Opposing the Creation Museum is Good Science, Not Intolerance

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.

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

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

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.

Atheist vs. Christian Debate on ABC Tonight

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.

Oh that South Park

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.

Blog Against Theocracy: The Problem With End Timers

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.

Former Senator Santorum Hates Freedom

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?

What a Terrible Doctor

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

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.

Haggard Signs Banishment Agreement

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.

James Dobson is Still a Dirty Liar

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.

Evangelicals Get One Gay Freebie

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.

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

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!

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 Bible vs. Science

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.

Rush Limbaugh Hates Freedom

Yesterday on his show, Rush Limbaugh made this Medieval-minded comment:

The liberals did indeed bandy about, bang on the drums for women in combat. Now anyone with, it just isn’t right. Whether they can do it or not, that’s not what a cultured civilized society does to its women, they just don’t do it. Except in dire, dire circumstances, but yet they did. But yet we’ve not, they have in college, women should be allowed to place kick in college football, but they haven’t said a thing about women playing pro football, now why is that because they know it would be impossible. They know the average human being wouldn’t last more than two plays, the average woman wouldn’t even, it would be, they don’t even suggest it yet they do for the military? So what does it tell you they of the military? Its nothing but a little social playground for experimentation, by the way since they’re liberals they’d love to weaken it and love to tear it apart and cause all kinds of controversy and strife, and they do it under the guise of women’s rights, I’m sure there are some imminently qualified women in the military I am not talking about their ability to do, I am talking about the institution and what it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the foxholes. It can be done, but its not recommended.

Either Limbaugh is retarded and thinks the American government rounds up women off the street and forces them into the military or (more likely) he clings to an ancient religioius belief and thinks women are supposed to be second class citizens who can't make any decisions for themselves.

Well Rush, let me tell you something. All the women in the military are there by choice, that's what it means to have a volunteer army. For example, women aren't allowed into the Army's major combat branches (infantry, armor, artillery), but they do a fantastic job in the branches they are in. Plus, if having women in the military is a way to "weaken" and "tear [it] apart," then why is it the most effective fighting force on the planet? Look at how fast our Army advanced in Iraq in 2003. No other army in the world could do that as quickly. It sure doesn't seem like women have done any harm to it.

Of course, it's too much to expect any sense of reality from Limbaugh's statements. He lives in a fantasy world where liberals are vile enemies of the nation and only straight, white, Christian men are allowed to have any say. In Limbaugh's dreamworld, women are good, subservient, Christian wives who have no place in society except to make babies (of course, they can't make any choice when it comes to that either). It's disgusting. After something like this, it'd be real nice if the Right would stop listening to the intolerance this man spews forth, but I doubt it. They all live in the same culturally backward fantasy.

Inconvenient Evidence for the Religious Right: Gay Sheep

Time Magazine just published an article about the uproar in the blogging world over Oregon Health & Science University's research on homosexual rams. It turns out the claims made by PETA were blown out of proportion, but I'm not going to cover that here (I suggest you read the article because it's interesting to see how quick rumors can get out of control on the internet). What I'm going to cover here is the findings of the study.

One finding was that about 8% of rams have sex exclusively with other rams, which is about the rate of incidence found in human populations. Another finding is "that gay rams have different brain structures from heterosexual ones."

It all goes to show how reality goes completely against the claims of fundamentalist Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family who insist that homosexuality is a "morally deviant choice." Come on people, the only reason you think that is because of a few lines in a Bronze Age text. If they really think humans are the only living things with free will, then how do they explain a part of nature engaging in "morally deviant behavior?" Of course, the willing ignorance of conservative Christians means these findings will probably be ignored and James Dobson will keep doing "research," a.k.a. making shit up, to justify his interpretion of the Bible.

If we really want to be a moral and just society, then we need to look away from ancient myths, not towards them. Otherwise, millions of Americans will continue to suffer from irrational, pointless hatred based on a distant culture's prejudices that have no bearing on the modern world.

Evangelicals Have Better Sex?

Tonight HBO will feature the documentary "Friends of God" by Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Ther interesting part is that Pelosi's guide through the evangelical world was none other that Ted Haggard. In the Newsweek interview with Pelosi, the interviewer made this observation of the doumentary:

Early on in the film, Haggard tells you, “Surveys say that evangelicals have the best sex life of any other group.” He then asks a pair of married, young male parishioners standing nearby how often they have sex with their wives. One of them responds, “Every day. Twice a day.” Then Haggard asks the man how frequently she climaxes. “Every time,” the man says.

I guess evangelical sex might be better if you're having sex with a male prostitute on the side. BWHAHAHAHA!

On a more serious note, considering the subservience expected from conservative Christian wives, I wonder if the sex actually is great or if there's much of a choice in the matter. Of course, the Bible says that the woman must be subservient to the man, so the true believers who are female probably go along, not questioning their second class position. It's just one more reason to stop looking to an ancient book for morality.

Some Thoughts on the SOTU

So, I watched the State of the Union address last night. I must say I'm not impressed except for one key part: President Bush said the words "climate change." I was a bit taken aback by this apparent about-face considering the denials and the distortions of science Bush's administration has utilized concerning Global Warming. However, he made the same promise he's made in previous years about alternative fuels and has yet to do anything about it. I seriously doubt he is truly sincere about stopping climate change and it was just a way for him to appease the new Democratic Majority.

Of course, he's still not listening to anybody on Iraq. No surprise there. I loved how quiet the chamber became when Bush spoke about it.

Finally, he didn't say anything about the "family values" issues. I'm not really surprised since 2006 showed that most Americans don't care about those issues. He's just avoiding the issue to save face politically. However, Bush's failure to mention anything on the "family" agenda certainly pissed off conservative Christians. Check out this video from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council where he protests the President's lack of commitment to "family values." Sorry Tony, but most Americans don't want your "values."

I am happy to hear the President mention climate change, but, given his track record, I doubt anything will come of it or any of his other promises. I 've got to keep telling myself: Just two more years and hopefully this nightmare will be over.

On a more positive note, I enjoyed watching Senator Jim Webb give the Democratic response. It was one of the best deliveries in years and did a good job outlining the Democrats' goals. Plus, I like the way he stuck it to Bush on his lack of military service. Good job Senator Webb!

The Christian Culture of Deception

The Atheist Ethicist has an excellent essay on the accepted practice of lying and deception within the current culture of Conservative, American Christians. The points brought up in the essay are one of the major reasons, if not the reason, I detest Conservative Christians. They label themselves as the moral and ethical standard bearers of the nation, but then show a complete lack of integrity and intellellectual honesty. If that's what it means to be moral and ethical, then I don't want anything to do with it. Again, I encourage you to read the essay.