.

Can't Forget Our Celebrity Infatuation

2007-02-08T18:57:00.000-07:00

Is it not enough that a person died? CNN has taken it upon themselves to give hour after hour of coverage on the death of Anna Nichole Smith. Death is always a tragedy, but does it really need this kind of exposure and wild specualtion? Let her go in peace and let's not make a huge deal out of this. This American infatuation with celebrities disgusts me. People need to worry more about their own lives rather than the lives of someone who they will never meet.

Since the death of Anna Nichole Smith is of such Earth-shattering importance, CNN has decided to suspend coverage of all other news. Needless to say, we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see Paula Zahn make amends.

At Least CNN Can Take a Hint

2007-02-08T12:38:00.000-07:00

Unlike Karen Hunter and Debbie Schlussel, who continue to dig themselves into a hole, it seems like Paula Zahn might regret the final outcome of her anti-atheist show last week (and by regret, I mean see an excellent opportunity to increase her ratings). Tonight at 8 PM eastern time, Zahn will have Richard Dawkins on her show to discuss the same issues.

Okay, I admit it. I'll add to her ratings, but just because I want to see Richard Dawkins. I love hearing what that man has to say.

At any rate, I suppose we can count this as a victory of sorts.

Update: Hmmm...it seems as though Dawkins will not be on the show very long. Pharyngula has more. Besides, what's the point of having a British atheist when the topic is on intolerance within America. I like Dawkins, but this doesn't really address the issue. We'll just have to see how the show pans out.

James Dobson is Still a Dirty Liar

2007-02-08T09:44:00.000-07:00

Last month, I wrote a short post discussing James Dobson's distortion of the research of Dr. Carol Gilligan. Well, another PhD, Dr. Kyle Pruitt, has also come forward with the same complaints. In the video below, he talks about how Dobson has lied about Pruitt's findings in an attempt to further his theological goals. Check it out:

Just another example of evangelicals being selective with science. They use it when it helps then and ignore it when it refutes their claims.

My Thoughts on the CNN Debacle and the Responses from Hunter and Schlussel

2007-02-08T08:58:00.000-07:00

I'm finally going to jump on the bandwagon and say something about the CNN piece from Paula Zahn where Karen Hunter and Debbie Schlussel basically told atheists to sit down and shut up since our rights don't matter anyway (you can see it here). At least Steve Smith (of ESPN) had the courage to come to our defense. I clearly wouldn’t agree with him on matters of religion, but at least he knows how our Constitution is supposed to work and what rights we Americans have.

Like every other atheist who has commented on this issue, I was disappointed Zahn did not have an atheist on the panel when thee topic of discussion was discrimination against atheists. However, the format of the show doesn’t really lend itself to a balanced discussion on every issue since it has the same guests throughout the entire episode, so I guess I can understand. Besides, Zahn seemed rather surprised to see that nobody wanted to defend atheists. I can understand that much, I guess. But then a number of atheists contacted Hunter and Schlussel, and the responses the two women have given are downright appalling.

Starting with Karen Hunter, a person using the name CDG posted an email conversation with Hunter on Richard Dawkins’ website. Here are some of Hunter’s more revealing quotes:

You choose to be an atheist. I
didn't choose to be black. I have never seen a sign that read:
Christians Only. You never had to sit at the back of the bus because
you're an atheist and I cannot recall a single atheist being hung from
a tree or drag from behind a truck until his limbs fell or shot at 50
times just because he was an atheist.

You chose to be an atheist. You weren't born that way. It's a belief
system and no one has to know unless you walk around with a sign or
throw in people's faces. Live and let live. Do what you want. But if I
believe that this society lacks morality and I believe that the kids in
my neighborhood would be better served by having a little of that in
their lives, please don't go to the Supreme Court to ensure that they
don't.

The person taking part in the email exchange should have gotten off the issue of race and turned to the fact that Hunter chooses to be a Christian. Since she thinks something you choose is not a right, does that mean she has no right to defend her faith? She completely invalidates her entire argument. Plus, I don’t think anyone is saying that atheists have it as bad as blacks did, but that doesn’t mean we should put up with people being chased from their communities just because of their faith or lack thereof. Besides, so what if you choose your religion but not your race? They’re both matters of equality. Further down the thread on the Dawkins website, Kingasaurus left this comment, which I agree with completely:

Someone needs to tell Karen Hunter that freedom of thought and speech is just as important as racial equality. The fact that one "chooses" religious belief and doesn't choose skin color is a completely irrelevant comment and is a distinction that is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion.

The fact that you can change your mind about your religion and not your race DOESN'T MATTER. The principles of freedom and being treated fairly by the society at large are the same in both cases.

The irony is that it wasn't that long ago that a black woman couldn't be elected dog catcher. The fact that an honest atheist still can't be elected in America seems not to bother her one bit, and she can't see the parallels between the two situations. The differences between blacks and atheists in the context of what they are/were fighting for are meaningless details, but that's what she focuses on because the opinions of atheists are so incredibly foreign to her way of thinking.

Principles should transcend any particular difference of opinion you have with someone else. If you can't do that, look in the mirror.

In the end, I guess Karen Hunter is simply unable to empathize with someone who has different beliefs. It’s sad and extremely narrow-minded, but no surprise there. I am surprised that she's a Pulitzer Prize winning author. Someone that ignorant shouldn't be eligible.

Debbie Schlussel, on the other hand, is even more ignorant and far more hateful. On her blog, she posted a response to the whole incident with the asinine title “When Atheists a/k/a Future Muslims Attack.”

I don't mind receiving the atheist hate mail, since I know that in a few years, many of these same people will either be Muslim extremists (redundant) or helping the country fall further in its fight against the creep of Islamic imposition on America . . . or both.

Look at famous atheists and what happened to them. Adam Gadahn a/k/a Azzam Al-Amriki--now a top Al-Qaeda video "personality"--was raised by his hippie Jewish father and equally bizarre gentile mother as an atheist. And look how he turned out. Ditto for hippie-spawn John Walker Lindh.

Those two people are enemies of America, and many of those who think like them are of equally weak mind. If you don't believe in anything, you'll easily fall for virtual nothings. That's why Europe is so quickly turning Islamist--because atheism dominates and Christianity is rapidly dying there. Over there, the number one cause for which atheists are suddenly finding "god" is Islam.

