Monthly Archive for August, 2009Page 2 of 10
Tomas Ryska from the Czech Republic went to Thailand and Laos to investigate the Akha people. Both local governments and Christian missionaries have preyed upon these people and have taken their children. He was curious about how the Akha children were treated by Christian missionaries. What he discovered shocked him and nearly got him killed by these Missionary child abusers. This documentary was presented to the UN and now some of the missionary organizations are starting to regulate their missionaries.
Our journey towards adoption was not a straight-forward path. Nearly 20 years ago, before I found that I had trouble getting pregnant, we nearly adopted a little girl. I was a First Lieutenant in the US Air Force at the time. Our neighbors were in a failing marriage with a new infant. The mother made comments to a mutual friend that she did not want to be a mother anymore. I told the mutual friend to pass along that I would be interested in adopting the little girl. I had babysat her several times before and she was such a sweet little thing. The mother decided to keep her daughter after all. The couple divorced and she returned to Germany, where she was from. I think about them from time to time and hope they are doing well.
Four years later, when my husband returned from the first Gulf War, I became pregnant. We expected the arrival of our first child several months later. Unfortunately, she was stillborn. It took us years to get over her death. We were not able to have anymore children. Over the years we took in several foster children. We have one boy who has stayed with us from when he was 12 years old until now. He keeps in touch with some of his siblings and stays with his parents on occasion. He will be graduating from high school this year. We are so proud of him. He will be the first in his family to graduate from high school. He is looking forward to college after graduating from high school.
Five years ago we decided to look at adoption. I started looking at finding a reputable adoption agency. I saw then there were many scams and dishonest agencies out there. I saw that some agencies such as Bethany openly discriminate for religious reasons. But at least they are honest bigots. Though, looking at their website, I see that they now hide the requirement that adopting couples have to give a referral from a Protestant Evangelical pastor.
Other agencies are not so upfront. I called one agency to ask about their programs. A woman answered the phone and answered my questions. Then she started asking about our religious background. I gave my standard ambiguous answer of "I'm not religious." Usually, Christians take this as "I don't go to church." and let it slide. Not this time. The woman abruptly tells me that they were not interested in us and hung up on me. What a bitch.
I kept looking around for agencies in our area. Down in Los Angeles, at Vista Del Mar, we went to an adoption informational seminar. Vista Del Mar was once known as the Jewish orphanage for Santa Monica. The seminar was mainly for those who are not Christian but need to deal with adoption agencies who are mostly religious Christian organizations. They had a list of adoption agencies although religious and Christian, did not discriminate. We also got advice about how to avoid direct questions about our religious views or lack of, hiding religious symbols such as pentagrams (for Wiccans), Star of David, etc. Vista Del Mar is a great organization. We could not use them directly as we live in Kern County and they are not registered in Kern County.
We chose our agency, a Catholic non-profit agency (not Catholic Services which discriminates against gays and lesbians). My husband was raised Catholic (but is pretty much an atheist now) and said that he would make me an honorary Catholic as far as the paperwork was concerned. HehHehHeh. But we didn't have anything to worry about. This particular agency does not discriminate at all.There were no questions about religion. The social workers are very nice and professional. We are very happy with the service.
We leave in about 5 to 6 weeks to pick up our little girl. She is doing very well in a foster home now after spending her first year in the orphanage. It will be a big change for her and we will be there for her as she adjusts. All of my spare time has been spent getting her room and the house ready for a toddler. We are both just as happy as can be.
Yep, the big hairy bollocks would certainly make a man think twice I'm sure!

Apologetics
Belief: mental state that is equivalent to knowledge if 1. the Bible says it's TRUE, 2. enough fellow believers agree that it is true.
Cognitive Dissonance
Coping Strategy (Creationism)
: see entries for crealogic, creation science, critical thinking, education, evidence, PROOF, theory, or invent your own.Crealogical
: see entry for Logic (Creationism)Creation science
: science fiction for those who literally swallow godidit mythsCritical thinking
: negative thoughts about any unwelcome ideaEducation
: anything regurgiquoted from AiG or a similar websiteEducational Qualifications (Creationism)
: anything that can be purchased online, or claimed to have been attained, without a requirement for learning (similar items can be purchased by online ministers).Educational Qualifications (Science)
: something to be approached with derision or incredulity.Evidence (Creationism)
: anything taken, or invented, to supports one's favourite belief.Evidence (Science)
Faith: creationism must be RIGHT because lots of fools believe in it.
Falsification: 1. declaring ad nauseam that unwelcome facts are WRONG, 2. inventing misinformation for the sake of making an illogical argument against a scientist, evolutionist, or atheist, 3. Lie-orama.
Godidit (also Goddidit)
Knowledge: any strongly held belief, regardless of intrinsic truth value.
Lie-Orama: expensive falsifications that depict dinosaurs cavorting with humans.
Logic
: 1. quoting cherry-picked scriptures, 2. regurgiquoting misinformation, 3. resorting to fallacies of logic, particularly in emotional arguments.Logical argument (Creationism)
: using creationist logic (aka crealogic) and making irrelevant, negative remarks about the holder of any unwelcome idea.Logical argument (atheism, science)
: dangerous, faith-testing arguments from generally better-educated evolutionists, scientists, and atheists.PROOF
: declaration that CREATIONISM IS RIGHT and GOD EXISTS.Refutation of creationism
: something that must be ignored, or denied, at all costs.Theory
: the latest desperate creationist invention that is intended to deny reality.© Creations for Literalists
Unpaid Advertisement: see our new apologetics publication Applied Fallacies of Logic, the definitive aid for those occasions when trolling, false flagging, and votebotting are just not enough.
