Atheism destroyed with ONE SCIENTIFIC QUESTION!!!1!

Christian News Wire and WND.com show up in my Google News feed from time to time, and right now they are both talking about Ray Comfort's latest movie, "The Atheist Delusion". Comfort's press release to Christian News Wire touts "Atheism destroyed with one scientific question!"

The question isn't mentioned. Even the movie's website doesn't mention the question. Since there is so much smoke and noise about this movie, I decided to see where it is showing. I checked Fandango and got nothing. I searched the Internet, and got... nothing. This movie, as far as I can tell, isn't playing anywhere.

From the movie's website, I found that I can DOWNLOAD the movie for a mere $19.99! Which is insane, since for that price I can buy two tickets to Star Trek Beyond, and still have change left for a bag of M&Ms.

So I went looking for spoilers, and found them on Hemant Mehta's blog.  So here's the spoiler, here's the question that Ray Comfort asks atheists that according to World Net Daily, "stuns" atheists...

Where did DNA come from?

Comfort points out that DNA is complex, that it contains information.  It's like a book.  And books have creators, therefore DNA has a creator.  Right?

Are you stunned?  Have you lost your atheism?  Or are you remembering Paley's watch?

This is a slick trick that I see happen too often in apologetics - ask a professional a question that is not in their field of study.  Ask a physicist about biology, ask a biologist about astrophysics.  The answers you get are muddled and lacking any depth - then jump on THOSE answers and yell, "AHAH!"

It works even better if the person is not prepared to respond.  And Comfort's "Living Waters" demonstrates the methods of 'ambush reporting' as its preferred style of asking questions.

In other words, "The Atheist Delusion" is tabloid journalism, or business as usual for Ray Comfort.

As for his question, "where did DNA come from?"  I'll answer that.

I don't know.  What does the deity of the Bible have to do with it?

The idea that information must have a creator is incorrect.  I could go into information theory to show that information can happen if the process of creating information has a built in "ratchet" to keep the wheels spinning in one direction.  In the modern theory of evolution this ratchet is called, "natural selection".  And let's skip the entire field of machine learning...

Instead, as an electronic engineer, I'll bring up the example of Evolvable Hardware.  More specifically, read about Dr. Adrian Thompson's experiment in evolving a circuit in an FPGA.

Circuits that exist inside FPGAs are usually created using a Hardware Definition Language of some sort.  They are created by a creator - usually an electronic engineer with a software proficiency.  But Dr. Thompson proved that FPGAs could be created using an evolutionary process based on artificial selection - the sister to natural selection that we see in evolution.

The resulting circuit meets the artificial selection requirements without ever having been created by a human.

Where did the information in this circuit come from?  Dr. Thompson didn't write it.

Maybe God did it?  Maybe we should ask Ray Comfort?  Because what does he know about electrical engineering?

But having read several of Comfort's apologetics, I think I could answer for him.  He would skip the question entirely, and ask me who built the FPGA.  Which is a neat way to tap-dance away from the actual question that is asked.

Here is one simple question that will destroy Christians.

Can you prove that your deity created the universe?

Humans need vitamin C to live. This implies that evolution is true.

So humans need vitamin C to live. We get vitamin C mostly through fruits and vegetables.

But what if humans can't get vitamin C? Lack of this vitamin leads to Scurvy, a disease that leads to death. There is lots of evidence of sailing ships losing much of their crew and passengers on long distance voyages because they didn't have a source of vitamin C onboard.

This leads to an interesting question. What about the Eskimos? The Inuit and Yupik live in the Arctic. During the summer these people had access to grasses, berries and seaweed, and could get vitamin C from that. But winters in the Arctic are long and dark. Plants became unavailable to them.

So these people got vitamin C from animals. Seal liver and whale blubber both have good concentrations of vitamin C. (Only if eaten raw! Cooking vitamin C destroys it!)

The Inuit didn't get Scurvy.

This leads to another interesting question. Why do these animals have vitamin C in them, and we don't?

It turns out that most mammals don't have to eat foods rich in vitamin C because their bodies make vitamin C naturally.

Ascorbate (the "ascorbic" part of ascorbic acid - the scientific name for vitamin C) is a basic requirement for life by all animals and plants. It is made internally by every plant, and almost every animal on Earth. Dogs and cats make their own vitamin C. You could get vitamin C from fresh Cow liver. (Raw, of course.)

But in apes, monkeys and humans, the ability to make vitamin C is... broken.

And I mean "broken" literally. Animals can synthesize vitamin C from basic carbohydrates through a series of chemical steps in the cell, driven by enzymes. In humans, this sequence of steps is interrupted at the very last step by the lack of one specific enzyme.

Scientists can detect these steps being performed in our cells, and can see what is missing. On investigation, it has been discovered that the gene that makes this enzyme in other animals is not functioning in humans.

At some point, our Simian ancestors suffered a genetic mutation that turned off vitamin C synthesis. But no one noticed, because of all the fruits and vegetables that were being normally consumed as part of a standard diet of anthropoids - apes, monkeys and humans.

This mutation would have been a harmful mutation if circumstances had been different. Our ancestor who couldn't produce vitamin C would have died, leaving no offspring. But vitamin C was still readily available by eating fruits and vegetables rich in vitamin C, and since this was our ancestor's diet this genetic mutation was neutral - not deadly.

This leads me to other questions. Are there other animals that are unable to produce their own vitamin C? The answer is yes. Most bats, all Guinea pigs, some birds. And what is interesting is that their vitamin C generating machinery is "broken" in different ways. For example, Guinea pigs also have the same missing enzyme, but it is due to a different gene malfunction. It's not the same gene as the one in humans.

Another question. We humans are learning how to do "gene therapy". And restoring the process that produces vitamin C in our cells seems like low hanging fruit (excuse the pun). Can we not "fix" humans so that our progeny will produce vitamin C naturally?

I've discovered that there are lots of people looking at this, and some studies and experiments indicate that restoring vitamin C synthesis is possible. But really, we still don't know enough about human cells to guarantee that there are no unintended consequences. Like a higher risk of cancer due to the method of genetic modification used.

And lastly, an observation. The study of why humans don't synthesize vitamin C naturally only makes sense when considered together with the theory of evolution. Without this basic foundation, we are unable to understand what has happened and why.  Instead we would be left with silly ad-hoc non-explanations like, "God did it".

Changing the game with Technology

So I read Cory Doctorow's book, "The Makers".  There were some points where I think it could have benefited with some editing, but overall I think it was a good book.

Makers is a story about the effect of disruptive, game changing technology.  In the case of Makers the primary example is the three dimensional printer that is able to download a pattern and print it out.  Want a new bicycle?  Print out the parts and assemble it.  Need a new fender for your car?  Print it out. 

3D printers are not fantasy - they do exist.  The RepRap 3D printer is a device that can almost print a copy of itself.  That's the goal.  No one would purchase one of these printers, they would just have a friend run one off for them.  RepRap is working on making a printer that could even print electronic circuits.

