left biblioblography: evolution
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Ding Dong The Dipshit’s Dead– Scaly Scalia Has Left The Building.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - JFK

Yeah, it’s bad form to piss on somebody’s grave after their demise. Some people claim that this guy had a ‘fine legal mind’. He was a fucking homophobe and Young Earth Creationist – two qualities that shouldn’t be allowed near ANY political office.

Understand this: I could give a fuck what someone believes. You want to live a life of delusion? Who am I to tell you not to? I can’t tell you what to think say or do – and that works both ways, even if you think you have to force your shit down my throat because you believe some Iron Age campfire stories told by lost shepherds in the desert are real. It gets you through the night? Fine.

Despite the fact that I despise Catholicism, I rather liked JFK (as per the quote above). Because he got it. Regardless of his ideology, he understood this.

Scalia didn’t get a lot of things – it’s not the religious conviction that bugs me the most, it’s the intellectual lobotomy that occurs. The special pleading. All the facile and specious ‘arguments’. And of course, the false moral superiority exhibited by these clowns.

Whenever I have voiced this particular opinion, I always get some fucknut claiming that I only want to elect people who agree with me. Actually, it grates on my nerves it does – what a stupid accusation it is.

If your faith is going to come first, then you can’t be trusted to make an objective opinion on decisions that affect millions of lives. Same thing in medicine: if your ‘faith’ or ‘conscience’ forbids you to administer effective care, you’re forcing your beliefs on others. THAT is the ethical dilemma, not how you feel about it, but it how it impacts others. Some poor woman being denied contraceptives because she’s had a dozen children already and everyone in the family is broke and starving – fuck your god’s will. Free will? Whadda laugh. Can’t use birth control because somehow your absentee deity might object? Gay people can’t get married? Fuck these people. This isn’t YOUR country, it’s OUR country, learn to share and leave people alone, or get the fuck out and found a theocracy somewhere else.

And I don’t care if Carson IS a neuroscientist, I don’t care if everyone is applauding Scalia’s so-called ‘brilliance’ – denying evolution is just denying reality. It consists of denying not oodles, not a hillock, but entire MOUNTAINS of forensic evidence. It’s the pathetic equivalent of clamping hands to ears and shouting “NO! I WON’T LISTEN!” Only the feeble-minded see this sort of stubbornness as a virtue, rather than the willful ignorance it truly is.

As ugly as this sounds, I’m glad this assclown passed. We can only hope someone who is more progressive and objective will replace the stupid anachronisms that Scalia and his cronies perpetuate and propound.

Till the next post then.

Read More...

Sunday, January 10, 2016

And The World Changes, One Mind At A Time

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis


Lately my web searches have been more…gratifying. Topics that I’ve been carrying on about for years seem to occur to others more often. No, not trying to infer that I’ve inspired others: it’s just some of these subjects are obviously flawed and stupid, and other people are figuring it out. The only thing I know I can take credit for on the interwebs is the use of the word ‘decalogue’. Back in the year 2005, a search for that single word generated zero hits. Now? Google it yourself. That’s not to say I invented the word; it was in usage long before that. It was uncommon back then is all, not common usage. But I know I was the first (back in the days of reluctantatheist.com, which has long been defunct). Can’t prove it. Not a huge milestone either (for me or anyone else).


But I digress.


It warms the cockles of me heart, though, to see so many of my prior points mirrored somewhere else.


For your edification:



  The religious have gone insane: The separation of church and state — and Scalia from his mind


  The headline on the News Nerd was almost too good to be true: “American Psychological Association to Classify Belief in God As a Mental Illness.”  A study, the story beneath it read, had led the APA to conclude that “a strong and passionate belief in a deity or higher power, to the point where it impairs one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, will now be classified as a mental illness.”  Faith’s recurrent lethality was adduced: “Every year thousands of people die after refusing life-saving treatment on religious grounds.”  Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, said the article, refuse lifesaving transfusions (on account of biblical prohibitions against the drinking of blood).


  Most gratifyingly, for a rationalist, the author quoted a certain Dr. Lillian Andrews, who opined that, “Religious belief and the angry God phenomenon has caused chaos, destruction, death, and wars for centuries.  The time for evolving into a modern society and classifying these archaic beliefs as a mental disorder has been long overdue.”


  Finally, I thought, the educated elite is beginning to awaken to the threat that accepting, without evidence, the truth of comprehensive propositions about our cosmos (that is, religion, in all its inglorious  permutations), poses to the mental health of our society!


  A “strong and passionate belief” in a (nonexistent) God does our world immeasurable harm: look no further than ISIS or al-Qaida.  In fact, look no further than the damage religion causes to progressive causes of every sort (and thus to our psychological well-being) in the United States, from women’s reproductive rights to same-sex marriage to teaching science in schools to depriving federal coffers of $82.5 billion a year (in tax exemptions).  Consider the enrichment of all sorts of faith-charlatans who thrive off the gullibility of millions of Americans.  Recall the sick “purity movements” that allow meddlesome parents to ruin the lives of their daughters.


  I could go on.  In any case, it was to be expected that sooner or later psychologists would catch on to the quasi-psychotic elements (including detachment from reality, belief in spirits, hearing “the voice of the Lord, and so on) inherent in religion.


  But no!  I was wrong!  The fine-print disclaimer at the foot of the News Nerd’s page ruthlessly dispelled my elation: The story, like the others the site publishes, was “for entertainment purposes only,” and “purely satirical.”  In other words, a spoof.  The hour was not nigh; psychologists were not yet ready to diagnose firm belief in God as what it is: an unhealthy delusion.  Men in white jumpsuits won’t be forcing the faithful into straightjackets any time soon.


  (Yet would that it were so!  Imagine, so many Supreme Court justices and Republican politicians, from Antonin Scalia to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, disqualified in one fell swoop on mental health grounds from holding public office!)


  In fact, religion, so potentially dangerous that the Founding Fathers established a “wall of separation” to keep it clear of our affairs of state, continues to enjoy an entirely unmerited imprimatur of respectability.  Yet the satire in the News Nerd’s piece derives its efficacy from an obvious truth: belief in a deity motivates people to behave in all sorts of ways — some childish and pathetic, others harmful, a few outright criminal — most of which, to the nonbeliever at least, mimic symptoms of an all-encompassing mental illness, if of widely varying severity.


  Why childish?  A majority of adults in one of the most developed countries on Earth believe, in all seriousness, that an invisible, inaudible, undetectable “father” exercises parental supervision over them, protecting them from evil (except when he doesn’t), and, for the mere price of surrendering their faculty of reason and behaving in ways spelled out in various magic books, will ensure their postmortem survival.  Wishful thinking characterizes childhood, yes, but, where the religious are concerned, not only.  That is childish.


  True, belief, say the polls, is waning, but that it persists at all, given the advances of science in the past couple of centuries, and especially since Darwin published “The Origin of Species” in 1859, does nothing if not lead a rationalist to despair.  Americans, by and large, cling to their religion (and, yes, their guns).  To have all the resources to begin reliably fathoming the mysteries of the universe, and yet to cast them aside for slavish fidelity to primitive fables (most of which deserve no more “reverence” than tales from the Brothers Grimm) that no one past the age of six or seven should believe . . .   well, such is the very definition of pathetic.


