Author Archive for Stephen

“No Intelligence Allowed” in the ID movement


I did it. I actually went out and saw Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary that accuses scientists of silencing critics of evolution. I saw Expelled last Saturday, the day after it was released, and I was able to count five people in the theater.

I’m not going to go into much detail here; people with more time than myself have already answered each and every claim made in the film. However, I would like to point out my biggest complaint about Expelled: they never explained why intelligence design is science in the first place. In fact, this alleged science is presented to the audience as nothing but a clever intuition. The sequence of events literally goes as follows:

  1. A couple of scientists lost their jobs after mentioning intelligent design (a lie, by the way)
  2. The cell is really, really complex. Therefore we’ll never find a natural explanation. Cut to a long (possibly stolen) journey through the cell expected to sell blatant argument from incredulity.
  3. Scientists are suppressing and excluding people who think the complexity of the cell means there is some kind of supernatural power “out there,” kind of like Nazis.
  4. By the way, Hitler was inspired by the theory of natural selection. Cut to stock footage of Nazi concentration camps.

Perhaps as incoherent and intellectually vacuous as the entire ID movement. Scientists do not take intelligent design seriously because intelligent design doesn’t take science seriously. They’re going to have to do some research and create some relevant, repeatable experiments to establish their assertion - one that barely counts as a hypothesis - if they want any credibility.

Ben Stein would like you to think ID is the little guy getting pushed around by “big science.” However, in all its actions and lack thereof, the little guy shows no intention of even getting along with “big science.” Here the little guy puts up a thin facade - one the collapses with the slightest touch of investigation - all while his radical agenda of backwardness and social reconstruction is obvious for anyone with eyes.

A critique of “The Evilution Deception”


I found this little cartoon browsing around WordPress.com. Dumbfounded and amazed by the fallacious idiocy comparable only to Ray Comfort and his Way of the Master ministries, I really wanted to just leave it alone and let the video speak for itself. But as someone with an interest in the subject, I see people honestly believe this nonsense too often to spare it from the destructive power of critical examination.

There’s a lot said, but these appear to be the core arguments.

  1. Macro-evolution, or the scientific reality of common descent is an exaggeration of known science.
  2. If you believe in evolution, you also believe we all came from a rock. You believe these things because you don’t want to be held accountable for your actions.
  3. The missing link is still missing. All transitional fossils have been “proven false.”
  4. Scientists have found organic material on dinosaur fossils, hence falsifying the old earth model
  5. Christians believe in salvation through grace and faith, ain’t that special?
  6. You’re going to die, so why not open your mind, soften your heart, stop eating babies and accept Jesus as your lord and savior lest you make the “biggest mistake in your eternal existence!!!


To begin with point one, our animated protagonist could not be more wrong. Creationists typically declare a damning difference between macro and micro evolution. They are mistaken. Scientists refer to micro-evolution as change within species. Over thousands of years a population of golden retrievers will adapt with its environment. Suppose, however, that the population gets separated. Half of the golden retrievers are stuck on one side of a mountain, and the other is similarly isolated. Years pass and both populations adapt to their respective environments until they are so different that they can no longer interbreed. They are now separate species, and macro-evolution (also known as speciation) has occurred.

Next, the video tract makes an amusing leap in logic. How believably precedented.

If you believe in evolution you also believe we came from a rock. It’s funny how you believe the most ridiculous concepts of creation just so long as you’re not accountable for your actions.

Whether or not we came from a rock is irrelevant to the libraries of evidence that confirm common ancestry. Evolution is a supported theory that begins with the first cell. It doesn’t pretend to know where that cell came from; that’s a different field of science. This caricature of abiogenesis exists only to distract.

Moving on, he claims there are missing links in the fossil record. Of course there are, and this only serves as evidence for evolution. Every time we find a transitional fossil (y) between species x and z, we fill one gap but wind up creating two new ones. Claiming all transitional fossils have been “proven false” demonstrates a willful ignorance that need not be addressed.

In addition to lying about transitional species, they argue for a young earth by referencing organic tissue found on a dinosaur bone. An impossibility, he claims, given the evolutionary timeline. I remember seeing this last year in a prolonged discussion. As it turns out, the bones were fossilized in sandstone, a material where the enzymes of decay and degeneration are “drained away.” Moreover, the Harvard researchers called this “a brilliant technical achievement, and it’s because we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs that it makes sense.”