Over here, as I pointed out on CNN, atheists are on the attack against religion and G-d only when Christians and Jews are involved, not when Muslims and Islam are. A Christian prayer at a public school graduation or football game? Send in the ACLU lawyers. A Muslim prayer at a high school football game in Dearbornistan? Suddenly, when the "Religion of Peace" is involved, atheists boast extreme tolerance and display ultimate deference. No lawsuits. Ever. And the Muslim prayers continue.

To start off with, she clearly has a deep-seated hatred towards Muslims. That should be enough to condemn her right there. How dare she even accuse atheists of hatred when she can’t help but reveal her own bigotry? Then where does she get her data about atheists in Europe converting to Islam? She provides no source, so I have a guess: straight out of her imagination. It’s not a big secret that Europe has had a huge influx of Muslim immigrants. Just do a simple Google search and you’ll see what I mean.

Next, I’d like to see any proof that there have been Muslim prayers in American public schools, but I bet this “fact” also comes from her overactive imagination. If any government-funded school tried to impose a Muslim prayer on their students, I guarantee the ACLU would be the first ones to stand up and file a lawsuit.

Unfortunately, someone showed that atheists can be just as stupid and took it upon himself to post “whore” several thousand times in Schlussel’s comments section. I just had to groan when I saw that. Name calling is never helpful. It closes people off from discussion. Anyway, I digress.

Despite the sheer bigotry this episode revealed, perhaps it will be a blessing (figuratively, of course) in disguise. Hopefully, it will alert people to the issue and show them that we will not tolerate open hatred against us nor should anyone else who believes in the American ideals of freedom and equality. This country will not have true religious freedom until all religions, or lack thereof, are seen equally.

Atheist Ethicist also has a great post on the subject.

I highly recommend you take the time to read it.

Evangelicals Get One Gay Freebie

2007-02-07T16:13:00.000-07:00

I missed this on my last post dealing with this subject, but it turns out the Inquisition--I mean the four ministers reviewing Ted Haggard's "immoral conduct" feel that Haggard is "completely heterosexual" because he only had homosexual relations with one man. From CNN:

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday's edition.
"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."
Ralph said the board spoke with people close to Haggard while investigating his claim that his only extramarital sexual contact happened with Mike Jones. The board found no evidence to the contrary.

So, this sends a great message for homosexual evangelicals still in the closet: it's okay to have gay sex as long as it's only with one person. You're only gay when you have gay sex with a second man. What a load of crap.

Undoubtedly, they're trying to save face while ignoring Haggard's truly immoral actions. What about the bold faced lies he told to his wife and his congregation? Shouldn't that be the more important issue here? I guess integrity and isn't nearly as important to evangelicals as sexual orientation, which people cannot help. I hold this as further evidence that fundamental Christianity is morally bankrupt.

DaveScot: When Good Science Goes Bad. Yeah, Right

2007-02-07T06:37:00.000-07:00

DaveScot of the ID blog Uncommon Descent recently had a post titled "Glodal Warming is not Due to Human Contribution of Carbon Dioxide." I suspect this comes on the heels of the UN Global Warming Panel's report that humans are at fault for the phenomenon. What is DaveScot's source? Why, an article from notorious global warming denier Timothy Ball, who calls himself Canada's first PhD climatologist. However, there's a few small problems with Ball's credentials, courtesy of desmogblog.com:

Ball and the oil industry
Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.
Ball inflates credentials
Ball and organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball.
Ball and the NRSP
Ball is listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."
Ball's research history
Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996 and a search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, over the course of his career, Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.
Ball sues researcher and Calgary Herald newspaper
On Sept. 1, Ball, launched a libel suit against Dr. Dan Johnson, a current Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Lethbridge and a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems. Here are the original Statements of Claim and Defence.

Now, I know DaveScot loves to point out these "rebels" who fight against the unyielding scientific establishment. To him, it seems like proof that the efforts to keep ID out of schools is simply scientific dogma. As DaveScot says:

This is what happens when good science goes bad. It’s the same story with orthodox evolution theory.

Too bad he tries to use a liar with a severe conflict of interest to try and prove his point. Hmm...sounds just like an ID advocate. No wonder DaveScot likes him. Better luck next time.

Update: An anonymous commenter left a sweet link that further exposes Ball's lies. It's a list of all the Canadian climatologists prior to Ball. Check it out and see for yourself. Thanks anonymous.

Finally, Someone Can Show Me Why God Killed All Those Children

2007-02-06T16:28:00.000-07:00

Someone calling himself or herself Bet left and interesting link (and nothing else) in one of my comments sections. I can only assume from the content of the linked article that Bet wanted to turn me away from my wicked ways in an attempt to save my soul from eternal damnation. While I appreciate the concern, I wanted to take the time to address the article.

Written by Ray comfort, the article comes from ChristianAnswers.net and is a three pronged attack against atheism. In the first part, Comfort tries to show how a loving god can exist when we have terrible natural disasters like the tsunami on Dec 26, 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people. Comfort poses a worthwhile point:

Tell that to those who were burying tens of thousands of human corpses after the tsunami hit. Tell that to the fathers who hold the dead bodies of their beloved children in their arms, or to the relatives of those who died of horrific diseases. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that if there is a God who created all things, He must be all-powerful. Nothing is impossible for Him. He therefore could have easily prevented unspeakable agony by simply lifting His finger off the earthquake button. But He didn't.

How does Comfort reconcile this with his beliefs? Oh, it’s amazing:

A quick look at Jeremiah 9:21-24 gives the answer to this intellectual dilemma. How could God be loving and yet allow suffering? The Bible tells us that He is in control, and that He does send judgments to this earth. God is love, but He's also just and holy and if He gave us what we deserve, the tsunami of His holiness would sweep us all into Hell.

Imagine you have knowledge that a bridge has been washed out by a terrible storm, on a dark and moonless night. You stop all approaching cars and say, "The bridge that spans a thousand-foot chasm has been washed away! Please turn your vehicle around." The violence of the storm itself is enough to convince any thinking driver that you are speaking the truth, and those who have the sense to believe you do turn around.

Tsunamis, terrible diseases, agonizing cancers, massive earthquakes, devastating tornados, killer hurricanes, awful suffering, and death itself are very real and violent storms that should be enough to convince any thinking person that our warning is true.

The message of Christianity isn't one of God wanting to better this life for humanity. It is one of warning of a terrible fate in store for those who continue on the road of sin. We are told by God's Word that there are two deaths on the highway to Hell. The first death is when we leave the storms of this life and pass into timeless eternity. The second death is the chasm of eternal damnation. It is the terrifying justice of a holy God.