  Harmful?  Let’s leave aside the mass-market megachurch “God of Love” finding little or no textual support in the Old or New Testament, and take the terrifying deity as the sacred canon depicts Him.  One Bible verse alone (Nahum 1:2) describes Him as vengeful, jealous, wrathful, and furious. Or let’s take His supposedly more clement son, who orders us (says Matthew 25:41) cast into everlasting hellfire for trivial transgressions.  Who benefits from the misconception that a permanent, inescapable, unimpeachable tyrant oversees our thoughts and deeds, including those of a most intimate nature?  The life- and society-damaging neuroses generated by this crazed delusion afflict many of those around us.  That is harmful.


  But the harm is greater than that.  All in all, the most pernicious constellation of rubbish misbeliefs forming the core of the Abrahamic faiths concerns women, blamed for sin itself (the “original sin”), and the Fall of all mankind.  Every mainstream misogynistic superstition stems from the rotten old myth of Genesis: woman as made not in God’s image, but from one of Adam’s spare parts, and thus inferior to man.  Woman as temptress, woman as unreliable, woman as “unclean.”  The rest of the Old and New Testaments inculcate an array of injurious ideas: that women depreciate after their initial sexual encounter, and serve only to bear children and satisfy the lust of their mates.  That they must submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord,” keep silent in church, cover their (shameful) bodies and heads, and never have authority over men.  It goes without saying that none of this fosters mental health.


It goes at length, in a similar vein.


And it is ridiculous, it is rubbish. A slave-master mentality is fostered in all of the Big 3 Abrahamic religions of the West. Whatever your imaginary friend dictates to you, that is law. No argument. The trio of rubbish emphasizes this – even Islam pushes complete submission. To whom? A bunch of words in a book written by a violent pedophile. Just name your imaginary friend something better than ‘Bob’ or ‘Harvey’ – an esoteric nonsense name like allah or yaweh, and all is well! Clean bill of mental health automatically.


The Age Of Crazy is nearly at an end. Let reason dictate our course.


Of course stone-cold crazies like Scalia (hey, you say there’s no proof of evolution, you’re a fucknut plain & simple, don’t care how over-educated you think you are) or Cruz, or Ryan will be wailing and whining about how this (or that, or whatever) doesn’t count not because it doesn’t, it’s because they say it doesn’t. Hoo-boy, can anyone say confirmation bias?


Religion is and should be consider a lunatic fringe, kept around for comic relief, because it is extremely amusing once you’ve shed the shackles of religious psychoses.


So keep laughing, keep pointing, keep ridiculing, keep criticizing. It’s still a long way off and uphill, but it’s looking less Sisyphean each year.


Till the next post then.


 

Read More...

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Don’t Rest On The Laurels Yet–Christian Radicals, Still A Threat

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

oopsydoodle"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." –attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Yes, panic-mongering is exhausting. Sometime I just get worn out worrying over these things. But these people are a very real, very dangerous threat. And here’s something that should get some furrowed brows going…

10 Plans Christian Radicals Have For America

A fundamentalist Christian ideology called Dominionism is currently infiltrating a segment of the Christian Right. As a political movement, it seeks to overthrow democracy and transform America into a biblical theocracy. Also known as Christian Reconstructionism, it cuts across denominational lines but does not represent mainstream American Christianity. Many Christians even see it as a heresy and perversion of the gospels.

Within the movement are differing views, and its broad complexity should caution us from labeling it as a monolithic conspiracy. Liberals are often accused of exaggerating the Dominionist threat and are called paranoid conspiracy theorists. But whatever the true numbers of those who hold this radical doctrine, they exert a powerful influence on policy makers of the right wing.

10 The Seven Mountains Mandate

Dominionists believe that Jesus Christ is not going to return until He has gained control of the world’s nations through Christians. This is how they interpret Jesus’s command “Occupy till I come.” The Dominionist blueprint for “reclaiming America for Christ” is spelled out in the Seven Mountains Mandate—Christian takeover and control of the “seven mountains” of society: business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, family, and religion. Lance Wallnau, a leading Seven Mountains theologian, explains that Christians must install a theocracy governed by “true apostles” to battle Satan and his Antichrist.

Wallnau envisions the conquest of the Seven Mountains as a covert operation. He said, “[A] very small minority of people . . . as small as 3–5 percent . . . can control how the agenda works in a nation and thus create or dominate the culture.”

The Seven Mountains concept was first enunciated as a supposed revelation from God given simultaneously in 1975 to two “generals” of the faith, Loren Cunningham of Youth With A Mission and Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade For Christ. In all likelihood, they plagiarized it from a TV talk by theologian Dr. Francis Shaffer. The mountains are portrayed as “mind molders” by which the “rulers of darkness” influence people, leading to such trends as gay marriage, pornography, and abortion.

9 Capture The Republican Party

Perhaps most of us are wondering why, in spite of the Constitution, there seems to be a religious test for those seeking public office in the US. The Republican Party in particular has made it an unwritten premise that a candidate’s faith is a matter of public debate. Local party meetings feature activists determined to bring “biblical principles” into government. How did the party of Lincoln become, in the words of an insider, “more religious cult than a political organization”?

To conquer the Seven Mountains, Dominionists are stealthily infiltrating the GOP and increasing their political influence. Recent presidential candidates Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann have ties to Dominionist groups. In 1979, GOP strategist Paul Weyrich politically mobilized factions of fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and charismatic churches under the umbrella term “Moral Majority.” It was led by Rev. Jerry Fallwell. Weyrich made no secret of its goal: “We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context.” The clout of the Religious Right became apparent in the 1980 elections, when it unseated liberal Democrats in the Senate and helped propel Ronald Reagan into the White House.

The Moral Majority is no longer around, but Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition has continued its work. “We want . . . as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians,” Robertson declared in 1992. He and fellow pastors have schools and universities to train Christians how to run for public offices and how to influence policy once in power. Robertson named his institution Regent University because its students are destined to take over the government as Christ’s “regents.” Robertson himself made a losing bid for the presidency in 1988.

Robertson did not mince words: “We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us anymore. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘we want freedom in this country, and we want power.’ ”

8 The End Of Pluralism

In a disturbing rant, Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said: “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”

Once Dominionists are in power, only one religion and lifestyle will be recognized—fundamentalist Christianity. Democracy and Christian nationalism are diametrically opposed. While theocrats will invoke the religious liberty guaranteed by the Constitution to further their agenda, they have no intention of keeping it when they win. Gary North, one of the movement’s ideological founders, made their goal clear: ” . . . a Bible-based social, political, and religious order, which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” They view the system that treats everybody equally as the greatest obstacle in their plans.

Secular humanism and all systems that bypass biblical knowledge will have to go. The “us vs. them” mentality that treats the rest of the non-Christian world as satanic will make pluralism impossible. Rick Joyner admits, “At first it may seem like totalitarianism, as the Lord will destroy the antichrist spirit now dominating the world.” But he assures those willing to be deluded that the Kingdom of Christ “will move toward increasing liberty.” That would be “liberty” as defined by a Fascist dictionary somewhere.

