Showing posts with label idiot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idiot. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Hooray for Christian spam.
We get email!
I present, in all its ghastly-fonted (it was actually 12 point Comic Sans MS but Blogger doesn't seem to have it available - lucky you), horribly-formatted, grammar-challenged, big red glory a Godspam that arrived in my work inbox today. Not my personal inbox, the enquiries inbox that I'm chained to this month (this particular Christian wasn't all that discerning with their mailing list, were they?):
Friday, December 11, 2009
Kindle = Nazis?
Apparently, to some, they are. Or, maybe to just one particularly unhinged, paranoid writer.
Read this improbably hysterical screed by Alan Kaufman (writing at the Huffington Post, which goes some way to explain why this ridiculous piece was published in the first place) in its entirety if you dare, or just read the following bits:
When I hear the term Kindle I think not of imaginations fired but of crematoria lit.
... and we're off to a cracking start. If an electronic book-reader immediately brings to mind the greatest crime against humanity since the Inquisition, I'm not sure we can expect a great deal of sober, rational discourse either about technology or Nazis. Good lord, what this chap must think of iPods, netbooks ... what fevered nightmares and night-terrors must this man have suffered when SMS arrived and people stopped talking to each other? But persist we must - I could, after all, be wrong.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
On Church and State
I doubled the following at Dangerous Intersection a few days ago. Fuck knows why I follow American politics and society so closely but - forgive me, my fellow 'strayans, - our shit is pretty dull. Don't get me wrong though, that's just fine - compared to one or two other free democratic countries, ours is usually run pretty decently (despite our many problems). For example, you don't have to think twice about going to a hospital when you're sick or hurt because you know Australia's health care system will sort you out if you're dirt poor. Also, you don't have to worry about Christian whackjobs infiltrating the government and trying to have all our laws, sex ed classes, science classes and maybe even road rules based on the book of fucking Genesis. That brings me to the point of the post, so without further twattery:
In the USA today, there is a small but highly vocal (some would even say “strident”) movement dedicated to enshrining certain of their religious values in the laws and Constitution of their nation. Many of this movement proclaim that the Constitution and the laws of the United States are already this way; that the law of the land is based on Judeo-Christian principles and that separation of church and state is an illusion, never happened and even if it did happen was never intended by the founders of the nation and is some kind of liberal invention designed to make the US more vulnerable to suitcase bombs, atheist summer camps and movies about Charles Darwin which don't paint him as the eugenicist spiritual father of Hitler.
In the USA today, there is a small but highly vocal (some would even say “strident”) movement dedicated to enshrining certain of their religious values in the laws and Constitution of their nation. Many of this movement proclaim that the Constitution and the laws of the United States are already this way; that the law of the land is based on Judeo-Christian principles and that separation of church and state is an illusion, never happened and even if it did happen was never intended by the founders of the nation and is some kind of liberal invention designed to make the US more vulnerable to suitcase bombs, atheist summer camps and movies about Charles Darwin which don't paint him as the eugenicist spiritual father of Hitler.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Herr Ratzinger continues the massacre
[Doubled from Dangerous Intersection]
HIV/AIDS is possibly the worst health crisis to hit this planet. It’s also arguably the worst thing to happen to the African continent since white people were regularly kidnapping its inhabitants and trading them like farm machinery.
But the one hopeful thing about the whole situation is this: while there’s no cure yet, AIDS is easily preventable. Ridiculously easily preventable. Avoiding the sharing of needles & using contraception are the two most effective ways to avoid the long, tortuous, wasting death we’ve all come to associate with this horrendous epidemic. And if you’re not an intravenous drug user (or you studiously avoid sticking sharp, blood-stained things in your body), there’s 50% of your prevention pretty much sorted already.
So … how the hell are you supposed to react when the gold-robed, paedophile-protecting dictator-for-life of the Catholic Church continues to threaten people with eternal torment for using contraception during sex (based on a very, very, um, interpretive interpretation the Bible) and instead tells people “just say no” to sex? In this story (BBC) Pope Oberstumbannfuhrer Herr Kaiser Ratzinger (I refuse to use his picked-out stagename, he’s not Axl Rose for crying out loud) once again proves to the world that not only is his outlook anachronistic, unrealistic & laughable, it’s also flat-out fatal. To millions upon millions of people.
In the referenced article Ratzinger, in the very same breath, calls AIDS a “cruel epidemic” and then follows that with this clanger: “The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.” Except when it hasn’t, doesn’t, isn’t and won’t. Obviously.
Allow me to rephrase & clarify that statement for you, Popey: “The inestimable, genocidal cruelty of AIDS is most efficiently perpetuated by people in positions of power (like Popes, for example) asking poverty-stricken superstitious people, living in abject fear for their very souls, to do what amounts to the impossible.”
In the past, before I knew much about AIDS’ awful presence in Africa (for instance, the article states that today, around 60% of the entire world’s AIDS 40 million patients are African and up to 1000 die each day), whenever I’d hear some robed halfwit with celestial voices in his head make a pig-ignorant statement like that of Ratzinger’s I’d just roll my eyes, sigh and think “Gosh, those wacky Catholics. At it again, asking the impossible and being ignored by the world, even Catholics. Laugh out loud!” But after a while I realised that while most people in the developed world treat Ratzinger’s words with all the respect they deserve, large swathes of Africa (and other developing regions) are still tightly gripped by superstition of all kinds and take the word of people like Herr Ratzinger and his little wizards as gospel. Accordingly, they avoid the simplest precautions against unwanted pregnancies and definitely unwanted STDs because they’ve been taught that wasting sperm incurs God’s wrath.
Then there was this gritty little cultured pearl of wisdom:
Righto. Right up there as the biggest threats to Africa’s future, along with human trafficking (a modern form of slavery if there ever was one) and prostitution (often related to said trafficking) are those gravest of grave sins: the right to choose if you conceive a child during sex (regardless of whether the sex was legal or consensual), the right to not carry an embryo into actual foetus-hood and that most awful of activities, the right to end a relationship.
Does this geriatric idiot in the imperial robes who lives in a palace not see the links - right there in his very own statement? There’s human trafficking - desperate, poor people either taken advantage of or simply forced into such activities as prostitution - quite often not presenting a choice to the new sex-slave about who they have sex with, when they have sex with them and whether the “customer” protects himself or not. Divorce - well, in many cultures across the globe, obviously including Africa, people (and by “people” I mean “women”) don’t get a choice who they marry or when their new spouse decides to consummate that marriage (search the web for “obstetric fistula” - a painful & embarrassing condition which occurs way too often in underage African girls). Abortion, that old Catholic standby - well, disregarding the fact that a fertilised ovum or a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells isn’t a human being - what if you’re nine years old and aren’t physically capable of carrying a child to term? Well, if you’d read the news lately that doesn’t matter to the Papacy. Their official response? Excommunicate the doctors and the kid’s family - but not the mangy son of a bitch stepfather who repeatedly raped the girl from when she was six years old - then impregnated her with twins which would almost certainly have killed the girl. But hey, everyone knows it’s par for the course for the Vatican to protect child-rapists.
Rape & sex-slavery & STDs aside, even in the average committed, loving, monogamous relationship - even one completely without risk - there should be a choice. There should be a right to choose not to have a child. One word comes to mind when people think of Africa: poverty. If you can’t afford to feed & clothe & educate a child, there is absolutely no reason that you should be forced to have one. To force people, under the threat of eternal damnation, to simultaneously conceive children they cannot support and risk contracting the deadliest disease ever experienced by humanity is possibly the most reprehensibly immoral act that can be undertaken by a person in a position of power and responsibility. Ratzinger knows the effect his words will have among the faithful, he knows what the stakes are and, unless he’s been living under a rock (maybe not but I’m willing to bet he sleeps in a coffin), he surely must know what the results have been from decades of official Vatican “don’t protect yourself, just say no to sex” wisdom. Of course he knows all that, for crying out loud. But why care too much about adding millions more to the existing millions of sick & dying Africans? There are more where that came from, right Ratzi? Of course there are going to be if you tell people they’ll burn in Hell for wasting their sperm. And hey - dying slowly & horribly of AIDS and watching all your kids starve, followed by eternal bliss in heaven has just got to be better than a long, healthy life followed by forever with a red-hot pitchfork inserted somewhere less than convenient. Right?
But, honestly, I don’t know how to react anymore. These days when I hear Ratzinger, as he frequently does, displaying a stark ignorance of the realities of the world (unmatched except perhaps by Sarah Palin or your average coma patient) or condemning people to what he surely must know is an early death, I’m not sure if I should scream unintelligibly at my screen, post floweringly verbose excoriations, sigh in defeat & just sit and feel powerless and frustrated or … just have a healthy, profane vent & say “Ratzinger. Hey. Shut the fuck up. You’re killing people with this retarded dogma of yours - actually killing people - just as much as if you strangled them with your own bony, pampered hands. Your words are weapons of genocide - a war crime in peace-time, a crime against humanity - and if anyone’s going to Hell, you elderly virgin whose first & last experience of a naked woman was being pushed, tiny, wet & screaming, out of one, it’s going to be you, because you had the opportunity to save millions of lives and you bailed on it, your mind enslaved by your precious god-damned magic book. And once you’re there, roasting, I hope the millions of victims of your arrogant delusions & murderous idiocy visit you in Hell to kick your balls right up through your face.”
Here endeth the rant.
HIV/AIDS is possibly the worst health crisis to hit this planet. It’s also arguably the worst thing to happen to the African continent since white people were regularly kidnapping its inhabitants and trading them like farm machinery.
But the one hopeful thing about the whole situation is this: while there’s no cure yet, AIDS is easily preventable. Ridiculously easily preventable. Avoiding the sharing of needles & using contraception are the two most effective ways to avoid the long, tortuous, wasting death we’ve all come to associate with this horrendous epidemic. And if you’re not an intravenous drug user (or you studiously avoid sticking sharp, blood-stained things in your body), there’s 50% of your prevention pretty much sorted already.
So … how the hell are you supposed to react when the gold-robed, paedophile-protecting dictator-for-life of the Catholic Church continues to threaten people with eternal torment for using contraception during sex (based on a very, very, um, interpretive interpretation the Bible) and instead tells people “just say no” to sex? In this story (BBC) Pope Oberstumbannfuhrer Herr Kaiser Ratzinger (I refuse to use his picked-out stagename, he’s not Axl Rose for crying out loud) once again proves to the world that not only is his outlook anachronistic, unrealistic & laughable, it’s also flat-out fatal. To millions upon millions of people.
In the referenced article Ratzinger, in the very same breath, calls AIDS a “cruel epidemic” and then follows that with this clanger: “The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.” Except when it hasn’t, doesn’t, isn’t and won’t. Obviously.
Allow me to rephrase & clarify that statement for you, Popey: “The inestimable, genocidal cruelty of AIDS is most efficiently perpetuated by people in positions of power (like Popes, for example) asking poverty-stricken superstitious people, living in abject fear for their very souls, to do what amounts to the impossible.”
In the past, before I knew much about AIDS’ awful presence in Africa (for instance, the article states that today, around 60% of the entire world’s AIDS 40 million patients are African and up to 1000 die each day), whenever I’d hear some robed halfwit with celestial voices in his head make a pig-ignorant statement like that of Ratzinger’s I’d just roll my eyes, sigh and think “Gosh, those wacky Catholics. At it again, asking the impossible and being ignored by the world, even Catholics. Laugh out loud!” But after a while I realised that while most people in the developed world treat Ratzinger’s words with all the respect they deserve, large swathes of Africa (and other developing regions) are still tightly gripped by superstition of all kinds and take the word of people like Herr Ratzinger and his little wizards as gospel. Accordingly, they avoid the simplest precautions against unwanted pregnancies and definitely unwanted STDs because they’ve been taught that wasting sperm incurs God’s wrath.
Then there was this gritty little cultured pearl of wisdom:
It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality [emphasis mine]
Righto. Right up there as the biggest threats to Africa’s future, along with human trafficking (a modern form of slavery if there ever was one) and prostitution (often related to said trafficking) are those gravest of grave sins: the right to choose if you conceive a child during sex (regardless of whether the sex was legal or consensual), the right to not carry an embryo into actual foetus-hood and that most awful of activities, the right to end a relationship.