Another Unpaid Advertisement: MacLiar's Guide to Disreputable Colleges and Universities, the definitive guide to unaccredited purveyors of false qualifications or should-not-be-accredited religion-affiliated institutions of lower learning.
If I get an answer, I'll post it here.
You said "I believe in Creation. I have a few questions for those of you who don't. If we came from monkeys, where did the monkey come from? If we originated from one-cell creatures that evolved over time, where did they come from? No matter how far back you go and say we evolved over time, there is always that question. Where did that organism come from that started everything?"
This is basically all one question, and it's what we call a question of infinite regression. One can always ask "well where did THAT come from?" One can even ask that question about God. Fortunately that question falls outside the bailiwick of the Theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution does not speculate on where the first life form came from. The abundant evidence for evolution makes clear that evolution happened and is still happening. But none of that precludes a deity. If you choose to believe that the first life form was the product of the divine, that's fine, evolution makes no assertions either way to challenge or support such a belief.
Which is why it's a little misguided to argue that one must choose between creation or evolution. There are literally billions of religious people the world over who accept the evidence for evolution and continue to believe in their deity of choice. There's no necessary conflict between those two beliefs.
Regarding the rest of your post "I have even heard some one say that we evolved from non-living rocks. Unbelievable."
Now you are getting into a different subject, and it's not part of evolution, you are speculating on what in science is referred to as abiogenesis (life from nonliving matter). The reason why it has that name is that there is no argument (among those familiar with the evidence) that the planet existed before life did. At one point there was only nonliving matter here, and then there was living matter. How?
It's an interesting question... how do you get from nonliving matter to living matter? Abiogenesis isn't a theory, there isn't enough evidence for us to know for sure how the first life forms came into being (and honestly there probably never will be)--there are a number of competing hypotheses, and many of them have points both for and against. But the belief in divine creation is also an example of abiogenesis... if it was a god, he must have created life out of something. Surely it is within the power of a supreme being to take some raw chemicals and assemble a living thing. I doubt you would claim "God couldn't do that".
The most likely conclusion is that the first life form was molecular, a simple chemical compound that could make imperfect copies of itself. At the lowest levels it becomes impossible to distinguish between biology and chemistry--and it's quite likely the first "life" would be something we would barely recognize as alive. You may find it unbelievable that we evolved from "rocks", and that is a mind boggling proposition. However that a simple duplicating chemical compound might have formed in a sea of chemicals bathed in solar radiation and sitrred by tides isn't all that mind boggling at all. Once you have anything that copies itself with errors, then natural selection kicks in and begins to result in changes to that "organism" over time.
All very interesting, but when it comes to the genesis event, whatever it was, we'll never have an eyewitness or a fossil that will allow us to know the nature of that event. Fossil molecules, I suspect, would be rather hard to find. :-)
Therefore I don't concern myself with it, and I concern myself with what we DO have evidence for. The notion of a supernatural being that actively affects the universe and created anything is an interesting notion... a pretty spectacular claim. But for a person with an evidentiary worldview I can't possibly just accept such a claim without evidence. Since the evidence is lacking, I'm not going to adopt such a belief (pending further evidence of course)--that's the reasonable assumption to make. So there we are.
What I do note of the "God Hypothesis" is that historically it has been supplied as an explanation for the unknown for any number of questions and phenomena. As science has advanced the answer to each of those previously divine phenomena (planetary motion, earthquakes, thunder, lightning, volcanoes, rainbows, etc, etc, etc) the divine has been found to be unnecessary, and the God Hypothesis simply moves to a new unknown, filling the gaps on the shelves of knowledge, to be perennially relocated when the books that explain those gaps are written and shelved.
The unknown is mundane. There will always be unknowns. And since the supernatural has been invoked to explain every single unknown in the history of humanity, the fact that it is invoked to explain the origin of life isn't very compelling to me. The hypothesis doesn't have a very good track record, and the mere fact that something is unknown is not evidence for a supernatural agent.
So while I do not know what the original life form was, or how it got here, I'm inclined to think it was some sort of entirely natural event. That's the more reasonable assumption based on what we know about the world. I'm not going to make assumptions based on what we DON'T know... that would be imprudent in my opinion.
That said, I bear no ill will to those who do. There are many great things religion has brought humanity (including, ironically, science itself). So if you want to believe in a divine being, an afterlife, redemption--more power to you I say. Especially if it brings you happiness or comfort in difficult times. I don't share that belief, but I see no reason either of us should condemn the other.
Obviously I tend to get quite angry with people who ignore evidence and spread disinformation. That's to be expected from someone who holds an evidentiary worldview. (And of course, I am as human as the next guy.) Which is why you could sum up my opinion on the subject at hand like so:
"To believe in the divine is a personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with it. To ignore the evidence for evolution is to be willfully ignorant."