7 Undermining The Constitution

The US Constitution, the bedrock upon which pluralism thrives, will obviously have to be abrogated or else reinterpreted under the Dominionists. In its place will be a government based on Old Testament laws. The Law of Moses features, among other things, 1) the death penalty for idolaters, i.e. non-Christians, 2) the likelihood of the reinstitution of slavery, 3) abolition of the income tax in favor of the tithing system, and 4) elimination of the prison system in favor of the system of restitution for non-capital offenses.

Dominionists themselves are divided on how to apply these archaic biblical laws to modern America. Not all of them are keen on reintroducing slavery, but some do think that its legalization would be a good thing. While a majority support the death penalty, they differ on the method of execution. Strangely, though polygamy was permitted in ancient Israel, they define marriage as between one man and one woman. It is also unclear what they will do in the “Jubilee Year,” when estranged property is supposed to revert to its original owners. Will they give back the land to Native Americans (the Christian ones, of course)? Will they return Hawaii to the Hawaiians?

The Christian Right has the means to exploit loopholes through the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), its legal advocacy arm. Founded by Pat Robertson and armed with a $30 million annual budget, it seeks to overturn rulings the Right abhors, like Roe vs. Wade. It is also noteworthy that ACLJ supported the Bush administration in its holding Guantanamo detainees without charges and without trial.

In a Public Policy Polling survey released on February 24, 2015, an astonishing 57 percent of Republicans favor abandoning the Constitution to make the US a Christian nation. Only 30 percent are opposed, and 13 percent are not sure.

6 Death Penalty For Gays And Rebellious Teens

Being a worshiper of false gods (i.e., non-Christian) is not the only capital crime under Mosaic Law, besides murder and rape. Dominionists believe those deserving the death penalty include homosexuals, children who struck their parents, brides who were unchaste before marriage, juvenile delinquents, psychics (“false prophets”), adulterers, and blasphemers. Executions would be made public with full participation of the community, like square dances and quilting bees. Gary North prefers stoning as the method of killing because stones cost nothing and are readily available.

North laments that our humanist society paints the Mosaic Law as barbaric. He himself has no problems executing rebellious teens: “The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death.” What’s more, North says that those accusing a suspect of a capital crime must be among the executioners. For citizens to arm themselves in self-defense is a mark of their judicial sovereignty, North asserts, something gun control advocates want to take away. He extends this concept of judicial sovereignty to executions. He doesn’t want people to delegate the task to agents of the state. Participation in public executions is “an act of citizenship.”

How does this system propose to deal with perjury and false accusation? Perjury would be considered a crime against the accused, not against the court as in the present system. False witnesses will suffer the same penalty supposed to be imposed on the accused had they been found guilty. North believes that the Mosaic system of justice will actually reduce perjury in courts.

5 Historical Revisionism

David Barton is a pseudohistorian obsessed with altering historical facts to portray America as a Christian nation founded on biblical principles. This makes him a darling of the Right, with an enthusiastic Mike Huckabee proclaiming him America’s greatest historian, who should be writing the curriculum for the schools. Huckabee suggested (in jest, presumably) that all Americans should be “forced at gunpoint” to listen to Barton. To Glenn Beck, he is “the most important man in America.”

Such accolades come in the wake of Barton’s best-selling books, which claim that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians inspired by colonial preachers to found a society based on the biblical model. Barton teaches that America’s constitutional government was patterned after the ancient Hebrew “federative republic.” He accuses academics of hiding these truths from the average citizen.

In response, academics and even fellow conservatives have exposed Barton’s lies and errors. Barton is caught distorting or even inventing quotes placed on the lips of deist Founding Fathers to prove his point. One blatant example of Barton’s deception is his quote of John Adams’s letter to Benjamin Rush in 1809. In it, Adams says: “There is no authority, civil or religious—there can be no legitimate government—but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it—all without it is rebellion and perdition, or, in more orthodox words, damnation.” Barton makes it sound like Adams was proposing a government led by the Holy Ghost. But Barton has left out the last part of the quote, in which Adams mocks the very notion: “Although this is all Artifice and Cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their Lives under the Axe or the fiery Fagot for it. Alas the poor weak ignorant Dupe human Nature.”

Barton makes the tortuous argument that the Constitution, which never once mentions God, is in fact a godly document because it makes a passing reference to the Declaration of Independence which does mention a “Creator” (a deist Creator, alas for Barton). Barton was also forced to admit that he fabricated out of thin air a supposed quote from James Madison in which the staunch advocate of church-state separation was made to beseech Americans to “govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

David Barton is a propagandist masquerading as a historian. Though exposed as a fraud, he remains unrepentant.

4 Abolition Of Medicare And Social Security

Dominionists base their economics on Deuteronomy 28, the “Blessings and Cursings” chapter of the Pentateuch. They believe that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, and poverty and illness are visitations of His displeasure and wrath. The poor and sick deserve their lot. It is God’s way to prick their conscience and provoke introspection. Therefore, governments who seek to alleviate their plight are contravening God’s will. Poverty is not seen as a problem to be solved. This is why Dominionists view Social Security and Medicare as evil programs that take money from others to give to those being punished.

In a 700 Club interview, economics professor Dr. Walter Williams gave this rationalization: “I think Christians should recognize that charity is good. I mean charity, when you reach into your pocket to help your fellow man for medical care or for food or to give them housing. But what the government is doing to help these older citizens is not charity at all. It is theft. That is, the government is using power to confiscate property that belongs to one American and give, or confiscate their money, and provide services for another set of Americans to whom it does not belong.” The Right’s creed of “personal responsibility” has no place for such economic safety nets. If you die of hunger, that’s your fault. Or, in the case of senior citizens, your children’s or family’s fault for not taking care of you.

If on the other hand, you’ve become filthy rich—well, the Lord must be mighty proud of you. So for the government to lay more taxes on you to even out the playing field is an abomination. It is God’s intention that the rich get richer. Charismatic pastor Larry Huch predicts an “end-time transfer of wealth” to blessed Christians who are destined to become God’s bankers. The Dominionists’ promotion of laissez-faire economics of minimum government intervention in business, and repudiation of its licensing and regulatory powers, can thus be seen as self-serving.

3 Abolition Of Public Education

Christian theocrats are aware that they cannot hope to spread their miseducation through the present public school system, which propagates secular knowledge and values. In its place, they want a Christian-sponsored educational system that will assure that children are indoctrinated into fundamentalism, have daily prayers, teach creationism, do away with sex education, and propagate David Barton’s false history.

“I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we don’t have public schools,” wrote the Rev. Jerry Fallwell. “The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them.” Michelle Bachmann once started a charter school to replace the “godless” secular schools but was forced out of the board of directors when she proselytized the students.

Before a takeover happens, Christian parents are urged to take their children out of public schools to be homeschooled instead. A glimpse into a Dominionist homeschool gives us an idea on what American kids could expect to learn once Dominionists have taken over:

Government: “All governments are ordained by God, but none compare to government by God, theocracy.”

Economics: “We present free-enterprise economics without apology and point out the dangers of communism, socialism, and liberalism to the well-being of people across the globe.”