Finished disproving “evolution,” our friend gets on his theological soapbox. In yet another leap of topic (where are the transitions?!) he’s asked, “what about Jews, Muslims and Buddhists? Aren’t they going to hell?” The answer is presumably yes, but he goes on to say unlike those other faiths, Christians believe we’re saved through faith, not works. Isn’t that wonderful? The omnipotent, all-loving creator of the universe judges us based on what we believe. Thought crimes are celestial no-nos when it comes to the afterlife. Eternal consequences for thinking the wrong thing - regardless of worldly action! God wants us to have faith. A faith that is demonstrably irrational.

Tearing this pathetic apologetic to shreds was a cheap shot. However, the people that made this video were inspired by the same type of faith we see in the rest of religion. Built on a foundation of dogma blind to contradiction, “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

Darwin and the denial of his legacy


Today marks the 199th birthday of one Charles Darwin. Nearly two hundred years after he first published the famous On the Origins of Species, Darwin’s theory of descent with modification has been tested, revised, improved and continually confirmed.

And now two centuries later, controversy prevails as outspoken religious sects carry on in their holy war against science. A recent study shows that as many as 40% of us (including a man running for president) either doubt or downright reject the years of peer-reviewed research that universally verify our common origins, believing instead man and all other forms of life were “created in present form.” This unjustified abandonment of reason should not be acceptable as we enter the 21st century.

What we have here is a failure on the part of our educational system. The public does not understand evolution and we need look no further than the aforementioned survey to see the correlation between education and acknowledgment of modern science. Moreover, the influence of clergy closely trailing behind that of a science teacher cannot be a good sign.

The forces of backwardness are alive now more than ever. In a couple of months, Ben Stein of those lame Clear Eyes commercials will release a documentary (so bad he actually has to bribe people to watch) that attempts to draw a link between evolution, Hitler and scholastic suppression of dissent. As the intelligent design vs. reality debate returns to the spotlight, I hope we can answer these regurgitated arguments patiently and politely, bringing ourselves past this embarrassing belligerence.

Mike Huckabee is a delusional reconstructionist


Mike Huckabee gave a speech this week in Michigan. When he got to talking about a ban on abortion, gay marriage and other fun “family” values, the republican frontrunner had this to say.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

Why not, Huck? Your god sure did a great job coming up with standards in the Old Testament. How about we ban physical labor on Sundays, kill homosexuals and stone disobedient children while we’re at it? Maybe your pal Chuck Norris could be in charge of the blood sacrifices.

This man is absolutely insane. Not only does he believe that teaching the fact of evolution is “indoctrination” - he’s open about his theocratic intentions and a sizeable amount of people want him to be leader of the most powerful country in the world.

What’s strange is that unlike his revisionist counterparts, it appears Huckabee hasn’t bought into the lie of America being founded on “Judeo-Christian principles.” He acknowledges the Constitution as a secular document as well as the government’s responsibility to remain neutral in the realm of religion. Make no mistake: he is the one wanting to change things.

The thought of a possible president with such perverted views of religious liberty would make our nation’s founders roll in the grave. It’s time America realizes the dangers of electing a theocrat salivating over the idea of instituting canon law.

Huckabee and religious bigotry


Turns out that there’s still a minority you can slander as immoral, perverse and destructive.

Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21).

- Republican presidential front-runner Mike Huckabee referring to approximately 15% of the American electorate

To those who oppose The Golden Compass


A new movie is being released this December called The Golden Compass. It is based on the first novel in a fantasy trilogy by Phillip Pullman. The trailer makes it looks a lot like Narnia, so it’s probably not a movie I’ll go out of my way to see.

Nonetheless, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (a far-right lobby unaffiliated with the Vatican) has called for a boycott of the film due to an anti-religious sentiment in the final two books of the trilogy.

The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books.

Though the movie promises to be fairly non-controversial, it may very well act as an inducement to buy Pullman’s trilogy, His Dark Materials. And remember, his twin goals are to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity. To kids.

And we’re the angry militants? Now there’s nothing wrong with them wanting people to avoid the movie, but I think the hypocrisy here needs to be pointed out.

Catholics baptize their children - they promise to teach faith as a virtue from the cradle. Indoctrination should be no radical concept, but that’s not what this is about.

Donohue is afraid. He is terrified that kids will get their hands on these books and read something challenging what they’ve been told to just accept. So instead of confronting these fictional attacks on their dogma, Christians are being encouraged to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream frantically in the intellectual gymnastic act known as faith.