And that's all I have to say about that. I hope you found this message to be a useful answer to your questions. I'm actually not interested in debating theology (I think debating things for which there isn't any evidence is fairly pointless), but if you have any questions about evolution, I'd be happy to try and answer them if I know the answers.
This essay is the introductory chapter in The Infernova.
Two unlikely facts collided at the event of my birth, with potentially lethal consequences. The first fact concerned the genes that my parents carried in their cells. The second concerned the memes they carried in their heads.
Genetics first: my father was Rh-positive; my mother was not. They had a son before me who inherited the paternal blood type. His birth was without incident, but it set up potential problems for subsequent children. For during the violent process that is childbirth, some of my brother’s blood was introduced into my mother’s circulation, and her immune system, having never seen this Rh-feature before, developed antibodies against them, and would remain permanently antagonistic toward such cells. This was not an issue until it was my turn to arrive. As again some amount of blood was exchanged during birth, my mother’s antibodies found their way into my bloodstream, and began their destructive work on my cells. This is, and was at the time, a well-understood condition, called Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn. It can result in anemia, seizures, brain damage, and death.
This disease is straightforward to treat: the infant’s blood is simply exchanged. The antibodies from the mother are pumped out, and Rh-positive blood is pumped in.
Now as for my parents’ memes: as they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, they were carriers and victims of a set of wild ideas about Life, God, and How We Are Supposed To Act. Witnesses believe in all manner of nonsense, but critical here is their idiosyncratic interpretation of particular Bible passages, such as Acts 15:28-29:
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.
They read this as an injunction to abstain from blood entirely: it isn’t just an edict against imbibing it, but against taking it intravenously. Even to save your life. Or your child’s life.
As these two facts came together in early 1967, my father informed the medical staff that the transfusion was not an option. The hospital thought otherwise, thankfully, and obtained a court order from the state to proceed with the transfusion. My father was also given some education involving terms such as manslaughter, in order to help dissuade him of any thoughts about absconding with me or otherwise attempting to prevent the treatment. The blood exchange was performed and I recovered in accordance with the expectations of medical science.
I learned of all this when I was an adult, long after my parents had split up, and my mother told me about it, at last lifting a decades-old burden from her conscience. Although they were both Witnesses at the time of my birth, my mother’s innate maternal senses overruled the religious mandates, though she kept this to herself. Privately she was quite glad that the State of New York stepped in to save her child’s life.
From day one, my life has been profoundly affected by religion. As you might imagine, I’m not sympathetic to the views of the Witnesses in particular, or organized religion in general.
Not every Witness child requiring serious medical attention is saved by the courts. Sometimes the parents prevail–usually with an older child trained well enough to parrot their parents’ views and convince a judge of a certain level of maturity; enabling them to effectively choose suicide, a choice, ironically, that most religions will not extend to terminally ill, suffering adults.
A gruesome series of such accounts can be found in the May 22, 1994 issue of the Witnesses’ Awake! magazine. ”Youths Who Put God First” is the cover story, and it details case histories for a number of children who managed to avoid a blood transfusion and subsequently died. Vignettes of young lives cut short by wasting disease are troubling; far more disturbing is the article’s celebration of their martyrdom. And it seems as if we’ve become numb to this sort of idiocy these days, with the routine suicide bombings in the ”holy lands” that originate from the same irrational mindset.
For, just as with religious terrorists, the motivation behind the stupefying actions of the Witnesses is a hysterical concern with What Happens Beyond The Grave. Open the their literature and the root causes for their behavior are laid bare. They firmly believe in an Armageddon that is imminent, where God will launch a massive assault upon the earth, from which only they will be spared. After that, eternal life in Paradise awaits.
Whereas the Islamic version of heaven seems tailored to appeal to sexually repressed males and their hopes for unending pleasures of the flesh, the Witnesses would seem to target a younger audience. Their ubiquitous, colorful renderings of Paradise On Earth feature pastoral scenes of seaside picnics, exuberant families of young and old, racial harmony, and always the animals. A docile lion that allows children to climb all over him has appeared more than once (right now I’m looking at one of their illustrations where a beach ball lies between the ex-carnivore’s paws). If you want your Youth To Put God First, pandering to their innate affinities can’t hurt.
Obviously, the children discussed in the Awake! story demonstrated great courage, which I don’t mean to disparage, but I do mean to attack the root causes that forced them to act so. To persuade them to honestly believe they’d go to a better place–for eternity–by employing fantasies that would strengthen their resolve to suffer a needless death, is simply evil. These children are to be pitied. The monstrous ideas, institutions, and adults that put them in such situations, that misinformed their decisions with such lethal nonsense, are to be reviled.
The concepts of eternal rewards, and the suffering and trials needed to secure them, seem part of our interior makeup. When used as a template for narrative, when the mythology stays allegorical, when it all lies merely at the heart of a story arc, then they enliven and make resonant much of our literature and lore. But when religions wield them and bully us into taking them literally, all manner of conflict and misery result.
The original work that this book parodies, Dante’s Divine Comedy, blends both the allegorical and literal perspectives of religious myth. Read it like Homer’s Odyssey and see a perilous quest to find a peaceful home at last. Read it literally and see magnificent poetry wasted on the religious nonsense of a backward age. (Imagining what his immense talents might have celebrated had he lived in an age of human progress is what first inspired me to build my own narrative with the structure he used.)