Science: ” . . . the universe as the direct creation of God and refutes the man-made idea of evolution.”

Math: “Unlike the ‘modern math’ theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, we believe that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute . . . [These books provide] mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory . . . ”

2 Female Subservience

We read in Ephesians 5:22: “Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord.” This forms the basis of women’s roles in the proposed theocracy. Simply put, it will mark the end of gender equality and women’s rights. Women will be relegated to the home, pleasing their husbands, taking care of the kids, and making more babies, or as a critic put it, “dishwashing, suckling and sex.” The Dominionist newsletter Chalcedon Report deplored the situation in America today: “The devastating curse of women ruling over men is getting the press it deserves today . . . Our nation is under judgment. As the home goes, so goes the nation.”

Young girls are taught that their place is in the home and that any desire for a college degree or a job outside the home is prideful and sinful. Homeschooler Doug Phillips says, “Daughters, by no means, are not to be independent. They’re not to act outside the scope of their father, and then later, their husbands. As long as they’re under the authority of their fathers, fathers have the ability to nullify or not the oaths and the vows. Daughters can’t just go out independently and say, ‘I’m going to do this or marry whoever I want.’ ”

Once married, they are encouraged to “pop out some kids” to swell the ranks of Christian soldiers. So says Leah Smith in her to-do list for dominion, where she prompts Christian mothers to “get busy” and outstrip the Muslim birthrate (six kids per household average). Besides household skills, girls should learn apologetics, theology, and evangelism. Smith tells the ladies to “go back to being women, with joy and celebration” as slaves of men.

1  World War III

If Dominionism poses a threat to American democracy, it is even more dangerous to world peace and stability. Dominionists taking over the US would give America’s nuclear stockpile to religious fundamentalists with an apocalyptic mentality. And recent news has shown us that religious fanaticism and military firepower are a lethal mix.

Consider Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who can be described as a Christian Jihadist. He believes in holy war against Islam, with the US military as God’s army. He reports seeing demonic entities in photos of fighting in Somalia, enemies who “will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.” Incredibly, this intolerant warmonger became deputy Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence. With people like Boykin in command positions, World War III just might be the mother of all religious wars.

With a mindset that regards Israel as an important player in the prophetic end-times drama, the Christian Right is also against a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Palestinians are illegal occupants of the land God gave to His chosen people and there could never be a compromise, a two-state solution.

Dominionists can also self-righteously justify overthrowing foreign governments not Christian enough to their liking. Since the US already has a long history of such interventions, only a change in rationale from political to religious is needed.

The gap between the US and Europe may also widen, with Christians mistrusting the secular and irreligious tendencies of their trans-Atlantic allies. The end of the European partnership would have detrimental effects on global economy and security.

Freaked out? I sure am. Almost to the point of going out and purchasing ordinance – because these fucking nutters aren’t ‘hearing the voice of gawd’, these assclowns are just plain hearing voices. Which makes them psychotic AND dangerous.

They’ll try to take my constitutional rights away, but I will put up one helluva fucking fight when they do. Even at gunpoint.

Till the next post then.

Read More...

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Another Right Cross From Science–Creationism K.O’ed By Thermodynamics

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

2ndlawsaturdaymorningThe second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems.

The second law is an empirical finding that has been accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory.

The law defines the concept of thermodynamic entropy for a thermodynamic system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium. It considers a process in which that state changes, with increases in entropy due to dissipation of energy and to dispersal of matter and energy. –Wikipedia

If anyone out there has spent any amount of time arguing with Young Earth Creationists (YECs), then you’ve undoubtedly heard this old hoary chestnut. You know, the one about how evolution ‘violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics’ (which of course, is blatantly wrong). And it is sometimes beyond frustrating when you have illustrated multiple times that this idiocy is wrong. Even the most elementary, dumbed-down, streamlined, paint-by-numbers explanations seem to fall on deaf ears. No amount of cogent coherent discussion ever appears to penetrate the thick skulls of the believers.

Now, there looks to be evidence that not only does T2L NOT violate evolution, it validates it:

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified

The Christian right’s obsessive hatred of Darwin is a wonder to behold, but it could someday be rivaled by the hatred of someone you’ve probably never even heard of. Darwin earned their hatred because he explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God. Darwin didn’t exclude God, of course, though many creationists seem incapable of grasping this point. But he didn’t require God, either, and that was enough to drive some people mad.

Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “[U]nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,” he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

The notion of an evolutionary process broader than life itself is not entirely new. Indeed, there’s evidence, recounted by Eric Havelock in “The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics,” that it was held by the pre-Socratic natural philosophers, who also first gave us the concept of the atom, among many other things. But unlike them or other earlier precursors, England has a specific, unifying, testable evolutionary mechanism in mind.

Quanta fleshed things out a bit more like this:

    From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

It doesn’t mean we should expect life everywhere in the universe — lack of a decent atmosphere or being too far from the sun still makes most of our solar system inhospitable for life with or without England’s perspective. But it does mean that “under certain conditions” where life is possible — as it is here on Earth, obviously — it is also quite probable, if not, ultimately, inevitable. Indeed, life on Earth could well have developed multiple times independently of each other, or all at once, or both. The first truly living organism could have had hundreds, perhaps thousands of siblings, all born not from a single physical parent, but from a physical system, literally pregnant with the possibility of producing life. And similar multiple births of life could have happened repeatedly at different points in time.

That also means that Earth-like planets circling other suns would have a much higher likelihood of carrying life as well. We’re fortunate to have substantial oceans as well as an atmosphere — the heat baths referred to above — but England’s theory suggests we could get life with just one of them — and even with much smaller versions, given enough time. Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600, was perhaps the first to take Copernicanism to its logical extension, speculating that stars were other suns, circled by other worlds, populated by beings like ourselves. His extreme minority view in his own time now looks better than ever, thanks to England.

If England’s theory works out, it will obviously be an epochal scientific advance. But on a lighter note, it will also be a fitting rebuke to pseudo-scientific creationists, who have long mistakenly claimed that thermodynamics disproves evolution (here, for example), the exact opposite of what England’s work is designed to show — that thermodynamics drives evolution, starting even before life itself first appears, with a physics-based logic that applies equally to living and non-living matter.

Most important in this regard is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that in any closed process, there is an increase in the total entropy (roughly speaking, a measure of disorder). The increase in disorder is the opposite of increasing order due to evolution, the creationists reason, ergo — a contradiction! Overlooking the crucial word “closed,” of course. There are various equivalent ways of stating the law, one of which is that energy cannot pass from a cooler to a warmer body without extra work being done. Ginsberg’s theorem (as in poet Allen Ginsberg) puts it like this: “You can’t win. You can’t break even. You can’t even get out of the game.” Although creationists have long mistakenly believed that evolution is a violation of the Second Law, actual scientists have not. For example, physicist Stephen G. Brush, writing for the American Physical Society in 2000, in “Creationism Versus Physical Science,” noted: “As Ludwig Boltzmann noted more than a century ago, thermodynamics correctly interpreted does not just allow Darwinian evolution, it favors it.”