My friend Madhu linked to a TechCrunch article from his Facebook page about the beginnings of another disruptive technology.  I think this technology is not getting the attention it deserves.

This Techcrunch article by Paul Carr is about the Fort Hood massacre, and it talks about how Army soldier Tearah Moore was inside the hospital where soldiers were being taken for treatment.  Mr. Carr rips into Moore for being a "citizen journalist" for her reporting of events via the Twitter social network.  He points out that she got much of her information wrong, and then calls her a problem for being part of the "look at me" society.

Mr. Carr seems to be lamenting the loss of professional journalism, and berates those amateurs behind the camera who won't get out of the way, or put down the camera and help.  I think that is a discussion worth having, but is not the intent of my post.

I mentioned in response to Madhu that the difference between citizen journalists and professional journalists is the difference between data and information.  A person on the spot with a camera and a twitter feed is providing data.  This data, like all data, should be considered to be suspect until confirmed.  A good news person would know this.  A quick twit of "multiple shooters" would be turned into a cautious announcement of, "We have an unconfirmed report that there may be more than one shooter."

There aren't many good news reporters left. 

But data is going to increase.  The game changing technology is the convergence of micro digital video recorders, cell phones and live Internet streams.  These cameras are shrinking to the point where a police officer can confiscate your 35mm camera while completely overlooking your personal digital video recorder.  What good is it to force a photographer to delete his photos when they are already online the moment he or she takes them?

CCTV is already pervasive, there are few public urban places where people can go without being recorded by some sort of camera system.  These systems are usually owned by businesses or by local governments, and they rarely link together.  CCTV is sold to businesses and the public as a means of "security".  As one executive in the security industry told me, "We don't build 'alarms' because they don't alarm the bad guys.  We build 'security systems' because they make our customers feel more secure".

How much more secure would it make an average person feel than to wear a real-time video transmitter all the time?

At some point the technology is going to be so pervasive, and so discreet, that it will be unthinkable to prevent citizens from using it in public areas.  It will become difficult, if not impossible to prevent the use of this technology even in a secure area.  Places that don't allow cell phones often allow personal music players.  What if your discreet iPod had a camera built into it?  What if your camera system was smaller, and designed to blend in? 

What will we do when all this video becomes available through live feeds on the Internet?  The problem will cease to be shoddy citizen journalism.  The problem will be in sifting through all this data and turning it into information.  Those people and companies that learn how to do this well will become our news media.  Those people who can turn mountains of raw video and audio into brief, informative text and video reports will become the "Walter Cronkites" of this next age of information.

And this pervasive technology will definitely change the game.  Police got the message from Rodney King and routinely harass those people who video or photograph their actions.  How will they act if they are unable to tell if someone is recording them?  Most stores, like Walmart, don't bother to stuff cameras behind each camera bubble in the ceiling because the bubble itself is a deterrent.  In the same vein, every bystander will become a deterrent to poor police procedure because it will be impossible to know if someone is carrying one of these cameras without performing a thorough search.

The new technology of video analytics is a way of analyzing video to determine behavior or attitude.  If we applied this to a personal video stream, it could be possible for the system to sound an alarm when something goes wrong.  Being held up at gunpoint, having an airbag deploy, or even varying your routine in a drastic manner may make your own personal "OnStar" system perk up and ask you if everything is okay.  If you've ever been mugged before, this could be a very attractive technology.  It would certainly change the game for criminals.

What does this all mean?  What will come of it?  I dunno.  No one did a good job of predicting the consequences of personal computers or of the Internet.  Some industries and governments have tried, and failed to predict the consequences of technology, with often humorous results.  (For example, the Movie and Music industry successfully lobbied to cripple Digital Audio Tape recorders in America, and completely missed the importance of CD-ROM.  They've been trying to catch up since then.)

Cory Doctorow's other book, "Little Brother" talks about pervasive information gathering of government and private businesses, and how the citizen can fight back using technology.  It's a good book, but I don't think he took it far enough.  When web-connected personal video cameras become ubiquitous the change will be massive.

Hummingbird song

It was a beautiful morning; calm sunshine and cool while still plenty warm enough for a short-sleeve shirt. On mornings like this I would usually ride my bike to work, but on this day I drove my car so that I could take care of an errand before work.

The company where I work started out as a single manufacturing building, but over the years it has become a sprawling campus. There are many buildings and parking lots, but they are downplayed by lots of grassy areas with trees and shrubs and an amazing amount of flowers. The flowers are in full bloom on this day, and everything is green and lush.

I love days like this. Cool, clean air that seems to fill me with energy. Blue sky and birdsong.

I heard a familiar call and stopped for a moment to scan the top of a nearby Eucalyptus tree. Fresno is home to a lot of hummingbirds, but you would never know it just by looking. These little birds keep out of sight at the tops of trees and are rarely seen near the ground. I’ve met people who have lived in Fresno for years and never seen a hummingbird outside of a photo or video.

But my father taught me to appreciate and recognize birdsong, and I’ve learned to recognize the “squeaky-door with high-pitched radio static” call of the local hummingbirds. I hear them everywhere outside. And if I take a moment and focus on the hummingbird’s call I can actually find him – right there! He’s sitting on a small branch at the top of the Eucalyptus tree, singing his little heart out to a potential girlfriend. I silently wish him luck and move on.

It sounds like a beautiful spring morning doesn’t it? Perhaps sometime in May or early June?

No. This happened today, November 13th.

This isn’t some sort of “Indian Summer” because the weather here has yet to drop below 45 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Autumn for Fresno usually means the beginning of the rainy season, and we have had our first major rainfall. (I hope it rains a lot more – California is in a drought.) The summer didn’t seem any hotter than usual for Fresno – at least not to me. But it stayed warm longer. It’s been warm enough to go swimming here until the week of Halloween, and today’s weather is just beautiful.

Is this a symptom of climate change? I dunno – I’m not a scientist. I think that Bush buried one of the best tools that we could have used to prove beyond a doubt to the majority of the worst climate change deniers that climate change is real and ongoing. As beautiful as it is this morning, I feel vaguely uneasy at what it might imply.

I hope that Obama’s administration resurrects DSCVR so that we can know if my beautiful day today is natural, or man-made.

Michael Crichton Oct. 23 1942 - Nov. 4, 2008

Michael Crichton died on election day due to cancer.

I've read (and in some cases own) several of Crichton's books, including "The Andromeda Strain", "Congo", "Sphere", "Jurassic Park", "The Lost World", "Prey", and "State of Fear".

Crichton's books have always been a sort of scientific "morality play" that he used to show what might go wrong when humans fail to keep a watchful, respectful eye on the way we interact with nature. I support this sort of advice. Scientific discoveries and our human impulse to control our environment can be much like Djinn.  Uncorking a Genie from a bottle often results in unexpected consequences.  Failure to watch for potential side effects can be detrimental or even deadly.