Dante’s trip through Hell, great literature that it is, was motivated by the ethics of punishments and rewards, where God’s wrath is to be avoided and eternal bliss is to be achieved. Dante’s trepidation in Hell is palpable at times, but it’s always quite clear that he’s not really in danger of becoming a permanent resident. He’s a tourist; a student going through a process of striking and effective deterrence, like a seventh grader in shop class, forced to watch a documentary film that might have been named What Happens To Kids Who Don’t Wear Safety Glasses. Even before he completed the entire odyssey, the fate of Dante’s soul was never really in doubt. The visit to Hell was temporary. Paradise would be forever.
Dante’s choice to tour that terrifying abyss may be seen as a brave act by some, but it absolutely pales in comparison to another momentous literary decision involving eternity and Hell. A choice that was made by an astounding character that appeared some six hundred years later; a homeless waif on a different kind of odyssey: Huckleberry Finn, who was definitely not A Youth Who Put God First.
In Chapter 31 of his Adventures, struggling to do his duty and return the slave Jim to his owner, Huck is certain that Providence watches his every move with great interest. Will he attempt to purchase the tenuous freedom of a being considered subhuman, at the cost of his own soul? The climax of the book is the moment he finds the courage to ignore the sticks and carrots proffered by the religion of his society, and to make the bravest choice of all–to act true to his own self and his own conscience:
I was a-trembling, because I got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ”All right then, I’ll go to hell.”
He does the right thing, and he does it in spite of a certain conviction that he will suffer endless torment for it. A more breathtakingly moral decision would be a challenge to find in any other works of literature, including those considered to be ”holy” books.
”There has never been an intelligent person of the age of sixty who would consent to live his life over again. His or anyone else’s.” Mark Twain wrote, and given the era, I can’t say I blame him. And as he set out in his little known, satirical Letters from the Earth, heaven did not look to be much more desirable than the other place. I hope he’d forgive me for bringing him back to life in my story. Based on his affinity for contraptions (he invested heavily, and without profit, in an 18,000-part automatic-typesetting machine called the Paige Compositor, about which he wrote, ”All the other inventions of the human brain sink pretty nearly into commonplaces contrasted with this awful mechanical miracle…”), I thought it fitting to perform his resurrection by extrapolating forward the information technologies that have proliferated in our time, technologies that connect words and machines in ways that likely would have pleased him greatly.
Two examples of such extrapolation can be gleaned from the writings of professors Nick Bostrom and Frank Tipler. Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher, developed a clever argument for the so-called Simulation Hypothesis, which asserts a nonzero probability that we are all living in a vast computer simulation, while Tipler, in his book The Physics of Immortality, proposes an ”Omega Point” in the future where humans have colonized space, built supercomputers that can support human consciousness, and resurrected everyone who has ever lived. However small the likelihoods of such eventualities, they at least provide semi-plausible examples of purely naturalistic ways in which ”godlike” power could eventually develop and how a kind of eternal life could occur. They are more credible than anything traditional religion ever offered, and afford us an opportunity to look at such admittedly fascinating concepts as immortality, for once, through a lens not smeared with the dirty thumbprints of theism.
Many fine people are believers, of course, and I would be amiss not to acknowledge the important function religion often serves in providing narratives for our lives. Most of us seem to need a structure around which to base our actions. But that scaffolding can be built from better materials than a black rock in the desert or splinters of a cross. Purpose can be found without stupefying dogma and life-threatening irrationality to accompany it. To set out my own narrative, of how we err, and how wishful thinking can lead us so wrong, is why I wrote the parody that follows. Mix in equal parts of love for Dante’s genius and Twain’s spirit. My paradise, a destination seen at the start and end of my New Inferno, isn’t Dante’s, and it certainly isn’t the Witnesses’. It’s the world revealed by science, bit by bit through the meticulous and honest work of men and women speaking a common language, seeking understanding and benefit for all.
The paradise toward which science works is tied down to no particular geographical place, but I can’t help but locate the site of my own Divine Comedy in the state where my story started, where J.D. Salinger’s famous fictional youth descended through his personal inferno to eventually glimpse paradise for a moment with his sister in Central Park. Not far from there is the Waldorf- Astoria, where my parents honeymooned and set the biological dominoes in motion that would so affect me in a few years. Where, on one side of the Brooklyn Bridge (with its odd status as a kind of icon of gullibility), sits the world headquarters of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (which may in fact be the World Headquarters of Gullibility). And where a clear and horrific demonstration of the destructive power of faith-based thinking was made in the form of an elaborately planned mass murder on a September morning.
But mostly I see the city as symbolic capital of the state that saved my life in 1967. ”I Love NY” is, for me, much more than a famous slogan.
You don’t need religion to have holy places.