A simple explanation of this comes from a document in the thermodynamics FAQ subsection of TalkOrigins Archive (the  first and foremost online repository of reliable information on the creation/evolution controversy), which in part explains:

    Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

    However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still?

That passage goes right to the heart of the matter. Evolution is no more a violation of the Second Law than life itself is. A more extensive, lighthearted, non-technical treatment of the creationist’s misunderstanding and what’s really going on can be found here.

The driving flow of energy — whether from the sun or some other source — can give rise to what are known as dissipative structures, which are self-organized by the process of dissipating the energy that flows through them. Russian-born Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work developing the concept. All living things are dissipative structures, as are many non-living things as well — cyclones, hurricanes and tornados, for example. Without explicitly using the term “dissipative structures,” the passage above went on to invoke them thus:

    Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

In a very real sense, Prigogine’s work laid the foundations for what England is doing today, which is why it might be overstated to credit England with originating this theory, as several commentators at Quanta pointed out, noting other progenitors as well (here, here and here, among others). But already England appears to have assembled a collection of analytical tools, along with a sophisticated multidisciplinary theoretical approach, which promises to do much more than simply propound a theory, but to generate a whole new research agenda giving detailed meaning to that theoretical conjecture. And that research agenda is already starting to produce results. (See his research group home page for more.) It’s the development of this sort of detailed body of specific mutually interrelated results that will distinguish England’s articulation of his theory from other earlier formulations that have not yet been translated into successful theory-testing research agendas.

    Above all, as described on the home page mentioned above, England is involved in knitting together the understanding of life and various stages of life-like processes combining the perspectives of biology and physics:

    Living things are good at collecting information about their surroundings, and at putting that information to use through the ways they interact with their environment so as to survive and replicate themselves. Thus, talking about biology inevitably leads to talking about decision, purpose, and function.

    At the same time, living things are also made of atoms that, in and of themselves, have no particular function. Rather, molecules and the atoms from which they are built exhibit well-defined physical properties having to do with how they bounce off of, stick to, and combine with each other across space and over time.

Making sense of life at the molecular level is all about building a bridge between these two different ways of looking at the world.

If that sounds intriguing, you might enjoy this hour-long presentation of his work (with splashes of local Swedish color) — especially (but not only) if you’re a science nerd.

Whether or not England’s theory proves out in the end, he’s already doing quite a lot to build that bridge between worldviews and inspire others to make similar efforts. Science is not just about making new discoveries, but about seeing the world in new ways — which then makes new discoveries almost inevitable. And England has already succeeded in that.  As the Quanta article explained:

    England’s theoretical results are generally considered valid. It is his interpretation — that his formula represents the driving force behind a class of phenomena in nature that includes life — that remains unproven. But already, there are ideas about how to test that interpretation in the lab.

    “He’s trying something radically different,” said Mara Prentiss, a professor of physics at Harvard who is contemplating such an experiment after learning about England’s work. “As an organizing lens, I think he has a fabulous idea. Right or wrong, it’s going to be very much worth the investigation.”

Creationists often cast themselves as humble servants of God, and paint scientists as arrogant, know-it-all rebels against him. But, unsurprisingly, they’ve got it all backwards, once again. England’s work reminds us that it’s scientists’ willingness to admit our own ignorance and confront it head on — rather than papering over it — that unlocks the great storehouse of wonders we live in and gives us our most challenging, satisfying quests.

All I can truly hope for, is that little collective island of believers shrinks even more so – and that someday, we won’t be plagued by these fringe lunatics anymore.

The more we learn, the less we need religion. No more excuses, no more crutches, no more entreating the sky for aid that never arrives. We are on our own on this planet: more’s the reason we should take care of each other, but even more so, take responsibility for ourselves.

Till the next post then.

Read More...

Saturday, January 03, 2015

Life On Earth–Exactly What Are The REAL Odds?

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

petardedLook round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organised, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!

Philo to Cleanthes, Part XI – David Hume

This whole non-debate is so ubiquitous, that I picked it from Facebook of all places. Apparently the Wall Street Journal is having slow news days, and/or completely lacking in journalistic integrity. Doesn’t anyone fact-check anymore? I know Fox News sure as fuck doesn’t, and the Republicans consistently say enough stupid shit to lump them into that mess. I’m guessing that the WSJ can be tossed into that indigestible stew.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” ( Dutton Adult, 2014).

There is just so much wrong with this nonsense. Let’s take a look at the ‘against all odds’ scenario.

Have you ever placed a bet in a casino? Sure you have. And the dealer, whether it be blackjack, roulette, or poker, can give you odds. Why can they give you odds? Here’s the secret: these games have been played trillions of times, catalogued, sorted, and the odds are laid out based on actual physical parameters. Poker has been played often enough, that (factoring in the amount of cards, amount of players, etc.) the odds can be placed at a near exact percentile. Do you see where I’m going with this? All of the parameters for card games are known – they’ve been known for centuries – based on easily replicated known factors.

A person can only measure odds when certain facts are present. How often does a full house appear, as opposed to say, a couple of pairs, or a straight flush. Even flipping a coin implies that there is an either/or choice.

The creationists have no cards. They have nothing to compare this planet against, except the other planets in our solar system. Is that enough? Sadly, no. Our species would have to collate a lot more worlds, catalogue them, and have some indication of life. They also need (for the teleological argument) an undesigned universe. At least one. Or provide some sample of undesigned fauna/flora. It’s simple sense, almost Taoist in approach: you have to know both opposites before choosing between the two.

As for scientists discovering ET life – folks, we have to get into space before we do this. Seriously. We haven’t had any manned flights beyond the moon. ET life could be existing at the bottom of a methane ocean, or deeply dug in under the surface. There’s only so much a telescope can tell anyone.

As for Fred Hoyle – I am sick of these jokers trotting this guy out. He was a panspermist, for Pete’s sake, and I get riled when someone cites that stupid shit about ‘the odds of a tornado going through a junkyard…” Talk about broken analogies.

So Sagan was off – how long ago was that? Science is in no way comparable to religion. Because scientists (the good ones) amend the facts when evidence rises. Apologists like to cite these things because they assume it’s all written in stone, when in fact there are rules of thumb in place. Even the Drake Equation is subject to permutation.

Sure, the teleological argument is tough for narcissists, it caters to the introversive (our species actually has enough of those people, that we can actually place bets! Yay!), but the fact remains: there is no divine babysitter keeping tabs and settling scores for us. Religion is our species’ attempt to superimpose our shadow on the universe.

But that metaphorical shadow will never eclipse reality, regardless of how often it is shouted to the skies.

The WSJ did print this response – pretty cool.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Another Creationist Lawsuit? It Looks Like We ARE In Kansas After All, Toto…

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

kansasboredOur creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."[Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack

Yes, only in Kansas, people:

Judge: Kansas Science Standards Don’t Promote Atheism as a Religion

A federal judge from Kansas rejected a creationist lawsuit that alleged teaching evolution in public schools qualifies as propagating atheism as a religion. According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, United States District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled against the lawsuit filed by creationist group Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) against the state of Kansas, saying it is without merit and worthy of dismissal.