Punishing the Victim

This is a sick, twisted world that clearly needs to change: The 19-year-old victim was sentenced last year to 90 lashes for meeting with an unrelated male, a former friend from whom she was retrieving photographs. The seven rapists, who abducted the pair and raped both, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison. The victim's attorney, Abdulrahman al-Lahim, contested the

Progress on overturning mandatory moment of silence in Illinois


Today, a federal judge ordered the superintendent of the Illinois State Board of Education not to enforce the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, a bill passed last October requiring schools to observe a daily moment of silence.

I’ve been ironically silent about this issue on my blog, but I’ve been following the case since it’s inception last month. Being somewhat of a legal geek, I’ve even managed to read through the litigation papers.

Local activist Rob Sherman, of whom I have conversed, challenged the bill on the grounds that it interferes with his daughter’s right to an education, failing to provide a purely secular purpose. Unfortunately, the local media seems to be trying to convince us Mr. Sherman’s first name is “outspoken atheist,” which by judging public opinion appears to be all the argument needed to turn a blind eye to the Constitutional conflicts, dismissing the case as just another godless librul out to take God outs of our schools.

The mandated moment of silence gives students two options: to sit quietly in their desks and pray, or as Rep. Monique Davis of Chicago suggests, “to listen to the rustling of leaves, to listen to the chirping of birds.” The former is a transparent endorsement of western religion, excluding eastern tradition and other theists who may need to get out of their desk to chant or bow in a specific direction. The latter, a frightening attempt at government sponsored thought control. (more…)

This is child abuse


About a year ago, outrage ensued after a video of an eight year old girl shamelessly grilling religion was posted to YouTube. Even though she turned out to be a paid actress, her parents were accused of forcing their views upon her, for she was too young to understand what she was saying.

Now browsing the blogosphere, I came upon GodTube, a Christian video sharing network. On the front page was a video of a similarly young child reciting Psalm 23 to her father’s clear indulgence. I honestly hope that this too is a paid production, as the result is neither “cute” nor “adorable” as some of the commenters have put it. It’s terrifying on par with Jesus Camp.

I don’t need to be a parent to know the act of memorizing prayers or ideas (religious or not) in exchange for daddy’s approval is abusive. Indoctrination, beginning out of the cradle poisons child’s mind into thinking religion is worthy of an automatic respect - a dogmatic view that has no place in this age.

The double standard is obvious: brainwashing is okay as long as it’s in Sunday School. This is child abuse. Where is the outrage?

In defense of the problem of evil


The existence of unnecessary suffering in the face of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, the problem of evil, has remained a primary logical objection against Christianity for ages.

Although no philosophical argument can completely disprove God, it can prove our current definition logically impossible. The “evidential problem of evil” is rather simple:

  1. Gratuitous evils exist.
  2. Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the existence of a god (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good).
  3. Therefore, no god exists.

The textbook apologetic dodge varies. Some Christians will adjust their definition to invent a not-completely omnipotent god. Others will blame Satan, creating a second god, and begging the question: why hasn’t God eliminated him? Others still see suffering as a means to spiritual strength, ignoring the fact noble, character shaping acts can be done in the absence of pain.

More, however, will assert God gives humans the choice to commit bad deeds, blaming the fall of Adam. Though this defense tries to explain evil committed by humans, but it does nothing to justify “acts of God” or natural phenomena that lead to unnecessary suffering. Even if natural events are placed into the same boat, we must address the unnecessary suffering they have caused millions of years before human even walked the earth.

Another interesting objection questions why a god who values free will would create humans, a species dependent on sleep, knowing we waste approximately a third of our life in bed, incapable of making choices.

Like the existence of suffering in general, the idea of sin leading to suffering is still inconsistent with an all-loving god.

God: The Failed Hypothesis


So besides sleeping late and catching up on Battlestar Galactica’s second season, I’ve purchased Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis to get me through my spring break. I haven’t finished the book (in fact, I’m the kind of person who will read five or six books simultaneously at an equal glacial rate), but I’m almost done and it’s worth a quick comment.

Stenger describes specific experiments that could actually support the existence of a personal god. He argues that only a completely irrelevant deity would leave no trace or evidence. If there’s a God, an omnipresent creator with any impact on the natural universe, he would be detectable by natural science.

Was the universe fine tuned? Does our morality come from God? After defining a God model, a falsifiable list of characteristics assigned to God, Stenger refutes the God model with science.

Overall, Victor Stenger provides a welcome, necessary addition to the chain of blasphemic best sellers.

Paula Zahn revisits religious intolerance


After the most bigoted, ironic, one-sided, Faux News style panel on atheism, Paula Zahn revisits the issue by inviting an actual atheist to discuss atheism. Crazy idea, eh?

