7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism

I've been investigating creationism for around eight years, on and off. Luckily, my heart is hardened to the Infinite love offered freely and without precondition by The Good Lord God, and I have so far been immune to all attempts to save me from eternal hellfire. Praise SatanDarwin.

Recently, however, my faith in un-belief has been troubled.

A new intriguing concept called "CDesign Proponentsism" has appeared, offering a new way of looking at the Universe not tied to outmoded, intellectually bankrupt notions such as logic, evidence, or testability.

CDesign Proponentsism challenges not only secular progressive humanist atheist daughter-defilers like myself, but also Theistic Evolutionists (the same thing, of course). For the first time in several generations, we are at risk from losing the secular stranglehold which keeps our country from being great.

As we atheists and fellow travelers know, CDesign Proponentsist's do not read our blogs or websites. Why else would they not to link to us? Safe in the knowledge that this post will be kept secret and between ourselves, I would like to share my concerns with you.

There are, as far as I can see, seven irrefutable arguments in favour of "CDesign Proponentsism". Luckily, I have something called "Cognitive Dissonance", and I am immune to their power.

If you feel that your atheistic commitment to living without moral limits is fragile in any way, I would urge you to stop reading here. The rest of you may proceed - with caution...

I give you.... 7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism.

1. The Explanatory Filter

The world's greatest living Mathematician is one William Dembski, the Paris Hilton of Information Theory. Dr Dembski has created the notion of the "Explanatory Filter", which I shall explain by applying it to a mystery uncovered recently by the elusive Dr. Snail.

One Galapagos Finch posted an M&M "survival of the fittest" parody at Uncommon Descent on 24 January which is remarkably similar to one which appeared anonymously last year on Craigslist. (My 37173 g00gle skillz suggest it dates back to at least 2003).

As a committed materialist, it is painful for me to admit that the scientific method offers no answers as to how such near-identical complex specified information systems could have arisen independently on at least two separate occasions. I could of course use imaginary, psuedo-scientific concepts as "convergent evolution" in order to construct a just-so-story as to how this might have happened.

Dr Dembski's "Explanatory Filter", on the other hand, offers a much more satisfactory conclusion. The parody was quite obviously coded into the DNA of the original writer and of DembskiGalapagos Finch, and was triggered only to appear in the latter's consciousness at a time and place foretold by the Bible Code. It's that simple.

2. Irreducible Complexity

As Dr Michael J. Behe explains here to Stephen Colbert, the component parts of a mousetrap have no function whatsoever.

3. The Controversy

There is no controversy? The mere fact that I am talking about CDesign Proponentsism proves there is a controversy.

4. It is not Creationism

When watched in the light of Scripture, this video clip demonstrates conclusively that CDesign Proponentsism is not creationism.

5. Parodies

What greater evidence is there is of the moral bankruptcy of a position than when its adherents go the trouble of creating elaborate parodies of their opponents? Take this song, for example, written by Amadan and sung here by Karl J. Mogel:

I Am The Very Model Of A CDesign Proponentsist

6. Chuck Norris Believes It

Here Chuck Norris, playing the part of blowhard reporter William "Bill" O'Reilly, endorses "Intelligent Design - that is 'a Deity Created life'". Also watch out for noted scientist Ben Stein, who rightly points out that cells contain "hundreds of thousands of moving parts each of which has to work perfectly"; and that "maybe we're wrong... maybe we're stupid, but we'd like to be able to ask the questions..."

7. Scriptural Support

How could the Bible, written by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders 5,000 years ago, have anticipated modern scientific understanding so exactly? CDesign Proponentsism does exactly what it says in the Bible.



There we have it. The best evidences that CDesign Proponentsism can offer. And still I am unmoved. Praise SatanDarwin indeed!

ID - The Hideous Truth

I haven't seen this picked up anywhere else, but Uncommon Descent recently mentioned interviews with William Dembski & Michael Behe by the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa, and carried at IDEAcenter.

Both interviews show how far removed the average ID supporter is from the reality of ID's Hideous (un)Truth.

In the first conversation, the interviewer gushes about all of the wondrous science ID has produced. Dembski has to point out that, err, there hasn't actually been any science resulting from his "ideas".

"CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."

When you've picked your jaw up from the floor following that little revelation, check out Michael Behe coming so far off the fence on Common Descent to give the average Uncommon Descenter a clutcher...

"ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution."

Well, maybe I've got it all wrong? Maybe Dembski and Behe are just substantially more intellectually honest than the cdesign proponentsists I tend to come across.

What do you think?

Conservapedia: Because every time you use Wikipedia, God kills a puppy...

Why are creationists so stupid? Easy. They don't process information which challenges their beliefs.

In my head-banging discussions on the Expelled IMDB Message Boards, a chap called Pooua said this:

I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory... ...I actually read the court transcripts (and not from Wikipedia or T.O.). I know what Behe said, and he did not say that ID is no more scientific than astrology."

Well, if the guy will repeat nothing but creationist drivel, he's going to look like a moron no matter how smart he is. Poor sod. And I just love the concept that the same information has a different value because it comes from a "conservative" source (he linked to ARN) than it does if it comes from Wikipedia or T.O..

Thank God for Conservapedia, huh? Although by my experience, any time that organ says anything sensible, it's enough to make a creationists head asplode.

And for the records, Michael Behe did say in court that if ID were to be considered a scientific theory, astrology would too.

Evolution News helpfully explains:

"The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS or Behe's definition of science 500 years ago. The problem is that it is not supported by the evidence. That is why, unlike ID, no serious scientists are advocating astrology as a good theory which could be presented to students in science classrooms. Nor do serious academics reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of astrology, as serious scientists do for ID."

The minute "serious scientists for ID" can quote any part of the scientific literature as positive evidence for "Intelligent Design", Behe will have established that ID is more scientific than astrology.

Until then... I believe Jesus was a Capricorn. Or did I dream it?

Do you know who else was racist?

The surreally-named Reasonable Kansans blog ask Who Said It?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Thankfully they tell us. It was Charles Darwin in his, Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.

Look, I've drawn a Hitler-moustache on a picture of Darwin so you can see just how evil he was.

Do you know who else was racist?

That's right. It was Hitler.

And as we all know, there was no racism before Charles Darwin.

It was Charles Darwin who inspired Adolf Hitler to write these words in Mein Kampf:

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."

And it was the rejection of its long tradition of Darwinism in 1995 which allowed the Southern Baptist Convention to say:

"Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and... we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty..."

Yes indeed. Before Darwinism took over, Christians in America were never done being nice to Jews and Black people; inviting them to join their country clubs and marry their daughters; not publishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact or making them sit at the back of the bus; and the like.

No sirree.

So what can we conclude from this?

Oh yeah. Reasonable Kansans are idiots.

Get Expelled in '08

It's been a long time since I posted here. Even so, every once in a while I get emails from people discussing something or other I wrote long ago. Such is the joy of blogging. Apologies if you are one of these people and I didn't respond. It was nice of you to get in touch. And I do appreciate it. You are all lovely.

The problem is, though, some times I do respond, and sometimes when I respond to evangelising christians, I get dragged into meandering discussions of such intense depressitude that it puts me off the whole blogging endeavor yet again.

What is it with these people? Why can't they love me as their neighbor and accept I might not want to be a batshit crazy as them, talking daily as they do personally to their lord and savior and all? I'm sure they are very nice. But they are so ingrained in their voluntary brain-damage that it hurts. I'm too smart to believe in evilutionism, they say. Did I know about the 6 million prophesies in the Bible that Jesus personally fulfilled? Maybe if I could just for one minute ask their God to come into my heart I'd be prepared to blow myself up for His Mercy. That kind of thing.

Case in point.

I heard about this one movie "Expelled", which claims that the Fundamentalists nutjobs who run large parts of Americanian culture are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed to bring their invisible friend with them when they go to science class. As ever with these lying scumbags, the movie (from its publicity material) doesn't even bother to explain to the audience what "evolution" and "intelligent design" are... It just allows them to wallow in their ignorance, portraying the intelligent, educated segment of the culture as atheistic pondlife, intent on corrupting America's daughters. (Which is a fair point. If any of America's daughters out there would like to be corrupted, drop me a line. 18+ only. 14 in Iowa with parental consent, apparently).