This is good advice, and it is advice that Science Fiction writers have traditionally given since the Golden Age of Science Fiction. 

It is too bad that Crichton failed to follow that advice in his book "State of Fear".

Instead of showing Global Warming to be a consequence of humankind's impact on nature, Crichton completely reversed his normal book writing formula to invent a scenario where all the consequences (storms, floods, arctic ice melting, and tsunamis) are created by a shadowy "eco-terrorist" group for poorly explored motives.

Because of his reversed formula, and because of pages full of supporting charts and graphs, Crichton's literary style suffered.  The book failed to become fish or fowl - it wanted to be a Science Fiction thriller while keeping the trappings of a non-fiction book that explored global warming from Crichton's point of view.

Whether or not Crichton's evidence against global warming is valid is beside the point to me.  What is the point is that he took a hypocritical view that all other interactions between humans and nature should be carefully monitored against unintended consequences, while the possiblility of Global Warming gets a free pass.

I'll miss Crichton's writing, for Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park.  I won't miss him for "State of Fear", because it was not up to the quality that he was capable of producing.

The Science Network

If you haven't had the good fortune to find out about "The Science Network" yet, then you owe it to yourself to check it out.

This is a web-based organization that brings scientists of world-class status together with people who are expert at creating entertaining media. These scientists discuss science issues that impact our lives.

It started back in 2004 with a program discussing the issue of stem cells, and from that has grown over the years as it attempts to follow the best practices of Carl Sagan in explaining complex and difficult science issues in a way that they can be comprehended by those of us without a doctorate.

I'm kinda upset that I'm just now finding out about it.

One of my favorite speakers and writers, Philosopher Daniel Dennett, has several videos on this site. The site uses Google Video for its lectures, so you can embed them into your own blog if you wish.

Last week I spent some time watching Dr. Dennett speak on the topic of Atheism on YouTube. I recommend watching the series, "Dennett on Atheism". I'll include the 5 part series here, under the fold:

Not all Texans are advancing toward the Dark Ages

Unless you've been living under a rock, or unless you've restricted your news intake to merely what the so-called "Liberal Media" offers, you probably have heard about the education kerfluffle that is currently going on in Texas.

Christine Castillo, the now former Texas Education Agency’s director of science, was fired for broadcast emailing a "FYI" email about an upcoming talk in Austin:

...on Nov. 2 by Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, a co-author of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” and an expert witness in the landmark 2005 case that ruled against the teaching of intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., schools.

(A PDF formatted position paper on Intelligent Design written by Dr. Forrest can be read here.)

Ms. Castillo has sent out many "FYI" emails over the years for various other functions and events for which she was NOT fired. But now that the Texas Education Agency seems to have decided to follow the Creationist "Wedge Strategy", apparently Ms. Castillo became a thorn to be removed.

Other bloggers, more famous than I, have declared Texas to be "Doomed" based on it's so-called "neutral" position on science vs. pseudoscience. And I have to say, I'm pretty close to agreeing that Texas has become a fundamentalist state. I've seen first hand the warped thinking that fundamentalism has brought to a couple of my Texan friends. I'm almost to the point of writing most of the state off as an extra-large version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

The only thing preventing me from doing so are enclaves of sanity like Austin Texas, where the intolerant nutballery is kept to a minimum. Or other friends in Texas, who are actually quite sane when it comes to science.

I try to keep in mind that the great Molly Ivins made Texas her lifelong home, that Ann Richards was born and died a Texan...

And now I have one more small hope for Texas when I see writing like this from Rick Casey in the Houston Chronicle:

Promoters of creationism and intelligent design sometimes suggest that the biblical account deserves a special place in our schools (as opposed to, say, Hindu or Hopi creation stories) because the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.

Here are some historical incidents that prove that we were, indeed, founded as a Christian nation:

•In the early 17th century, Sam Maverick, an English immigrant to Boston and an ancestor of the famous Texas Mavericks, was jailed for repeatedly missing church.

•About the same time, Baptist preacher Roger Williams came to Massachusetts to escape religious persecution in England. After being quoted as saying local Puritan authorities "cannot without a spiritual rape force the consciences of all to one worship," he was secretly warned by Gov. John Winthrop that he was in peril.

He fled to live with a group of Native Americans, then purchased what is now Rhode Island from them, setting it up as a colony that honored religious freedom.

•In 1844, a Jesuit priest in Maine advised Catholic families to go to court to block a school board order that required their children to read the Protestant King James version of the Bible in school. The priest was grabbed by a mob while hearing confessions on a Saturday evening, stripped of his clothes, tarred and feathered.

•In 1859, 11-year-old Tom Wall refused to recite the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in his Boston public school. After consulting with his principal, Tom's teacher hit the boy across the knuckles with a 3-foot rattan stick.

The boy again refused. The punishment was repeated. The boy still refused. After half an hour of the painful punishment, he relented despite fearing that he was betraying his God. His father filed assault charges and went to court to challenge the reading requirement. He lost.

•In 1869, the Cincinnati school board voted 22-15 to honor the request of Catholic parents to end the reading of the Bible in school. Protestant parents filed suit.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 for the Protestants, saying the reading of the Bible was necessary for good government.

The doctrine of separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution. It evolved through the courts and through public consensus based on painful experience.

It was not a sop to Jews or Muslims or ACLU atheists. It was developed to keep some Christians from ruling the consciences of other Christians, just as for centuries they had attempted to do in Europe.

Its logic was most forcefully stated by the Christian judges of the Ohio Supreme Court, who overturned the above ruling with these words:

"When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both."

Maybe there is hope yet for Texas. I sure hope so.

Dr. Bob Park on the DSCOVR mission and global climate change

Great minds think alike. Well, in this case, Dr. Bob Park and I have the same idea on the subject of global climate change. Whether or not Dr. Park shares my predilection for HP Lovecraft and geeky gadgets remains to be seen.

But on climate change, we both agree. I wrote about the denial of climate change in October, and in that blog entry I wrote about the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) which was built at Vice President Gore’s suggestion, and then mothballed by the Republican controlled Congress. It is kept in mothballs and studiously ignored by climate change deniers and by the current Presidential administration.

As Dr. Park said in his latest “What’s New?” column:

4. CLIMATE: UH, MAYBE WE SHOULD FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
Warming is caused by atmospheric contaminants that change the energy balance with the sun. Last week an "elite" group talked about sending up vast amounts of other contaminants to make it go the other way. Yes, they really did. Before we do that, maybe we should launch DSCOVR to measure the energy balance. Built and paid for, the Bush administration is hiding it in a Greenbelt, MD warehouse.

Much more succinct than what I have written on this subject, Dr. Park acknowledges that climate change is real, and that the cause is still subject to dispute. Measuring the Earth’s energy balance would be a huge step toward figuring out just how much of climate change can be blamed on humans. Personally, I think that the current evidence points directly at human causes. The DSCOVR mission can offer much better evidence to support or deny this hypothesis.