Does this geriatric idiot in the imperial robes who lives in a palace not see the links - right there in his very own statement? There’s human trafficking - desperate, poor people either taken advantage of or simply forced into such activities as prostitution - quite often not presenting a choice to the new sex-slave about who they have sex with, when they have sex with them and whether the “customer” protects himself or not. Divorce - well, in many cultures across the globe, obviously including Africa, people (and by “people” I mean “women”) don’t get a choice who they marry or when their new spouse decides to consummate that marriage (search the web for “obstetric fistula” - a painful & embarrassing condition which occurs way too often in underage African girls). Abortion, that old Catholic standby - well, disregarding the fact that a fertilised ovum or a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells isn’t a human being - what if you’re nine years old and aren’t physically capable of carrying a child to term? Well, if you’d read the news lately that doesn’t matter to the Papacy. Their official response? Excommunicate the doctors and the kid’s family - but not the mangy son of a bitch stepfather who repeatedly raped the girl from when she was six years old - then impregnated her with twins which would almost certainly have killed the girl. But hey, everyone knows it’s par for the course for the Vatican to protect child-rapists.
Rape & sex-slavery & STDs aside, even in the average committed, loving, monogamous relationship - even one completely without risk - there should be a choice. There should be a right to choose not to have a child. One word comes to mind when people think of Africa: poverty. If you can’t afford to feed & clothe & educate a child, there is absolutely no reason that you should be forced to have one. To force people, under the threat of eternal damnation, to simultaneously conceive children they cannot support and risk contracting the deadliest disease ever experienced by humanity is possibly the most reprehensibly immoral act that can be undertaken by a person in a position of power and responsibility. Ratzinger knows the effect his words will have among the faithful, he knows what the stakes are and, unless he’s been living under a rock (maybe not but I’m willing to bet he sleeps in a coffin), he surely must know what the results have been from decades of official Vatican “don’t protect yourself, just say no to sex” wisdom. Of course he knows all that, for crying out loud. But why care too much about adding millions more to the existing millions of sick & dying Africans? There are more where that came from, right Ratzi? Of course there are going to be if you tell people they’ll burn in Hell for wasting their sperm. And hey - dying slowly & horribly of AIDS and watching all your kids starve, followed by eternal bliss in heaven has just got to be better than a long, healthy life followed by forever with a red-hot pitchfork inserted somewhere less than convenient. Right?
But, honestly, I don’t know how to react anymore. These days when I hear Ratzinger, as he frequently does, displaying a stark ignorance of the realities of the world (unmatched except perhaps by Sarah Palin or your average coma patient) or condemning people to what he surely must know is an early death, I’m not sure if I should scream unintelligibly at my screen, post floweringly verbose excoriations, sigh in defeat & just sit and feel powerless and frustrated or … just have a healthy, profane vent & say “Ratzinger. Hey. Shut the fuck up. You’re killing people with this retarded dogma of yours - actually killing people - just as much as if you strangled them with your own bony, pampered hands. Your words are weapons of genocide - a war crime in peace-time, a crime against humanity - and if anyone’s going to Hell, you elderly virgin whose first & last experience of a naked woman was being pushed, tiny, wet & screaming, out of one, it’s going to be you, because you had the opportunity to save millions of lives and you bailed on it, your mind enslaved by your precious god-damned magic book. And once you’re there, roasting, I hope the millions of victims of your arrogant delusions & murderous idiocy visit you in Hell to kick your balls right up through your face.”
Here endeth the rant.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Ray Comfort is a fucking idiot
"Fucking" being the operative word in this case. That is, he reproduces, or can or will reproduce (oh god, I sincerely hope not) sexually. With another person.
However, he is under the following mistaken impression about Darwinian evolution (a mistaken impression about evolution? Ray? Say it aint so!):
Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half).
Ray Comfort, you are a fucking, fucking, FUCKING idiot. At no point, ever in human history, or even pre-human history, have "we" (bipedal apes) reproduced via splitting in half. At no point, ever in Darwin's history, did he "theorise" that humans ever could or ever did reproduce asexually. That is possibly the most unimaginably, mind-bogglingy brain-rapingly stupid thing you've ever written on your blog (which is really, really saying something).
OK then, I shall attempt to be charitable. If you're not simply a fucking clueless idiot, then you're one of the following: (a) laughably, pathetically ignorant, (b) in complete understanding of what you read but flat-out lying through your teeth about what evolutionary theory says, for some reason, (c) unable to read & comprehend words of your own language that are put in an easily decipherable order that clearly & unambiguously describes a concept or idea or (d) deliberately baiting atheists with what you know to be complete falsehoods in order to rile them up and expose to your loyal cadre of credulous Raytheists exactly how unpleasant atheists are, all of the time (not just when responding to such blatant falsehood). It could even be (e): you're a cynical charlatan who takes great delight in simultaneously pissing off & misrepresenting atheists & scientists while taking the money of history's easiest, softest, most stationary targets: hardcore evangelists who take the Bible literally.
If it's simple ignorance or carelessness at the root of this ridiculous error, that could be excused - except that you frequently present yourself as some kind of authority or expert or, at the very least, a knowledgeable & educated layman in the areas of evolution and the development of life, all in order to lend credence and credibility to your supposed debunkings of it, which eliminates (a). Obviously you can read & write English and I've even seen you speak it on youtube while masturbating a banana, so (c) is out. Option (b) - you're a bald-faced liar - is very likely, I think, as is (d) - you just like baiting atheists or just anybody who believes evolution is a well-supported theory backed by literally millions of pieces of evidence gathered over 150 years by humans (including so many transitional fossils that it would pretty much require a textbook to list and describe them all), but amassed over the past 3.7 billion years by the natural processes of our planet, with much still waiting to be discovered. Option (e) - that you're a charlatan, ripping off credulous idiots in the full knowledge that what you're peddling is bullshit - is very, very possible (because you wouldn't be the first) but I don't think it's likely.
It's hard to tell which of those it is. You appear earnest and stupid and ignorant enough to believe what you're saying (which would require of even the most cynical of charlatans and gifted of actors a Herculean effort to either not burst out laughing at the idiocy of your statements and gullibility of your patsies or to simply not choke on the vomit that would arise in most rational people were they to attempt to portray your fantasies as truth) and you display a deep misunderstanding and dislike of people who aren't religious, or who just understand what science is (which would explain why might enjoy baiting them with your fabrications and seemingly deliberate misunderstandings on a website called 'atheist central'). Flat-out liar? Well, only if you know what you're saying is bullshit - you don't seem to know much at all that's useful, which really just leaves my original position: that you're a fucking idiot. Oh, and a charlatan - because you do take peoples' money - the fact that you believe your own bullshit doesn't change the fact that you are indeed a peddler of complete bullshit. And you're an ignorant cretin - the evidence you seek is all around you, yet you refuse to read & understand it. So, I suppose you're a mix of all of those ... you're a standard-issue creationist evolution-denier, ripping off the faithful and spreading ignorance, while simultaneously demonising anyone who disagrees with your narrow, literalist reading of the Bible, while at the same time completely misrepresenting the arguments and points of view of your opponents in order to argue against them (because I think we all know if you attacked the arguments of evolution as they actually are - and not how you see them - you'd fail dismally). So, you can add fucking liar to that list too.
It's hard to tell which of those it is. You appear earnest and stupid and ignorant enough to believe what you're saying (which would require of even the most cynical of charlatans and gifted of actors a Herculean effort to either not burst out laughing at the idiocy of your statements and gullibility of your patsies or to simply not choke on the vomit that would arise in most rational people were they to attempt to portray your fantasies as truth) and you display a deep misunderstanding and dislike of people who aren't religious, or who just understand what science is (which would explain why might enjoy baiting them with your fabrications and seemingly deliberate misunderstandings on a website called 'atheist central'). Flat-out liar? Well, only if you know what you're saying is bullshit - you don't seem to know much at all that's useful, which really just leaves my original position: that you're a fucking idiot. Oh, and a charlatan - because you do take peoples' money - the fact that you believe your own bullshit doesn't change the fact that you are indeed a peddler of complete bullshit. And you're an ignorant cretin - the evidence you seek is all around you, yet you refuse to read & understand it. So, I suppose you're a mix of all of those ... you're a standard-issue creationist evolution-denier, ripping off the faithful and spreading ignorance, while simultaneously demonising anyone who disagrees with your narrow, literalist reading of the Bible, while at the same time completely misrepresenting the arguments and points of view of your opponents in order to argue against them (because I think we all know if you attacked the arguments of evolution as they actually are - and not how you see them - you'd fail dismally). So, you can add fucking liar to that list too.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Expelled Redux!
Duped over at Dangerous Intersection.
They've started advertising the DVD version of that infernal, mendacious, highly offensive, wilfully ignorant and misleading waste of megabytes known as Expelled. Bay of Fundie has scratched the surface of their advertising and revealed some new information.Now, given that this is the DVD release of Expelled, it makes me wonder what kind of special features they'll include. Of course noone can know for sure, but I have something of a wish list:
- a complete timeline of all the steps taken & communication entered into to secure the participation of such people as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, including a full explanation for the stark deviation from the premise of the original film: it was originally presented to Myers & Dawkins as a documentary named "Crossroads", detailing the intersection of religion & science, which it clearly did not turn out to be, either by name or nature
- full, uncut, unedited interviews with the abovenamed
- a full explanation from the film's producers of PZ Myer's own expulsion from a screening of Expelled by security staff before he'd entered the theatre, despite the fact that he'd registered to attend under his own name and hadn't attempted any kind of subterfuge, as was alleged early on by the producers (as well as an explanation of how Richard Dawkins, arguably more recognisable than PZ Myers, was allowed to enter unmolested)
- behind-the-scenes segments showing such things as exactly who comprised the audience in Ben Stein's opening, paranoid address to college "students"and a clear explanation of Adolf Hitler's alleged use Darwin's theory of evolution to justify his horrific experiments
- a demonstration that the producers of this film - and Ben Stein himself - actually understand what the theory of evolution says and, importantly, what it doesn't say: Stein is on record stating that evolution can't explain certain astronomical phenomena & processes, apparently ignorant of the fact that evolution only applies to terrestrial biological diversity
- an explanation of how "micro-evolution" differs from "macro-evolution", followed by an explanation of how a lit match can't start a bushfire
- an actual clear-cut, definitive definition of the theory of Intelligent Design, the predictions made by this theory and why this theory requires equal time in science classes (see below)
- results of any actual research into & testing of ID's predictions, including such information as the identity or even intent of the "designer" and the reason for the many, glaring inefficiencies, inconsistencies and illogicalities in biological "designs" from all branches of life. This should be presented by one or a combination of (but not limited to) the following high-profile design proponents: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Phillip Johnston & we mustn't (nor will we ever) forget Ben Stein.
- a full explanation of the "controversy" that Stein & co wish to be taught to children, as it appears that the only controversy regarding the veracity of evolutionary theory is the one Stein & his partners in this endeavour have manufactured
- actual, scientific rebuttals of (or even credible challenges to) any aspect or aspects of the theory of evolution - without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories or sweeping, unsupportable statements about "Big Science"
- an explanation of Stein's infamous remark from an interview on a Christian TV programme: "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
- an explanation of how Intelligent Design is not based on (or simply is) Biblical creationism & an explanation of the actions of the obviously religiously motivated members of the Dover, PA school board (and their supporters from the Discovery Institute, authors of the infamous and clearly religiously-based "Wedge Document") which led to the famous trial of 2004
- a justification for singling out Darwinian evolution for special attention, while other fields such as Newtonian physics and Copernican astronomy each contradict Scripture in various ways but are (for the most part) left unmolested and uncontested by religionists
- one good reason why teaching children their parents' religion shouldn't just stay in Scripture classes, Sunday schools, churches and the family home and one good reason why it should be taught as fact alongside evidence-based science when, as is repeated often, religion & belief is a matter of faith, which by definition means "accepting a proposition without evidence"
...
Of course, it's all wishful thinking on my part. But no more so than Stein & Co's insistence that "Big Science" persecutes & expels religious professors for dissenting views, that "Darwinism" is a one-way street to concentration camps or, indeed, the insistence of many ID supporters that Big Religion played no part in attempting to usher Bible stories into science classes through the back door in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
I eagerly await my hopes to be dashed.