School districts in as many as 26 states, including Kansas, have adopted a standardized science syllabus called Next Generation Science Standards, with the help of which, educators will try to close the gap between students in America and those in other developed countries, as far as their knowledge in mathematics and science is concerned. This particular science syllabus teaches students that the different species on earth developed through the process of evolution.

COPE claimed that mandating the teaching of evolution to public school students qualifies as an endorsement of atheism as a religion. As a result, they filed their lawsuit against Kansas, hoping that it would halt the implementation of the science syllabus in the state. The group called the new syllabus dangerous, claiming that it influences impressionable students to ask ultimate questions like what the nature of life is, what the cause of the universe is and where humans come from. COPE warned that this syllabus would make science teachers act as theologians, infringing upon believers’ ideological mindset and instilling a materialistic or atheistic point of view in children’s brains. The group also explained that science has not answered these religious questions and it never will.

Simon Brown at Wall of Separation wrote, “Everything about that argument is flawed. Contemplating the origin of life on this planet is not an inherently religious question that is unfit for children to ponder. And science has done a fine job of unlocking the mysteries of the universe — despite COPE’s claim to the contrary. Evolution may be a theory but no legitimate scientists question its validity. Thus learning the facts of that theory is not ‘indoctrination.’ It’s called education.”

According to Crabtree, COPE’s lawsuit failed to prove that sufficient harm was being caused to it or its well-being, for the allegations to qualify as a court case.

One of the more frustrating things that religious do (at least for me), is that they constantly use the old tu quoque – by assuming that the religious and the atheist both ‘believe’ but that the atheist is in angry denial. It is also based on the misperception that atheism is an emotional choice when it is in fact, the complete opposite. “I am religious, ergo so are you. Don’t deny it” kind of thing. It’s right about there that my voice goes up a few decibels.

And these COPE clowns (how ironic – obviously they can’t cope, and objective? Honky, please), these self-appointed deluded neurotics, they just keep on wasting everyone’s time, resources, and money with the quintessential non-debate of this century and the last.

It’d be comic relief, if it wasn’t so scary.

So, the best I could come up with for word substitution in their acronym is:

COPE = Clowns Operating Primitive Equations

Feel free to play with that in the comment section.

Till the next post then.

Read More...

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Legislating Reality: More Proof That Evolution Doesn’t Select For Intelligence

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

selectivescienceMan, in his ignorance, supposed that all phenomena were produced by some intelligent powers, and with direct reference to him. – Robert Ingersoll, The Gods

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”  Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

It is simple madness, to try to smother the truth by passing a law against it:

Unprecedented Attack On Evolution 'Indoctrination' Mounted In Missouri

A Missouri lawmaker has proposed what ranks among the most anti-evolution legislation in recent years, which would require schools to notify parents if "the theory of evolution by natural selection" was being taught at their child's school and give them the opportunity to opt out of the class.

Holy shit, like it’s not bad enough some parents resist sex education. But this? It’s lunacy.

The bill had its first public hearing Thursday after being introduced in late January.

It really shouldn’t have been heard at all.

State Rep. Rick Brattin (R), who sponsored the bill, told a local TV station last week that teaching only evolution in school was "indoctrination."

Oy gevalt. A Republican sponsored it. Whadda surprise.

"Our schools basically mandate that we teach one side," he told KCTV. "It is an indoctrination because it is not objective approach."

Oh, let me guess: this assclown wants to the schools to teach Islamic or Vedic creationism, right? Also, reeks of a tu quoque.

The bill is one of several anti-evolution proposals that have already appeared in statehouses across the country; the Daily Beast counted four states (Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Virginia) where legislation had been introduced. The proposals would allow for a range of approaches to evolution, from presenting a "debate" over evolution versus creationism to requiring that local school boards allow intelligent design to be included in biology courses.

There is no debate. This was settled back in the seventies. Forensic evidence for the win! (Were it that easy.)

But Brattin's bill appears to be the only one, and perhaps the first, that would mandate parental notification that their children were being taught evolution in school, the curriculum that most mainstream science teacher groups endorse.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, told TPM that he was not aware of any state legislation that had included a provision that parents be notified if evolution was being taught at their local schools.

Well, then that’s it for biology.

“It’s an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs,” Brattin told the Kansas City Star of requiring schools to teach evolution. “What’s being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion."

Codswallop. No, better to call it what it is: bullshit. Religion is just the rotting dingleberry on the anal hairs of humanity. Evolution is many things, but the core component is anything but ‘faith’. It is a systemically empirical methodology whose very foundation is based on scientific principles.

Unsurprisingly, the proposal has drawn criticism from those science teacher organizations.

The bill "would eviscerate the teaching of biology in Missouri," Branch said in a statement. "Evolution inextricably pervades the biological sciences; it therefore pervades, or at any rate ought to pervade, biology education at the K–12 level. There simply is no alternative to learning about it; there is no substitute activity."

"The value of a high school education in Missouri would be degraded," Branch said.

So people’s hard-earned tax dollars are being funneled into unnecessary political nonsenses? Wonderful.

Brattin's bill provides:

The policy shall require the school district or charter school to notify the parent or legal guardian of each student enrolled in the district of:

(1) The basic content of the district's or school's evolution instruction to be provided to the student; and

(2) The parent's right to remove the student from any part of the district's or school's evolution instruction.

The bill would also require schools to "make all curriculum materials used in the district's or school's evolution instruction available for public inspection ... prior to the use of such materials in actual instruction."

It looks like the future of our children’s education is falling into the wrong hands: the hands of the preacher, who breaks the back of reason with rhetoric; the mob, who will shred the rational in the name of superstition; the foam-flecked fanatic, with his fantasies of world’s end and all living bowing down to his deranged dogma; the willfully woefully ignorant, who delight in their lack of sense and are rewarded for their mindlessness with empty promises of an afterlife never to come.

May the days of religious ignorance end soon: it is an embarrassment to the species.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Darwin’s Birthday Is Around The Corner…How Will You Celebrate?

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
It’s actually a far more fitting holiday (for lack of a better word) for the world at large than any other birthday/holiday/hallmark-excuse-to-gouge-the-consumer.2009-02-08-darwin-day-sale

Without Darwin’s evolutionary theory, we would lack a great many things in this world: biology (this is almost ALWAYS met with disbelief when you tell a creationist) – evolution is the backbone of biology, and by extension, modern medicine. Oh and agriculture and animal husbandry, not to mention the movement of ethics away from supernatural tripe to actual morality founded on reality. It is the pebble that began the avalanche, the flapping butterfly wing that began the tsunami, the asteroid that struck the world and began slowly extinguishing the anachronistic nonsenses of the past.

I could go at length on this topic – but I lack the vocabulary and the space to pontificate on this subject. Sufficient to say: Happy Darwin Day!

And oh yeah!
Sign this petition.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Saturday, February 02, 2013

Anti-Evolution Screeds–The Frightening Facts Of Denial

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
petardedFour more states have been added to my list of those I wish would just  fucking secede from the union:

Four US states considering laws that challenge teaching of evolution

Four US states are considering new legislation about teaching science in schools, allowing pupils to to be taught religious versions of how life on earth developed in what critics say would establish a backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution.