Thanks, Ray. You pretty much confirmed my feeling that fundamental Christianity is a death cult obsessed with suffering. I’m sure God smote the thousands of children who died in that disaster for their wickedness. Doesn’t the Bible say children are innocent? I guess that doesn’t apply to evil, heathen babies.

Plus, I’m sure all the children in the remote, coastal villages of Southeast Asia really had a chance to hear the messenger warning them of the washed out bridge. Is it their fault they didn’t even get an opportunity to hear Christian teachings? If God punishes people for not believing in something they never even heard of, then God is a real bastard.

Next, Comfort goes into a variation of Pascal’s wager suggesting that a person might as well believe in a Christian afterlife to spare the torment of hell. Sorry, but I can’t just make myself believe in something without evidence. Pretending to believe won't be actual belief.

Finally, Comfort tries to prove that atheists don’t actually exist. He uses the same tired argument:

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Okay Ray, so you suggest we just accept something on blind faith for which you have no evidence? The problem is that he assumes atheists are 100% convinced there is no God. That’s not the case. I certainly can’t speak for all atheists, but my beliefs are driven by evidence. If there was actually tangible evidence for a God, then I would admit my error, but I won’t accept the existence of a God without it. Why? Because something that does not exist will not leave evidence. It’s like me claiming there’s an invisible dragon under my bed. Using Comfort’s argument, he’d better accept that the dragon lives there because he isn’t omniscient. He’d also better accept every god that people have ever worshiped because he isn’t omniscient.

Now, I can easily admit that the evidence for God's existence might be out there. Does that make me agnostic? Sure, whatever, but it's nothing more than semantics. I simply won’t waste my time worrying about something that isn’t real enough to leave evidence. I’d rather spend my time actually helping people and doing what I can to improve the world in this life. If there is a god and helping others doesn’t get me into his good graces, then he’s not a god worth believing in.

However, I'd assert that, everyone is atheist to an extent. As Richard Dawkins said:

We are all atheists with regard to most of the gods of history. Some of us just go one god further.

He's Cured!

2007-02-06T14:06:00.000-07:00

After an intensive three weeks of treatment, Ted Haggard has been officially cured of his gayness. The Denver Post reported the following:

The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser.

Wow, that's enough to convince me that homosexuality is a choice. Despite the copious scientific evidence proving otherwise, I can't argue with this. But, come to think of it, I'm sure I would agree to just about anything after three weeks of intensive guilt tripping from a group of overbearing fundamentalists. It's really sad that Haggard can't admit who he actually is. He has to keep living a lie.

Then in a move suggesting that the New Life Church leadership doesn't believe their own bullshit, the Denver Post had this to say:

In the message, Haggard revealed that he and his wife, Gayle, intend to leave Colorado Springs and pursue master's degrees through online courses.
Haggard mentioned Missouri and Iowa as possible destinations. Another oversight board member, the Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, said the group recommended the move out of town, and the Haggards agreed.
"This is a good place for Ted," Ware said. "It's hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now. It's like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed

I see. Haggard is "cured," but he still needs to be banished. If he was really cured, what would be the problem? I guess the church doesn't want Haggard tainting the entire congregation with his suppressed gay thoughts. What happened to the Christian ideal of being forgiving? I guess that doesn't apply to things people have no control over. It's really quite disgusting and helps highlight the moral bankruptcy of fundamental Christianity. They're on the same level of morality as the segregationists of the 20th century (unsurprisingly, it was fundamentalist Christians then too). If Americans really want to be seen as a caring, moral people, then we need to throw off this unethical mentality and embrace the idea that all people are equal.

The Creationists' Biggest Mistake

2007-02-06T09:36:00.000-07:00

I wrote a post on this subject a couple of days ago, but the blog Hell’s Handmaiden brought a poignant article from Answers in Genesis to my attention, and it inspired me to expand on some of my ideas. The article’s author, Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham, laments the fact that most colleges will not accept credits from Christian home schooling or Christian schools:

Let’s face it. Secular humanists have, by and large, won the culture war in America’s public schools. But not just satisfied with victories there, they are now aiming at Christian schools and homeschools. Yes, Christian institutions are becoming more and more marginalized in the US. And, I think you will be shocked at the latest developments.

Then he goes on to show his winner takes all mentality:

So, the major argument presented against homeschooling in the US and Britain is that most of the parents teach their children the biblical account of creation. The secularists recognize that if the account of creation in the Bible is true, then Christian doctrine and morality are also true—and that humans are accountable to their Creator God (who is the absolute authority in all things). Therefore, people who deny they are responsible to a Creator—and who demand that morality be relative and lobby for the legalization of abortion, “gay” marriage, etc.—are often intolerant of those (i.e., biblical Christians) who oppose them.

The logical, if unsaid, flip side to Ham’s argument is that if the biblical account of creation is untrue, then Christian doctrine and morality must be false. I don’t think Ken Ham realizes how damaging this can be to his religion. He stakes the entire basis of his faith on whether or not Genesis is 100% accurate then leaps headfirst into an argument he’s poorly prepared to fight. People don’t need their scriptures to be completely true to maintain their faith. Just ask the millions of moderate Christians in this country who accept evolution.

Plus, Ham chooses to ignore the reams of evidence in favor of an old Earth just so he can validate his faith. Unfortunately for Ham, it’s hard to fight reality. Galileo is an excellent example of this. It took a few centuries, but the Catholic Church eventually had to reconcile with the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe and apologized to Galileo. Reality simply didn’t support that biblical claim, and forced the Church to admit that the Bible should not be taken literally.

More than anything, Ham’s efforts don’t help him spread his faith. It might make the true believers feel good since they won’t do any research, anyway. However, the more moderate, educated Christians will scoff at Ham’s efforts and might even buy into his winner takes all mentality, except they’ll probably go the opposite direction from what Ham wants. It might make them actually question the validity of their faith when they look at the evidence against the Bible being 100% accurate.