And this ignorance has been headily on display on the IMDB message boards for Expelled, where I've been hanging out a bit, and where the quality of "debate" from the "pro-ID" crowd has just brought home to me time and time again why I stopped talking to these assholes in the first place. Some of them even seem embarrassed by the crapness of their own arguments. Others post the same non-sensical garbage over and over again, doubtless in the hope that everyone else will get bored eventually and go home and they can claim victory.

But hey.

There are some nice things in blogland. The Church Burning Ebola Boys have brought a smile to myself... And it's been fun watching the IDiot crowd trying to get their heads round some of the extremely technical ID-related sciency arguments posited at Overwhelming Evidence.

And if you've got this far, why not leave a wee comment and then check out Radio Otherfunk?

That's me for now. Fight the good fight :)

Hubris & Unsinkable Rubber Ducks

Crikey. I have been away from Blogging for a while... After all, arguments about religion and belief are often largely pointless, especially when people don't actually read what they are arguing against.

Take this, from writer Catherine Czerkawska, commenting on Christopher Brookmyre's new book:-

Hell's teeth now Christopher Brookmyre is at it, attempting to disprove the existence of God and all things spiritual in his latest novel... What is it with these people? Can it be that they have no knowledge of the real scientific world in which corruption and bigotry sit side by side with the 'scientific method'...

Scientists are as prone to all the faults and foibles of humanity as the rest of us. We are all of us seeking for ways of describing, of coping with the world. And for sure, all things come to sadness in the end. But a lot of the time people (and it so often is women, although not invariably so) have an inkling that there is more to life than meets the eye...

But most of all, I think, I object strongly to the assumption that all spirituality is a sticking plaster which we poor blinkered souls use to protect ourselves from the more unpleasant aspects of life. And again I say hubris. Bloody overweening pride that subsumes any sense of humility in its own arrogant certainty. If you can't speak with a modicum of wisdom then better, perhaps, to say nothing at all.

Nowhere in Chris Brookmyre’s book does he attempt to "disprove the existence of God and all things spiritual". All he says is we can’t prove them. Do you believe in the tooth fairy, Allah, reincarnation or ouija boards?

Of course there is more to life than meets the eye. But isn’t it hubris to pretend that our own pet beliefs about "spiritual things" are true without evidence while rejecting other peoples? All Brookmyre asks, surely, is that we don’t open our minds so much that our brains fall out. And what shows "arrogant certainty" more than refusing to accept that evidence and reason might prove our beliefs to be wrong? At least Brookmyre has the wit and wisdom to accept that he can be "self-indulgent and whiny". Were that religious types did that occasionally...

Faith's Last Gasp

On the basis of apparently incontrovertible evidence, commentators of various persuasions... are convinced that we are witnessing an upsurge in religious observance and influence...

But I see the same evidence as yielding the opposite conclusion. What we are witnessing is not the resurgence of religion, but its death throes...

When a climate of heightened tension such as this prompts activists in one religious group to become more assertive... other religious groups, not wishing to be left behind, follow suit... The effect is that suddenly it seems as if there are religious devotees everywhere, and the spurious magnification of their importance further promotes their confidence. As a result they make some gains, as the faith schools example shows...

Yet the fact is that only 10 per cent of the British population attend church, mosque, synagogue or temple every week, and this figure is declining in all but immigrant communities... Yes, over half the population claim vaguely to believe in Something... but they are functionally secularist and would be horrified if asked to live according to the letter of (say) Christian morality: giving all one’s possessions to the poor, taking no thought for the morrow and so impracticably forth. Not even Christian clerics follow these injunctions. This picture is repeated everywhere in the west except the US, and there too the religious base is eroding...

As private observance, religion will of course survive among minorities; as a factor in public and international affairs it is having what might be its last - characteristically bloody - fling.

AC Grayling, Faith's Last Gasp, Prospect Magazine, November 2006

Wednesday

I've yet to hear from the Christian Post since I wrote to them yesterday.

Browsing their site, I came across this in an editorial about Ted Haggard:

While Haggard has only partially admitted guilt, the situation in its entirety is a stark reminder of man’s sinfulness and a dark exposure of how deeply the sin of homosexuality has taken root in the American society. If the accusations are indeed true, now would be the time for the Evangelical community look within its own walls and battle against the culture of sin that looms before the Church of Christ.