So once again, I call on those people who deny climate change or deny that it is caused by humans. The DSCOVR mission would cost mere hundreds of millions to take out of mothballs and to launch. The most expensive portion of the mission, designing and building the vehicle, is already bought and paid for. For what we spend in half a day in Iraq, we could have definite answers to the question of climate change.

What are we waiting for?

The denial of climate change

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize today for his work on climate change. His film, “An Inconvenient Truth” won an academy award. Good for Al.

There is some disagreement among the scientifically knowledgeable that Mr. Gore should have received the Nobel. It is thought to be a political statement by the Nobel committee, and the film is known to have a few errors in it, even though the science it is based upon is valid.

But according to the second annual “America’s Report Card on the Environment” survey, most Americans accept the fact of global climate change, and want Bush to do something about it. This survey (PDF link), conducted by the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University in collaboration with the Associated Press, states that:

A striking 84% want a great deal or a lot to be done to help the environment during the next year, by President Bush, the U.S. Congress, American businesses, and/or the American public.

This report says that Americans blame American businesses and Bush’s policies for the declining environment, and that a large majority of Americans are sure that global warming has been, and is currently happening, and that the consequences are likely to be serious.


But there are a few very loud deniers of climate change. I know a couple of religious deniers personally, and if my small sampling of deniers is any indication of the majority, they deny climate change due to religious and/or dogmatic reasons instead of scientific reasons.

The dogmatic, instead of reviewing the science and coming to a conclusion instead start with the conclusion and poke holes in the ongoing climate change science. But even these dogmatic types of skeptic are being overwhelmed with evidence, and are starting to come around.

Christians are having a harder time with climate change, and even though some religious leaders have come around to accepting the evidence, many have not.

The religious group Answers in Genesis advises caution over Global Warming. They lay the majority of the blame on natural events, such as a natural cycle of fluctuating solar output. The belief that nothing happens outside of God’s plan is strong in AIG, and so any talk of climate change that hints at a future global disaster is immediately downplayed, and the blame put on those who are against the “Christian Worldview.” From their article in Answers Magazine, “Human-Caused Global Warming is Slight so far”:

Christians especially need to be cautious when it comes to the issue of global warming and other environmental issues. One of the reasons is that these issues have been hijacked by individuals who desire to change our way of life, and in particular, the Christian worldview that has guided the Western Hemisphere.

I can understand why AIG is wary about this - if they admit the scientific validity of climate change, then how close do they come to admitting the scientific validity of other disciplines - such as evolution?

The problem with overcoming arguments with deniers is that there is not one single “killer” piece of evidence for climate change that will knock their socks off, demonstrate simply and clearly that climate change is happening, and that it is an Earth-based, rather than Sun initiated phenomenon. Deniers point to past warming, to solar radiation changes, to the Maunder Minimum and the Modern Maximum number of sunspots, and claim that even “if” climate change is happening we can’t prove that it is humankind’s fault. And if it isn’t our fault, then there is nothing we can, or should, do about it.

There would be an easy way to find out if climate change is caused by the sun, or by humans. It is a simple experiment that most freshmen who took physics or chemistry would find familiar. To discover the temperature trends of a substance without actually placing a thermometer in the substance, you instead measure the amount of energy being radiated by that substance. That’s the basic principle behind infrared thermometers.

It is easy to measure the amount of energy that is received by our Earth. We know what the solar energy density is when it reaches the Earth so it is simple to calculate how much of it strikes our planet.

It is also possible to measure how much energy is radiated from the Earth. It would require a satellite aimed at our planet to take a measurement of that radiation, but the tools and science to do so are amazingly simple.

So in a simple experiment, using a satellite, it would be easy to calculate how much energy is radiated, as opposed to how much energy is absorbed by our planet. We could prove, or exclude our Sun as a source of climate change during the first week of this satellite’s operation.

If only we had that satellite.

But we do have that satellite! The Deep Space Climate Observatory, (which was originally named Triana), was proposed in 1988 by Vice President Al Gore. How about that?

The DSCVR was designed to sit at that neutral point between the Earth and the Sun called the L1 Lagrange Point. It contains a radiometer that would take measurements of the sunlight absorbed and reflected by the Earth, and would confirm or deny the Sun’s influence on climate change. It would also be able to measure Earth’s temperature, and show its change.

Here is a wonderful tool that could potentially shut up climate change deniers – or shut up those scientists who are offering proof of climate change. In this game of conflicting talking heads, Triana is the referee and judge who could take a big step toward determining the rightful winner. And it is a tool we might never use. Although NASA built this satellite, it was never launched.

Even though he has a somewhat stilted public persona, I think that Al Gore is at heart a romantic. Although Triana could do real and valuable science, Gore instead emphasized that it would be able to provide real-time video of the Earth to everyone, in the hopes it would draw us Earthlings together in a similar fashion to Apollo 17’s “Blue Marble” photograph. This was derided by Republicans who tried to kill the project and called the satellite a “75 million dollar screen saver”. Scientists and Democrats fought against the satellite’s death, and instead of being killed, the satellite was mothballed.

It is still in storage, at a cost of a million dollars a year. The original team that put it together was disbanded and directed to other projects. It would cost a couple of hundred million dollars to put together a new team, to possibly upgrade the satellite, and to launch it. And that money is a mere pittance when compared to the billions we spend each month in Iraq. Yet we don’t spend that money, and now there are those who deride the satellite and deny its usefulness. A rational person would question this sort of resistance.


When denial becomes this blatant – you have to question motive.

Name Our Group Contest - Final Day!

Today is the last day of the "Name Our Group" contest.

Tomorrow, I'll gather up all the entries and submit them to the other group members in Fresno so that they can review them and prepare for voting during next week's meeting.

Remember, there is a $25 Amazon Gift Certificate waiting for the entry that gets the most votes!

Name Our Group Contest update

I'd like to remind everyone that there are two more weeks in which to submit a suggestion to the "Name Our Group" contest.

As I said in the original "Name Our Group" blog post, the Fresno group of Atheists, Skeptics, Secular Humanists, and Freethinkers are looking for a good name that is URL friendly and is inclusive for our diverse group of non-believing rational thinkers.

So far, we've had about 20 responses via email, and maybe another 10 or so via comments to the original post. There are about 40 or so suggestions among these entries.

Remember I am offering a $25 dollar Amazon.com gift certificate to the person who creates the winning entry. There is no restriction on the number of suggestions that any one person can submit either. And, even if no one comes up with a suggestion that we actually use, we will still pick what we think is the best of all suggestions and I'll reward that person with the Amazon gift certificate!

You can check the original post for contest rules, and if you have any suggested names for the group you can submit them via email to calladus+contest@gmail.com.

Again with the Atheist symbol

Last week I created a new symbol for Atheists and Non-believers: the Fleur-de-pensée. Alexc3 left a comment to another post and suggested using Inkscape, an open source vector drawing program that can save files in a scalable vector graphics format.