Fresh legislation has been put forward in Colorado, Missouri and Montana. In Oklahoma, there are two bills before the state legislature that include potentially creationist language.

A watchdog group, the National Center for Science Education, said that the proposed laws were framed around the concept of "academic freedom". It argues that religious motives are disguised by the language of encouraging more open debate in school classrooms. However, the areas of the curriculum highlighted in the bills tend to focus on the teaching of evolution or other areas of science that clash with traditionally religious interpretations of the world.

"Taken at face value, they sound innocuous and lovely: critical thinking, debate and analysis. It seems so innocent, so pure. But they chose to question only areas that religious conservatives are uncomfortable with. There is a religious agenda here," said Josh Rosenau, an NCSE program and policy director.

In Oklahoma, one bill has been pre-filed with the state senate and another with the state house. The Senate bill would oblige the state to help teachers "find more effective ways to represent the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies". The House bill specifically mentions "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning" as areas that "some teachers are unsure" about teaching.

In Montana, a bill put forward by local social conservative state congressman, Clayton Fiscus, also lists things like "random mutation, natural selection, DNA and fossil discoveries" as controversial topics that need more critical teaching. Meanwhile, in Missouri, a bill introduced in mid-January lists "biological and chemical evolution" as topics that teachers should debate over including looking at the "scientific weaknesses" of the long-established theories.

Finally, in Colorado, which rarely sees a push towards teaching creationism, a bill has been introduced in the state house of representatives that would require teachers to "respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution". Observers say the move is the first piece of creationist-linked legislation to be put forward in the state since 1972.

The moves in such a wide range of states have angered advocates of secularism in American official life. "This is just another attempt to bring creationism in through the back door. The only academic freedom they really want to encourage is the freedom to be ignorant," said Rob Boston, senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Over the past few years, only Tennessee and Louisiana have managed to pass so-called "academic freedom" laws of the kind currently being considered in the four states. Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and close observer of the creationism movement, said that the successes in those two states meant that the religious lobby was always looking for more opportunities.

She said that using arguments over academic freedom was a shift in tactic after attempts to specifically get "intelligent design" taught in schools was defeated in a landmark court case in 2005. Intelligent design, which a local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, had sought to get accepted as legitimate science, asserts that modern life is too complex to have evolved by chance alone. "Creationists never give up. They never do. The language of these bills may be highly sanitized but it is creationist code," she said.

The laws can have a direct impact on a state. In Louisiana, 78 Nobel laureate scientists have endorsed the repeal of the creationist education law there. The Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology has even launched a boycott of Louisiana and cancelled a scheduled convention in New Orleans. Louisiana native and prominent anti-creationist campaigner in the state Zack Kopplin said that those pushing such bills in other states were risking similar economic damage to their local economies. "It will hurt economic development," Kopplin said.

There is also the impact on students, he added, when they are taught controversies in subjects where the overwhelming majority of scientists have long ago reached consensus agreement. "It really hurts students. It can be embarrassing to be from a state which has become a laughing stock in this area," Kopplin said.

Others experts agreed, arguing that it could even hurt future job prospects for students graduating from those states' public high schools. "The jobs of the future are high tech and science-orientated. These lawmakers are making it harder for some of these kids to get those jobs," said Boston.

Madness. Just madness. We have no better litmus test than likability for the suitability of state office? Nobody would dream of allowing an ‘alien abductee’ to be elected to office, but the down-home corn-pone delusionists seem to be a favorite in states where plausibility is measured by calluses and crimson napes, and the ability to hit a spittoon from yards away.

One of the key-notes in that article: global warming is no longer ‘controversial’ – the fact is, most of these are all non-debates (some put to rest decades ago), and we are seeing the backlash of some serious sour grapes.

This nonsense needs to be shouted down – vigorously and continuously, because making allowances for other people’s ‘feelings’ (which is just PCspeak for ‘validate my stupid beliefs without criticism’) just paves the way for these nutters to try and make more head roads into places they have no business involving themselves.

For a great spoof of this idiocy, here’s a clip, courtesy of the Family Guy.

Enjoy.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Sunday, February 12, 2012

A Toast To The Man Who Changed The World

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
DarwinsgraveHappy Darwin’s Day, everyone.

Here’s to the man who rang the bell of reason heard round the world, whose curiosity and thirst for knowledge led him to the most logical of conclusions, who dared to do what few would do, who shook the foundations of superstition to this day.

And while it is true that he was not the first with this idea, shocking as it was in his day and prior, nor was he the only one in his time that did so, still, it is a wonder and a testament to the true strength of humanity, the ability to learn and to puzzle and finally to arrive at an astonishing conclusion.

So here’s to Darwin, my friends, and three cheers to his memory:

Huzzah! Huzzah, I say, and huzzah again.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Wednesday Funny–Homer’s Evolution

This is an all time classic:

Enjoy.

Read More...

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Tuesday Funny–‘A Fistful Of Darwin’

Welcome to the Survival Of The Fittest Saloon:

Enjoy.

Read More...

Saturday, July 09, 2011

The Republican Party: How Do I Loathe Thee? Let Me Count The Ways…

republicans-ridiculous

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

Normally, in terms of ideology, I struggle to adopt a similar credo along the lines of “hate the idea, love the ideologue” (yeah, yeah, it smacks of “hate the sin, love the sinner”: so what, get over it) – and the Republican Party has been a particular target, for good reason.

And I can claim the dubious honor of being able to discover if there are any Republicans in earshot, without pointedly asking “Are you a Republican?” Simply announce “The Republican Party should be abolished!” or “That party has f___-ed up this country beyond belief” or something similar, and anyone simple enough to belong to that pusillanimous party of poltroons will pipe up with one of two statements:

  1. “You can’t say that!” (have ‘em call the cops then), or
  2. “Hey, the Democrats aren’t much better!”

The chances are better with response number 2, because it’s a common favorite of theirs, a tactic known as a red herring, something we’ve all seen them do at the drop of a hat.

Anyways, we have two headings here: the first is the number of personages that have taught us to loathe this party, and the second is the number of mind-numbing contradictions/hypocrisies they seem to swim in obliviously.

Talking Heads for the GOP                    Why they suck

Michelle Bachmann

Where to start? The roots of her constituency are laden in right-wing fuckagelicals  - she speaks in code to them, for cripes sake, and when she’s NOT speaking in code to these idiots, she gibbers like a fucking monkey (only a monkey would make more sense, because there would be some effort involved.).

Rush Limbaugh

I tend to call this guy “Rush Himbo”, because he’ll spread his legs for just about any rethuglickin’ politician around. The same guy who stated that “all addicts should be locked up, and throw away the key” happened to have a monkey on his back too, which changed his tune. Oh, and wishing that Obama would fail – nice, patriotic statement, that. He’d have excoriated anyone who said that about Dubya: believe it.  And criticizing Michelle about her weight and belts? Are you joking? No, just an idiot who makes too much money.

George W.

This assclown deserves an entire post dedicated to his rampant idiocies, from stem cell research to sticking up for creationists to…I get exhausted just thinking about how this guy raped our country. This spaz was a worse president than Woodrow Wilson could’ve aspired to…and that’s pretty bad. I’m surprised my ears don’t bleed when he’s mentioned.