It'll be interesting to see how this call for a witch-hunt against homosexuals in the church pans out. There are sure to be many potential targets...

And finally, here's a factoid. Did you know that founding member of the Dead Kennedys Carlos Cadona ("6025") left the band after suffering from schizophrenia and later became a born-again Christian?

Letter to the Christian Post

Dear Sir/Madam

I doubt you publish letters from atheists, but I wanted to reply to
your article "Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists" (18
November).

This quotes Lee Strobel as saying, "Christians can stand confidently
within biblical truth knowing that it's in line with astrophysics and
cosmology".

He ignores the incontrovertible, inarguable and easily verifiable
fact that most scholars in their relevant fields do not consider
that the Bible is "in line" with these scientific understandings – or
indeed that the Bible contains an inerrant history. This is true
whether they are Christian, Jewish or otherwise.

How many of your readers know that over 10,000 American clergy have
signed "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science"? This says,
"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific
truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much
of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth… is to
deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance
to our children... "

It may be that you discount these opinions based on your publication's
Statement of Faith. This reads "the Bible, consisting of Old and New
Testaments only… is the infallible and authoritative Word of God…".

But that would be dogma, not science.

You are free to disagree with the opinions of others. However, it is
surely bearing False Witness to pretend that these opinions simply do
not exist.

Your readers can check the sources for my statements here.

Kind regards

Jesus Camp

Go and see the movie Jesus Camp



Two things stood out for me. One was Pastor Becky Fischer watching a video of children being whipped up into an emotional frenzy over the issue of abortion. "Extreme liberals", she conceded, might be disturbed by that.

The other was 12 year old Levi, describing how dealing with non-Christians makes him feel "yucky". He says "A lot of people in this world are sick". He's told repeatedly that he'll be something important in the future... On one scene, he idolises Ted Haggard, who as we all know now is a "liar and a deceiver". It's hard not to see Levi as some sort of future Travis Bickle in-the-making. Poor kid.

"We can't have phoneys in the army of God", bellows Pastor Fischer at one point in the film.

And all this brought home a vital element of faith missing from the discussions in my previous two posts here on Doublethink and religious belief... That of blind, wilfull ignorance in the face of overwhelming reality to the contrary.

Simply put, these people actually believe that the crap they spout is true - and that they can safely ignore any evidence or opinions to the contrary.

Here's a quote from a religious-type, from a current Talk Origins POTM nominee post....

...my understanding is that about 90% of Americans believe in God and creation of some kind. I hear that about 50% of Americans believe in creation as the Bible describes it. I find it hard to believe that these 50-90% of Americans are the uneducated, while the unbelieving 10% are the educated and enlightened.

The vast majority of creationists and their ilk just do not get that their beliefs are based on ignorance, and that it means something that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in God or "creationism".

Haggard & Santorum RIP

I was just surfing Brent Rasmussen's blog, and he has a quote from the very wonderful Dan Savage (of Savage Love) about Ted Haggard's fall from grace. You remember Ted Haggard. He's the guy who led a homophobic evangelical church and went on and on and on about how terrible gayness was. Surprise, surprise, it turns out he was a "liar and a deceiver". But as Dan points out, there is a special level of hypocrisy in Ted Haggard's behaviour, as he was one of the leading advocates of the idea that sexual "aberrance" could be cured by following the proper path of Jesus. Dan writes:

"If you believe that Jesus Christ can change the sexual orientation of a believer, why on earth did he refuse to cure Haggard? Haggard founded a church that has 14,000 members! Thousands were brought to Christ by Haggard's preaching. Mixed in with Ted's meth-fueled gay-sex romps and hypocritical gay-bashings were, without a doubt, thousands of good works.

Did Jesus help Haggard out? No. Haggard struggled with temptation all his life. He tried to battle off his "dark" desires, but nothing proved effective. There was no cure for Haggard, no miracle. No matter how long he struggled, no matter how much faith he had, Haggard's sexual orientation remained unchanged. Nothing helped. Not prayer, not Jesus H. Christ on his cross.

