Monthly Archive for August, 2009Page 4 of 5

Pharyngula -v- Ham

Published
by
possum_momma
on August 11, 2009
.
This post at PZ Meyers' place is gold.
The comments are a delicious bonus. Some of them have left my side aching and I'd like to share a few of my favorites...

Rev. Big Dump Chimp: "Now that we've brought out the sharp poking stick, when do we use the smashing rock?"

Lose the Woo: "...but since the whole "museum" is scientifically vacuous..."

Ham: But its got displays...really neat ones too. They proclaim the truth of the bible plain as day for everyone to see!

When Dinkum asks why Ham won't link to PZ, Warren says...They'll just drift over on floating mats of vegetation.

Humanistic Jones: As Chef taught us, if someone serves you and then you serve them back, then it's on. While PZ has twice served Ham today, does anything from Ham count for the technical definition of serving?




A Biblical-Literalist Christian Thought Experiment

Published
by
The Jolly Nihilist
on August 11, 2009
.

The following thought experiment is designed for biblical-literalist Christians. Specifically, to partake in this thought experiment, it is necessary that (a) you believe Earth to be several thousand years old, rather than 4.54 billion years old, (b) you believe Earth’s biodiversity is explained by creationism/intelligent design, to the exclusion of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, and (c) when referring to creation, both of Earth and of life, you credit the god of the Bible as the creator and ruler. If these stipulations coincide with your worldview, step right up and play along.

Suppose that, in just one instance, time travel was possible. For the sake of this hypothetical, assume that you—a biblical-literalist Christian—had the opportunity to travel far, far back in time and, of course, return to the present day after your trip. Further, suppose that a meddlesome secularist goaded you into traveling 100,000 years into the past, in hopes of proving to you that Earth, indeed, is far older than a mere several thousand years. For this hypothetical, let us assume that the time machine’s accuracy is 100% and, if there were no such thing as “100,000 years ago,” the machine would travel nowhere. (I deliberately spell out such prosaic assumptions because, to touch on the interesting issues raised by this thought experiment, I must close as many loopholes as I can conjure.)

You step into the time machine, which is set for 100,000 years into the past, and are whisked away. Moments later, you step out of the machine and find yourself very much on Earth. In fact, you are in what would now be called Western Europe. After mere moments of exploration, you stumble upon a species that is completely unfamiliar to you: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. You have never laid eyes on such a robust-looking hominid, and watch in awe as they ably hunt for sustenance. Later, to your shock, you stumble upon a burial site where the creatures place their dead. What a curious, curious creature—so seemingly skilled with tools and weapons and, more discomfiting to the biblical-literalist Christian, so similar to us while, at the same time, so unquestionably different.

You are about to step back into the time machine when you notice several woolly mammoths approaching. Needing little more encouragement, you return to the present day, where the meddlesome secularist anxiously awaits your report. Yes, you say, Earth is indeed older than a mere several thousand years. Having traveled to the very time in question, you can say with utter certainty that Earth, at the very least, is 100,000 years old. Obviously, this expedition could not prove Darwinian evolution by natural selection, but it would disprove Young Earth creationism. Old Earth creationism (hardly a monolithic school of thought) is not disproved; Darwin’s theory, of course, remains entirely in accord with the evidence gathered from the journey.

How grievous would the injury to your worldview be, if such an event were to transpire? Could you, as a biblical-literalist Christian, just switch from Young Earth creationism to Old Earth creationism and still leave the entirety of your worldview intact? Or, given your literalist interpretation of the Bible, would the absolute knowledge that Earth, at the very least, is 100,000 years old throw into doubt all you thought you had known? If the creation story, to some degree, must be read metaphorically, what else might be metaphorical? Jesus’ birth by parthenogenesis? The story of Noah and his ark? Jesus’ resurrection from the tomb? Would the shattering of Young Earth creationism poke too many holes in your worldview to be easily plugged? Or, again, would minor tweaks be sufficient to reinforce the edifice?