They've started advertising the DVD version of that infernal, mendacious, highly offensive, wilfully ignorant and misleading waste of megabytes known as Expelled. Bay of Fundie has scratched the surface of their advertising and revealed some new information.Now, given that this is the DVD release of Expelled, it makes me wonder what kind of special features they'll include. Of course noone can know for sure, but I have something of a wish list:
- a complete timeline of all the steps taken & communication entered into to secure the participation of such people as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, including a full explanation for the stark deviation from the premise of the original film: it was originally presented to Myers & Dawkins as a documentary named "Crossroads", detailing the intersection of religion & science, which it clearly did not turn out to be, either by name or nature
- full, uncut, unedited interviews with the abovenamed
- a full explanation from the film's producers of PZ Myer's own expulsion from a screening of Expelled by security staff before he'd entered the theatre, despite the fact that he'd registered to attend under his own name and hadn't attempted any kind of subterfuge, as was alleged early on by the producers (as well as an explanation of how Richard Dawkins, arguably more recognisable than PZ Myers, was allowed to enter unmolested)
- behind-the-scenes segments showing such things as exactly who comprised the audience in Ben Stein's opening, paranoid address to college "students"and a clear explanation of Adolf Hitler's alleged use Darwin's theory of evolution to justify his horrific experiments
- a demonstration that the producers of this film - and Ben Stein himself - actually understand what the theory of evolution says and, importantly, what it doesn't say: Stein is on record stating that evolution can't explain certain astronomical phenomena & processes, apparently ignorant of the fact that evolution only applies to terrestrial biological diversity
- an explanation of how "micro-evolution" differs from "macro-evolution", followed by an explanation of how a lit match can't start a bushfire
- an actual clear-cut, definitive definition of the theory of Intelligent Design, the predictions made by this theory and why this theory requires equal time in science classes (see below)
- results of any actual research into & testing of ID's predictions, including such information as the identity or even intent of the "designer" and the reason for the many, glaring inefficiencies, inconsistencies and illogicalities in biological "designs" from all branches of life. This should be presented by one or a combination of (but not limited to) the following high-profile design proponents: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Phillip Johnston & we mustn't (nor will we ever) forget Ben Stein.
- a full explanation of the "controversy" that Stein & co wish to be taught to children, as it appears that the only controversy regarding the veracity of evolutionary theory is the one Stein & his partners in this endeavour have manufactured
- actual, scientific rebuttals of (or even credible challenges to) any aspect or aspects of the theory of evolution - without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories or sweeping, unsupportable statements about "Big Science"
- an explanation of Stein's infamous remark from an interview on a Christian TV programme: "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
- an explanation of how Intelligent Design is not based on (or simply is) Biblical creationism & an explanation of the actions of the obviously religiously motivated members of the Dover, PA school board (and their supporters from the Discovery Institute, authors of the infamous and clearly religiously-based "Wedge Document") which led to the famous trial of 2004
- a justification for singling out Darwinian evolution for special attention, while other fields such as Newtonian physics and Copernican astronomy each contradict Scripture in various ways but are (for the most part) left unmolested and uncontested by religionists
- one good reason why teaching children their parents' religion shouldn't just stay in Scripture classes, Sunday schools, churches and the family home and one good reason why it should be taught as fact alongside evidence-based science when, as is repeated often, religion & belief is a matter of faith, which by definition means "accepting a proposition without evidence"
...
Of course, it's all wishful thinking on my part. But no more so than Stein & Co's insistence that "Big Science" persecutes & expels religious professors for dissenting views, that "Darwinism" is a one-way street to concentration camps or, indeed, the insistence of many ID supporters that Big Religion played no part in attempting to usher Bible stories into science classes through the back door in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
I eagerly await my hopes to be dashed.
Monday, September 29, 2008
I see I'm not the only one ...
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
I am in love with Tina Fey. Even more than normal.
Not only is Tina Fey utterly gorgeous and funnier than taking a shower in clown blood, she's also caring: she's saved me the effort of expending any more energy talking about Sarah Palin. Observe.
Thanks Tina. See you in my dreams.
xxx
[permalink]
Thanks Tina. See you in my dreams.
xxx
[permalink]
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Cancer - now a fungus!
At a forum I'm a member of, someone posted a link to this story about a doctor who claims that (a) he's discovered cancer is caused by the candida fungus and (b) that he can cure it with - get this - fucking BAKING SODA. Naturally (get your yawn ready) he's been expelled! by Big Medicine because it's all just a conspiracy to support profit-making medical treatments.
Here's the orginal post:
Here's my response:
Yeah well, I heard the whole HIV/AIDS thing is a scam by latex manufacturers to make people buy lots & lots of condoms. Oh, and there are pyramids in freaking Bosnia. And the world is 6000 years old! Don't believe the Big Science Conspiracy!!one!1eleventy!!1
This chap is claiming that the fungus allegedly responsible for cancer, Candida, is also responsible for asthma, food allergies, depression, weight gain, migraines, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and vaginitis. Well, he's got that last one right - vaginitis is a thrush infection most commonly cause by the candida fungus. So why doesn't it cause vagina cancer?
A. the reasons people get "ousted" from medicine are usually along the same reasons people get "expelled" from the scientific community: pseudo-science; extraordinary claims with no evidence; "studies" which are biased and uncontrolled; improper methodology; beginning with assumptions and working backwards to justify them; mistakenly conflating coincidences for cause & effect. Until this "cancer = fungus" connection can be reliably proven, repeatedly with unbiased double-blind testing, this doctor and his alleged baking soda cure should be regarded with the utmost skepticism.
If his simple treatment really cured cancer I would expect any doctor worth the term (and especially oncologists) to be jumping on it and using it to treat all their cancer patients, not vehemently denying it to funnel profits into Big Medicine. I know people who have cancer and some who are, for now, in remission. I worked for a short time at a lab in a dedicated cancer treatment hospital in Melbourne. I know that if something came along that could make cancer go away without the need for painful, debilitating chemo & radiation, their doctors would be on it in a second, "profits" be damned. People become plastic surgeons for money; people become oncologists to treat people with cancer. I cannot imagine any self-respecting paediatric oncologist deliberately overlooking an effective cancer treatment while simultaneously looking an 8-year old brain cancer sufferer (and his parents) in the eye and telling them there's no more than can be done and they'd better just make little Timmy comfortable.
B. the only people "profiting" from cancer are cranks who prey on credulous, desperate people who are running out of options. Having a cousin, aunt and close friend who all recently survived three different forms cancer and the associated chemo & radiation treatments, I get really, really pissed off by this kind of bullshit.
C. Mercola.com bills itself as "The World's Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter". Now, effective as many natural remedies can be, a lot of people who use them unfortunately think that any modern medical treatments are not to be trusted, because they're "unnatural" and because people make money from them. My naturopath wife (who's about to start studying medicine - i.e. proper doctorism) encounters this anti-modern point of view all the time and has a lot of trouble convincing people that natural medicine has its limits and that people should be able to recognise them and use a combination of modern and natural treatments - if & where appropriate. More than once, being aware of naturopathy's limitations, she's referred a client to a doctor for a more modern & comprehensive treatment, only to be met with fierce, almost dogmatic resistance to the thought.
Basically, every single "practitioner" that's appeared in my lifetime who has claimed to be able to cure cancer, or proclaimed cancer is caused by an easily-cured and until-now undiagnosed simple disorder or infection (for which he happens to have discovered a cure) has been shown to be lying through his ****ing teeth. Inevitably, they pop up for a while, charge extortionate amounts of money for their "breakthrough", get their fifteen minutes and then slither back under the rug, never to be seen again. There is no reason to treat it as such until sufficient evidence is furnished. Frankly, I don't see it happening.
-------
As you can see, that really got my back up. The original poster asks "It's actually kind of scary. But wouldn't we always want to believe that the simple truth is being suppressed by rich doctors and drug companies?" Why the fuck would anyone want to believe that? Is such an elaborate conspiracy, necessarily requiring thousands upon thousands of participants in pretty much every nation on Earth, even possible to conceive? How could such a large group of doctors & oncologists be content to sit by and watch people die in their thousands & make lots of money, rather than treat them with whatever is proven to be effective? There are ways to make money that are a lot easier, require far fewer years of hard study and less morally repugnant than working yourself into a coma to become an oncologist and then just sitting back rolling in cash while your patients fucking DIE because you'd rather have an Aston Martin than treat a kid with bone cancer with whatever treatment works.
I've read the article and I urge you to do so as well. It simply reeks of unfounded assertions, paranoia, conspiracy theory and special pleading.
Completely regardless of the truth or not of both the fungus claim and baking soda cure, the paranoid, anti-modern tone of the article is, unfortunately, typical of many "alternative" health articles and, naturally, assumes that Dr Simoncini is right straight from the start and Big Med is just picking in him because he's right and they're afraid they might lose some profit, which instantly triggers my bullshit detector. That is not science and it is not medicine, it is faith & an over-developed victim complex. Just because Dr Baking Soda is being "persecuted", it doesn't mean he's bloody Galileo. If people like Dr B.S. want a seat at the big table, let them satisfy the requirements every other treatment has had to satisfy in the history of medical science, from the humble aspirin to the mind-blowing world of neurosurgery.
..
Here's the orginal post:
I thought this was a joke--especially after 10 minutes of Monty Python-esque rambling about white lumps--but after reading the article, I can't help but wonder: "what if?"
Basically he's arguing that cancer is a fungus (or rather is caused by a fungus), and he has cured it with simple pH-raising baking soda injections, and that cancer is a huge money-maker for the disease-care industry, and doctors and drug companies don’t want to mess with the status quo.
It's actually kind of scary. But wouldn't we always want to believe that the simple truth is being suppressed by rich doctors and drug companies? Nevertheless, I would kind of hope it isn't true, so I don't feel as helpless for not doing anything about it, or maybe so I can keep giving money to cancer "research."
Has anyone heard anything along these lines? has it been debunked? just another conspiracy theory?
Here's my response:
Yeah well, I heard the whole HIV/AIDS thing is a scam by latex manufacturers to make people buy lots & lots of condoms. Oh, and there are pyramids in freaking Bosnia. And the world is 6000 years old! Don't believe the Big Science Conspiracy!!one!1eleventy!!1
This chap is claiming that the fungus allegedly responsible for cancer, Candida, is also responsible for asthma, food allergies, depression, weight gain, migraines, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and vaginitis. Well, he's got that last one right - vaginitis is a thrush infection most commonly cause by the candida fungus. So why doesn't it cause vagina cancer?
Unfortunately, Dr. Simoncini is yet another brilliant doctor who has been ousted from the medical community due to his revolutionary simple ideas of how to cure profit-making diseases.
A. the reasons people get "ousted" from medicine are usually along the same reasons people get "expelled" from the scientific community: pseudo-science; extraordinary claims with no evidence; "studies" which are biased and uncontrolled; improper methodology; beginning with assumptions and working backwards to justify them; mistakenly conflating coincidences for cause & effect. Until this "cancer = fungus" connection can be reliably proven, repeatedly with unbiased double-blind testing, this doctor and his alleged baking soda cure should be regarded with the utmost skepticism.
If his simple treatment really cured cancer I would expect any doctor worth the term (and especially oncologists) to be jumping on it and using it to treat all their cancer patients, not vehemently denying it to funnel profits into Big Medicine. I know people who have cancer and some who are, for now, in remission. I worked for a short time at a lab in a dedicated cancer treatment hospital in Melbourne. I know that if something came along that could make cancer go away without the need for painful, debilitating chemo & radiation, their doctors would be on it in a second, "profits" be damned. People become plastic surgeons for money; people become oncologists to treat people with cancer. I cannot imagine any self-respecting paediatric oncologist deliberately overlooking an effective cancer treatment while simultaneously looking an 8-year old brain cancer sufferer (and his parents) in the eye and telling them there's no more than can be done and they'd better just make little Timmy comfortable.
B. the only people "profiting" from cancer are cranks who prey on credulous, desperate people who are running out of options. Having a cousin, aunt and close friend who all recently survived three different forms cancer and the associated chemo & radiation treatments, I get really, really pissed off by this kind of bullshit.
C. Mercola.com bills itself as "The World's Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter". Now, effective as many natural remedies can be, a lot of people who use them unfortunately think that any modern medical treatments are not to be trusted, because they're "unnatural" and because people make money from them. My naturopath wife (who's about to start studying medicine - i.e. proper doctorism) encounters this anti-modern point of view all the time and has a lot of trouble convincing people that natural medicine has its limits and that people should be able to recognise them and use a combination of modern and natural treatments - if & where appropriate. More than once, being aware of naturopathy's limitations, she's referred a client to a doctor for a more modern & comprehensive treatment, only to be met with fierce, almost dogmatic resistance to the thought.
Basically, every single "practitioner" that's appeared in my lifetime who has claimed to be able to cure cancer, or proclaimed cancer is caused by an easily-cured and until-now undiagnosed simple disorder or infection (for which he happens to have discovered a cure) has been shown to be lying through his ****ing teeth. Inevitably, they pop up for a while, charge extortionate amounts of money for their "breakthrough", get their fifteen minutes and then slither back under the rug, never to be seen again. There is no reason to treat it as such until sufficient evidence is furnished. Frankly, I don't see it happening.