Nothing.

If giving his heart to Jesus couldn't cure Haggard, what hope is there for the likes of me? If Jesus can't be bothered to work a miracle for the most powerful evangelical minister in the country, what "hope" is there for the average dyke?

None.

The ex-gay thing is over. It's dead. It was bullshit from the start, and it's bullshit now."

Very nice. Dan's column also talks about his part in the defeat of Senator Rick Santorum in the recent elections for the US senate. He links to this video clip where the ex-Senator attacks "liberals" for being, supposedly, inherently evil and irresponsible.

Quite staggeringly amusingly, Santorum says repeatedly that liberals believe that they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do - have abortions, have sex, whatever they like - and at each turn you can see him choking down the words "...as long as no-one gets hurt". Because, of course, those words destroy his whole argument.

What a wanker.

Doublethink

For the longest time, I've been trying to come up with a word to describe the "Religionist" behaviour of saying and believing things which are blatantly untrue.

Take for example the recent changes to the law regarding rape in Pakistan. Until now, four male witnesses were needed for a charge to succeed. Otherwise, a woman complaining of rape would face the very serious charge of adultery. This brough an utterly ludicrous reaction from some Fundamentalists:

Islamist lawmakers walked out of parliament, boycotting the vote, after leader Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman told the assembly the change to the law would encourage free sex.

"This is an attempt to create a free sex zone in Pakistan," he said.

The mind boggles.

Now, Mr Fazal-ur-Rehman isn't lying here, because he fervantly believes what he is saying to be true. But what does one call this extreme level of cognitive dissonance?

I recently came across a description of what is known as "Tolstoy Sydrome" which seems to fit the bill. It's named after description by that great Russian author:

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

The concept of accepting two mutually contradictory opinions (that tightening rape laws will lead to free sex) was beautifully described by George Orwell in his seminal novel 1984, in his description of Doublethink:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary."

So, I guess, I don't need a new word. Doublethink and Tolstoy Syndrome (and good old cognative dissonence and blind ignorance) sum up the "religionist" mindset very well.

There's a great example in a recent opinion piece in the wonderfully named Texarkana Gazette, from a chap called Derrell Murphy:

"The liberal Secularists’ actions [in banning school prayer, the public display of the ten commandments, et al.] have overthrown centuries of established legal precedent, based on the Bible."

Whether you believe that prayer in school is bad or good, or the ten commandments should be displayed in public or not, the idea that the legal precedents involved have been "based on the Bible" is just nonsensical. It's wrong, false and untrue. But people keep believing it, because they are told it repeatedly, and because to accept that this is wrong (which as I may have mentioned it is) would demolish their entire argument.

But hey. Such is the world we live in (and, to be fair, and long lived in).

It's a while...

It's a while since I wrote regularly as PTET. Maybe it's time to start back up.

When I started this Blog, I thought I would be able to reason with Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists. I didn't expect to "deconvert" anyone, but I did hope to have them question their beliefs - and I hoped too that they would help me question mine. I've learned a lot in my writings and explorations... But there is of course a whole lot I don't know - and there always will be.

At first, I tried to reason with these "Religionists". Invariably, they came back with the same arguments and sets of factoids which they said supported their beliefs. It was like arguing with people who were reading from a script. I then tried to show them that their script was wrong. I took great care to check their sources, and to show in detail where and why their sources were incorrect.

I would demonstrate, for example, that evolutionary theory did not "exclude" ideas of God, by showing that most religious scientists had no problem reconciling their faith with the "fact" of evolution. I laid out how archaeology and history and studies of comparative mythology should as sure as anyone could hope for that the Bible was not literally true, or historically accurate, or anything which could even be said to approach being "inerrant".

But still, the same arguments came back, time and time again, as if those arguing with me inhabited an alternative reality.

This became frustrating, and I tried a different tack. I pressed the point that the sources used by these Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists were demonstrably wrong and mis-represented the opinions of scientists and theologans... And that the repeat them was to bear False Witness. In effect, I thought, they were *lying*. However, these accusations only led to anger, and those arguing with me becoming ever more entrentched in their positions.

And, after a while, it all became just too tiresome, and I came to the conclusion that these people were just crazy.