| I inadvertantly became part of a 'death panel', and the cause of the NHS waiting lists! Yeah it's a bit sensational and eyeball grabbing, but no more blarney than we're used to, from politicians and media hype!! I was an emergency on the 12th of August, You may have read about it here. In that moment I jumped the queue - I didn't know I was going to, I had no warning signs whatsoever, but jump the queue I did. My emergency care pushed me to the top of the angioplasty list. I assume, that all those thousands of people waiting for the procedure and already scheduled for surgery, would have been a bit disgruntled at being pushed down the list; maybe they've had to spend another few days in pain or discomfort. Make no mistake I feel for their pain, 9 years ago I was waiting for surgery on a prolapsed spinal disc, the surgery was postponed 3 times because of emergencies, and twice I'd already travelled to the hospital for the surgery only to be turned away again. It was a pestereance to me, extra weeks of pain, but the emergencies would have been somebody in imminent danger of paralysis or death. So of course, had I been asked if I minded that person in emergency need of care going in front of me in the queue, I, and I presume any other humane being would say "Yeah ok, i'm only in pain, I'm not in danger, you go first." It seems to me that the best one can hope for from any National health service, the best outcome you can expect is, in an unpredicted or emergency occurrence, the system copes with the extra strain. In a system of limited funds, triage must be applied, those in greatest need first. We all loved the TV series about an army surgical unit in the Korean war - MASH. Almost weekly we would watch the courageous doctors and nurses choose which soldiers to save and which to leave to die. Their difficult decisions always, sensibly, based on their past experience of the survivability of various injuries. This can only be described, by any humane being, as fair, just, moral and sensible. But a typically self-centred, right-wing bastard, would describe those nurses and doctors as a death panel! We all complain about having to wait for treatment, each of us likes to think ourselves the most important, but in medical emergency situations, we all accept that the 'most important' is the one closest to death whom is most likely to be saved. The NHS works brilliantly well, and lets face it, everybody on the planet wishes they had one just as good! PEACE Please leave a comment - Anything will do |

I am not going to post the entire article, if you wish to read it, you can do so here. What I am going to do is look at some of the claims made within the article.
The first thing I will look at is a part of chapter one of his book, as posted on that site. One of the first claims he makes is this:
Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from creation science, or scientific creationism. The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not.Oh really? I would say otherwise, and, as I like a scientific approach to my claims, I am going to back up my claim with some evidence.
One of the most important events in the history of the intelligent design movement so far, is the 'Dover Trial' which took place at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in mid to late 2005. I am not going to say much about this case as I could do an entire series on that, just to say that it's ultimate aim was to establish whether intelligent design was creationism in disguise. In the end, judge John E. Jones III ruled that is was and that it was not constitutional to teach it in the classroom, a case that has been fought over by creationists ever since.
There are several aspects of the case that are useful in my evidence that intelligent design is creationism, evidence that was used in the case itself.
First of all, we have the intelligent design proponents themselves. These included William Dembski, Michael Behe, Richard Nilson and Steve Fuller (click on names for more detailed information about these people). One thing that the concept of intelligent design claims is that it is obvious through observation and study that the universe had to be 'designed'. Now, in creationism, this 'designer' is assumed to be the christian god, in intelligent design, they claim not to make any claims about who the designer might be, their only goal being to show that somebody or something designed it.
Could this be true? could intelligent design be an honest attempt just to show that there was a designer? or is it leading towards creationism.
Well, in the case, several factors came up. First of all, there are the backgrounds of those defendants, all of them actually being creationists as was shown in the Dover Case'. This hardly gives an impartial view of whom the 'designer' might be.
The second factor here, and one in which Dembski was actually found to be lying, was with regard to the book 'Of pandas and people'. The for mentioned book was involved in the case because when students were being taught about evolution, they were also given the option of reading this book, which, they claimed was a book about intelligent design. As the case progressed, earlier print runs of the book were acquired and it was shown that throughout the book, the word 'god' had been replaced with the word 'designer', showing that Dembski had used a creationist book and just changed the concept of the creator. This was one of Dembski's stumbling blocks.
Another piece of evidence I present to show that intelligent design is creationism, and this is pretty conclusive, comes from Dr Steven Meyer himself. You see, Meyer is the vice president of the 'discovery institute', a think tank which is at the heart of the intelligent design movement. In 1999, a Discovery Institute internal document entitled 'The Wedge Document' or 'wedge strategy' was leaked to the web. This document, which Meyers later admitted was actually sourced from the institute, outlined an aggressive 20 year plan to change public opinion and policy towards eventually having an evangelical, creationist viewpoint.
The document it'self sets out it's goals in the opening paragraphs:
Recognising that they will need support for this plan from the evangelical community, the document recognises it's evangelical orientation:There are three "wedge projects," referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:
- "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
- "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
- Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
- Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
- Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.
Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."As can clearly be seen from this document, the so called 'Discovery Institute' clearly has an evangelical, creationist agenda
.
So you see my friends, given the backgrounds of intelligent design's proponents, the fact that they re-authored creationist materials, and the fact that the institute that is at the very heart of it has a creationist adjenda, you can see that intelligent design is, infact, creationism in a suit and tie!!
The next bit of the article I am going to briefly look at is:
Intelligent design begins with data that scientists observe in the laboratory and nature, identifies in them patterns known to signal intelligent causes and thereby ascertains whether a phenomenon was designed. For design theorists, the conclusion of design constitutes an inference from data, not a deduction from religious authority.Now, there you go, from the fish's mouth, he's saying that they take the data, then identify in that data, patterns known to signal intelligent causes and then ascertains whether a phenomenom was designed. So, there he admits that when he approaches the data, he approaches it with a pre-existing bias, a bias of looking for intelligent patterns, instead of looking at what the data is telling him without any pre-existing prepositions. That's creation all over, go in looking for data to match your hypothesis instead of creating a hypothesis from the data!