How do I know? Well, it’s what drove me away from Christianity. I grew up with a general acceptance of the findings of science, and, at the same time, I was comfortable with the idea that the Bible was more a set of morality tales than literal history. I didn’t need it to be true to have faith. However, the more I noticed the Creationist claims against evolution, the more I did some research to formulate my own opinion. I learned what the evidence was for evolution and a 4.6 billion year old Earth and what the Creationists' counter evidence was. I found the Creationist side to be severely lacking. It showed me just how lousy Creationist evidence is and how dishonest and willingly ignorant they are. It also caused me to actually read the Bible and realize that we don’t get any of our morality from it. If anything, Christians ignore most of the morality requirements in the Bible, particularly those in the Old Testament. In the end, it showed me that I didn’t need religion to have a fulfilling life. And it was all because of the Creationists. For that reason, I’m actually thankful for their efforts. They helped me gain a better perspective on life, the universe, and everything.

Finally, Ken Ham is sorely mistaken if he thinks humans must be “accountable to their Creator God (who is the absolute authority in all things).” Is it so wrong to be accountable to you fellow man? Sure, no human can threaten you with eternal damnation, but is that really a bad thing? In my opinion, it is morally superior to help others because you want to alleviate suffering in the world, not because you’re afraid of punishment. Mr. Ham, you must have a terribly dark opinion of your fellow humans if you think the threat of punishment is the only way we can be good. Shame on you.

Templeton Foundation Distances Itself from ID

2007-02-05T14:51:00.000-07:00

In what I can only optimistically interpret as a sign of the tide continuing to turn against ID, the Templeton Foundation, an organization dedicated to reconciling the differences between science and religion, has publically distanced itself from the ID movement. Pamela Thompson, the Templeton Foundation's Vice President of Communications, sent the following letter the the LA Times:

"Testing the role of trust and values in financial decisions" (Jan. 21) incorrectly describes the John Templeton Foundation as having been an early supporter of the political movement known as "intelligent design."

We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements.

The foundation has provided tens of millions of dollars in support of research academics who are critical of the anti-evolution intelligent-design position.

For almost a decade, the foundation has been a major supporter of a substantial program of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science. One of the program's chief activities has been to inform the public of the weakness of the intelligent-design position on modern evolutionary biology.

In the past we have given grants to scientists who have gone on to identify themselves as members of the intelligent-design community. We understand that this could be misconstrued by some to suggest that we implicitly support the movement, but this was not our intention at the time, nor is it today.

The best part is how the Thompson labels the ID movement as a political one and not a scientific one (which is completely correct). I wonder how the ID community will react to this one? I can't wait to see the logical backflips it will take to spin this into a positive.

However, Thompson isn't completely honest in her letter, since Templeton was an early supporter of ID research. Obviously, that research has yet to happen, which explains why Templeton has washed their hands of the whole embarassing fiasco. Read more at Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Now, excuse me while I take part in a science victory jig.

The Bible vs. Science

2007-02-05T14:19:00.000-07:00

USA Today (via Yahoo) has an excellent opinion piece by Tom Krattenmaker titled "The Bible vs. Science." Here's a small taste of what Krattenmaker has to offer:

How many Americans are ready to accept the proposition that science has made a colossal error interpreting the fossil and geological record and - more radical still - that the validity of Christianity depends on proving it? If anything, a stance like this repels those wavering between faith and disbelief and gives skeptics one more reason to reject religion.

I have to say I agree completely. In the long run, it seems the idea that Bible must be completely true or Christianity will fail seems like a losing battle for fundamentalist Christians (which isn't so bad). If anything, their ploys point out the most unsupportable claims of the Bible, severely undermining their position that the Bible is 100% accurate. Even someone with a rudimentary knowledge of the scientific method will see how shoddy or nonexistant Creationist research is. Plus, when one actually weighs science next to religion, what has actually done more for humanity in terms of making the world a better place to live? Who will a majority of people actually trust?

My greatest fear is that Americans are becoming too ignorant to care. For many, the Creationist claims will seem good enough and will not prompt them to learn anything else on the subject. Perhaps that is the goal. Creationists want to provide enough smoke and mirrors to make Creationism seem scientific enough for an ignorant populace.

In the end, I have to comfort myself with the fact that reason has always won out in the end. Sure, things can digress a great deal, but the attempts to halt progressivism invarably fail. I certainly hope history will repeat itself. Hopefully, this is just another last gasp from the willingly ignorant before the next great wave of progressivism.

Anyway, I highly recommend reading the opinion piece. It gives me hope that the Creationists are just shooting themselves in the foot.

Quote of the Week

2007-02-04T14:42:00.000-07:00

"It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn"

- From Galileo Galilei's Dialogue, 1632.

New Rediculous Claim Against Evolution: Darwinism Causes Terrorism

2007-02-04T14:21:00.000-07:00

It seems someone really wants France to reject the theory of evolution. French schools and universities have recived tens of thousands of copies of a textbook advocating an Islamic view of creation. From Yahoo News:

Entitled "The Atlas of Creation," the 770-page book by Turkish author Harun Yahya quotes several passages from the Koran and asserts that "human beings did not evolve (from another species) but were indeed created."

Clearly, the Koran is an unquestionable source of scientific evidence.

The most ludicrous part of the whole thing is Yahya's claim that Darwinism is the cause of terrorism:

The book features a photograph of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center with the caption: "Those who perpetuate terror in the world are in fact Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy that values and incites conflict."

All I can say is wow. Is Yahya retarded? Does he really think the 9/11 perpetrators had glowing images of Darwin in their minds as they flew into the World Trade Center and Pentagon? Does he really think that the 9/11 perpetrators saw their actions as the perfect fulfillment of natural selection? Talk about living in a delusion. Is Yahya so oblivious that he completely rejects the idea that Muhammed Atta and his gang were believers in fundamentalist Islam? Is it not possible that the Koran inspired them to commit their act of terrorism? What about all the violence in the thousands of years of human history that came before Darwin lived? How does Yahya explain that?

Obviously, it's foolish to try and apply logic to someone so far off the deep end. It seems Yahya refuses to accept the fact that the the 9/11 terrorists were members of his religion. What I want to know is: who wasted all the money it required to get tens of thousands of copies of this book into the French schools. Does he think such a saturation will cahnge opinions overnight. Rediculous.

The real shame is that so many trees were wasted on this effort. On the upside, at least France has a ready supply of toilet paper for the next few weeks.

Carnival of the Godless 59

2007-02-04T11:36:00.000-07:00

Carnival of the Godless 59 is now up at Aardvarchaeology. Check it out and wallow in some good god-free fun!

Don't Fear the Reaper

2007-02-03T15:19:00.000-07:00

Today, I'm going to address one of the more pathetic arguments against atheism. I've heard a number of people start with the question: "Aren't you afraid of what happens when you die?" Then they follow it up with an argument to try and show how atheists have a fatalistic worldview, thereby making the theistic view on death superior.