So, I recreated the Fleur-de-pensée in SVG format. Now you can download the image and scale it, or edit it to your heart's delight. And as I said before:

I'm releasing this symbol to the public domain, free for anyone to use, with only one restriction.

The only requirement that I make is what this symbol represents. As long as anyone uses a symbol that is recognizably based upon or derived from the Fleur-de-pensée, it will always represent scientific, skeptical and rational inquiry into our natural world, without the need to resort to the supernatural. It also indicates a willingness to explore ethical questions that originate with humans and benefit all humanity while respecting individual human rights.

I created 3 different Fleur-de-pensée image files that you can download: Inkscape SVG format, plain SVG format, or Adobe Acrobat format. The two SVG formats contain the Fleur-de-pensée inside of a ring – which can be removed using a graphics editor if needed. The Adobe Acrobat PDF format has two images, the Fleur-de-pensée within a ring, and by itself. Scale the PDF document and then cut and past it as you please.

It would be neat if this image gains acceptance among Non-believers, and truthfully I hope it does. However I'm realistic, and I know what the track record for Atheist symbols is like. If you like this symbol, then give it a chance – link to it, download it, use it. Even play with it.

Name Our Group! (Fame and Wealth awaits!)

Back in January of 2003 I took over the Fresno Atheist Meetup Group on meetup.com. I had become tired of waiting for the group to actually meet, so I became the organizer and put out an email that there would be a meeting at the local diner, even if it was only me there reading “Atheism” by S.T. Joshi. I was as surprised as anyone that people actually showed up.

Since then, the membership of the group has grown and shrunk several times, but it seems as if we've finally started to define our focus and to attract a core group of members. Now we wish to expand our member base and become more active in our community. We've made plans.

But we still don't have a name for our group, so we're asking for your help. Here is your chance to gain (a modicum) of fame and wealth!

Well, an Amazon.com Gift certificate at least. Keep reading...

Our group is actually 3 groups on meetup.com. We combine the Fresno Atheists, the Fresno Skeptics, and the Fresno Secular Humanism groups. Our most famous member doesn't identify himself as an Atheist, but instead as a rational thinker and promoter of science. The consensus of our group is that if you put your beliefs up for discussion, you had better be able to offer sufficient evidence for them!

We agree that the “Atheist” label is only a small part of what defines a person, specifically it defines what a person is not. We define our group more broadly to include Freethought, Skepticism, and the promotion of science, rational inquiry, and human rights. Separation of Church and State is also a core value. Our membership is made up of those who can accept having their beliefs scrutinized. By itself, that is a pretty tall order.


We've defined two primary goals for our group to start out – with the agreement that other goals may come later.

First, we want to become a “presence” here. Fresno is located in the center of the San Joaquin Valley, and all through this valley there is no appreciable organization that supports non-believers or skeptics. We want to change that.

Every Halloween the local media gushes about ghosts. They happily quote religion during other holidays. The Fresno mayor (Bubba) has no problem with holding religious events at City Hall. We're the headquarters for the Freeper community who has no problem with linking patriotism to Christianity.

We would like to be that little voice of reason in our community that speaks up to remind these people that they do not speak for everyone. We want to be in the Rolodex when a reporter looks for “a local skeptic” to quote, even if we're merely a 30 second sound byte in opposition to a 10 minute news story. That will still raise awareness. We want to use our voice to promote rational inquiry and science.

Second, we wish to grow and become better organized. There is a great opportunity for growth in today's marketplace of ideas and our group wants to capitalize on that. Our first steps in growth will be to create a real web-presence for ourselves and leverage that with better local advertising.

We have tenuous links to the other Skeptic and Freethought groups in California that we would like to strengthen. There have been local Freethought groups on the city and state campus and we would like to see if we can support them, or arrange for mutual support. We would like to be able to invite speakers, give demonstrations and educate the public about rational thought, skeptical inquiry, and the methods of science.


So now that we have a stated philosophy and a couple of goals, we need a name that embodies these. And this is where you can help, hence the contest to get things started. And every contest needs:

Contest Rules

1. Although you are welcome to discuss possible names in the comments section of this blog (or elsewhere online) first preference will be given to naming suggestions that are emailed directly to me at: calladus+contest@gmail.com. So if you come up with a name that's sure to win, email it!
2. The name should be URL friendly or have a URL friendly acronym, and be at least somewhat easy to remember. Joke acronyms are funny, but we don't want one. (Yes, we've already heard of the Fresno Atheist and Rational Thought Society - creating these generates seriously bad non-Karma, and everyone knows that's much worse than the regular kind of Karma.)
3. Preference is given to those names that includes or refers to our group definition and indicates our goals.
4. This contest will end on August 31st, at which point I'll gather all the suggestions into one email that will be sent to all of our group members.
5. Our group members will discuss and vote on the best name at our meeting on September 6th . The winner will be announced September 7th.
6. We reserve the right to make changes to the winning suggestion, or to create a name based upon or inspired by the suggestion.
7. The winner will receive an emailed coupon for a $25 gift certificate from Amazon.com, paid for by myself.
8. Enter as often as you like, with a different suggestion each entry, or multiple suggestions on one entry. I'll acknowledge all entrants to let you know I received the email.
9. Spamming my email box gets you sent to Google's spam, and suggestions from spammers won't be considered!

This is your chance to help us out. Frankly, we're stumped as to what we should call ourselves. It seems like all the “cool” names have been taken. Help us out, and I'll send you a coupon to get something off of your Amazon wish list.

-----
6Aug 0900 - Update - Thanks Mike for pointing out that I do allow multiple suggestions per entry. So I made a slight revision to rule 8.

Another Non-believer's symbol

I've always enjoyed playing around with different sorts of symbolism. I don't know if I'm any good at creating new symbols, but I do have fun with it.

So when I saw the request for the creation of a new symbol for Atheism on PZ Myers's Pharyngula blog I thought, “I'll bet I could design something that would work!” And of course I promptly forgot about it. But later, after the contest ended, I kept thinking of what might make a good symbol that represented non-belief, ration thought, and critical skepticism. Since then, the call has gone out again with results that I've found less than satisfying.

I think a good symbol should easily be silk-screened or stenciled in a single color, or easily doodled, or turned into recognizable jewelery. I wanted a symbol that would be easy to remember, that would be difficult to mistake for something else. A symbol that would still be recognizable even if the proportions were a bit off. So I started looking at other symbols for inspiration. Of course I've found that existing symbols are either complex or trademarked.

The one symbol that kept reappearing again and again in my reading was the Pansy flower. It has seemed like the most acceptable for many non-believers due to the depth of history behind it. The Pansy's name comes from the French word pensée, which means “Thought”, and it was so named because the face of the flower resembles a person nodding deep in thought. The Pansy has been identified with thought for a long time and first appeared as a Freethought symbol late in the 1800's.

In 1885 the famous orator Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll was elected president of the American Secular Union. This organization was allied with the Freethought Federation, and dedicated to promoting the separation of Church and State in the United States. These were the first groups to start using the Pansy flower as a symbol, and that tradition continues today with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who also uses the Pansy as a symbol of Freethought and as a reminder of our natural, and only, world.