In the next section, he talks about the propositions of intelligent design and gives this statement:
ID1: Specified complexity and irreducible complexity are reliable indicators or hallmarks of design.First of all on this point, let me just say that irreducible complexity has been refuted many times. Also, even if that concept was true, it does not mean, because you don't understand how something came about, that it must have been designed, it just means we don't know yet and all other avenues have not been explored?
Ooh, a swing and a miss, as I said before, irreducible complexity has been refuted many times before, even the id flagship example, the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be reducible! (click on flagellum link for more details)
ID2: Biological systems exhibit specified complexity and employ irreducibly complex subsystems.
ID3: Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of specified complexity or irreducible complexity.That is not a scientific statement. Even if naturalistic explanations had failed to explain the origin of specified complexity yet, it would not mean that we default to 'sky daddy did it', which is what id basically is.
ID4: Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of specified complexity and irreducible complexity in biological systems.Wrong again, the best explation is that we have not yet found the solution. To say that a designer had done it is to say that you know 'everything' about the natural world and have managed to rule 'everything' out.
Ok, the rest of the article, apart from the one small bit I am about to post is basically phsydoscience and talking around in circles in a desperate attempt to break free of creationism, which, due to the evidence above, we can show that the two are most definatly the same animal.
As I could go on all day about this article, I will post just one bit, as I believe I have already delt with the heart of the article:
May I refer you to the Dover Case papers once more. You see, if you don't think that these people won't lie through their teeth to try and slip their religion through the back door under the cover of id, then just read the papers from this trial to see how much lying and outright deception took place in this case. They were 'lying for Jesus', right through their teeth!
Intelligent design, by contrast, is free from such charges of religious entanglement. Intelligent design is not scientific creationism cloaked in newer and more sophisticated terminology.

(Blasphemy is a victimless "crime". Besides, I enjoy it!)
I mean it. Creationist are not only ignorant, but they are arrogant about it. I say this because they flaunt their ignorance and crow about their deluded, uninformed beliefs as though this is a cause of pride. To assume that one knows more than the experts is arrogance in my book.
Ooops, I'm forgetting that the Bible is the supreme science textbook. Never mind that its metaphysics has been soundly and repeatedly falsified.
I shall be eternally [joking] grateful to Bishop Ussher for providing a falsifiable date for the biblical "age" of the Earth, and by extension of the universe.
Creationists either lie or propagate falsehoods told by other creationists. They either do not know the facts or they deny them. They are not only illogical, but they often contradict themselves within a few sentences. If their pronouncements are challenged, they invent "information". Again, frequently contradicting what they said prior to the challenge.
They do all of this within the context of poor grammar, and bad spelling. Not to mention CAPS, which make them RIGHT.
Here's a fool ranting about the universe. I particularly enjoyed this one because of the hilarious malapropism. The fool can't even accurately name what he is denying.
"They are starting to piss me off,they earth is not billions or millions of years old.They have no proof that the big band theory is true,but they teach it like it really happened."
(That's fair. Creationists piss me off. Have done for a long time.)
Um, it's the Big Bang, not a mega-orchestra.Yes, the Earth is about 4.7 billion years old (judging by meteorites). The oldest known rocks are over 4 billion years old.
No, radioactive decay does not lie, and no, geologists do not use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the Earth. (Our planet is far too old for this method to be applicable.)
Um, scientific hypotheses attempt to best explain observable facts. If hypotheses survive falsification, they graduate to being termed theories. This means that scientific theories follow upon something that actually happened.
What more could one expect from someone who equates the rapid inflation of spacetime to a very large collection of brass, wood, strings, and hot air? Or did he mean a huge collection of guitarists accompanied by drummers and amplified to deafening levels? Hence the bang? Either way, I'm willing to bet that he'd also deny cosmic microwave background radiation, even though he's undoubtedly heard that.
.
YouTube.
Articles : eSkeptic Michael Shermer Not Intelligent, Surely Not Science David Brin The Other Intelligent Design Theories: Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution Robert Camp Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way that SETI is? Tom McIver Who Designed That? Creationism v. Intelligent Design Bruce Grant Intentional Deception: Intelligent Design Creationism Burt Humburg & Ed Brayton Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District Reading Room Intelligent Design & Creationism
Blogs: Greta Christina The Blind Watchmaker Makes a Watch: A Nifty Video About Evolution : No More Mr. Nice Guy! The watchmaker is blind, and the cretinist emperor is naked : Pharyngula How to evolve a watch : Tangled Up in Blue Guy Debunking the “Watch in a Box” Strawman : BlogCadre How to evolve a watch : cartoon The Watchmaker
Peace, love and all that other good stuff...TPO
From Skepticality:
On April 20, 1999, two boys left an indelible stamp on American society when they carried out their plan to kill as many of their high school classmates as they could. The very word "Columbine" has come to represent a specific brand of unthinkable horror: when children make a calculated decision to murder their teachers and peers.
In the chaos and aftermath of that April day, legends and misinformation quickly proliferated. A great deal of what was reported about Columbine was simply not true.