Let us not end the thought experiment there, though. Instead, let us take it a step further. Suppose, through some method I shall not bother to confect specifically, you came to the certain knowledge that Darwinian evolution by natural selection is true. For the purposes of the hypothetical, again, we are talking about utter and unquestionable 100% certainty. Additionally, let it be clear that microevolution—the process of small modifications occurring within the species level that can result in a new subspecies—is not the topic at hand. Rather, we are discussing macroevolution, which is exactly the type of which Darwin wrote and precisely the process through which our kind, Homo sapiens sapiens, came to be.

This would leave the biblical-literalist Christian with few appealing options. You could endorse a theory of Universal Common Descent, which has been espoused by Darwinians. Or, you could stand behind a theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism scheme, in which evolution has occurred precisely the way Darwinians say, but, essentially, the process was designed, and continues to be overseen, by god. It is not a random process, then, in the broadest sense, because its operating structure was designed by god.

If this were the case, and Darwinian evolution by natural selection was known to be true, how grievous would the injury to your worldview be? Would it throw everything you thought you knew about the nature of the universe (not to mention the nature of reality) into question? Would it lead to a crisis of faith and a newfound doubt in various metaphysical propositions proposed in the Bible? Or, as before with our time-travel trek, would a mere rejiggering suffice to patch up your worldview and make it solid once again?

All this rhetoric, at base, seeks to discover how central denial of Darwinian evolution by natural selection is to the biblical-literalist Christian worldview. Imagine your worldview as a Jenga tower. How important is the piece positing Genesis’ accuracy? If that piece were forced to be removed, would the tower topple?

Thank God for extremists!

Published
by
Menocchio
on August 8, 2009
.
Three cheers for fundamentalists! Every non-believer has seen over the last few years, the growing sense of frustration within the fundamentalist community. Atheists, Humanists and a myriad of other sub-human monsters have been crawling out of the walls and demanding that religionists pack up their special privileges and go home. The push for a secular society has not been as strong in decades and non-believers have never been as vocal. Although they invariably make us angry, these fundamentalists don’t really do us any harm and are, I propose, probably one of our greatest assets.

The problem with being loud and irrational is that people start to notice. You see this time and time again, not least in the case of the UK’s blasphemy law. Christian Voice, a self-proclaimed “prophetic ministry” led by go-to-guy-for-crazy Stephen Green, objected to the BBC showing Jerry Springer: The Opera and consequently tried to prosecute the broadcaster for blasphemy. The result of a religious fundamentalist bringing an anachronistic religious privilege to court? It brought people’s attention to the fact blasphemy was still a crime, and soon the wheels were in motion that would scrap the law completely. The court costs almost crippled Christian Voice - something they definitely didn’t prophesise - and I don’t know about you but I get a warm, fuzzy feeling just thinking about it. Were I inclined to theism I would hypothesise that indeed there is a God, and he has a wicked sense of irony.

The idea of a blasphemy law in a country that – while admittedly not a democracy – praises and encourages freedom of expression was utterly ludicrous. It was a relic from times when religion was a vital and powerful force in England, when religion was woven intrinsically into the fabric of society. It fell into the same category as the succession law that bars non-Protestants from becoming monarch, the tradition that means bishop sit in the House of Lords and the endless dirge of Songs of Praise on our taxpayer-funded broadcasting service. You know I really wouldn’t mind the requirement for the BBC to show religious programming half as much if it were actually entertaining or interesting.

The problem with all of these things is that most people see them as harmless tradition. Certainly most people seemed to recognise the abolition of the blasphemy law as a good thing, but even with bishops the general consensus seems to be that their presence in Parliament is harmless: just a lovely part of British history. Kindly bishops in their funny robes, drinking tea and providing the House with wise and sagely counsel. It doesn’t really matter how many reports you show them that demonstrate how the bishops vote en bloc in a House increasingly filled with independent lords, or that they consistently stand in the way of social progress: reasoned argument just lacks that spark of excitement that gets people motivated. That’s why we need the fundamentalists.