Glen Beck.

That this schlub makes 32 million a year sets my teeth on edge. This yobbo is the definitive fast-food of politics – the idiot ideologue who panders to the attention-deficit masses. It’s not bad enough he’s a Mormon, his ‘influences’ are a grab-bag of the worst possible fringe theories on record. I’ve met homeless derelicts in the streets who gibber less (and make more sense) than this guy.

Ann Coulter

This woman is definitely yin to Beck’s yang. Every time I hear something from or about her, my eyes bulge and my jaw hits the floor.  This is someone who whines about being misquoted as mischaracterization,  and yet says some of the most spiteful, twistedstupid and anti-Semitic commentary ever heard.

Chris Buttars

I banged on Butterball back in the day at GifS – he’s a homophobe and an ID idiot.

Tom Delay

This guy is a perfect example of ‘do as I say, not as I do’ – he’s done it all (well, almost), from money laundering to accepting bribes to despotism to stupid statements about evolution. In fact, he’d done everything wrong a republican can do except have an affair with another man.

Newt Gingrich

I like to call this guy “Newt Gangrene” – sure it’s middle school to do so, but like all the others I’ve listed, he’s simply a rotten excuse for…anything, really. He spear-headed the government shutdown in the mid-90’s, he’s a philandering Catholic  (yeah, no contradiction there), and the idiocies that pour out of his mouth are an inadequate substitute for reality.

Sarah Palin

What list of Reich-wing jackasses would be complete without the Palin-into-insignificance? I’ve said it before – most guys degenerate into slobbering idiocy at the sight of eye candy, and pay no heed to the nonsense that comes sliding out of their mouths. She endorses the Tea-baggers (like the rest of these monkeys), her stances on health care, social issues, and the environment are beyond risible, and (IMO) would be better off taking knitting as opposed to politics, because she ain’t shit at the latter.

Ronald Regan.

Sure, he’s not about to defend himself anymore, but this grandfatherly old fuck wrecked this country, and set the standards of silliness for all the people I’ve thus far mentioned.  His religious craziness was an infectious meme that’s polluted the waters far too long. Harlan Ellison once stated that Regan would’ve been a better president if he A. put a firecracker between his teeth, B. lit it, and C. stuck his head up his ass.

Rupert Murdoch.

Here’s another fuck who made all of today’s crazies mainstream. Fox News. Need I say more? This mook has turned the political landscape of America into another (metaphorical) Chernobyl disaster.

There are, no doubt, a number of names you’d like to add to this list – but brevity forbids it.

No doubt some pandering accomodationist will mewl about how the Democrats  aren’t any better (what about other parties? What other parties?), but the hypocrisy runs high with the conservatives. Remember – this is the truly religious party (and yet most prominent of them can’t seem to stay married to one woman, and the others chase young MALE pages or hit on strangers in bathrooms) that believes in the ‘sanctity of marriage’, the party that believes in ‘limited government’ (which obviously doesn’t apply to bedroom practices or women’s rights)…the hypocrisy is staggering.  What’s even more so, is that their ‘enlightened’ constituency never seems to catch onto to these raging out-of-control bozos. And why? Because religion (Christianity in particular) encourages the sheeple to turn a blind eye to these rampant examples of moral turpitude.

So on one hand we have the representatives of this particular mindset, and it falls inches from resembling true bedlam. On the other hand, we have a long list of woes they wish to afflict on us via legislation – and with that long a list of religious folk, you can bet every possible theory of how they can inflict their ideological idiocy on us will not only be voiced, but everything short of the more horrific will be actually considered.

Masticate on that, and get back to me.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Saturday, July 02, 2011

How Creationists Are Wrecking Our Culture–And It Shows, Even In The Prettier Faces…

“Take the only tree that's left and stuff it up the hole in your culture” – Leonard Cohen, The Future

"Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world." — Gunter Eich.

Watching this video should probably get your teeth gnashing, mostly because it’s chock full of the regular idiocies that the creationists spread among us, like when foreign settlers handed out smallpox-ridden blankets to the Native Americans (if you’ll pardon the metaphor).

For the most part, the beauty queens in this video are playing the diplomacy card, and give equal weight to the crazies. Among the inanities:

A. This is a NON-DEBATE. An empty question. Evolution is taught in schools regardless. In fact, biology classes would not exist without it.
B. The ‘Fair Play’ Debate is. Just. Plain. Stupid. Science has never been about democracy. It isn’t. Reality isn’t decided by popular vote. “We should teach the kids every idea, and let them decide.” Really? Have any of these women had kids? Taught them? Does everybody just grow a blank spot about how effin’ confused they were as children, let alone teenagers? Newsflash: there aren’t any kids around who are as sharp as the ones in those coming-of-age movies. Sorry.
C. This one always sets my teeth on edge: Evolution is just a theory. Let’s just toss out gravity and relativity too, while we’re at it.

I realize this is a re-occurring motif for me, so sorry if I harp on this, but (I feel) it can’t be emphasized enough: an opinion is just a statement, unless it has evidence to back it up. Then it becomes a statement of fact (or facts). What is mind-boggling, is that the improper use of language can spin anything into “it’s just your opinion.”

But in America, we mince. We tip-toe on eggshells. We cave based on the precepts of diplomacy. That feelings are such fragile things, they need to be nurtured, and if those feelings are religious? Roll out the red fucking carpet and throw a freakin’ ticker-tape parade, and shout it from the rooftops.

What utter milquetoast horse manure.

Or to quote Howard Beale from the movie Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."  So I’ve undertaken my own personal mission: every time someone starts out with “Well, I believe [insert bizarre fringe nonsense here]…”, I interrupt them with “It doesn’t matter what you believe.” Go ahead and try it sometime. Likelihood is, you’ll get some serious glaring, maybe even the occasional maniacal glint. People will be offended (I gave up worrying about that decades ago: the years have taught me, that somebody somewhere will be stoked no matter what), their feelings will be hurt. You may even get some accommodationist who’s been suckered in by the ‘every opinion is valid’ nonsense jumping right in and telling you ‘you can’t say that!’ (I tell those folks to have me arrested then. What? You can’t? Then I guess I CAN say it.)

One of the other problems that leads into this, is what I like to call ‘Pretty Face Syndrome’. If it’s on TV (or in a movie), and it’s emoted by someone attractive, it gets accepted almost automatically. Because really, who would listen to an utter moron mouth complete stupidity unless it’s packaged properly? There really isn’t any other reason people listen to idiots like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, or Jenna McCarthy unless the presentation gives most men erections. And yeah, it’s still a man’s world, so this crap floats in under the radar because most guys (myself excluded) tend to listen with half an ear while slobbering over cleavage. Conversely, I’m willing to bet there’s a lot more female Scientologists because Travolta and Cruise are floating around on the Good Ship Lollipop spreading their little meme disease.

So here it is, July Fourth, Happy Birthday America! And what better way to celebrate your First Amendment rights than by spreading dissent and practicing your freedom FROM religion.

Because there is no freedom of religion, unless there’s freedom from religion.

Have a safe and happy Fourth, and give ‘em reason for me!

Till the next post, then.

Read More...