My answer is always no. Why? Let's start with two undeniable truths. 1) Everyone who ever lives dies. 2) Nobody really knows what happens to our consciousness after we die. How does this alleviate fear of death? Well, it's really not meant to alleviate fear but rather to encourage people not to fixate on death.

The objection I usually get at this point is that a religious belief in an afterlife gives people comfort, especially when loved ones die. However, I question how a fairy tale about a life after death really brings comfort. Sure, it might help a person not worry so much, but it can also cause two major problems.

Deep down, many theists aren't sure if their view on the afterlife is correct or if there even is life after death. This fosters a feeling of unknown and helplessness that can spawn an even greater fear of being wrong. People like this become so worried about their death that they fail to live life to its fullest.

On the other side of the coin, we see theists who are certain of their righteous place in the afterlife. They become so concerned with making it to the next life that they don't care about the harm they cause in this life. For example, look at the belief in the Rapture amongst fundamentalist Christians. They're happy to go to war in the Middle East and bring on global warming because they believe it will hasten the return of Jesus. They don't care about the damage they cause in this life. These are the people who need the seed of doubt. What happens when their savior doesn't come. What kind of world will they have doomed their children to live in?

Now, I'm not saying we need to ignore death and pretend like it doesn't happen. What I'm saying is enjoy life and do what you can to leave the world a better place than you found it. No one knows what happens to our minds after death, and worrying about it or making up fairy tales about it won't change reality.

I like to think of the quote from Braveheart: "Every man dies. Not every man really lives."

So when the end comes, be able to say that you've really lived, and don't worry about what happens next because it will come whether you've make up fantasies about it or not.

Now, if I'm completely wrong and there is a god, why should me believing in him make a difference? If trying to make the world a better place is not enough to get in a god's good graces, then he is not a god worth believing in.

Discrimination Against Atheists in the Army

2007-02-02T23:03:00.000-07:00

Check out this YouTube video where Wayne Adkins, an officer in the Ohio Army National Guard, recounts his attempts to file an EO (Equal Opportunity) complaint after a general officer made bigoted remarks against atheists. In his story, Adkins explains how the complaint went all the way to the Department of the Army Inspector General and was then subsequently ignored. It's extremely disappointing and a severe injustice to see the Army treating one of its own this way.

History's on Our Side, but We Must Be Careful

2007-02-01T14:51:00.000-07:00

Vjack at Atheist Revolution has a great article warning atheists about playing into the hands of the Religious Right by appearing too extreme. Here's a short excerpt:

...there is a very real risk that atheism will be equated with another form of extremism in the minds of many Americans. Our more confrontational tactics must be balanced with an emphasis on education, critical thinking, and more subtle criticism. I am not suggesting that we abandon the assault on religion launched by our colleagues but that we supplement it with other approaches. If the American people come to perceive us as simply another form of extremism (and there are indications that this is already happening), our credibility becomes no greater than that of the Christian extremists we oppose.

I certainly agree with Vjack on the need for atheism to not look like just another version of a religious zealotry. Whenever we atheists take an opportunity debate our case in front of others, the best way to win in the audience's minds (since that's where one truly wins a debate) is to be the calm, reasonable one. Let the other person look like the raving, irrational fool. When debating strongly religious individuals, it usually doesn't take long for them to let their true colors show. Indifferent observers will almost always side with the calm, collected, and rational individual. You might even plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the believer. Even if the other person stays mature and calm, you will be able to articulate to others what being an atheist actually means. It probably won't win converts, but it will educate others, making acceptance more widespread.

However, we shouldn't be afraid to point out injustices when we see them and be ready to point out intolerance when we see it. It will certainly inflame the Religious Right, but we have history
on our side. It may come in fits and spasms, but progressive ideas have endured throughout American history. Look at the abolitionist movement prior to the Civil War. Slave holders made an uproar over the issue and even resorted to war to preserve it, but progressive thought won out. Look at the civil rights movement. Segregationists became more vocal and outspoken, but progressive thought won out. Look at the gay rights movement. The Religious Right still raises a stink over the issue, put polls show that most Americans support gay rights. To me, it seems the recent outbust of conservative Christianity is the Religious Right's attempt to stop the next inevitable wave of progressive thought. Its leaders are scared of losing their sacred intolerances and their control over their congregations. It might seem bad, but, as history shows, it always gets worse right before the next great step forward.

That doesn't mean we can become complacent. It still takes work, but as Vjack said, we need to be careful of benefiting the Right by making them feel persecuted. Even though atheists pointing out the flaws in religious thought is far from actual persecution of religion, perception is reality, and when someone buys into propaganda, it becomes real in his or her mind. To win the acceptance of the majority of Americans, we need to ensure they see the messages of the Religious Right for what they actually are: mere propaganda.

The Use of Fear by Answers in Genesis

2007-01-31T21:36:00.000-07:00

Ken Ham, president of the Creationist organization Answers in Genesis, recently posted an essay on his website warning Christians of the “new atheists.” It’s nothing more than the same old tactic of trying to scare people in supporting him, but I wanted to discuss it briefly. Ham starts by saying:

We’ve warned you about them before on our website—but now they’re on a much more aggressive march all across America. No longer are they just staying in their classrooms or writing books and articles in the comfort of their offices. They are “the new atheists,” and they are aggressively going after your children, your liberties, and your faith!

Right. So we’re supposed to stay out of sight and out of mind while Christians get to say whatever they want in the public arena. Ken Ham smells like a freedom hater to me. As for atheists trying to go after Christians’ children, liberties, and faith…well, if educating children how to think for themselves is what all that means, then sure. Is it wrong for children to learn how to make choices for themselves and how to look beyond the Bible to gain knowledge about the world around them? Obviously, Ham would think it’s wrong after seeing him in the documentary Friends of God brainwashing children with the line: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” Ham knows that religion loses too many true believers once people start thinking rationally.

Ham then goes into a long elaboration on how terrible it is that atheists dare express their opinions, particularly Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. To me, it just looks like Ham’s scared of Christians having to share the spotlight, but of course he uses fear to rile up his supporters:

Evolutionary indoctrination has produced generations (even in the church) who doubt the Bible. Barna Research discovered that of teenagers today who call themselves born-again Christians, only 9% believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. These young people are ripe for “secular evangelists” like Dawkins and Harris.