Richard Dawkins shows up for the first couple minutes, gives his timeless “I don’t believe in Thor, Zeus or Yahweh” rap, then we hear from Ellen Johnson of American Atheists. I’ve never cared for her, and I honestly still don’t. If you’re looking for a likable atheist, it’s certainly not her. She had a perfect opportunity to defend reason, secular ethics and explain to the country what exactly atheism is, yet she went down the tired “freedom from religion” road, making us seem like cold, evil monsters who want to eat your children. Rachel Maddow of Air America was also on the panel along with wingnut Jesse Lee Peterson. Thankfully, no one told me to “shut up” again, though the Reverend Peterson made a couple gigantic claims that I feel went unaddressed:

  • Atheists are hypocrites wanting to impose their godless lifestyle on the masses, much like them damned gays; intolerant of Christians who want to prayer in schools, “under God” in Pledge
  • Morality is impossible without an invisible sky daddy

The first is absolutely ludacris. Neutral is not atheism. Prayer is not banned in public schools; cohersed, mandatory prayer is, as it should be. Students can pray whenever the want, as long as it’s in a non-disruptive manner. A popular bumper sticker reads: “As long as there are algebra tests, there will be prayer in public schools.”

Maddow made a great comment, one I find myself writing whenever I argue Separationism. Jefferson’s “Wall of separation” is not anti-religious. The Founding Fathers respected religion, and knew the consequences of mixing it with government. By not favoring any particular belief system, the government truly supports freedom of conscience.

Believe it or not, morality is not exclusive to scripture. The fact that atheists aren’t flying planes into buildings, bombing abortion clinics and beheading people who worship a different man in the sky is further proof of this. Though atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods, it tends to mingle with humanism, a philosophy centered around respect and compassion. I strive to be a “good person” out of respect for life, not to please a deity.

Kudos to CNN for listening to their reading their listener mail.

Trilemmas and Evidence That Demands A Refund


I’ve spent a good portion of my first day off school reading The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Christian apologist Josh McDowell. It’s been sitting on my shelf for a while now, so I thought I might as well dive in.

After a gross misrepresentation of skepticism, evolution, atheism (concluding something is almost certainly imaginary does not require absolute knowledge!), agnosticism and the scientific worldview in the Introduction, we find a somewhat interesting history of biblical canon and an attempt to reconcile Old Testament as historically accurate. In chapter 7, “Significance of Deity: The Trilemma - Lord, Liar or Lunatic?”, he rehashes C.S. Lewis’ argument: Jesus was either lying about his divinity, propagating an elaborate hoax, confused and mistaken of his identity or truly the Messiah. This cute little argument has a couple major flaws. Number one, it relies solely on the accuracy of the New Testament.

For the sake of argument, I will refer to Jesus as a historical, living person. Though McDowell gives nothing but hearsay accounts made decades after his alleged resurrection, it’s perfectly likely that a man, Jesus, walked around Nazareth. It’s a pretty common name for the era. However, the existence of Jesus isn’t my problem. In order for the Trilemma to have any effect, the Christian needs to prove the authority and relevance of their Gospels.

Celestial Teapots


I still haven’t finished The God Delusion (I’ll post a review of some sort when I’m finished), but this little clip is a pretty good summary of Dawkins’ claims.

It’s from his unfortunately titled documentary, The Root of All Evil?, which is floating around Google Video.

On Pascal’s Wager


It’s been a while since I’ve blogged anything substantial, so I figured I’d jump back on the godless train. A widely accepted argument for God goes as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing, whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything. But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing, whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything.

The wager basically instructs one to play it safe by sucking up to God. If you’re right, you spend eternity in heaven and if you were wrong, you didn’t lose anything.

First of all, this argument only accounts for two scenarios: either the Christian god exists, or conversely, it does not. It fails to recognize there have been countless gods in all human history defined as omnipotent creators. As a rule, these gods are incompatible and don’t take kindly to each other.

Since there are too many gods to count, if someone “plays it safe” believing in the wrong invisible man in the sky, she’s just as screwed as the atheist.

The opposing “Atheist’s Wager” is more tangible and lays out a basic ground rule for secular ethics.

It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Believing in every god society has invented is impossible. The best plan is go to about life assuming there is no God. If you live a good life and contribute to society, you’ll be respected by society and accepted by a loving god. If one is damned for trying to make the world a better place, the god is probably not worthy of worship in the first place.