They’ll lambast atheists, Humanists and secularists as being just as dogmatic as they are, they’ll cry offence at the slightest perceived insult to their religious beliefs and they refuse to give ground even when what they want is clearly only in the interests of a tiny minority. Religious zealots unquestionably have a talent for making a scene, for drawing attention to themselves and consequently the issues in question. In short: they bring the drama. The best part is that not only do they bring these issues to mainstream news with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, they simultaneously sow the seeds of their own destruction. Ultimately, their views represent hardly anyone, and rarely have logic on their side. They can never widen their popularity because their arguments are just not as inclusive as those of secularists, and all it takes to shatter their credibility for good is a verbal kicking by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.

There’s no doubt in my mind that secularism will ultimately win out over fundamentalists, because it reaches out to people regardless of their beliefs and demands equality without seeking to advantage atheists, Humanists or any other non-believers. The more extremists scream, shout and throw their toys out of the pram, the more attractive secularism seems.

That isn’t to say we should just let them get away with keeping abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, pushing to give the Church of England the right to select the bishops who enter the Lords or any other number of flagrant abuses of religious privilege. On the contrary, they must be fought at every turn and their agendas must be brought to public attention as often as possible. Once they’ve got the spotlight, they can only make bigger fools of themselves.

The suggestion to scrap the blasphemy law at the turn of the century was met with a plaintive response from the Bishop of Oxford: “is there nothing left that is sacred?” Well actually, no, there isn’t. Not in a society that wants to be seen as free and fair to all in any case. So let’s applaud Christian Voice, Nadine Dorries and other religious fundamentalists who would seek to exercise their archaic rights over non-believers; the more they try to enforce them, the more people will move to have them abolished. Imposing their narrow, divisive views on a multicultural society is like kicking a hornet’s nest, and they get badly stung every time. Their special pleading draws in thousands of people who wouldn’t usually care and almost always brings them in on our side, not theirs. Let’s just hope they don’t figure that out.

Originally published in issue two of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

Thank God for extremists!

Published
by
Menocchio
on August 8, 2009
.
Three cheers for fundamentalists! Every non-believer has seen over the last few years, the growing sense of frustration within the fundamentalist community. Atheists, Humanists and a myriad of other sub-human monsters have been crawling out of the walls and demanding that religionists pack up their special privileges and go home. The push for a secular society has not been as strong in decades and non-believers have never been as vocal. Although they invariably make us angry, these fundamentalists don’t really do us any harm and are, I propose, probably one of our greatest assets.

The problem with being loud and irrational is that people start to notice. You see this time and time again, not least in the case of the UK’s blasphemy law. Christian Voice, a self-proclaimed “prophetic ministry” led by go-to-guy-for-crazy Stephen Green, objected to the BBC showing Jerry Springer: The Opera and consequently tried to prosecute the broadcaster for blasphemy. The result of a religious fundamentalist bringing an anachronistic religious privilege to court? It brought people’s attention to the fact blasphemy was still a crime, and soon the wheels were in motion that would scrap the law completely. The court costs almost crippled Christian Voice - something they definitely didn’t prophesise - and I don’t know about you but I get a warm, fuzzy feeling just thinking about it. Were I inclined to theism I would hypothesise that indeed there is a God, and he has a wicked sense of irony.

The idea of a blasphemy law in a country that – while admittedly not a democracy – praises and encourages freedom of expression was utterly ludicrous. It was a relic from times when religion was a vital and powerful force in England, when religion was woven intrinsically into the fabric of society. It fell into the same category as the succession law that bars non-Protestants from becoming monarch, the tradition that means bishop sit in the House of Lords and the endless dirge of Songs of Praise on our taxpayer-funded broadcasting service. You know I really wouldn’t mind the requirement for the BBC to show religious programming half as much if it were actually entertaining or interesting.

The problem with all of these things is that most people see them as harmless tradition. Certainly most people seemed to recognise the abolition of the blasphemy law as a good thing, but even with bishops the general consensus seems to be that their presence in Parliament is harmless: just a lovely part of British history. Kindly bishops in their funny robes, drinking tea and providing the House with wise and sagely counsel. It doesn’t really matter how many reports you show them that demonstrate how the bishops vote en bloc in a House increasingly filled with independent lords, or that they consistently stand in the way of social progress: reasoned argument just lacks that spark of excitement that gets people motivated. That’s why we need the fundamentalists.