The modern cultivated Pansy has experienced almost 200 years of breeding to make it hardy, give a wider variety of colors, and to increase its size. Because of this I think is an excellent symbol to apply toward non-believers, Secular Humanists, Skeptics, Freethinkers and others who promote the methods of science and rational, critical thought. I've seen many Atheistic symbols based upon the tools of science – but I think a symbol based upon the results of science is more appropriate.

The Pansy flower would be a perfect symbol if only it were easier to draw!

I was inspired by my copy of the Boy Scout Handbook where I was reminded that the Fleur-de-lis symbol is a part of the Scout uniform. I find the source of my inspiration to be somewhat ironic.

“Fleur de lis” is literally translated as “Flower of the Lilly” and is thought to be based upon Iris pseudacorus, which I'm also showing here. You can see that the complex, hard to draw shape of this flower becomes an easily recognized, fairly easy to draw heraldic symbol. I thought I could do the same thing with the Pansy Flower.

And this is what I've come up with – a simple symbol that represents the 5 petals of the Pansy, with associated flash on the three lower petals, all joined at the throat of the flower. Since it is based upon simple triangles and rectangles with rounded corners, it is easier to draw than the FFRF's pansy, and it is distinct from it. It is a Fleur-de-pensée, a “flower of thought”.

By itself, or inside of a circular hoop, it would make great jewelery. It is easy to recreate freehand – the proportions are not as critical as, say, the Biohazard symbol or the circle of the IPU. It can be colored, and other symbols can be overlaid on top of it or embedded inside of it in much the same way that different organizations use the Fleur-de-lis.

Since I've created this Fleur-de-pensée, I could easily copyright it, trademark it and market it if I so wished, but I think that is counter productive. So I'm releasing this symbol to the public domain, free for anyone to use, with only one restriction.

The only requirement that I make is what this symbol represents. As long as anyone uses a symbol that is recognizably based upon or derived from the Fleur-de-pensée, it will always represent scientific, skeptical and rational inquiry into our natural world, without the need to resort to the supernatural. It also indicates a willingness to explore moral philosophies that originate with humans and benefit all humanity while respecting individual human rights.

And that's it. Maybe this symbol will be a flop – non-believers are notorious for refusing to herd together under a single banner, nor do I expect them to do so. But maybe this symbol will succeed in the marketplace of successful memes where others have not. Go ahead, put the symbol on your own products and sell them. Embed the symbol into your personal symbol, or embed your symbol into this. Color it, use it in Heraldry, play with it. And although I'd appreciate a mention that I invented this symbol, I won't require it. (I'll insert my completely optional hint for swag here!)

And it won't matter to me a bit if you don't “play nice” with the Fleur-de-pensée, or if you re-define it to mean something else. The Internet won't forget where it came from, or that this symbol acknowledges that a belief in the supernatural is unnecessary to rational thought, scientific progress, and human morality.

Have fun with it!

---
17 Aug 07 Update: I've recreated the symbol in Scalable Vector Graphics format and have saved copies in SVG and Adobe PDF. You can find them in this post.

---
26 Sept 08 Update: The Fleur-de-pensée has become a tattoo! See it here!

More support for Abstinence Plus sex education

Remember Linda Klepacki, the analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action? She's been having a bad time of it lately. I just got another Citizen Link alert from her trying desperately to spin the latest blow to funding the Federally supported Abstinence Only sex education program. The Title V block grant program that supplies almost 88 million dollars a year toward Abstinence Only education is due to expire at the end of June, and the many recent setbacks to Abstinence Only education seem to indicate that the possibility of renewal is doomed.

Abstinence Only sex eduction, as you may recall, promotes abstaining from sex until marriage, and discourages the use of contraceptives – either by not mentioning them at all, or by exaggerating their risks and failure rates. Abstinence Only sex education teaches that sex outside of marriage is not only immoral, but that severe emotional and physical costs may also result. Proponents of Abstinence Only sex education claim that Abstinence Plus sex education (which stresses abstinence, but includes information about safe sex and contraceptives) actually encourages teenage premarital sexual activity.

No one denies that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease. It is clear, however, that teaching abstinence does not seem to result in increasing the practice of abstinence among teens.

The latest blow against Abstinence Only sex education is a new study to be published Thursday in the American Journal of Sociology. This study, released by the University of Minnesota sociology department, strikes down the claim that premarital sex always results in severe emotional trauma. From the Minnesota Daily:

... while some girls who became sexually active without being in a committed relationship before the age of 15 suffer from depression in their lives, a majority did not. Researchers found the same for boys under the age of 14.

From USA Today:

The latest analysis by Ann Meier, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, found that those who are most vulnerable to depression or low self-esteem are girls who had their first sex before 15 and boys under 14.

Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health of 8,563 students in grades seven through 12 during the mid-1990s, Meier compared mental health measures of teens who were virgins during the study with teens who lost their virginity during the study.

"Among those who had sex, only about 14% experienced increases in depression or decreases in self-esteem," she says. "In terms of depression, these are relatively modest increases. For 86%, it had no big effect."

Meier points out that this study does not, by any means, give a “green light” to premarital / teen sex. From the Minnesota Daily:

[Meier] said there are no positive effects from losing virginity early, and although the section of people who have mental problems is lower than once expected, it is still a relatively large number of young people.

... the broader implications of the study are that early sex can have a negative psychological effect on girls, and schools should have more comprehensive sexual education.

Linda Klepacki spins the study in this way:

For this study to state that teens 15 and younger tend to be less committed in sexual relationships demonstrates its incredible disconnect from reality. Research shows us that young girls are much more likely to be pressured into sex by much older boys than older teen girls. The term 'statutory rape' is more apropos for 14-year-olds having sex than the term 'committed.'

The Citizen Link alert then states:

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 63 percent of sexually experienced 12- to 19-year-olds wish they had waited longer before having sexual intercourse.

To which Klepacki responds, "Is this statement not a direct result of an emotional response?”


There are a couple of odd things here. Klepacki and Citizen Link are willing to identify the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, but they don't identify who did the “research” that young girls are pressured into sex by older boys. Instead she goes straight on to use the emotionally laden word “rape”. It took me almost a minute to realize that she didn't back up her assertion of the likelihood of rape.


I can almost feel sorry for religious conservatives on this issue. They've suffered a lot of setbacks lately. The 8 year study by the Mathematica Policy Research corporation which was commissioned by Congress to find the effectiveness of Abstinence Only education showed that:

... youth in the four evaluated programs were no more likely than youth not in the programs to have abstained from sex in the four to six years after they began participating in the study. Youth in both groups who reported having had sex also had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same average age.

After the report was released, Democratic leaders in Congress indicated that they would probably drop funding for Abstinence Only sex education, labeling it a “colossal failure.”