I automatically question how accurate that 9% figure is (it seems like it should be much higher), but it’s all nothing more than Orwellian scare tactics to keep people from learning something on their own. When Ham paints atheism as something to be feared, people close themselves off to understanding it. It works all the time. Just look at the US after 9/11 and the lead up to war with Iraq. A majority of Americans closed themselves off from rational thought out of fear right when we most needed to be reasonable. Ham’s trying to achieve the same thing.

Finally, how else could a religious leader finish except to ask for money?

As we begin this new year, I ask you to consider what you might do to partner with us. The website and future museum are wonderful ways we can counter the atheists’ message of meaninglessness and hopelessness—and offer the precious gospel instead.

Once again, painting atheism as something it’s not. *Sigh*

To sum it all up, I wanted to share this letter because it displays one of my major problems with organized religion. Almost all are based on fear and use fear to maintain power. The only reason this tactic perseveres is because fear is the best way to keep people in line. No free, civilized society should stand for it. Now, I'm sure Ken Ham is sincere about his beliefs, and I have no problem with that, but that doesn't mean should be allowed to scare people into believing the same thing. It's coercive and ethically wrong.

More on Bush Administation's Supression of Science

2007-01-31T11:11:00.000-07:00

The Boston Globe's online newpaper has an article concerning recent statements from US Representative Peter Welch, D-Vermont:

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch says it was a "stunning personal experience" to hear federal scientists say they had been stymied from talking about climate change.

"There was a story about a scientist who got authorized to speak at a conference. He was prohibited from using the phrase 'global warming.' He was allowed to say 'global,' and he could say 'warming,' but he couldn't put them next to each other. It became a charade," Welch said.

I'm surprised it took Rep. Welch this long to figure it out. Regardless, the entire charade by the White House is sickening. What's worse is how the article ends:

The White House maintains it was trying to bring balance to reports on global warming.

What is there to balance? The vast majority of the scientific community agrees with the evidence. Once again, the problem comes down to ignorance of science. This quote from Paul Ehrlich says it best:

Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong.

Scientists Reveal Bush Administration's Pressure Against Global Warming

2007-01-31T06:09:00.000-07:00

Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, we're finally starting to see the full extent of the Bush Administration's abuse of science. MSNBC has a good article on the subject. Here's a short excerpt:

The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.

The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

We all knew it was happening, but now that the political climate in Washington has changed (no pun intended...okay, maybe it was), we're finally starting to see something done about it. We've already seen the President acknowledge climate change and the need to do something about it in the SOTU. Only time will tell if he backs up his promises. Somehow, I doubt he'll do anything about it.

Refuting Divine Command Theory

2007-01-30T21:19:00.001-07:00

One of the favorite theories clung to by the moral absolutists and the religious right is the theory of Divine Command. Essentially this theory states that moral goodness is determined solely by the will of God. God, Bad, Right, Wrong, singularly depend on Gods will.

I will state theory again in unequivocal terms…

God determines the morals of the world.

Refuting this theory is accomplished solely through the use of logic. The great Athenian philosopher Socrates presented this logic impeccably in his Euthyphro Dilemma:

1) To begin our logical destruction of Divine Command Theory let us first assume that it is true… God dictates the morals of the world.

So, if Divine Command Theory is true then one of two possible scenarios occur with regard to actions deemed “morally good”

a. Morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
Or
b. Morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

See the distinction? Is it good because God says it is good, or is it good because it simply is good?

2) Let us now address these two scenarios. If (a) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then all morally good acts exist entirely independent of Gods will.

Is it the case that morally good acts exist independent of Gods will? If you are an atheist then certainly, but if you are a person of faith you cannot possibly believe that things in the world can exist independent of God or you are simply a hypocritical moron.

Let us assume then that you are a person of faith, God's will controls all, thus our first premise must be false.

3) This leads to our second scenario, (b) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

If this is the case, then what is the point? God’s will has already been set and determined. He has dictated what is right, what is wrong, what is good, and what is bad, so there is no need for any independent assessment. If there is no reason for independent assessment what is the point of worshiping God at all, would he deviate from his own set plan? I purport that he would not, therefore if out second scenario is true…

There would be no cause either to care about morality or to worship God.

4) Again, assuming we are persons of faith, we clearly disagree with the aforementioned statement. Thus our second scenario is also incorrect.

5) With both our scenarios being incorrect where does that leave Divine Command Theory? The answer is in tatters and we should continue debating, discussing, and seeking the truth about morality and the nature of man.

The reDiscovery Institute

2007-01-30T20:12:00.000-07:00

I just came across this nice little bit of parody (thanks to Nullifidian's feed at Planet Atheism): The reDiscovery Institute. It does an excellent job poking fun at the real-life Discovery Institute and highlights the absurdities of a religious organization masquerading as a scientific one. It also performs the critical task of teaching the controversies. You know, controveries like the theory of gravity, the periodic table, the solar system, literature, etc.

If you think the Discovery Institute is as silly as I do, then you'll love the reDiscovery Institute.

God Said it, I Believe it, that Settles it!

2007-01-30T17:52:00.000-07:00

Crooks and Liars has a short clip from Alexandra Pelosi's film, Friends of God, dealing with evangelical views towards evolution. I recommend you check it out.

From watching it, one can easily see why Creationism endures in America. As the woman early in the clip said, "Creationism is easy." Most people don't want to take time to understand science, and then they believe in liars like Ken Ham just because he speaks from the pulpit.

Then you have adults doing everything they can to prevent children from thinking for themselves with the line "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." There's few things worse than willingly supressing a child's ability to learn and forever closing his or her mind to inquiry.

Quote of the Week

2007-01-30T16:32:00.000-07:00

"Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance."

- Sam Harris, from The End of Faith.