Author Dave Cullen has spent the last ten years of his journalistic career studying the lives of the residents of Littleton Colorado as they were before, during, and after this shattering event. Cullen's seminal book on the subject, Columbine, delves deep into the psyches of the killers, the victims, and their families — to set the record straight.
Notes from the show:
There was an attempted bombing yesterday at Hillsdale High School in San Mateo, CA. The formerHillsdale student was armed with 10 pipe bombs, a chainsaw and a sword. He was stopped by faculty and police. There were no reported injuries.
School violence often recalls what happened in Littleton Colorado on April 20, 1999. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attempted to blow up Columbine high school. The bombing failed, but they succeeded in killing 13 of their classmates and one teacher.
Most of what was reported in the early hours, days and weeks at Columbine was wrong.
Journalist Dave Cullen has spent 10 years investigating the lives of the people of Littleton. Cullen's book Columbine, is the definitive story of what happened on April 20, 1999.
In this book you will learn many things you may not have knew like:
- The Columbine killers were not goths.
- The killers listened to KMFDM - not Marilyn Manson.
- The Columbine killers were not members of the Trenchcoat Mafia.
- Columbine was not a revenge fantasy, it was an attempt at mass murder.
- The killers wanted to outdo Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building.
- Contrary to the film, the Columbine killers didn't go bowling on April 20th, 1999.
- Columbine teacher Dave Sanders was shot and bled to death waiting hours for help.
- Among the tragedy are uplifting stories like that of Patrick Ireland.
- Both Klebold and Harris had been arrested for theft and were in juvenile diversion.
- Judy Brown had filed many police complaints with JeffCo.
- The guns used at Columbine were obtained for the juveniles by adults.
- In the year leading up to the attacks both killers made websites, videos and journals.
- Cassie Burnall was killed at Columbine, her parents wrote a book about her story.
- Students who were with Cassie that day, report that the story isn't true.
- Columbine parents had to file suit in order to get the full and final report from JeffCo.
- The Klebold and Harris family depositions are sealed until 2027.
- The Rocky Mountain News was one of the media outlets that got to the truth of Columbine.
Now, I don't profess to be an expert in phsycology, but from what I can see of the case so far, it seems as though Mr Garrido may have become racked with guilt through the years about what he had been doing but could not find any way out of it. This is where fundamentalism would have stepped in. A lot of people turn to religion to comfort them during the low points of their life, and this was definatly a low point in his. Perhaps he thought there was some justification for his actions to be found in fundamentalism, or perhaps he saw it as some way of repenting and being forgiven for his sins, for Jesus loves a sinner apparently!
Perhaps religion was not the source of this problem originally, but it seems to me, that it enabled Garrido to justify it and feel he had found a way to be forgiven for his actions.
Another interesting thing that has now been discovered and can give you a real insight into this is that Garrido had a blog . I have not looked into these much myself, I shall later, but what I have seen so far, including him getting a signed affidavit that he can speak in tongues (wtf?) and conspiracies about voices in people heads, it's a pretty scary insight into a very warped mind!

I was finding it hard to put into words my feelings on receiving this e-mail, so many questions sprung to the fore. What had I done to deserve this? Was it really for me? Why had I been chosen? I eventually accepted the inevitable and can only simply say...Thank You!
I read a lot of atheist blogs and have always been envious of those that receive e-mail from religious fuckwits and various whackjobs. I've been blogging on here for almost 2 years and have never received so much as a one-line e-mail from anyone that has been so pissed off by what I have written that they just had to respond via electronic media. Sure I've had comments on my posts from individuals such as I have described, but Damn It, surely you haven't achieved anything in the atheist blogosphere until you get a vitriolic e-mail from a nutjob? So Thank You!
I am honoured to join the ranks (albeit as a raw recruit) of those giants of teh internets who receive such e-mails by the bucketload. Some of those blogging giants even, dare I say it, delete such e-mails. Gasp! Imagine getting so much tard in your in-box that you could act in such a cavalier manner? I promise never to become so blaise.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present for your viewing pleasure, shaunf10186's e-mail. I have reproduced it in full initially and will reproduce it again after the fold with my comments in red.
Subject: opinion-atorMay I retort?
Date: 22/08/2009 18:26:20 GMT Daylight Time
From: shaunf10186@hotmail.com
Dear Psycho-fantic killing machine come Freudian follower,
I know for a fact you enjoy lauding in other peoples discomfort and pain. So I’ll just keep this short and sweet remtard. Your opinions and views are what I can only describe as fashionable for the atheist and secular turning world and for some phyric reason you think you speak common sense well Einstein quibbed common sense was a set of misconceptions attained by your twenties and believe me he has got the moral authority over you and he is Jewish. Fact as fact can be. Keep your Freudian-mum-loving-after-life-hating- killingcareer -living opinions of morality to yourself. You’ve got no reason to wade in these waters and do you want to know why because your path in life has been directed towards killing soldiers in the army/air-service / navy of foreign countries now you broadcast your superior morality over people, who derive their morality from something more pure than post colonial foreign policy and Freudians half baked incestual ideas. Jog on wannabe.