I've already blogged that on May 24th, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the overwhelming majority of Californians prefer that comprehensive sex education be taught to their kids in school.

However, that shouldn't be surprising since a January 2004 survey of the general public and of parents by the Kaiser Foundation over the subject of Sex Education in America found that the 94% of parents thought it was appropriate to teach school age kids about methods of birth control. The same study indicated overwhelming agreement by parents that it was appropriate to teach about abortion, how to use a condom, masturbation, homosexuality, and oral sex. (link to PDF)

To add insult to injury, a new book written by Mark Regnerus, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, shows that teens that profess evangelical beliefs and who have pledged to remain virgins until marriage manage to delay sex for only a period of 18 months, on average. Slate's article on the professor's book states:

Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.

Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and other proponents of Abstinence Only are clearly out of touch here. They are out of touch with scientific reality and with popular parental opinion. Most parents remember what it was like to be a teen, and so they do the smart thing of taking a “belt and suspenders” approach toward teaching their children about sex. They want to teach their kids to abstain, and at the same time they want to reduce and control the possible consequences of sex.

The Abstinence Only crowd keeps telling the parents that they don't need the suspenders – but that just doesn't make any sense.

The fallacy of the foregone conclusion

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said: 'one CAN'T believe impossible things.'

'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

- Alice and the White Queen, in "Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll

Truth, and whether or not lies are sanctioned by Christians, has been in the news (and in my blog) lately.

Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). The question is a good one. Must Christians always tell the truth, are they allowed to lie. Must they always follow the Christian equivalent to Kant's categorical imperative - that no lie is ever a moral good?

Categorical imperatives are hard to follow in real life because polite lies often serve as a social lubricant to prevent hurt feelings. If you don't want to tell your boss that his new tie looks like something he pulled off of a hobo, you could instead say that it is, “certainly unique”. But a lie is not merely an untruthful statement. A person may lie by misleading another into believing an untruth without ever making an untruthful statement. A person can also lie by omission, by not telling the entire truth.

Misleading and lying by omission are used in Ray Comfort's “Way of the Master” method of evangelizing to save the unsaved. This method is based upon the Ten Commandments and is geared toward evangelizing to non-Christians. As Comfort has said:

It really doesn't matter if someone says that he doesn't believe that the Bible is the Word of God (or that they don't believe in Hell or Judgment Day). If I have rightly used the Law (the Ten Commandments -- to bring "the knowledge of sin"), I merely say, "It doesn't matter that you don't believe the Bible. You still have to face God on Judgment Day, and you've admitted that you are a liar, a thief and that you have committed adultery in your heart." His conscience will affirm the truth of the Commandments, and the Holy Spirit is faithful to bring conviction.
[emphasis mine]

But the Ten Commandments only forbid perjury, one type of lie (“ ’ed shaqer” means “a lying witness” - Exodus 20:16). Comfort doesn't mention this, so is he lying in order to save the unsaved? Before I answer I'll point out that in his writings Comfort mentions Revelation 21:8, which says, “All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire”.

I reviewed Comfort's evangelistic / sales technique on my “Part Two ... Way of the Master” post. You can read that, or just take a look at the “Hollywood Blasphemy” video that I referenced in that post. In answer to whether or not Ray Comfort is lying during his evangelism technique, watch the video starting at 8:35. Comfort confronts Jessica at this point using the Ten Commandments. He distinctly implies that the commandments forbid lying. This is because it isn't convenient for Comfort to get into a discussion about the difference between perjury and lying at this time, so he uses a common misconception about the Commandments in his favor. Technically this is a lie, and no matter how much slack you're willing to cut Comfort, Kant would call him a liar, who tells lies when it is convenient.


What does Jesus say about lies?

Truth is often mentioned in the Gospels, usually when Jesus says “I tell you the truth” or some variant. Jesus had the chance to clear things up and say, “don't lie”, but instead he quotes the Ten Commandments and says, “do not give false testimony”. (Luke 18:19) Perhaps Jesus realizes that abstaining from all lies is an impossibility. Perhaps, like Ray Comfort, it just wasn't convenient for him to get into a long philosophical discussion while he was busy trying to save souls and spread the God's word.

However there is a way for Christians to lie, without guilt, without the worry of sin, without feeling the threat of God's punishment - Christians are always allowed to lie to themselves as long as they believe in the lie as if it were true.

The best example of this are the “Statements of Faith” and sworn oaths provided by some religious organizations, such as the Institution of Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, or Moody Bible Institute. A good example is the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith, item (D)6.:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

This effort to turn the bible into a science textbook would be laughable if the consequences were not so grim for society. It has led to religious protest against everything from Benjamin Franklin's “lightning rods” to organ transplants. When honestly compared with a science textbook, the Bible is clearly deficient. As Sam Harris put it:

Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? Millions of people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, many of them children. When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will surely be reducible to a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? The Bible is a very big book. There was room for God to instruct us on how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Please appreciate how this looks to one who stands outside the Christian faith. It is genuinely amazing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience.

A statement, or oath of faith is how Creationists lie to themselves based on a fallacy of foregone conclusion - starting with a sworn conclusion requires believers to reshape or reinterpret reality until it conforms to the said conclusion. Whether “Creation Science” is real or not no longer matters because a statement or oath of faith signifies that Truth has been hijacked by belief.

Based upon this foundation Creationists have become experts at “Quote Mining”, making misleading statements about scientific findings and omitting those findings that contradict established dogma, all while avoiding, as much as possible, out and out lies. By starting a process with a foregone conclusion there is no way anyone could truthfully call that process a valid form of scientific inquiry.

Comprehensive Sex Education Wins in California

Teaching 'Abstinence Only' education is like teaching 'Just Hold It' potty training.
- Roy Zimmerman

Yesterday the San Jose Mercury News reported that the overwhelming majority of Californians prefer that comprehensive sex education be taught to their kids in school. Also known as “Abstinence-Plus” or the ABC strategy, comprehensive sex education is based on reducing the likelihood of harm to young people by educating them about the risks of sexual intercourse and how to avoid those risks. This is at odds with Abstinence Only education, which is often combined with quickly ignored Virginity Pledges and is noted for misstating the health risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases while wearing a condom.

From the article:

Almost 90 percent of California parents - no matter their politics, religion, location or level of education - want comprehensive sex education for their children, according to a first-ever statewide survey on the subject.

The results of the poll from the Bay Area's Public Health Institute, funded by the California Wellness Foundation, and to be released today , show that 89percent of parents support a sex education program that includes information about contraception and protection from sexually transmitted diseases, as well as abstinence.

What's more, widespread support for such a program crossed all sorts of cultural fault lines. Among evangelical Christians, 86percent said they support comprehensive sex education. The subgroup with the lowest support, at 71percent, were the "very conservative."