-------
As you can see, that really got my back up. The original poster asks "It's actually kind of scary. But wouldn't we always want to believe that the simple truth is being suppressed by rich doctors and drug companies?" Why the fuck would anyone want to believe that? Is such an elaborate conspiracy, necessarily requiring thousands upon thousands of participants in pretty much every nation on Earth, even possible to conceive? How could such a large group of doctors & oncologists be content to sit by and watch people die in their thousands & make lots of money, rather than treat them with whatever is proven to be effective? There are ways to make money that are a lot easier, require far fewer years of hard study and less morally repugnant than working yourself into a coma to become an oncologist and then just sitting back rolling in cash while your patients fucking DIE because you'd rather have an Aston Martin than treat a kid with bone cancer with whatever treatment works.
I've read the article and I urge you to do so as well. It simply reeks of unfounded assertions, paranoia, conspiracy theory and special pleading.
Completely regardless of the truth or not of both the fungus claim and baking soda cure, the paranoid, anti-modern tone of the article is, unfortunately, typical of many "alternative" health articles and, naturally, assumes that Dr Simoncini is right straight from the start and Big Med is just picking in him because he's right and they're afraid they might lose some profit, which instantly triggers my bullshit detector. That is not science and it is not medicine, it is faith & an over-developed victim complex. Just because Dr Baking Soda is being "persecuted", it doesn't mean he's bloody Galileo. If people like Dr B.S. want a seat at the big table, let them satisfy the requirements every other treatment has had to satisfy in the history of medical science, from the humble aspirin to the mind-blowing world of neurosurgery.
..
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Christians on youtube = good times!
Over recent months I've taken (for some reason) to commenting in youtube threads and getting myself into arguments. I present, for your entertainment, selected comment exchanges following this video about the origins of the character of Satan. It was an interesting video, if lacking a little depth, but the comments - as is often the case on youtube - were the best part.
fyuuryjury:
demons are attracted to rotting death, like their name in the bible say, beelzebub (or lord of the flies) that's why there are so many haunting in places like cemeteries, they are a being without form only mind and power(also from the bible) they can create powerful illussion of sight, sound, feel, smell and taste such as ghost, troll, goblin ect.. its all just illussion of their dark, filthy, twisted and evil minds, that's why there are no hard proof or evidence of them.
mandrellian:
You said "that's why there are no hard proof or evidence of them". So how do you KNOW they haunt cemeteries and create illusions and have dark twisted minds, or even exist at all? Without evidence or proof, you can't know anything. All you can do is take someone's word for it or believe a bunch of old fables & superstitions. Or make it up yourself.
Fyuuryjury seems to be confusing the bible with Hallowe'en.
Then came this inspired comment...
blessedjohn:
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
... which received this response from me:
Thanks for your input there blessedjohn. Feel free to get back to us when you have a thought of your own that doesn't originate in someone else's book.Anyone who still believes this Satan character (your basic boogeyman/scare-you-straight villain, cobbled together from various ancient mythologies - like most other characters in the Christian fiction) is real and wants to torment your soul needs to do some serious growing up. And if you also teach this shit to your kids as true, shame on you.
...which in turn inspired this work of typically well-proofread genius and subsequent free exchange of ideas and respectful discourse (why do the most angry ones never check what they write?):
02joseph02:
fuck you ASS HOLe if u dont bvelive in god then go fuck your self
I wiped my screen - having spat out my drink laughing my arse off at this concentration of pure, raging STIPUD, and replied...
mandrellian:
Another great piece of loving, compassionate Xtian input.Seriously, can you guys do anything besides (a) quote scripture or (b) hurl badly-typed abuse at people? One only DEMON-strates (ooh booga booga) your willing enslavement to mythology, the other only shows that you don't, can't or won't proofread your comments before you post.But I believe I will go fuck myself, thank you. I haven't spilled any daemon-seed today and I'm feeling a bit pent-up.
02joseph02:
if your an athist and if you dont belive in god the you should just kill your self beacuse if there is nothing out there then you wont have to wory i mean if you die you wouldent regret killing your self youd be dead you wont feel anything so what if people belive in god at least it gives them hope that there is a god on like u fucking pesemist
mandrellian:
I was a lot more pessimistic when I was a Xtian - and I was a lot more fucking polite to people who weren't Xtian!The fact that I don't count on an afterlife means that I make _this_ life count. Life's too short go around telling people I don't know to fucking commit suicide because we believe different things. Although I'm tempted to, because if you survive to breed you're no doubt going to pass your halfwitted, illiterate, hate-filled fundamentalist bigotry on to your kids.
02joseph02 seemingly thought I was no longer worth his precious time - after all, there may be heathens down at the mega-mall to convert! Entertaining though that was, I'm actually glad it was brief.
Next came this chap...
acenaspheru:
hate goes both ways. you complaining about people bashing you is hypocritical when you bash others. the fact remains that no one alive can know for sure who is right or wrong and to assume that you do is arrogant and just as half witted as those who you say are halfwits. believing or not believing in something has nothing to do with intelegance.
mandrellian:
Belief has *everything* to do with intelligence (as does spelling and grammar). A belief is a choice we make through our experience of the world and our understanding of it. The better your understanding, the more informed your beliefs will be. If you choose to believe superstition and teach it as truth without thinking, your understanding of the world is shallow and inadequate.Read my last paragraph again. I bash *ideas*, not people. A stupid idea should be called stupid, simple as that.
acenaspheru:
okay. :) try science and history. The account where the sun stood still, was not just in the bible but is also reported by cultures around the world, proving that it actually happened. The Native Americans have a story about a time when the sun didn't rise.
There is evidence of a large disasterous flood. Science has proven how the ten plagues came about. And also how the reed sea was parted. *not red sea as was incorrectly translated* There are countless things you can look up that happened.
mandrellian:
The Native Americans also have a story about the Thunderbird. Believe that too? The Aborigines have one about the Rainbow Serpent carving out riverbeds. The Greeks had a flying horse too! What other mythologies are you gonna cherry-pick to confirm your own?
I always chuckle when theists use the word "science" when they think it confirms their fables, but will dismiss it out of hand when it tells of evolution or the 4 billion year old Earth or anything else that contradicts their dogma.
That was actually the end of the public version of our exchange. Acenaspheru contacted me personally later to send me this message (comment length limit restricted the exchange, so I have to give the guy respect for following up his arguments). I'd paste the whole exchange but it was a private conversation and, to be honest, it was just a longer version of the exchange in the comments and wouldn't bring anything new - though I did some research and found out exactly what disastrous consequences would eventuate if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating (which would produce the illusion of the sun standing still):
"Get this: our planet rotates at about 1100 miles (1770 km) per hour. If it were to stop suddenly, because of inertia our atmosphere would still be spinning at that speed! Imagine a global windstorm of over Mach 1.5 - it would scrub the Earth clean! Every ounce of topsoil, every plant, every animal and anything not anchored to the bedrock would be swept up into the atmosphere, turning into a massive cloud of deadly airborne debris. We're talking a disaster a billion times worse than that tornado in The Wizard Of Oz.
That's not even considering the gigantic quantities of water that will now be sloshing around as massive, continent-sized tsunamis, washing away what ever the wind doesn't blow away. Think about how hard it is to drive or sit in a moving car and try to keep a bucket from spilling (or even just half a cup of water) and think about what happens when you stop suddenly. Multiply it by several trillion."
In short: it would be very, very, very BAD.
After a little break, the thread got interesting again!
conradpilapil:
They found skeletons.. wow..
Well. One can't let crap like that slide, can one?
mandrellian:
Is that what constitutes a rebuttal to two centuries of paleontology, geology and of scientific progress in general?
Seriously, if all you're going to do is act like a sarcastic teenager, this thread's better off without you.
Conrad later contacted me privately as well, but all he could muster was a sentence and a half of incoherent fundie-babble which, I now regret, I marked as spam, deleted, at which point I blocked him. I don't use youtube messaging at all unless someone messages me first, but I still don't want it filled with crap. At least acenaspheru had some idea of how to communicate with other humans; this guy could barely tell me what he believed, let alone why what I believed was bollocks.
This commenter, however, was pure gold! He's still going in that thread too, ever-ready to fight the good fight with his Flaming Sword of Flaming (+50 ignorance but easily deflected if opponent has the intelligence of a cave troll or higher).
pzloz:
You consider Christianity to be a fable. Is it me or in the last 20 years have people decided that mocking religion is the hip and cool thing to do. I understand evolution, and the age of the planet, and so on. It must be very difficult to mock something you never understood in the beginning. I think atheists are the biggest assholes on the planet, the biggest egos, arrogant, condescending and such. Based on what I read from you. You sound like an asshole set forth I will refer to you as one.
Straight off he drops the a-bomb! Bam! I had up to that point tried and be, if not flat-out nice, at least more civil than people had been with me.
mandrellian:
LOL pzloz. Nice flaming, you keyboard warrior. This isn't some fad. People have been denying religion since before yours was even founded. All myth treated as fact should be mocked, as should people who think insults qualify as some sort of superior argument.
FYI I was raised Christian. I read the bible. I understand it very well - that's the precise reason I'm an atheist. Perhaps if you actually understood your own mythology ... well, clearly that's too much to expect. Flame on, third-grader.
pzloz:
Oh okay mandrellian. Myths? Think what you want. Perhaps you don't understand the bible that well to be an atheist. Atheists consider themselves intellectually superior to everyone who has faith. Being atheists does not constitute for squat. It is just a fad everybody thinks is cool because you find holes in religion. Holes are everywhere. There are people who have faith and understand science and the world. I always knew there are weak people in the world and atheists prove that to me always.
mandrellian:
That you think atheism is some fad speaks more to your *own* massive ignorance of what's right in front of you. We don't think we're superior - we just have better standards of evidence and a more sensitive lie detector.
Scream all you want, you little emo for Jesus - we're not going anywhere, unlike every "god" that's ever "existed". Think about every extinct religion (mythology) and about all the current ones you don't believe in - then you'll get why atheists don't believe in any of it.
pzloz:
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all united faiths in the same God. We are together in that belief. They just don't hold up Christ the way we do. Mythology is like referenced earlier to. Hydras, Giant World Trees, a giant wolf, centaurs, etc. Standards of evidence??? What the fuck is that??? Oh I forgot, atheists have it all figured, right? They're pseudo-scientists and actual scientiests. I have more respect them as intellectually enlightened people, then disrespecting atheists like you.
mandrellian:
I KNOW I don't have it all figured out - but I'm okay with that. Sure as hell beats crediting a god every time I don't have an answer.
Hydras, world trees - how the hell are they any less believable than walking on water, the virgin conception, the loaves and fishes, the resurrection, the water to wine, Lazarus etc? Oh, I know: because they're all myths and your stories are The Truth. Get yourself some perspective, keyboard warrior.
Heard nothing back from wee prince valiant on that score - I guess he's just "pulled a fundie" and decided I'm bound for hell, so why waste with me anymore. As he proves in a later exchange with "pressgangers", he seems quite happy to gloat over someone he thinks is hellbound.
There was another quick exchange after that, which was great fun.
barallor:
Very interesting and yes satan existsfor example look at israel the jews were the poeple that god chose and so satan tries to destroy them in every possible way more than any other population in the world.
02joseph02:
that is so tru i never realy thought of it that way i mean the greeks the percians the egyptianss the russians the nazis the muslims(not all muslims) the list gose on
mandrellian:
Hilarious, barallor. Since the time of Jesus, the Christians have done more to attempt extermination of Jews than any goat-legged boogeyman.
acenaspheru:
this depiction of satan actually originates in donte's inferno and other popular fictional stories. in most of the bible he's described looking more human. however you are partly correct. it's not just christans though, it's islamics too.
...
while i do believe that satan exists, i do not believe he can be blamed for all the evil and hatred in the world. as humans we want a scape goat, to pass blame to someone else for our deeds. satan is that scape goat. yes he can be blamed for a lot of things, but i don't believe things like wars and tragedies like 911 were due to him. there are very evil people in the world.
mandrellian:
If Satan isn't responsible for all the evil in the world he may as well not exist at all. If he's not behind 9/11 or the Holocaust, because humans are perfectly capable of evil acts on their own, what's the point of his existence? To just piss God off? He sounds less evil than the Hamburglar.
If Satan exists at all it's because God allows him to. If that's the case, who's the more evil? The prince of darkness? Or the guy with the power to defeat him but chooses not to?