They’ll lambast atheists, Humanists and secularists as being just as dogmatic as they are, they’ll cry offence at the slightest perceived insult to their religious beliefs and they refuse to give ground even when what they want is clearly only in the interests of a tiny minority. Religious zealots unquestionably have a talent for making a scene, for drawing attention to themselves and consequently the issues in question. In short: they bring the drama. The best part is that not only do they bring these issues to mainstream news with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, they simultaneously sow the seeds of their own destruction. Ultimately, their views represent hardly anyone, and rarely have logic on their side. They can never widen their popularity because their arguments are just not as inclusive as those of secularists, and all it takes to shatter their credibility for good is a verbal kicking by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.

There’s no doubt in my mind that secularism will ultimately win out over fundamentalists, because it reaches out to people regardless of their beliefs and demands equality without seeking to advantage atheists, Humanists or any other non-believers. The more extremists scream, shout and throw their toys out of the pram, the more attractive secularism seems.

That isn’t to say we should just let them get away with keeping abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, pushing to give the Church of England the right to select the bishops who enter the Lords or any other number of flagrant abuses of religious privilege. On the contrary, they must be fought at every turn and their agendas must be brought to public attention as often as possible. Once they’ve got the spotlight, they can only make bigger fools of themselves.

The suggestion to scrap the blasphemy law at the turn of the century was met with a plaintive response from the Bishop of Oxford: “is there nothing left that is sacred?” Well actually, no, there isn’t. Not in a society that wants to be seen as free and fair to all in any case. So let’s applaud Christian Voice, Nadine Dorries and other religious fundamentalists who would seek to exercise their archaic rights over non-believers; the more they try to enforce them, the more people will move to have them abolished. Imposing their narrow, divisive views on a multicultural society is like kicking a hornet’s nest, and they get badly stung every time. Their special pleading draws in thousands of people who wouldn’t usually care and almost always brings them in on our side, not theirs. Let’s just hope they don’t figure that out.

Originally published in issue two of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

The six inches in front of your face….

Published
by
Grant LaFleche
on August 7, 2009
.
A sports movie speech, but nevertheless a reflection of it means to make an effort on human terms, our own terms, and to hold our fates in our own hands without looking to anyone, or anything else.

The six inches in front of your face….

Published
by
Grant LaFleche
on August 7, 2009
.
A sports movie speech, but nevertheless a reflection of it means to make an effort on human terms, our own terms, and to hold our fates in our own hands without looking to anyone, or anything else.

Seneca Falls by The Distillers

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 6, 2009
.
I should play this for my former, and possibly future, history teacher. I can't say the lyrics entirely make sense but at least they are trying. Also one of few female singers in a punk band I like, of course she doesn't have a very feminine voice.

Seneca Falls by The Distillers

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 6, 2009
.
I should play this for my former, and possibly future, history teacher. I can't say the lyrics entirely make sense but at least they are trying. Also one of few female singers in a punk band I like, of course she doesn't have a very feminine voice.

Founding Fathers

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 6, 2009
.
If there's an afterlife, and I really really don't think there is, then the founding fathers would be haunting the shit out of some motherfuckers. Thomas Jefferson was given an rough draft of the Constitution, he immediately criticized the lack of a Bill of Rights and then listed some important ones such as freedom of religion, speech and the press. Those probably sound familiar, wanna know another one? He wanted to make sure the Government could not create a standing army. Think how that would change this country....

Oh and James Madison wanted to make a set of laws limiting luxury and conspicuous consumption. Again think how that would change this country. Protection of property had already come to be an major part of our idea of freedom at this point so it probably wouldn't have tried to prevent individuals from owning large amounts of land or large companies (although what constituted a large company at that time was a very very different thing) but would have prevented unnecessary luxury in keeping with the way americans lived simply during the revolution in order to free themselves of the binds of europe. I'm not opposed to international trade, but I'm hugely in favor of living more simply.

Founding Fathers

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 6, 2009
.
If there's an afterlife, and I really really don't think there is, then the founding fathers would be haunting the shit out of some motherfuckers. Thomas Jefferson was given an rough draft of the Constitution, he immediately criticized the lack of a Bill of Rights and then listed some important ones such as freedom of religion, speech and the press. Those probably sound familiar, wanna know another one? He wanted to make sure the Government could not create a standing army. Think how that would change this country....

Oh and James Madison wanted to make a set of laws limiting luxury and conspicuous consumption. Again think how that would change this country. Protection of property had already come to be an major part of our idea of freedom at this point so it probably wouldn't have tried to prevent individuals from owning large amounts of land or large companies (although what constituted a large company at that time was a very very different thing) but would have prevented unnecessary luxury in keeping with the way americans lived simply during the revolution in order to free themselves of the binds of europe. I'm not opposed to international trade, but I'm hugely in favor of living more simply.

Taxpayer Status

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 6, 2009
.
This is an interesting case, the issue of the actual case is fairly humdrum, a muslim charter school funded with taxpayer is in violation of the establishment clause. The interesting part is the fact that it's usually not possible to sue the government for spending your money in an unconstitutional manner. There is a loophole allowing lawsuits for violations of the establishment clause but only if the money was directly allocated by the Legislative branch. So if the president or you governor spend your money illegally there isn't shit you can do about it. That seems reasonable.... or not. I'm assuming that the theory is that if these lawsuits were permitted then people would be suing every time their money was spent on something they didn't like. I can just picture the teabaggers trying to sue of their money being used to save lives. So I'm kinda torn on this, I think it's terrible that an individual is barred from suing the government for breaking the highest law in our land. Thats fucked. But I can understand how big of a pain in the ass that would be. Then again if the government didn't break the law their would be no lawsuits. If they do break the law they need to be held accountable and thats the point of the judiciary branch, ya know the whole checks and balances thing. But the judiciary can't just strike down an illegal law, someone must bring the case, if were aren't allowed to start the case then how can the judiciary do their job? I guess I'm not as torn about this as I thought I was.

And the fact that the loophole only applies to the legislative branch and not the executive seems particularly odd to me. Why should the executive branch get a free pass to spend my money illegally? The article sites the Hein case where the Freedom from Religion Foundation sued the white house over things related to the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, but seeing as the White House spent it's own General Funds (which are still our dollars) and wasn't appropriated by Congress the FFRF couldn't sue. WTF? How does that make sense in any way? Grrr... That seems like the most egregious violation of the Establishment Clause which they didn't claim was legal, the simply said there is nothing you can do about it. Fuck that shit.

Illegal is illegal, no one is above the law. At least thats the theory...

Taxpayer Status

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 6, 2009
.
This is an interesting case, the issue of the actual case is fairly humdrum, a muslim charter school funded with taxpayer is in violation of the establishment clause. The interesting part is the fact that it's usually not possible to sue the government for spending your money in an unconstitutional manner. There is a loophole allowing lawsuits for violations of the establishment clause but only if the money was directly allocated by the Legislative branch. So if the president or you governor spend your money illegally there isn't shit you can do about it. That seems reasonable.... or not. I'm assuming that the theory is that if these lawsuits were permitted then people would be suing every time their money was spent on something they didn't like. I can just picture the teabaggers trying to sue of their money being used to save lives. So I'm kinda torn on this, I think it's terrible that an individual is barred from suing the government for breaking the highest law in our land. Thats fucked. But I can understand how big of a pain in the ass that would be. Then again if the government didn't break the law their would be no lawsuits. If they do break the law they need to be held accountable and thats the point of the judiciary branch, ya know the whole checks and balances thing. But the judiciary can't just strike down an illegal law, someone must bring the case, if were aren't allowed to start the case then how can the judiciary do their job? I guess I'm not as torn about this as I thought I was.

And the fact that the loophole only applies to the legislative branch and not the executive seems particularly odd to me. Why should the executive branch get a free pass to spend my money illegally? The article sites the Hein case where the Freedom from Religion Foundation sued the white house over things related to the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, but seeing as the White House spent it's own General Funds (which are still our dollars) and wasn't appropriated by Congress the FFRF couldn't sue. WTF? How does that make sense in any way? Grrr... That seems like the most egregious violation of the Establishment Clause which they didn't claim was legal, the simply said there is nothing you can do about it. Fuck that shit.

Illegal is illegal, no one is above the law. At least thats the theory...

The Right To Die

Published
by
PTET
on August 6, 2009
.
A dying Jehovah’s Witness has been granted the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment on the grounds of his religious beliefs.

[An Australian Judge] today found Mr A’s directives should be followed “even if the likely consequence of giving effect to Mr A’s wishes … is that he will die”.

AdelaideNow via ReligionNewsBlog

Conservative Christianity wants the right to choose to die from preventable natural causes. Sometimes they want this for their own children. But they get all "righteous" when people with incurable, life-crippling conditions look for medical intervention to help them choose to die.

The difference is, they say, that death becomes God's choice, not mans. And yet they say God gives us free will. But then why expect rationality from a position that isn't rational to begin with?

PTET

the British Chiropractic Association

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 5, 2009
.
If you happen to have read the last post you'll see that if you're going to make scientific claims you need to be able to back them up. You need evidence that supports your views or else someone is going to come along and tell you that you're wrong. If or when that happens you start by checking if they are correct in their assertion, if they are you can change your hypothesis or throw it away. So what do you do if that hypothesis is that Chiropractic methods work and you've just had your ass handed to you by someone who simply pointed out that none of your claims are backed by evidence? Well if you happen to be the British Chiropractic Association, and I hope you're not, then you sue the shit out of that person for pointing it out!

This is a horrible precedence if it stands. It's ok to promote unproven medicine, but if you point out that said medicine is unproven and possibly dangerous you can be sued for libel. Holy fuck batman, glad I'm not living in England.

the British Chiropractic Association

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 5, 2009
.
If you happen to have read the last post you'll see that if you're going to make scientific claims you need to be able to back them up. You need evidence that supports your views or else someone is going to come along and tell you that you're wrong. If or when that happens you start by checking if they are correct in their assertion, if they are you can change your hypothesis or throw it away. So what do you do if that hypothesis is that Chiropractic methods work and you've just had your ass handed to you by someone who simply pointed out that none of your claims are backed by evidence? Well if you happen to be the British Chiropractic Association, and I hope you're not, then you sue the shit out of that person for pointing it out!

This is a horrible precedence if it stands. It's ok to promote unproven medicine, but if you point out that said medicine is unproven and possibly dangerous you can be sued for libel. Holy fuck batman, glad I'm not living in England.

Aww… we weren’t swimming apes

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on August 5, 2009
.
Ok theres a fringe hypothesis that at some point in our evolution one of our ancestors spent a bit of time in the water. It's known as the Aquatic Ape Theory or ATT for short, but in keeping with scientific norms it should be called a hypothesis and not a theory as it is far from an established theory. I know very little about serious biology but I know more than most people, which isn't saying much at all, hell I'm not even sure if "most" know that evolution is real. Anyway I heard about this theory, er hypothesis, at some point and found it interesting. It seemed to explain a few odd things, such as why aren't we covered in hair like other primates? From the view of a layman it seemed possible and interesting. But it appears that from the view of someone who knows something about biology it's not a very convincing argument at all. This is how and why science works, anyone is welcome to come up with a hypothesis, and anyone is welcome to try to prove it wrong. Contrary to what the haters think taking down an established theory is what makes the greats the greats. You've heard of people like Einstein and Newton right? It's important to note that Einstein was not a famous scientist who proved Newton wrong, he became a famous scientist BECAUSE he proved Newton wrong. When he proved Newton wrong the second time he was famous.

Anyway the point is that if you are going to venture into science then you'd better have skin thick enough to stand some criticism because it's going to happen, thats how science works, its why science works. I bring this up once again because if I get to it this will be an important part of the next post.