The “Focus on the Family” group have been having fits over Abstinence-only funding at a Federal level. I receive their “Citizen Link” alerts, and have noticed an increase in urgency about Abstinence-only. In their May 23rd “Daily Update” they urge their followers to reauthorize this funding, blaming liberals and Democrats for not immediately reauthorizing it. From the alert:

Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said liberals want to protect Planned Parenthood’s monopoly on federal sex-education funding. She cited a study by Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation, that showed for every dollar abstinence education receives, Planned Parenthood receives $12.

So, it's the evil liberals fault again, with their evil family planning and belief that adults should have the tools required to take charge of their own reproductive organs.

Further from the email alert:

Sex education that encourages premarital sexual activity has proven effective in helping to spread disease, Klepacki said, including:

* 18.9 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) each year.

* 15- to 24-year-olds representing nearly half of all new STD cases in 2000.

* 822,000 pregnancies among 15- to 19-year-olds in 2000.

“These numbers haven’t changed since I began teaching abstinence in 1979,” Klepacki said. “How many government studies do we have to have to know that being sexually active in your teen years is not safe?"

Notice the loaded wording? Abstinence-plus education in no way encourages premarital sexual activity. This is just pure bullshit. Comprehensive sex education promotes abstinence as the ideal, but recognizes that many young people will not be able to achieve that goal, as studies have proven. So, in order to reduce the possibility of harm, comprehensive sex education includes teaching safer-sex practices, and teaching about the risks involved with sex, which include pregnancy, disease, psychological trauma, and potential socioeconomic consequences.

Also notice the misrepresentation of data. First, Klepacki says that the numbers haven't changed in 28 years, which I would call progress, considering that America has increased its population by over a third during that time period. Second, the US Department of Health and Human Services study on Abstinence Education programs clearly indicates that: (PDF link)

[Abstinence-only] and control group youth were equally likely to have remained abstinent. About half of both groups of youth reported remaining sexually abstinent, and a slightly higher proportion reported having been abstinent within the 12 months prior to the final follow-up survey (Executive Summary pg xvii)

So clearly the Abstinence-only crowd must share blame (if any) for sexually promiscuous young adults.

I'm proud of California for rejecting Federal funding for Abstinence-only education in favor of comprehensive sex education. And this poll goes a long way toward drowning out the few very loud voices from those with a religious agenda. These people teach a form of sex education based on fallacious reasoning and poor analogies and they advocate unworkable Virginity Pledges. And then organizations like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family go on to quote pure pseudo scientific “peer reviewed” reports that support their beliefs.

The truth is that young people will do their own thing, regardless of Abstinence-only vs Abstinence-plus education. The difference between the two is that Abstinence-plus education is more likely to better inform a young person about the risks of sexual intimacy so that they may better protect themselves against the consequences.

Falwell's Legacy

Jerry Falwell was a tree. Old and rotting at the core, but big - oh very big. And it is the oldest, biggest trees that do the most damage when they fall in a forest.

Remember that I said that it will take generations to undo the harm that this man has done to our country? Falwell has left a legacy: Liberty University.

Newt Gingrich gave Saturday's commencement address at Liberty University. Between bible verses, Newt had this to say:

A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded. We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms.

"Radical secularism", "Hostility to American history", "God-given ... human rights". Gingrich is hitting all the hot buttons, isn't he? This further demonstrates that Christianity, as a religion, requires enemies in order to survive, and if there are none to be found then they will be created, either by demagogues or through religious groupthink.

Liberty University is a poor excuse for a school. It's greatest claim to fame is that it recently gained provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association, which allows graduates of Liberty University to take any bar examination in the United States. Even before its accreditation it offered a "School of Law" that theoretically prepared its students for the bar exam. Liberty University, as a Tier 4 school, probably doesn't worry too much about academics. Tier 4 schools usually have a student body GPA of between 2.5 and 3.5, while a Tier 1 law school will expect an average student body GPA of between 3.3 and 3.9.

The science course at Liberty University seems to leave a lot to be desired. Liberty does teach the theory of evolution, but I think that's a requirement for accreditation. Alongside evolution, they also teach Creationism of some sort - probably the young-earth version of creationism as shown by this FAQ that answers the question, "Were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?":

Dr. H. L. Willmington addresses this question in Willmington's Guide to the Bible, p. 29, as follows:

Perhaps no other single question concerning the Flood will more quickly bring out the agnostic's sneers and the believer's fears than will this one. But there is now mounting evidence that man and dinosaurs did indeed live on earth at the same time.

...
Thus, to answer the question concerning whether dinosaurs were on the ark, it may be said that inasmuch as they definitely existed with man prior to the Flood, the chances are good that a young pair of these huge reptiles may well indeed have been aboard!

Just in case you might object that perhaps Dr. Willmington's book isn't part of Liberty University's curriculum, the FAQ helpfully appends a little paragraph attributing the origin of this answer as being prepared by Jerry Falwell, Harold Willmington, Elmer Towns and Larrie Schlapman at Liberty University. The FAQ adds:

May you consult these answers with an open Bible and an open heart thus allowing God's Holy Spirit help you find the truth (John 14:26). (Verse: But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.)

If I took a physics test at Liberty U. and one of my answers included a violation of the conservation of energy, could I still get that answer marked as "correct" because the Holy Spirit told me that God created everything out of nothing?


What sort of damage must we undo from Falwell's legacy? Graduates of Liberty University may not be well schooled in the sciences, but they are extremely well schooled in loyalty. George Bush has taken advantage of that, perhaps as a gift from one demagogue to another. Positions of power in the Bush administration have been given away to the marginally (or un-) qualified simply because of a demonstration of loyalty. As Cynthia Tucker has said:

When President Bush ascended to the White House, he allowed loyalty to him and to Christian fundamentalism to dominate the hiring process. Competence no longer matters. Neither do top-notch educational credentials and expertise.

Graduates of fundamentalist Christian institutions, especially Mr. Falwell's Liberty University and the Rev. Pat Robertson's Regent University, have been given free rein. Regent law school graduate Monica Goodling - who recently resigned from the Justice Department because of her central role in the burgeoning scandal there - was given broad control over hiring attorneys, despite her limited experience.

In his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote that similar loyalty tests were used in the hiring process for those charged with rebuilding Iraq. Two applicants told him they were asked their views on Roe v. Wade. Given those priorities, the reconstruction process was doomed from the start.

There is a community of people who believe in keeping the State separated from the Church. Some of us are secular, some not. The people in this community believe in keeping science separate from belief, and keeping the study of the natural distinct from philosophies of the supernatural. This community is at risk from religious fundamentalists who are happy to lump the liberally religious together with secularists like myself merely because we agree that scientific explanations of Nature make more sense than supernatural explanations.

Is this "reality based" community slipping? Are we failing the next generation? Could we be doing anything better to teach science and rational thinking to ensure a better legacy for those who come after us? What is our legacy?

Zev Chafets wrote in the Los Angeles Times that he had asked Falwell what his legacy would be. Falwell replied:

This university [Liberty University] has 10,000 graduates in pulpits and church boards all over the country," he said. "There will be more every year. They'll carry on.