Oddly enough, noone wanted to have a go at that one - well, only in a textbook passive aggressive way by clicking "thumbs down" on my comment. Well, baw! I wanted a goddam answer to that one too! Why does God allow Satan to exist and plague mankind? God created everything: heaven, hell, Satan, angels - can't he just undo his mistakes rather than let humanity suffer for thousands of years? For that matter, why does Ronald McDonald continue to tolerate Hamburglar's constant attempts to make off with his product? Ron's the boss for god's sake - it's called McDonaldland isn't it?
Finally, one last oddity...
peejaydub:
well mandrellian, if u are a athist then why did u bother to look up this video? then on top of that u tried to change what people should think aobut their own religion, something tells me that the devil speaks through people like u. but u people are to blind sited to see what is truely going on.
i will pray for you
Joy! My favourite kind of comment from a religionist - PITY! Sweet, glorious pity :D
mandrellian:
Please don't pray for me. I'll be fine. As a wise man once said: "two hands put to work will accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
I looked up this video to discover the origins of the MYTH of Satan because I am interested in what primitive people believed (and what some modern people still believe) and why. Is it necessary to believe in fictional characters in order to find them interesting? Only, it seems, if you're religious ...
No response - perhaps he's still busy praying...
So, there you have it. A weekend video search for interesting documentaries (I *love* this century: sick days/weekend TV on rainy days can suck balls, but if you have broadband you have doco heaven - the time I've killed watching docs on Romans, Mongols, Nazis, Commies and other failed empires has been well spent and very entertaining), a comment from a religionist I can't resist responding to and bam! A very entertaining exchange with a variety of theists. Some respectful, some downright rude, some ignorant, some pitiful & retarded. I don't get angry with the more idiotic ones; they just baffle me. Are their identities so wrapped up in their religion - and their religion in turn so fragile that it can't withstand any kind of questioning - that any critique of that religion is automatically assumed to be a personal attack? It would appear so, considering the personal attacks I copped in return from a couple of those goons. "Go fuck yourself", "kill yourself", "your [sic] an asshole"? I mean, come on. Defend your faith & your beliefs because that's what's under attack, not you! I don't know you people from a bar of yellow soap, but if you make it personal, in my eyes you've already lost. Grow the fuck up! Hell, if their identity & self-worth are that brittle - being propped up by an equally brittle belief system - maybe I shouldpray for pity them...
But hey, if you think some of that's bad - check out Pat Condell's comment threads :D Fark!! That guy can attract malice like no other - I imagine it's the kind of bloodshot-eyed, Rage-virus-from-28 Days Later kind of hatred PZ Myers would attract if he had a youtube account :)
Happy Tuesday everyone!
fyuuryjury:
demons are attracted to rotting death, like their name in the bible say, beelzebub (or lord of the flies) that's why there are so many haunting in places like cemeteries, they are a being without form only mind and power(also from the bible) they can create powerful illussion of sight, sound, feel, smell and taste such as ghost, troll, goblin ect.. its all just illussion of their dark, filthy, twisted and evil minds, that's why there are no hard proof or evidence of them.
mandrellian:
You said "that's why there are no hard proof or evidence of them". So how do you KNOW they haunt cemeteries and create illusions and have dark twisted minds, or even exist at all? Without evidence or proof, you can't know anything. All you can do is take someone's word for it or believe a bunch of old fables & superstitions. Or make it up yourself.
Fyuuryjury seems to be confusing the bible with Hallowe'en.
Then came this inspired comment...
blessedjohn:
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
... which received this response from me:
Thanks for your input there blessedjohn. Feel free to get back to us when you have a thought of your own that doesn't originate in someone else's book.Anyone who still believes this Satan character (your basic boogeyman/scare-you-straight villain, cobbled together from various ancient mythologies - like most other characters in the Christian fiction) is real and wants to torment your soul needs to do some serious growing up. And if you also teach this shit to your kids as true, shame on you.
...which in turn inspired this work of typically well-proofread genius and subsequent free exchange of ideas and respectful discourse (why do the most angry ones never check what they write?):
02joseph02:
fuck you ASS HOLe if u dont bvelive in god then go fuck your self
I wiped my screen - having spat out my drink laughing my arse off at this concentration of pure, raging STIPUD, and replied...
mandrellian:
Another great piece of loving, compassionate Xtian input.Seriously, can you guys do anything besides (a) quote scripture or (b) hurl badly-typed abuse at people? One only DEMON-strates (ooh booga booga) your willing enslavement to mythology, the other only shows that you don't, can't or won't proofread your comments before you post.But I believe I will go fuck myself, thank you. I haven't spilled any daemon-seed today and I'm feeling a bit pent-up.
02joseph02:
if your an athist and if you dont belive in god the you should just kill your self beacuse if there is nothing out there then you wont have to wory i mean if you die you wouldent regret killing your self youd be dead you wont feel anything so what if people belive in god at least it gives them hope that there is a god on like u fucking pesemist
mandrellian:
I was a lot more pessimistic when I was a Xtian - and I was a lot more fucking polite to people who weren't Xtian!The fact that I don't count on an afterlife means that I make _this_ life count. Life's too short go around telling people I don't know to fucking commit suicide because we believe different things. Although I'm tempted to, because if you survive to breed you're no doubt going to pass your halfwitted, illiterate, hate-filled fundamentalist bigotry on to your kids.
02joseph02 seemingly thought I was no longer worth his precious time - after all, there may be heathens down at the mega-mall to convert! Entertaining though that was, I'm actually glad it was brief.
Next came this chap...
acenaspheru:
hate goes both ways. you complaining about people bashing you is hypocritical when you bash others. the fact remains that no one alive can know for sure who is right or wrong and to assume that you do is arrogant and just as half witted as those who you say are halfwits. believing or not believing in something has nothing to do with intelegance.
mandrellian:
Belief has *everything* to do with intelligence (as does spelling and grammar). A belief is a choice we make through our experience of the world and our understanding of it. The better your understanding, the more informed your beliefs will be. If you choose to believe superstition and teach it as truth without thinking, your understanding of the world is shallow and inadequate.Read my last paragraph again. I bash *ideas*, not people. A stupid idea should be called stupid, simple as that.
acenaspheru:
okay. :) try science and history. The account where the sun stood still, was not just in the bible but is also reported by cultures around the world, proving that it actually happened. The Native Americans have a story about a time when the sun didn't rise.
There is evidence of a large disasterous flood. Science has proven how the ten plagues came about. And also how the reed sea was parted. *not red sea as was incorrectly translated* There are countless things you can look up that happened.
mandrellian:
The Native Americans also have a story about the Thunderbird. Believe that too? The Aborigines have one about the Rainbow Serpent carving out riverbeds. The Greeks had a flying horse too! What other mythologies are you gonna cherry-pick to confirm your own?
I always chuckle when theists use the word "science" when they think it confirms their fables, but will dismiss it out of hand when it tells of evolution or the 4 billion year old Earth or anything else that contradicts their dogma.
That was actually the end of the public version of our exchange. Acenaspheru contacted me personally later to send me this message (comment length limit restricted the exchange, so I have to give the guy respect for following up his arguments). I'd paste the whole exchange but it was a private conversation and, to be honest, it was just a longer version of the exchange in the comments and wouldn't bring anything new - though I did some research and found out exactly what disastrous consequences would eventuate if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating (which would produce the illusion of the sun standing still):
"Get this: our planet rotates at about 1100 miles (1770 km) per hour. If it were to stop suddenly, because of inertia our atmosphere would still be spinning at that speed! Imagine a global windstorm of over Mach 1.5 - it would scrub the Earth clean! Every ounce of topsoil, every plant, every animal and anything not anchored to the bedrock would be swept up into the atmosphere, turning into a massive cloud of deadly airborne debris. We're talking a disaster a billion times worse than that tornado in The Wizard Of Oz.
That's not even considering the gigantic quantities of water that will now be sloshing around as massive, continent-sized tsunamis, washing away what ever the wind doesn't blow away. Think about how hard it is to drive or sit in a moving car and try to keep a bucket from spilling (or even just half a cup of water) and think about what happens when you stop suddenly. Multiply it by several trillion."
In short: it would be very, very, very BAD.
After a little break, the thread got interesting again!
conradpilapil:
They found skeletons.. wow..
Well. One can't let crap like that slide, can one?
mandrellian:
Is that what constitutes a rebuttal to two centuries of paleontology, geology and of scientific progress in general?
Seriously, if all you're going to do is act like a sarcastic teenager, this thread's better off without you.
Conrad later contacted me privately as well, but all he could muster was a sentence and a half of incoherent fundie-babble which, I now regret, I marked as spam, deleted, at which point I blocked him. I don't use youtube messaging at all unless someone messages me first, but I still don't want it filled with crap. At least acenaspheru had some idea of how to communicate with other humans; this guy could barely tell me what he believed, let alone why what I believed was bollocks.
This commenter, however, was pure gold! He's still going in that thread too, ever-ready to fight the good fight with his Flaming Sword of Flaming (+50 ignorance but easily deflected if opponent has the intelligence of a cave troll or higher).
pzloz:
You consider Christianity to be a fable. Is it me or in the last 20 years have people decided that mocking religion is the hip and cool thing to do. I understand evolution, and the age of the planet, and so on. It must be very difficult to mock something you never understood in the beginning. I think atheists are the biggest assholes on the planet, the biggest egos, arrogant, condescending and such. Based on what I read from you. You sound like an asshole set forth I will refer to you as one.
Straight off he drops the a-bomb! Bam! I had up to that point tried and be, if not flat-out nice, at least more civil than people had been with me.
mandrellian:
LOL pzloz. Nice flaming, you keyboard warrior. This isn't some fad. People have been denying religion since before yours was even founded. All myth treated as fact should be mocked, as should people who think insults qualify as some sort of superior argument.
FYI I was raised Christian. I read the bible. I understand it very well - that's the precise reason I'm an atheist. Perhaps if you actually understood your own mythology ... well, clearly that's too much to expect. Flame on, third-grader.
pzloz:
Oh okay mandrellian. Myths? Think what you want. Perhaps you don't understand the bible that well to be an atheist. Atheists consider themselves intellectually superior to everyone who has faith. Being atheists does not constitute for squat. It is just a fad everybody thinks is cool because you find holes in religion. Holes are everywhere. There are people who have faith and understand science and the world. I always knew there are weak people in the world and atheists prove that to me always.
mandrellian:
That you think atheism is some fad speaks more to your *own* massive ignorance of what's right in front of you. We don't think we're superior - we just have better standards of evidence and a more sensitive lie detector.
Scream all you want, you little emo for Jesus - we're not going anywhere, unlike every "god" that's ever "existed". Think about every extinct religion (mythology) and about all the current ones you don't believe in - then you'll get why atheists don't believe in any of it.
pzloz:
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all united faiths in the same God. We are together in that belief. They just don't hold up Christ the way we do. Mythology is like referenced earlier to. Hydras, Giant World Trees, a giant wolf, centaurs, etc. Standards of evidence??? What the fuck is that??? Oh I forgot, atheists have it all figured, right? They're pseudo-scientists and actual scientiests. I have more respect them as intellectually enlightened people, then disrespecting atheists like you.
mandrellian:
I KNOW I don't have it all figured out - but I'm okay with that. Sure as hell beats crediting a god every time I don't have an answer.
Hydras, world trees - how the hell are they any less believable than walking on water, the virgin conception, the loaves and fishes, the resurrection, the water to wine, Lazarus etc? Oh, I know: because they're all myths and your stories are The Truth. Get yourself some perspective, keyboard warrior.
Heard nothing back from wee prince valiant on that score - I guess he's just "pulled a fundie" and decided I'm bound for hell, so why waste with me anymore. As he proves in a later exchange with "pressgangers", he seems quite happy to gloat over someone he thinks is hellbound.
There was another quick exchange after that, which was great fun.
barallor:
Very interesting and yes satan existsfor example look at israel the jews were the poeple that god chose and so satan tries to destroy them in every possible way more than any other population in the world.
02joseph02:
that is so tru i never realy thought of it that way i mean the greeks the percians the egyptianss the russians the nazis the muslims(not all muslims) the list gose on
mandrellian:
Hilarious, barallor. Since the time of Jesus, the Christians have done more to attempt extermination of Jews than any goat-legged boogeyman.
acenaspheru:
this depiction of satan actually originates in donte's inferno and other popular fictional stories. in most of the bible he's described looking more human. however you are partly correct. it's not just christans though, it's islamics too.
...
while i do believe that satan exists, i do not believe he can be blamed for all the evil and hatred in the world. as humans we want a scape goat, to pass blame to someone else for our deeds. satan is that scape goat. yes he can be blamed for a lot of things, but i don't believe things like wars and tragedies like 911 were due to him. there are very evil people in the world.
mandrellian:
If Satan isn't responsible for all the evil in the world he may as well not exist at all. If he's not behind 9/11 or the Holocaust, because humans are perfectly capable of evil acts on their own, what's the point of his existence? To just piss God off? He sounds less evil than the Hamburglar.
If Satan exists at all it's because God allows him to. If that's the case, who's the more evil? The prince of darkness? Or the guy with the power to defeat him but chooses not to?
Oddly enough, noone wanted to have a go at that one - well, only in a textbook passive aggressive way by clicking "thumbs down" on my comment. Well, baw! I wanted a goddam answer to that one too! Why does God allow Satan to exist and plague mankind? God created everything: heaven, hell, Satan, angels - can't he just undo his mistakes rather than let humanity suffer for thousands of years? For that matter, why does Ronald McDonald continue to tolerate Hamburglar's constant attempts to make off with his product? Ron's the boss for god's sake - it's called McDonaldland isn't it?
Finally, one last oddity...
peejaydub:
well mandrellian, if u are a athist then why did u bother to look up this video? then on top of that u tried to change what people should think aobut their own religion, something tells me that the devil speaks through people like u. but u people are to blind sited to see what is truely going on.
i will pray for you
Joy! My favourite kind of comment from a religionist - PITY! Sweet, glorious pity :D
mandrellian:
Please don't pray for me. I'll be fine. As a wise man once said: "two hands put to work will accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
I looked up this video to discover the origins of the MYTH of Satan because I am interested in what primitive people believed (and what some modern people still believe) and why. Is it necessary to believe in fictional characters in order to find them interesting? Only, it seems, if you're religious ...
No response - perhaps he's still busy praying...
So, there you have it. A weekend video search for interesting documentaries (I *love* this century: sick days/weekend TV on rainy days can suck balls, but if you have broadband you have doco heaven - the time I've killed watching docs on Romans, Mongols, Nazis, Commies and other failed empires has been well spent and very entertaining), a comment from a religionist I can't resist responding to and bam! A very entertaining exchange with a variety of theists. Some respectful, some downright rude, some ignorant, some pitiful & retarded. I don't get angry with the more idiotic ones; they just baffle me. Are their identities so wrapped up in their religion - and their religion in turn so fragile that it can't withstand any kind of questioning - that any critique of that religion is automatically assumed to be a personal attack? It would appear so, considering the personal attacks I copped in return from a couple of those goons. "Go fuck yourself", "kill yourself", "your [sic] an asshole"? I mean, come on. Defend your faith & your beliefs because that's what's under attack, not you! I don't know you people from a bar of yellow soap, but if you make it personal, in my eyes you've already lost. Grow the fuck up! Hell, if their identity & self-worth are that brittle - being propped up by an equally brittle belief system - maybe I should
But hey, if you think some of that's bad - check out Pat Condell's comment threads :D Fark!! That guy can attract malice like no other - I imagine it's the kind of bloodshot-eyed, Rage-virus-from-28 Days Later kind of hatred PZ Myers would attract if he had a youtube account :)
Happy Tuesday everyone!
Friday, August 1, 2008
Giberson gets it sdrawkcab
Another day, another gross misunderstanding of science & atheism, which leads to several hundred words of pure "duh".
Some ... guy ... named Karl Giberson has written a piece in Slate (may they be deprived of the blessed touch of the FSM's noodly appendages forever more for allowing such trash in their usually decent mag) and it's rife with the usual, tiresome "science is a religion" bullshit. Fortunately, saving me some precious time, PZ has smushed this tripe as only he can (but as we all should strive to do), and Jason Rosenhouse done the same over at Evolutionblog. However, I felt compelled, as ever, to have a crack of my own.
Some Giberson gems:
Facile, impotent, naive retardedness of the highest order. Is he actually being serious posing these ridiculous questions? Eugenics was quickly smacked down as a ridiculous idea based on old prejudices - and the more biologists learn about "race" and about human history, the clearer it becomes that the whole concept of race itself is no more than the difference between a beagle and a basset; a tabby and a tortoiseshell. His "appreciation for natural selection bring[ing] eugenics back out of the closet" remark is sailing dangerously close to that smug little fuckwit Ben Stein's "Darwin = Nazis" movie Expelled and his comment on a TV interview that "science leads you to killing people." Reverence for the cosmos would no more lead to astrology than my love for Pink Floyd leading to an attempt to deify David Gilmour & Roger Waters. Again, is he serious with this shit? Did he proofread it or just hit "send" to his editor? What would make us all better off is a concerted effort from credulous bible-thumpers like Giberson to actually understand what science is, what it isn't, what it does and how it works. That should then put an end to the ridiculous recycled religious arguments we constantly have to tolerate.
True! You know why, genius? Because, as I posted here, science is a TOOL (note that I'm resisting the obvious comparison between it and you). A method for investigation & explanation. It's not a belief system, ethical guide, philosophy, political system or a religion any more than the operating manual for my DVD player is a fucking bible, and you know what else? Science doesn't want to join your ancient, dark-age superstitious clubhouse. Scientific inquiry, in the guise of the Renaissance and the later Enlightenment, is what rescued the world from centuries of church-inspired intellectual vacuum & despotism (before Gutenberg, it was illegal in many parts of Europe for peasants to own bibles or learn to read!). No scientist worth the term is going to push science as anything other than what it is! Science is an eternal process of questioning what we see, of searching for explanations, of testing claims - not a list of easy, thoughtless answers and appeals to ignorance. I simply can't believe the lack of understanding Giberson possesses. But then he explains it, and I believe it:
There ya go. He's a teacher at that old oxymoron, the fundamentalist educational institution. I think the fact that Giberson works at a fundie college (and admits it!) speaks volumes. Of COURSE he's seeing science as a pretender to the throne of religion! Why? Because fundies can't comprehend life without a supernaturally-derived behavioural manual and they project that all-consuming need for spiritual surveillance onto everyone that disagrees with them. "You have faith in science? Well, that's your religion right there!" They can't imagine a life without worshipping invisible deities, so they project that desperate personal requirement onto those of us in the pro-science world - "if you don't worship God, you have to worship something." They describe everything in religious terms as they've been marinating in them so long that a life without them - in any form - is utterly inconceivable. They see scientists like PZ Myers et al becoming increasingly more vocal in opposing dogma, wilful misinformation and lackwitted creationist garbage and they label it as atheist/scientific evangelism/fundamentalism/militancy. Well, no, it's not. That annoying, in-your-face cold-selling is what you fundies do. That's what scientists are reacting to - your ignorance, your evangelism, your increasing & increasingly sneaky attempts to enter education as valid alternatives to actual science. You fundies and your wilful misunderstandings of reality are the reason there are so many "militant atheists" out there opposing your crap, your half-arguments and your ignorance and you're worried.
You know who put that "big, abrasive wedge" between science and religion there in the first place? Religious people - masquerading as those interested in academic freedom. The goddam Discovery Institute, who brought you the Dover massacre of 2005. Giberson then implies that science is the unwanted guest who should sit down and shut up. After that gross misrepresentation, Giberson then paints science as some sort of interloper, a snivelling goblin that's flung open the doors of a temple and demanded equal treatment to the gods. He reprimands science for its ungentlemanly behaviour, for daring to presume to sit at the big table with the grownups. How arse-backwards can you possibly be? It is religion that has been forced, dishonestly, through the cracks of the education system in America; religion which has thrown open the classroom door and demanded equal time and "academic freedom"; religion which is burrowing its way into science curricula with the help of the Discovery Institute's big, abrasive wedge. Pots & kettles, Giberson. It is the church which has raised the profile of science by constantly attacking it and its practitioners, either directly & publicly with hit-pieces like this garbage or indirectly by subterfuge, such as was seen at Dover.
"Gee, gosh, some of my best friends are scientists but they don't know ever'thang so don't worship them." You know what? Any scientist - or even any layperson who understands science - would agree with you there. Noone with half a brain thinks science will ever "know everything". Clearly, that's a job for your god. Every scientific discovery, every answer, even the revolutionary & world-changing, also lead to more questions. If Giberson understands anything about science, it's that scientists themselves are the first to admit that not only do we not know everything that can be known, we may never know. However, that's no reason to stop searching!
He asks if it's really so dangerous to believe there's something behind the equations of the universe. Well, of course it's not dangerous. A waste of time perhaps ... let me ask a question then: is it really so dangerous to admit that there's absolutely no evidence for the claim that there is something behind the blackboard?
Some ... guy ... named Karl Giberson has written a piece in Slate (may they be deprived of the blessed touch of the FSM's noodly appendages forever more for allowing such trash in their usually decent mag) and it's rife with the usual, tiresome "science is a religion" bullshit. Fortunately, saving me some precious time, PZ has smushed this tripe as only he can (but as we all should strive to do), and Jason Rosenhouse done the same over at Evolutionblog. However, I felt compelled, as ever, to have a crack of my own.
Some Giberson gems:
Science, it would appear, has the raw material for a new religion. Trust traditionally placed in God can be relocated to science, which is reliable and faithful, as well as ennobling. Life can be oriented in a reverential way around the celebration and protection of the great diversity wrought by the evolutionary epic, a diversity that has produced creatures capable of reflecting on this grand mystery.
...
Could we be sure, for example, that this new scientific religion would not give rise to the extremism and aberrant behavior that plague conventional religions? Would concern for the diversity of life, for example, inspire vegetarians to blow up slaughterhouses, and run the local butcher through his or her own meat grinder? Would reverence for the cosmos reinvigorate astrology? Would appreciation for natural selection bring eugenics back out of the closet? In other words, if science dismantles the traditional religious content that people use to satisfy their impulses -- many of which are quite passionate -- will we really be better off?
Facile, impotent, naive retardedness of the highest order. Is he actually being serious posing these ridiculous questions? Eugenics was quickly smacked down as a ridiculous idea based on old prejudices - and the more biologists learn about "race" and about human history, the clearer it becomes that the whole concept of race itself is no more than the difference between a beagle and a basset; a tabby and a tortoiseshell. His "appreciation for natural selection bring[ing] eugenics back out of the closet" remark is sailing dangerously close to that smug little fuckwit Ben Stein's "Darwin = Nazis" movie Expelled and his comment on a TV interview that "science leads you to killing people." Reverence for the cosmos would no more lead to astrology than my love for Pink Floyd leading to an attempt to deify David Gilmour & Roger Waters. Again, is he serious with this shit? Did he proofread it or just hit "send" to his editor? What would make us all better off is a concerted effort from credulous bible-thumpers like Giberson to actually understand what science is, what it isn't, what it does and how it works. That should then put an end to the ridiculous recycled religious arguments we constantly have to tolerate.
There is also no compelling way to get ethical directives from science.
True! You know why, genius? Because, as I posted here, science is a TOOL (note that I'm resisting the obvious comparison between it and you). A method for investigation & explanation. It's not a belief system, ethical guide, philosophy, political system or a religion any more than the operating manual for my DVD player is a fucking bible, and you know what else? Science doesn't want to join your ancient, dark-age superstitious clubhouse. Scientific inquiry, in the guise of the Renaissance and the later Enlightenment, is what rescued the world from centuries of church-inspired intellectual vacuum & despotism (before Gutenberg, it was illegal in many parts of Europe for peasants to own bibles or learn to read!). No scientist worth the term is going to push science as anything other than what it is! Science is an eternal process of questioning what we see, of searching for explanations, of testing claims - not a list of easy, thoughtless answers and appeals to ignorance. I simply can't believe the lack of understanding Giberson possesses. But then he explains it, and I believe it:
On a practical level -- and I write as someone who works in the trenches at an evangelical college -- I am worried that attempts to treat science as if it is a religion will only drive the big, abrasive wedge currently between science and religion even further into the chasm of misunderstanding. What we should hope, instead, is that science can become a more congenial guest in the house -- church, temple, mosque -- of religion and not be so determined to proselytize or even evict all of the current occupants. There is much in religion that need not trouble the scientist and much that the scientist can value. Scientists must learn to live with that.