P.S. Half way through writing this I thought to myself I am turning into some kind of religious zealot(I reasoned with myself sometime ago that I’am agonistic maybe a patheist at worst/best) but it looks like I’ve come out the other side a patheist hen again its better to fight for something than live for nothing is’nt that right captain killer. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees is‘nt that what hey make you do in the armed forces for your country. Is that the reason, your nashamedly against organised institutions because they brainwash individuals to kill for ulterior motives. Well get with the program Plato the majority of Christians/Jews and Muslims are peaceful until they are persecuted not at all like the politicians peaceful until the whiff of black gold and power arises. Should we et bums like you destroy the moral reasons of millions of people who selflessly give up time and money to help charitable causes. Should we all gravitate towards a odless world where justice and progress is decided by individuals on WHAT? (political) grounds. Face facts we basically inherited our justice and working system from religion if we hadn’t we would still be fucking cavewomen in caves and made no progress from the age of wholly mammoths. Hardly an atheist utopia back then was it boyo. I will leave with this rhetorical question cave sex with monkeys or religion which one would you of chosen Freud?
Dear Psycho-fantic killing machine come Freudian follower,So there you have it folks, my very first e-mail from a fuckwit. I'm impressed that it carries a lot of the hallmarks of the religious fanatics' e-mail that I see on other sites; it has the atrocious spelling and bad grammar that we have come to expect, the multitude of ad hominems and appeals to authority and a quite obvious display of ignorance. My only criticism (and it's a really small one) is that it could have been so much better. Next time shaunf10186 can you please omit the paragraph break, type in all caps, oh and remember to throw in a few font colour changes.I'm so keeping that.
I know for a fact you enjoy lauding in other peoples discomfort and pain.
Have we met? You just described my favourite trait.
So I’ll just keep this short and sweet remtard.
Oh, if only.
Your opinions and views are what I can only describe as fashionable for the atheist and secular turning world and for some phyric reason you think you speak common sense
Fashionable? You say that like it is a bad thing. Fashionable would indicate attractive and desirous, the latest 'must have'. So if by fashionable you mean that people are attaching the atheist label to themselves as some sort of 'latest trend' and don't really dis-believe then I am afraid that says more about the mainstream religions that it does about atheism. 'Phyric reason'? I'm almost sure you mean to say Pyrrhic but I fail to see how it fits into the context of your statement. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before you hit send on these rants?
well Einstein quibbed common sense was a set of misconceptions attained by your twenties and believe me he has got the moral authority over you and he is Jewish.
Actually what Einstein said was that 'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen', a misconception on your part perhaps? I'm not sure what his being Jewish has do with anything however, are you a tad anti-Semitic?
Fact as fact can be. Keep your Freudian-mum-loving-after-life-hating- killingcareer -living opinions of morality to yourself.
Don't sit on the fence mate, say what you mean.
You’ve got no reason to wade in these waters and do you want to know why
Do tell!
because your path in life has been directed towards killing soldiers in the army/air-service / navy of foreign countries
I can truthfully say that in 23 years service in the British Army I have never fired a shot in anger. Not everyone who serves in the Army is a combat soldier you know?
now you broadcast your superior morality over people, who derive their morality from something more pure than post colonial foreign policy and Freudians half baked incestual ideas. Jog on wannabe.
If you really think that people derive their morals from the various holy books than you most assuredly haven't read one fully.
P.S. Half way through writing this I thought to myself I am turning into some kind of religious zealot
A rare moment of self-awareness perhaps?
(I reasoned with myself sometime ago that I’am agonistic maybe a patheist at worst/best) but it looks like I’ve come out the other side a patheist
Again, I'm sure you mean pantheist, but for some reason I read it as 'pathetic theist'.
hen again its better to fight for something than live for nothing is’nt that right captain killer.
For once we are in agreement.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees is‘nt that what hey make you do in the armed forces for your country.
Most assuredly, you're not very good at this insult lark are you?
Is that the reason, your nashamedly against organised institutions because they brainwash individuals to kill for ulterior motives.
Are you trying to say that we shouldn't be against organised institutions that brainwash individuals to kill for ulterior motives?
Well get with the program Plato the majority of Christians/Jews and Muslims are peaceful until they are persecuted
Agreed, it's just a shame that it doesn't take much for them to feel persecuted.
not at all like the politicians peaceful until the whiff of black gold and power arises.
A very astute observation, people in power tend to utilise that power for their own ends. What makes you think a theocracy would be better?
Should we et bums like you destroy the moral reasons of millions of people who selflessly give up time and money to help charitable causes.
I would like to think that people would give up time and money to charitable causes because it's the right thing to do, not because they think it will curry favour with 'the man upstairs'.
Should we all gravitate towards a odless world where justice and progress is decided by individuals on WHAT? (political) grounds.
Where do you think justice and progress is decided upon at the moment?
Face facts we basically inherited our justice and working system from religion
Because prior to Moses rocking down a mountain with a couple of stone tablets the Hebrews were happily killing and fucking everything in their paths?
if we hadn’t we would still be fucking cavewomen in caves and made no progress from the age of wholly mammoths.
Yeah, religion never gets in the way of scientific advancement does it?
Hardly an atheist utopia back then was it boyo.
That would be because the superstition mongers were running the show.
I will leave with this rhetorical question cave sex with monkeys or religion which one would you of chosen Freud?
Do you have pictures of the monkeys?
Other than that you have made my day, so once again, Thank You.





Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription

