Here are some quotes from seven of Miller’s biology textbooks, textbooks underwritten with your tax dollars. As you read these quotes, ask yourself where is the “theo” in Miller’s “theoevo.”

(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)

...

(6) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152

The IDiots, in their books and their Uncommonly Dense site throw this term around as they try to suggest that scientists are still desperately clinging on to Darwin's outdated ideas. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to understand that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond anything Darwin could have ever imagined. As their IDiotic ideas are religious myths and not science, they try to portray Darwin as the messiah of evolutionary biology the same way Jesus is the messiah of their silly cult of lies. They are dishonest dumbfucks who want to sneak their religious ideas into science, and thus feel the need to portray evolution as another religion.

Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian (cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these masters he serves more faithfully.

How does preaching the gospel alleviate the suffering of the hungry children in the war-torn countries all over the world? Or is the gospel preached so that god won’t damn those suffering people to hell after their deaths for not licking Jesus’ feet and thanking him for having a divine purpose in their suffering? The fact that Christians really believe in this makes me feel nauseated.

I am not denying that Christian aid and volunteer workers have done good deeds, but let’s take a look at a quote below:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [Albert Einstein]

When Christians do good deeds solely for the sake of their religion, they remain forever on the lowest stages of moral development. As Kohlberg puts it, they are simply slaves to doctrines that they follow because of fear of eternal damnation and their wish to suck up to their sky daddy. Therefore, they remain infantile, lacking the ability to think for themselves. Such Christians often claim that their religion makes them incredibly moral, but what they don’t realize is that their moral development has been stunted by their blind adherence to Christian doctrine.

Atheists perform good deeds as they are aware of the need for the betterment of humanity, not for the selfish purpose of earning oneself points in heaven. Unlike Christian hypocrites, atheists don’t see the need to equate atheism with charity for propaganda or selfish purposes. Atheism is just an ordinary everyday matter, and so is charity. Using charity as an excuse to propagate a particular set of religious beliefs is nothing more than a cheap evangelistic ploy.

Churches often organize charitable activities for their members to participate in, while atheists, having no comparable social structure often individually participate in charities (many atheists also participate in theistic societies in addition to secular ones such as the Red Cross). Again, I know through my own personal experience in volunteer work that many atheists do participate in charity. The only difference is that we don't do it because we are atheists. We don’t need to get on our atheistic high horses and loudly proclaim this fact to the whole world. We feel that things like these simply needs to be done for the well-being of our fellow humans, not for the benefit of getting ourselves into an imaginary paradise.

A Christian who does good deeds only because he wants to earn points with in heaven or to advertising his faith is arguably is acting from purely selfish motives. On the other hand, an atheist seeks to improve the lives of other human beings who are in need without trumpeting a particular set of beliefs. Think about it, and decide who the truly compassionate one really is.

Would we be better off without religion? Put plainly, religion is like a parasite that causes humans to invest time, energy, money and resources in building and maintaining institutions devoted to ignorance and superstition. Think about it: For every church or mosque built, how many hungry mouths could be fed? How many hospitals could be built with the money that is wastefully squandered to build the biggest, grandest looking church in town? Can’t all the money that is spent on the likes of, say, the Vatican be used to actually contribute to the betterment of humankind?

Religious people take great pains to toady to their invisible sky-daddy without realizing that all their effort and resources could be used to actually help people in the here and now? Their focus on the afterlife and Jesus-ass licking is a wasteful disgrace and a landmark of hypocrisy in people who claim that Christianity (or religion) is the cure to the world’s problems.

For goodness sake, how could you fundie fools contribute more to the world through religion when you’re so freakishly obsessed with the afterlife, sins and guilt?

Genetic material from outer space found in a meteorite in Australia may well have played a key role in the origin of life on Earth, according to a study to be published Sunday.

European and US scientists have proved for the first time that two bits of genetic coding, called nucleobases, contained in the meteor fragment, are truly extraterrestrial.

Previous studies had suggested that the space rocks, which hit Earth some 40 years ago, might have been contaminated upon impact.

Competing theories suggest that nucleobases were synthesised closer to home, but Martins counters that the atmospheric conditions of early Earth would have rendered that process difficult or impossible.

A team of European and US scientists showed that the two types of molecules in the Australian meteorite contained a heavy form of carbon -- carbon 13 -- which could only have been formed in space.

"We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoric fragments for use in genetic coding, enabling them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations," Martins said.

If so, this would have been the start of an evolutionary process leading over billions of years to all the flora and fauna -- including human beings -- in existence today.

The study, published in Earth Planetary Science Letters, also has implications for life on other planets.

"Because meteorities represent leftover materials from the formation of the solar system, the key components of life -- including nucleobases -- could be widespread in the cosmos," said co-author Mark Sephton, also at Imperial College London.

"As more and more of life's raw materials are discovered in objects from space, the possibility of life springing forth wherever the right chemistry is present becomes more likely," he said.

Although there clearly is a lot more work to be done in this area, I forward to the time when any mention of creationism and a divine, imaginary, sky-daddy poofing everything into existence is met with this reaction:

Slowly but surely creationism, religion and irrational superstitions would find themselves in the garage bin of history along with myths of turtles holding up the earth, unicorns and dragons wandering the mountains and Zeus' thunderbolt from heaven. Our struggle for reason is of the utmost importance, lest the forces of unreason burn us at the modern-day stake.

Onward, science soldiers!

Scuba divers swept away in strong currents survived 12 hours in shark-infested waters before scrambling onto a remote Indonesian island where they faced yet another threat: a Komodo dragon.

The divers — three from Britain and one each from France and Sweden — came face-to-face with the giant, carnivorous lizard on Rinca's palm-fringed beach, and fought it off by pelting it with rocks and pieces of wood, Pariman, a port official said Sunday.

"Luckily, they were able to chase it away," said Pariman, who, like many Indonesians, goes by only one name.

The beasts have sharp, serrated teeth and often come out when they smell something new, including humans — whom they've been known to kill, Pariman said.

*faints*

*Image from Yahoo News. Yes, I cringed.

Fundie, your statement above is incorrect to begin with. A belief in a god is not a moral judgment, but (to theists) a statement of fact. It is also a position which does not hold water under the weight of evidence. I never claimed that your belief in god is morally wrong. I claimed that based on what we know about the natural world; such a belief is almost certainly false.

Again, idiot fundies: I said that your beliefs are factually wrong, not morally wrong. I know it may be hard for a theistards, but please try to keep up!

Furthermore, your choice to keep clinging on to superstition just because it makes you feel better is not immoral per se. I have never claimed that it makes you less moral than atheists. Such infantile beliefs makes you ignorant, deluded, willfully stupid and promotes mental retardation, but I never once said that it would make you less moral. Your straw man arguments just goes to show how desperate and muddled theistards like you are.

From the atheistic viewpoint, the evidence for the existence of god is seriously lacking. Therefore, it is ridiculous to ascribe any moral characteristics to such a thing. It is even more ridiculous to ask atheists to refute the possibility that Christians claim to derive their morals from such a deity. Your philosophical arm-wrangling does nothing except showcase your stupidity over and over again. You must certainly be proud, aren’t you?

A buffoon has recently started the all-too-familiar idiotic rambling that 'there are other better ways of knowing than the scientific one'.

Nobody is claiming that science has all the answers. Nevertheless, science has shown to be the most reliable method of investigating how the natural world works.

As some anti-science kooks and woos still disagree, here are some simple questions for those who rant about 'other ways of knowing':

1. Describe this so-called other method.
2. Provide evidence that this method works, and is indeed a better method.

Michael Behe’s version of intelligent design posits a god that tinkers now and then with his creation to design “irreducibly complex” structures such as the bacterial flagellum and the human eye. The idea that god is a tinkering mechanic does not hold water in light of the Biblical doctrine that god is actively involved in the world at all times. Behe's theology is one where god resides in the gaps of human knowledge, and that god can and should retreat every time a scientific discovery is made. Behe is claiming that the study of nature by material beings would somehow destroy faith in a god, and asserts that science is superior to religious faith.

Behe's creator is one who lies back for long periods of time, merely appearing to design one complex structure or another. The extension of William Paley’s idea of a watch requiring a watchmaker and design requiring a designer does not work in the case of Behe’s arguments, as his criteria for detecting design is merely what has not been explained by science at the time.

Behe has placed his religion in conflict with science as his argument leads to using ignorance as a reason for belief in god. This god-of-the-gaps theology ultimately undermines religion by shrinking the role of god as science marches on, and affirms the notion that religion has been disproven by the mechanisms and tools of science. When you look for god in things that science has not explained or what you think science has not explained, all you get into is a big pile of trouble.

Philip Johnson posits a god or an ‘intelligent designer’ which intervenes at specific moments in history to create organisms separately without any evolutionary history whatsoever. While traditional Biblical creationists claim that the earth has to be younger than 10,000 years old, Johnson accepts an old earth but rejects the common ancestry of all life due to what he claims are gaps in the fossil record.

Johnson's view is based on the idea that god is a magician who interferes sporadically in the natural world. However, if we were to look at traditional Christian doctrine, it is theologically inconsistent because god is said to be always active in the natural world. Johnson’s ideas not only rests on a misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium and the nature of the fossil record, but also lends a disservice to his god by casting doubt on the supposed creator’s competence.

When we look at the vast numb