There ya go. He's a teacher at that old oxymoron, the fundamentalist educational institution. I think the fact that Giberson works at a fundie college (and admits it!) speaks volumes. Of COURSE he's seeing science as a pretender to the throne of religion! Why? Because fundies can't comprehend life without a supernaturally-derived behavioural manual and they project that all-consuming need for spiritual surveillance onto everyone that disagrees with them. "You have faith in science? Well, that's your religion right there!" They can't imagine a life without worshipping invisible deities, so they project that desperate personal requirement onto those of us in the pro-science world - "if you don't worship God, you have to worship something." They describe everything in religious terms as they've been marinating in them so long that a life without them - in any form - is utterly inconceivable. They see scientists like PZ Myers et al becoming increasingly more vocal in opposing dogma, wilful misinformation and lackwitted creationist garbage and they label it as atheist/scientific evangelism/fundamentalism/militancy. Well, no, it's not. That annoying, in-your-face cold-selling is what you fundies do. That's what scientists are reacting to - your ignorance, your evangelism, your increasing & increasingly sneaky attempts to enter education as valid alternatives to actual science. You fundies and your wilful misunderstandings of reality are the reason there are so many "militant atheists" out there opposing your crap, your half-arguments and your ignorance and you're worried.
You know who put that "big, abrasive wedge" between science and religion there in the first place? Religious people - masquerading as those interested in academic freedom. The goddam Discovery Institute, who brought you the Dover massacre of 2005. Giberson then implies that science is the unwanted guest who should sit down and shut up. After that gross misrepresentation, Giberson then paints science as some sort of interloper, a snivelling goblin that's flung open the doors of a temple and demanded equal treatment to the gods. He reprimands science for its ungentlemanly behaviour, for daring to presume to sit at the big table with the grownups. How arse-backwards can you possibly be? It is religion that has been forced, dishonestly, through the cracks of the education system in America; religion which has thrown open the classroom door and demanded equal time and "academic freedom"; religion which is burrowing its way into science curricula with the help of the Discovery Institute's big, abrasive wedge. Pots & kettles, Giberson. It is the church which has raised the profile of science by constantly attacking it and its practitioners, either directly & publicly with hit-pieces like this garbage or indirectly by subterfuge, such as was seen at Dover.
I am incredibly impressed with the achievements of science. But I don't think science is omniscient and I am not convinced that science will ever know everything. I am not convinced that science is even capable of knowing everything. That we can know as much as we do seems rather miraculous, in fact. Is it so dangerous to believe that there is a bit more to the world than meets the scientific eye, that behind the blackboard filled with equations there is a rational, creative and even caring mind breathing fire into those equations?
"Gee, gosh, some of my best friends are scientists but they don't know ever'thang so don't worship them." You know what? Any scientist - or even any layperson who understands science - would agree with you there. Noone with half a brain thinks science will ever "know everything". Clearly, that's a job for your god. Every scientific discovery, every answer, even the revolutionary & world-changing, also lead to more questions. If Giberson understands anything about science, it's that scientists themselves are the first to admit that not only do we not know everything that can be known, we may never know. However, that's no reason to stop searching!
He asks if it's really so dangerous to believe there's something behind the equations of the universe. Well, of course it's not dangerous. A waste of time perhaps ... let me ask a question then: is it really so dangerous to admit that there's absolutely no evidence for the claim that there is something behind the blackboard?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Why I am not a scientist
Well, simply, it's because I don't have the patience, attention to detail or academic skills - or even the desire - to study it in any formal way. Biology was one of my favourite subjects at school and my understanding of it was helped by my father, himself a senior biology teacher (at a different high school), both through his direct assistance and indirectly through his large collection of scientific books, most of them dealing with natural history in some way. However, for many reasons I was not a good student (let's face facts, I sucked) and my marks in no way reflected my true understanding of the material.
But you don't have to be a scientist in order to know that science works. The results are all around you, from the breathtaking photos and information given us by the Hubble telescope (and the insane mathematics & engineering that designed, built and launched the thing) to the technology I'm using to write and publish this post; the tram & train that will take me home tonight; the medical technology that's more than once quite literally saved my life and the lives of some of my friends and family (more than likely yours too) to the mobile phone that's next to me with Puzzle Bobble installed on it that's ringing and being ignored. You don't have to have faith that it works because it's right there in front of you, working the way it's designed to, proving itself time and time again, billions of times a day, every day of our lives.
Some people accuse others of worshipping science as a replacement for God; some, oxymoronically, call it a "secular religion" or an "atheist religion". Science is not a religion, a belief system or even a philosophy. Science is a tool. It is a method of gaining understanding of something you're looking at which you can't as yet understand. You can then test & confirm your new knowledge and explain it to others, not only showing what you know, but - more importantly - how you know it. This exposes your methods to testing & critical evaluation by others: if your methods are flawed, it may be that your data may be equally flawed. This is science. Not blind faith or unfounded, ingrained, habitual belief but verifiable fact, testable truth, and real knowledge of our universe.
Science is a tool as much as a pen or a chisel is a tool. With a pen you can write Don Giovanni or Mein Kampf; with a chisel you can carve marble into David or stab someone in the head. With science you can inform the world as to the origin of species, the age of the universe, treat cancer or you can design an atomic bomb or nerve gas or napalm. Form & function do not & can not dictate the intent or morality of the user. So it goes with religion: it can be a force for good, inspiring people to great charity, love and self-sacrifice; it can also be the bane of man, inspiring oppression of sexual, political or artistic natures, sectarianism and associated violence & murder, blind faith in superstition and suspicion of scientific knowledge, distrust of any who ask difficult questions and double standards & hypocrisy when it comes to free speech and public discourse.
Some religious people even cry and protest when a new scientific discovery is made, rather than celebrate a new brick in the temple of combined human knowledge. Creationists, for example, demand transitional fossils to show speciation, however when they're discovered (Tiktaalik being a great example) they insist that it's not transitional enough or in some way doesn't meet their stringent criteria (which in fact seem to change according to the nature of whatever discovery they're protesting, curiously and coincidentally in such a way as to always, without fail, render the new discovery illegitimate in their eyes).
It used to be that creationists would limit their protestations to the earthly sciences too; particularly anything to do with the age of the earth and divergence of lifeforms, including but not limited to biology, geology, archaeology and palaeontology. In recent months though, I've noticed a lot of religious commenters on scientific blogs & websites attempting to disprove or debunk the physics of astronomy and cosmology itself by using scripture or, more often, simply cherry-picking whatever science seems to agree with their biblical worldview and ignoring the rest of the body of knowledge. A prime example is the comment thread at this old post from The Angry Astronomer, which got itself hijacked by an obvious creationist (named, as usual, "Anonymous") whose ham-fisted, ignorant attempts to disprove Angry's science using - hmmmm - well, science is really quite laughable. I hooked into Anon. myself quite a bit - can't resist sometimes - and some of the smackdowns he received from Angry and other astronomers (including The Bad One himself, Phil Plait) are pure awesomnity. Anon's stone-age ignorance of the topic is on display for all to see in high definition and this breathtaking ignorance of the topic he assumes he's an expert in is only eclipsed by his steady, unceasing ignorance of his own damnable ignorance!
Creationists using science to debunk science. Will wonders never cease?
It's just so damn troubling, counter-intuitive and arse-backwards. Science and the scientific method are self-regulating tools for discovery & explanation; for verifiable (and falsifiable) results; for reliable methodology and for logical, rational, reasonable and impartial knowledge of the processes and phenomena of the world and its surrounding universe. How is it possible that in the 21st century there are still biblical literalists shouting down every new discovery as lies or heresy? How can anyone take their claims of scientific conspiracies to kill religion or suppress religion-supporting facts seriously? How can these people keep a straight face as they attempt to use science (well, the bits of it they think gel with their interpretation of ancient fables, anyway - much as they sift through their bibles for grains of wisdom) to debunk science?
But you don't have to be a scientist in order to know that science works. The results are all around you, from the breathtaking photos and information given us by the Hubble telescope (and the insane mathematics & engineering that designed, built and launched the thing) to the technology I'm using to write and publish this post; the tram & train that will take me home tonight; the medical technology that's more than once quite literally saved my life and the lives of some of my friends and family (more than likely yours too) to the mobile phone that's next to me with Puzzle Bobble installed on it that's ringing and being ignored. You don't have to have faith that it works because it's right there in front of you, working the way it's designed to, proving itself time and time again, billions of times a day, every day of our lives.
Some people accuse others of worshipping science as a replacement for God; some, oxymoronically, call it a "secular religion" or an "atheist religion". Science is not a religion, a belief system or even a philosophy. Science is a tool. It is a method of gaining understanding of something you're looking at which you can't as yet understand. You can then test & confirm your new knowledge and explain it to others, not only showing what you know, but - more importantly - how you know it. This exposes your methods to testing & critical evaluation by others: if your methods are flawed, it may be that your data may be equally flawed. This is science. Not blind faith or unfounded, ingrained, habitual belief but verifiable fact, testable truth, and real knowledge of our universe.
Science is a tool as much as a pen or a chisel is a tool. With a pen you can write Don Giovanni or Mein Kampf; with a chisel you can carve marble into David or stab someone in the head. With science you can inform the world as to the origin of species, the age of the universe, treat cancer or you can design an atomic bomb or nerve gas or napalm. Form & function do not & can not dictate the intent or morality of the user. So it goes with religion: it can be a force for good, inspiring people to great charity, love and self-sacrifice; it can also be the bane of man, inspiring oppression of sexual, political or artistic natures, sectarianism and associated violence & murder, blind faith in superstition and suspicion of scientific knowledge, distrust of any who ask difficult questions and double standards & hypocrisy when it comes to free speech and public discourse.
Some religious people even cry and protest when a new scientific discovery is made, rather than celebrate a new brick in the temple of combined human knowledge. Creationists, for example, demand transitional fossils to show speciation, however when they're discovered (Tiktaalik being a great example) they insist that it's not transitional enough or in some way doesn't meet their stringent criteria (which in fact seem to change according to the nature of whatever discovery they're protesting, curiously and coincidentally in such a way as to always, without fail, render the new discovery illegitimate in their eyes).
It used to be that creationists would limit their protestations to the earthly sciences too; particularly anything to do with the age of the earth and divergence of lifeforms, including but not limited to biology, geology, archaeology and palaeontology. In recent months though, I've noticed a lot of religious commenters on scientific blogs & websites attempting to disprove or debunk the physics of astronomy and cosmology itself by using scripture or, more often, simply cherry-picking whatever science seems to agree with their biblical worldview and ignoring the rest of the body of knowledge. A prime example is the comment thread at this old post from The Angry Astronomer, which got itself hijacked by an obvious creationist (named, as usual, "Anonymous") whose ham-fisted, ignorant attempts to disprove Angry's science using - hmmmm - well, science is really quite laughable. I hooked into Anon. myself quite a bit - can't resist sometimes - and some of the smackdowns he received from Angry and other astronomers (including The Bad One himself, Phil Plait) are pure awesomnity. Anon's stone-age ignorance of the topic is on display for all to see in high definition and this breathtaking ignorance of the topic he assumes he's an expert in is only eclipsed by his steady, unceasing ignorance of his own damnable ignorance!
Creationists using science to debunk science. Will wonders never cease?
It's just so damn troubling, counter-intuitive and arse-backwards. Science and the scientific method are self-regulating tools for discovery & explanation; for verifiable (and falsifiable) results; for reliable methodology and for logical, rational, reasonable and impartial knowledge of the processes and phenomena of the world and its surrounding universe. How is it possible that in the 21st century there are still biblical literalists shouting down every new discovery as lies or heresy? How can anyone take their claims of scientific conspiracies to kill religion or suppress religion-supporting facts seriously? How can these people keep a straight face as they attempt to use science (well, the bits of it they think gel with their interpretation of ancient fables, anyway - much as they sift through their bibles for grains of wisdom) to debunk science?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Support PZ Myers - the Catholics have gone crackers
Yeah, ok , sorry for the pun. Sue me.
Anyway, it seems Bill Donohue, head of the US Catholic League and all-round strident busybody, is orchestrating a smear campaign against PZ Myers for his post about a student who took a communion wafer from a church (my response here). Apparently it's the sin of sins to steal a Eucharist (which is believed to "transubstantiate" into the actual, literal flesh of Jesus when consumed. Bugger me, that's a ghoulish concept- as if it's not creepy enough worshipping a zombie, you have to eat him too? Frackin' weird-arse cult, that one) and some Catholics (just for something different) got up on their soapboxes and started calling for blood. When PZ smacked them down they started calling for his blood too, as well as his job and one writer actually threated him with death (hope the FBI checks up on that one). Well, now he's asking for letters of support to be sent to the president of his university. I was happy to oblige and here's what I sent:
So, head on over to Pharyngula and express your solidarity through the magic of binary code! I may not be a Yank but this shit really gets to me and always has, so why not give moral support to a guy whose blog gives me great entertainment, pretty much daily?
Anyway, it seems Bill Donohue, head of the US Catholic League and all-round strident busybody, is orchestrating a smear campaign against PZ Myers for his post about a student who took a communion wafer from a church (my response here). Apparently it's the sin of sins to steal a Eucharist (which is believed to "transubstantiate" into the actual, literal flesh of Jesus when consumed. Bugger me, that's a ghoulish concept- as if it's not creepy enough worshipping a zombie, you have to eat him too? Frackin' weird-arse cult, that one) and some Catholics (just for something different) got up on their soapboxes and started calling for blood. When PZ smacked them down they started calling for his blood too, as well as his job and one writer actually threated him with death (hope the FBI checks up on that one). Well, now he's asking for letters of support to be sent to the president of his university. I was happy to oblige and here's what I sent:
Dear Mr Bruininks
This email is in support of PZ Myers, whose recent Pharyngula post ridiculing some strident over-reactions to a student leaving a church with a communion wafer has attracted a large amount of hate-mail. Some call for his dismissal while others, more troublingly, are calling for his head. It also appears the Catholic League's Bill
Donohue has started some sort of witch-hunt against Prof Myers, but as I'm sure you're familiar with the situation I won't go into detail.
I don't think for a second that PZ is (or should be) in danger of being dismissed, censured or disciplined in any way, but because Mr Donohue seems intent on seeing him crucified for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and is fomenting some sort of PR campaign against him, I felt it was only right that I formally voiced my support for PZ on this occasion. The US seems to be a hotbed for Christian extremism, more so now than ever before, and even though I'm an Australian citizen I won't stand by and watch someone I respect be dragged through the mud by hysterical fanatics without expressing solidarity with him. It may only be a symbolic gesture but I hope it adds to some kind of critical mass of support to
counter Donohue's smear campaign.Kind Regards
etc.
So, head on over to Pharyngula and express your solidarity through the magic of binary code! I may not be a Yank but this shit really gets to me and always has, so why not give moral support to a guy whose blog gives me great entertainment, pretty much daily?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
America just got stoopider
Well, Louisiana did anyway (via RD.net).
The reality-denying lackwits in the states are getting to grips with evolution and adaptation (via artificial selection). First it was Creationism, then it was Creation Science, then Intelligent Design (via the completely awesome transitional fossil cdesign proponentsists) - all ruled un-Constitutional by American courts (bless 'em) and all forbidden from being taught in science classes. Now we have a new phase in the Religious Wrong's War On Reality: "academic freedom", which is in the same sub-branch as "teach the controversy (be sure to manufacture one first)" and "teach both sides". Apparently both "sides" of the evo/creo debate are equally valid, so now it's ok in Louisiana to confuse the shit out of kids by saying ID is just as valid & plausible a theory as evolution and leaving them less informed at the end of their schooling than they were before they started.
Thank the Great Galactic Squid (blessed by his inky discharge - aka Dark Matter) that my kids will go to school right here in Australia. I don't often feel patriotic but it's times like this I'm glad my countrymen wouldn't put up with this shit. Barbara Forrest, one of many Dover trial heroes, did her best to muster opposition to this rank retardulence but to no avail:
94 to 3 House vote? Unanimous Senate vote? Shit, there are clearly some pollies in Louisiana that are dumber than a sack o' doorknobs. The dumbest & knobbiest, clearly, is Governor Jindal. It's also interesting to note that, once again, the ol' saying has been proven: any group with "Family" in the title is guaranteed to be a pack of bible-bleating quarter-wits bent on wedging religion into public life any way they can. Exhibit A:
Excuse me while I ROFL in response to an avowed fundamentalist Christian creationist activist extolling the virtues of critical fucking thinking.
It looks like it'll take a while to undo this legislation - it will need to be picked apart piece by piece, rather than squished before it gets of the ground a la the Dover Walkover. It's a state law now - there's absolutely nothing to stop some credulous redneck standing in front of his class like Kent Hovind and cocking on about dinosaurs on the fucking ark - and it'll need to be dismantled gradually. Dover was a local school board getting too big for its boots and clearly the creos have learned from that epic fail - bypass individual schools & school districts, don't bother sneaking bible text books into classes & take your scripture straight to the legislature.
So now it's equal time for both sides. Fantastic. So, basically, in order to challenge the many-times-proven cornerstone of modern biology, medicine, genetics & a dozen other sub-branches of natural science in a Louisiana classroom, all you have to do is think of another way that life's diversity might have come about and teach it like it's equally plausible. You might say God did it, you might say it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Galactic Squid, Zeus, Extrapalopaketl, Odin or even that we're all in a giant Matrix of human batteries and our entire shared experience is nothing but our brains firing away, locked in a MMORPG while our bodies sit in some pink goo, charging up a billion robots - though in this case I'm reasonably sure it'll be "Goddiditism" of a particularly southern American flavour. And they wonder why they're viewed as a pack of ignorant goddam hicks. News flash: this decision proves conclusively that you are, you improvident NASCAR-loving tornado-fodder.
They've evolved all right - they're not even using the term "intelligent design" anymore and they're going to ride this sneaky little "academic freedom" thing until it, too, is rendered inoperable. Then they'll dig around for another back door. This makes me very uncomfortable. Not because I think it's likely to catch on down here, like other US exports such as bad r&b, large pants, economic slumps, illegal wars & civil liberties violations in the name of security, but for a closely-related reason. What happens in the US affects the world and if this kind of religious idiocy catches on and sneaks into classrooms all over the country, the US may well be run entirely (worse than it is today) by a bunch of born-again, mentally-challenged bible-thumpers who went through school believing we were all magicked into existence a few millennia ago and will no doubt make Very Important Decisions based on divine guidance. Even considering the enormous trouble Dubya's divine guidance has caused his nation and the planet so far there's still room for more pain, misery & murder. Yes, things could actually get worse! There are people in the world stupider than Bush II and this bill guarantees that there will be people stupider than him coming from Louisiana for years. If the US once again goes to the polls and votes against its own interests for John "Bush Lite" McCain and Bobby Jindal ends up as VP, it could make the slope the nation's already on even more slippery.
Stuff like this, however, eases the pain of the stupid:
"The BBC announces a major series marking the life and work of Charles Darwin."
Ah, that's better. Somewhat.
The reality-denying lackwits in the states are getting to grips with evolution and adaptation (via artificial selection). First it was Creationism, then it was Creation Science, then Intelligent Design (via the completely awesome transitional fossil cdesign proponentsists) - all ruled un-Constitutional by American courts (bless 'em) and all forbidden from being taught in science classes. Now we have a new phase in the Religious Wrong's War On Reality: "academic freedom", which is in the same sub-branch as "teach the controversy (be sure to manufacture one first)" and "teach both sides". Apparently both "sides" of the evo/creo debate are equally valid, so now it's ok in Louisiana to confuse the shit out of kids by saying ID is just as valid & plausible a theory as evolution and leaving them less informed at the end of their schooling than they were before they started.
Thank the Great Galactic Squid (blessed by his inky discharge - aka Dark Matter) that my kids will go to school right here in Australia. I don't often feel patriotic but it's times like this I'm glad my countrymen wouldn't put up with this shit. Barbara Forrest, one of many Dover trial heroes, did her best to muster opposition to this rank retardulence but to no avail:
Forrest's testimony notwithstanding, the bill was passed by the state's legislature - by a majority of 94 to 3 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate. On 28 June, Louisiana's Republican governor, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, signed the bill into law. The development has national implications, not least because Jindal is rumoured to be on Senator John McCain's shortlist as a potential running mate in his bid for the presidency.
Born in 1971 to parents recently arrived from India, Jindal is a convert to Roman Catholicism and a Rhodes scholar - hardly the profile of a typical Bible-belt politician. Yet in a recent national television appearance he voiced approval for the teaching of ID alongside evolution. He also enjoys a close relationship with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a lobbying group for the religious right whose mission statement includes "presenting biblical principles" in "centers of influence". It was the LFF which set the bill in motion earlier this year.
94 to 3 House vote? Unanimous Senate vote? Shit, there are clearly some pollies in Louisiana that are dumber than a sack o' doorknobs. The dumbest & knobbiest, clearly, is Governor Jindal. It's also interesting to note that, once again, the ol' saying has been proven: any group with "Family" in the title is guaranteed to be a pack of bible-bleating quarter-wits bent on wedging religion into public life any way they can. Exhibit A:
"We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills, executive director of the LFF. When asked whether the new law fits with the organisation's religious agenda, Mills told New Scientist: "Certainly it's an extension of it."
Excuse me while I ROFL in response to an avowed fundamentalist Christian creationist activist extolling the virtues of critical fucking thinking.
It looks like it'll take a while to undo this legislation - it will need to be picked apart piece by piece, rather than squished before it gets of the ground a la the Dover Walkover. It's a state law now - there's absolutely nothing to stop some credulous redneck standing in front of his class like Kent Hovind and cocking on about dinosaurs on the fucking ark - and it'll need to be dismantled gradually. Dover was a local school board getting too big for its boots and clearly the creos have learned from that epic fail - bypass individual schools & school districts, don't bother sneaking bible text books into classes & take your scripture straight to the legislature.
So now it's equal time for both sides. Fantastic. So, basically, in order to challenge the many-times-proven cornerstone of modern biology, medicine, genetics & a dozen other sub-branches of natural science in a Louisiana classroom, all you have to do is think of another way that life's diversity might have come about and teach it like it's equally plausible. You might say God did it, you might say it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Galactic Squid, Zeus, Extrapalopaketl, Odin or even that we're all in a giant Matrix of human batteries and our entire shared experience is nothing but our brains firing away, locked in a MMORPG while our bodies sit in some pink goo, charging up a billion robots - though in this case I'm reasonably sure it'll be "Goddiditism" of a particularly southern American flavour. And they wonder why they're viewed as a pack of ignorant goddam hicks. News flash: this decision proves conclusively that you are, you improvident NASCAR-loving tornado-fodder.
When Jindal was elected governor last year, the stage was set. The LFF approached Ben Nevers, a state senator, who agreed to introduce the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act on their behalf. "They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory," Nevers told the Hammond Daily Star in April. The bill was later amended and renamed the Louisiana Science Education Act. Its final version includes a statement that the law should not be taken as promoting religion. That way, those who wish to challenge Darwinian evolution have "plausible deniability" that this is intended to teach something unconstitutional, says Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represented the parents at the Dover trial. "They are better camouflaged now."
Supporters of the new law clearly hope that teachers and administrators who wish to raise alternatives to evolution in science classes will feel protected if they do so. The law expressly permits the use of "supplemental" classroom materials in addition to state-approved textbooks. The LFF is now promoting the use of online "add-ons" that put a creationist spin on the contents of various science texts in use across the state, and the Discovery Institute has recently produced Explore Evolution, a glossy text that offers the standard ID critiques of evolution (see "The evolution of creationist literature"). Unlike its predecessor Of Pandas and People, which fared badly during the Dover trial, it does not use the term "intelligent design".
They've evolved all right - they're not even using the term "intelligent design" anymore and they're going to ride this sneaky little "academic freedom" thing until it, too, is rendered inoperable. Then they'll dig around for another back door. This makes me very uncomfortable. Not because I think it's likely to catch on down here, like other US exports such as bad r&b, large pants, economic slumps, illegal wars & civil liberties violations in the name of security, but for a closely-related reason. What happens in the US affects the world and if this kind of religious idiocy catches on and sneaks into classrooms all over the country, the US may well be run entirely (worse than it is today) by a bunch of born-again, mentally-challenged bible-thumpers who went through school believing we were all magicked into existence a few millennia ago and will no doubt make Very Important Decisions based on divine guidance. Even considering the enormous trouble Dubya's divine guidance has caused his nation and the planet so far there's still room for more pain, misery & murder. Yes, things could actually get worse! There are people in the world stupider than Bush II and this bill guarantees that there will be people stupider than him coming from Louisiana for years. If the US once again goes to the polls and votes against its own interests for John "Bush Lite" McCain and Bobby Jindal ends up as VP, it could make the slope the nation's already on even more slippery.
Stuff like this, however, eases the pain of the stupid:
"The BBC announces a major series marking the life and work of Charles Darwin."
Ah, that's better. Somewhat.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
"Don't mention the Crusades" from New Matilda dot com
Great article by Ben Pobjie which starts with this awesome sentence:
Billions of points for Griffyndor :)
Enjoy the rest!
Catholics are people who believe that the entire universe was created just for us by a loving and benevolent and all-knowing God who came to earth in human form in order to sacrifice himself to himself to avoid his problem of having to send all the humans he made to hell for the sins he knew in advance they were going to commit.
Billions of points for Griffyndor :)
Enjoy the rest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)