Montana Loves Freedom

2007-01-30T16:13:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, Representative Robin Hamilton of the Montana House of Representatives introduced House Joint Resolution No. 21, which would ensure separation of church and state, particularly in Montana's public education system (see the NCSE post about it here). Here's the main language of the bill:

WHEREAS, a high quality science education is critically important for Montana students to be able to participate in today's technologically driven society; and
WHEREAS, the statewide science standards adopted by the Board of Public Education and implemented through a science curriculum designed by local boards of trustees across the state have resulted in a very high quality education system in our state; and
WHEREAS, Montana is fortunate to have many knowledgeable science teachers who are well qualified to determine appropriate strategies and tools for teaching science to Montana's students; and
WHEREAS, there are a number of national fundamentalist organizations seeking to force local schools to adopt a science curriculum that conforms to their particular religious beliefs and that includes theories commonly referred to as creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, these organizations were successful in pressuring the Kansas State Board of Education into removing evolution theory from the science curriculum, resulting in the State of Kansas being held up to national ridicule and portraying that state in a very negative light; and
WHEREAS, these national efforts undermine a community's local control, a teacher's academic freedom, and a student's opportunity to receive quality science education; and
WHEREAS, the doctrine of separation of church and state protects citizens, churches, and religious organizations from the government adopting or endorsing a particular religion's teachings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
(1) That the Montana Legislature support local adoption of a science curriculum that is based on sound scientific principles and supported by science teachers, parents, and the local community.
(2) That the Montana Legislature oppose the efforts of national organizations seeking to impose their religious interpretations of events and phenomena on local schools under the guise of science curricula.
(3) That the Montana Legislature recognize the importance of teaching Montana students about religious traditions, beliefs, and history and encourage inclusion of these topics in religious studies, sociology, and history.
(4) That the Montana Legislature recognize the importance of and support the separation of church and state to protect religious freedom of all citizens to worship as their conscience guides them.

I must say, I am extremely glad to see something like this appearing in a state legislature to ensure the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. Furthermore, teaching children ID and creationism does not teach them anything about science. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world. It's the antithesis of science. Every state in the nation should have something like this to keep us from falling behind the rest of the world scientifically and technologically.

Unfortunately, I don't know how likely this bill is to pass, but a similar measure died in committee in 2005, so we'll see what happens.

ID Organization Begs for Money

2007-01-30T04:35:00.000-07:00

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the organization that published the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People, is getting ready to publish their new ID textbook the Design of Life. There's only one problem: they need $200,000 and they want YOU to donate the money. Why should you support this cause? Well, Jon Buell provides a number of laughable reasons in his fundraising letter. First off, Buell says points to the desperate state of "Darwinists" and their supporters:

The Darwinists believe they are losing. Why else would they politicize an academic debate, take it into courts, and punish skeptics?

Wait a minute. Wasn't it ID supporters who lobbied school boards to change the curriculum of several public school districts? Wasn't it ID supporters who hoped to force the issue in court to overrrule Edwards v. Aguillard? Now, who actually politicized this? As for the punishing skeptics part, the major example IDists push, the whole Sternburg saga, is a situation where the guy deserved to be fired (read more here).

And fascinating facts are surfacing. Careful analysis reveals that 90.9% of Judge John E. Jones's verdict was lifted, almost verbatim, including the errors, from the ACLU's submitted "Findings of Fact." The opinion is not his own analysis at all.

Despite the fact that this claim has long since been dealt with, I'll address it again here for the sake of education. When a judge agrees with one side's findings of fact, then he or she will use it. That is how they regularly operate. They're not writing literature, a historical essay, or a scientific paper, so it's not a matter of plagurism (read more here).

Meanwhile, Interest in Intelligent Design is Exploding!

Biochemist Franklin Harold said, ". . .but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
In an MIT Press book, Origination of Organismal Form, the authors admit, "neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative."
Google reported over 24 million hits on the term intelligent design during most of the trial.
Two movies are in the works on ID, one from each perspective.
Over 4.000 gathered in the Univ. of So. Florida Sun Dome Sports Arena for an ID conference.
A Texas Voter's Guide published in the fall reached 6 .4 million, reporting the views of candidates on various issues of public interest. Those favoring the inclusion of ID in biology courses outnumbered opponents by a three-to-one margin.

Franklin Harold's quote is a push to remove excessive speculation and focus more on observation when using the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with ID. Origination of Organismal Form is meant to stimulate research to produce a more comprehensive theory of evolution, which is simply science doing what it's supposed to do: explore the unknown. Once again, it has nothing to do with ID. Google hits? Please. I've Googled Intelligent Design. That doesn't mean I support it. As for the ID conference, if you Google it, you'll get hits from a bunch of ID websites. It seems like it's only a big deal in the minds of the IDists. The actual scientific community didn't even notice. Finally, Buell doesn't provide the source for his "three-to-one margin" data, so that's extremely suspect.

So we have a couple of lies and overblown or misleading claims. But it gets better:

The stage is set for The Design of Life:

The manuscript is complete. The book itself is a phenomenon.
It is scheduled to be released on March 1st, 2007, provided we can secure the funding for this exciting project.
We've got a start on booking Dembski to speak at universities with this book.
We have hired a marketing and PR firm to work with us and a comprehensive plan for marketing the book is in the works.
It has the explosive potential to reach young people, as the recent gathering of young people at the University of South Florida's Sun Dome attests.
Christianity Today calls Dembski "Johnson's successor as the informal leader of the intelligent design community." Dembski authored the first ID book by a major university press (Cambridge University Press, 1998). He edited Darwin's Nemesis (IVP), a Festschrift in honor of Prof. Phillip Johnson. His work has been featured on the front page of the New York Times, he has debated top Darwinists at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and has appeared on ABC's Nightline. He lectures around the globe (the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, Cambridge and Oxford, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA, Princeton, Yale, MIT) on ID.

Wow. A phenomenon. Well, I can't wait. It's also interesting that the "informal leader of the intelligent design community" is a mathematician, not a biologist. Enough said there.

Buell then goes into a lengthy allegory about "Darwinists" unknowingly flying upside down, which results in materialism, immorality, etc. Then he finishes by saying, "Darwinism is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented!" Right. Because as an atheist, I really base my morality on the theory of evolution. Like I've always said. Evolution is not a basis of morality, nor should it be. It simply describes an observed natural phenomenon. As an atheist, I base my morality on the principle of empathy, not a scientific theory. Clearly, Buell's diatribe reveals the underlying fundamentalist Christian motives of the ID movement (not like there was any doubt, anyway).

Next, we have this gem:

Friends, the time is ripe for the next step-leap, really-in this movement. We can bring what has seemed like a dream to full reality. I urge you to embrace and adopt this vital and noble vision as your own! Are you giving what you can to bring a big and noble vision to fruition? Whether for the sake of the school children you see out romping over the Christmas vacation, or for the future of America, the West, and of civilization, there could be no greater reason to reach out, seize a great vision, and embrace it as the cause that you will fight for, bleed for, deny yourself for, take risks for, and champion among your friends.

The future of Western Civilization depends on the success of ID? Riiiiight. Too bad it's science that has made the West such a great place to live. What did a completely Christian society bring us? Oh that's right. The Middle Ages and Puritan New England, just to name a couple of examples.

Then the letter begs for $200,000 with the promise that The Design of Life will triumph over the repressive government. What, was Of Pandas and People not sneaky enough? Did it not sound "sciency" enough. Did you not make a profit of of Pandas? Considering the lies Buell told above to try and convince people to give him money, I seriously doubt this "phenomenon" of a textbook will have an honest representation of evolution. Pandas certainly did not.

Finally, just in case we weren't sure ID was religiously-motivated movement, the letter ends with:

Would you prayerfully consider what you are able to do to help? And please also pray for us in this exciting adventure! God bless you!

You know, if ID could stand on its scientific merit, then it wouldn't need prayer. At any rate, it's good to see that a leading ID organization is strapped for cash.

Colorado State Senator Wants to Destroy State's Education System

2007-01-29T16:32:00.000-07:00

Here's a little local news for me today. Too bad it's not positive. State Senator Dave Schultheis of Colorado Springs (where else?) recently introduced a bill in the state legislature to create a "Public Schools Religious Bill of Rights." Besides being completely unnecessary, the bill would give students wildly different educations depending on the religious views of their teachers.

The bill seeks to codify several rights students and teachers already have, including the right to proclaim their religious beliefs, hold prayer meetings outside of school hours, wear religiously themed clothing, exchange gifts, etc. All of these rights are already guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Most of the proposed bill is pure fluff.

However, there are two proposed rights I would like to comment on:

(V) USE A RELIGIOUS GREETING;

This is almost humorous coming from a Republican considering the Right has been the only group trying to limit the winter holiday greetings to "Merry Christmas." Regardless, it's guaranteed by the Constitution, making this proposed right as unnecessary as the others.

The most harmful proposal is the following:

(VII) [A teacher or an employee of a public school may:] NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

This is obviously a sneak attack directed towards teaching the theory of evolution. The problem is that if a teacher refuses to teach a topic on religious grounds, then his or her students will suffer while students who recieve the instruction will have an advantage. It creates a harmful disparity in education. As goverment officials, teachers have a constitutionally mandated responsibility to not respect an establishment of religion. Teachers can have whatever beliefs they want, but those beliefs cannot be forced onto their students.

Luckily, the bill doesn't stand a chance of passing. As Senator Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, said, "I would have to question whether or not Sen. Schultheis is serious about passing meaningful legislation or whether he just wants to throw something inflammatory out there and get shot down and then go play the martyr." It makes sense. Considering Schultheis represents the evangelical enclave of Colorado Springs, this is probably just a way for him to appeal to his voters. More than likely, he wants to look like another poor, persecuted Christian so he'll be reelected whenever his term ends.

More on the Thylacine Saga

2007-01-28T22:27:00.000-07:00

A little while ago I posted a response to an essay from Shelly the Republican which suggested that thylacines (tasmanian wolves) and wolves are actually the same thing (you can read my post here). I later dismissed the whole thing as a parody since that's what Shelley the Republican seems to be.

While I still think Shelly the Republican is a parody, a commentor brought it to my attention that the essay itself originated elsewhere. Shelley simply copied it from the intelligent design blog Overwhelming Evidence and added the pictures and captions. Overwhelming Evidence is the "kid-friendly" offshoot of Uncommon Descent and is partly maintained by William Dembski, a leading ID advocate.

Now, I know for a fact that Overwhelming Evidence is not a parody, and the fact that this ignorant essay is sincere makes me extremely worried about the future of America. Of course, someone could be preying on the gullibility of creationists, as Randi pointed out in the comments section. Wouldn't be the first time it's worked (see here).

Evangelicals Want Kenyan Museum to Hide Hominid Fossils

2007-01-28T21:29:00.000-07:00

Talk about covering your eyes and hoping it all goes away. Evangelicals in Kenya have recently been pushing for Kenya's National Museum to hide its world-class collection of hominid bones. If that's not admitting defeat, then I don't know what is. Bishop Boniface Adoyo, Chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya said in protest of the museum displaying the bones:

"When museums claim that man evolved from apes, they are actually hurting many Christians who believe that God created us."

It's not the museum's fault that the evidence leads scientists to agree with evolution. Trying to censor the evidence simply acknowledges that you don't want your false claims to be revealed.

Luckily, the museum has stated that they will not remove the fossils.

Read more at Talk Reason.

Introduction and On Relativism

2007-01-28T21:18:00.000-07:00

First of all let me say how honored I am that lord J-bar would consider me worthy enough to be invited to submit posts to his blog. I am not a scientist and know little more about evolution than what I have been able to personally gauge from the mind of Lord-J bar. I do consider myself a firm pragmatic thinker and shall make posts on such matters that suit that fancy.

Thus it is with great pleasure that I introduce my first post… a query on Relativism.

Let me begin with this assumption.
Assumption: It is commonly believed that those who are religiously devout tend to believe that the world is made up of moral absolutes. Such people are called (no surprise here) Moral Absolutists.

According to the idea of moral absolutism, something deemed “morally wrong” is and was always morally wrong. The idea is that certain practices transcend cultural is not all together wrong. Murder, rape, theft, all these things are fairly universally condoned. But the practice of rampant absolutism runs into difficulties in my following hypothetical situation.

I put forth that slavery is and was always wrong. Simply because it was done in abundance in olden days did not make it right.

The bible; however, has specific mentions to slavery and actually sets down regulations on how it is to be conducted (See Exodus 20:1-12 through 21:1-31)
Therefore, a devout person of the Christian or Jewish faith, who also professes to be a moral absolutist, must admit that these passages of the bible are morally repugnant; that their practice was wrong, and by setting out specific instructions for the proper conduct of slavery, God was morally wrong.

I know of no one who would suggest that their own sacred texts are morally backwards and I am certainly not saying to those of us who do believe in the almighty are worshiping a morally bankrupt God.

But in this sense it would be far more pragmatic for the religious person to be moral relativists; that the practices of out forefathers were not wrong… just acceptable to the morals of the time.

However, this is contrary to those who would suggest that the bible is literally true.

If it makes much better sense then for the bible to be relative then, why such opposition to the idea of Relativism?

I have no good answer to that. Maybe because accepting the bible as relative debunks all biblical arguments against things like homosexuality and abortion. But relativism seems to me to make for a much more tolerant society, and furthering this idea may be to all of our betterment.