But of course, they are not "crazy". And they are not exactly liars either - because no matter how much their opinions differ vastly with reality, and no matter how much they are demonstrably wrong, the simple sad fact is that Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists believe fervently, sincerely, and wholeheartedly that they are true.

The beliefs of Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists aren't based on reason. Therefore they are not open to reason in arguments against them. Their beleifs come from faith, and this faith that they are right infects every part of their thinking.

Quite terrifying, this "faith based reasoning" has escaped from the confines of religion, and has become a standard part of the political, moral and philosophical discourse of the twenty-first century.

In the past few years we've seen an ill-judged war in Iraq inspired, fought, and mis-managed beyond belief not on the basis of reason and fact - but on the understanding (not always inspired by religion) that the mere *belief* in the existence of weapons of mass destruction, or that a war could be won with minimal resources, or that the Iraqi people would treat the Americans as liberators, would make these things come true.

It's important to stress that this faith has not all been religious... However, without a doubt the increase in the influence of faith-based reasoning has been led, inspired and promoted by religion - and by those who's sincerest wish is to take humanity back, back before the time of the Enlightenment, back to a mythical golden age when religion and faith ruled humanity, and science and unpleasant reality could and should be ignored.

And with that, I think it's time I got back to some occassional blogging :-)

Radio Otherfunk

Hello world!

It's been a long time since I posted as Ptet.

I started this Blog in an attempt to understand the minds of Christians, to learn what they had to say, and (I hoped) to persuade others if not them of the irrational and bizarre nature of Fundamentalist beliefs...

I guess what I really learned is "these people are crazy".

I'm sure I'll return to regular posting one day, but for now, if you've enjoyed (or hated) anything you've read here, please check out Radio Otherfunk, which features the odd bit of religion and philosophy amongst the music...

And a final thanks for the nice emails I've had from various people over the past few months. You know who you are. Very much appreciated.

Your friend

George Bush's Faith

"The President can't imagine that someone who is President of the United States could not have faith, because he derives so much from it", Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said. "I can see him struggle with other world leaders who don't appear to be grounded in some faith," he said. He added, "The President doesn't care what faith it is, as long as it's faith."

Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 6 Feb 2006


FAITH: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Scary.

God's little gotcha...

"Doesn't [the Bible]... imply that 'The Fall' was planned from the beginning? That means that god WANTED adam and eve to eat the apple. Actually, that's pretty [easy]... to guess anyway. Put the tree in the middle of the garden and tell two people who don't know right from wrong not to eat from it. Either god is a complete moron, or he actually wanted them to eat it." - Conspiracy of Doves, Talk.Origins, 24 Jan 2006

Judeao-Christianity certainly has some weird ideas about God... The idea of the Lord getting angry at Adam & Eve for disobediance makes Him out to be a psychopathic bully. Truly He is the God Of Love... Not! ;>

Thoughts on "The Twilight of Atheism"

On my recent travels I came across a book called The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World by Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology at Oxford University. I should really pick up a copy. Christianity Today has an excerpted and condensed summary. He argues that atheism has "failed", and posits:

Far from being secularized, the West is experiencing a new interest in religion. Patterns of immigration mean that Islam and Hinduism are now major living presences in the cities of Western Europe and North America. Pentecostalism is a rapidly growing force, strengthened by the arrival of many Asian and African Christians in the West. The future looks nothing like the godless and religionless world so confidently predicted 40 years ago. The atheist agenda, once seen as a positive force for progress, is now seen as disrespectful toward cultural diversity.

What's interesting to me is that this argument depends on the failures of very deterministic and "modernist" offshoots of "atheistic" thought, such as Freudian thought Communism... But of course the beliefs of those who do not believe in God as in reality every bit as diverse as the beliefs of those who do believe in Gods. Even amongst Christianity, we find that most Christians subscribe to non-Christian beliefs - for example that salvation is open to non-Christians, and an acceptance of such things as astrology, etc. I'll come back to this issue of divergent beliefs in more detail in later posts...

For now, I'm most interested in this part of McGrath's conclusion:

Paradoxically, the future of atheism will be determined by its religious rivals. Those atheists looking for a surefire way to increase their appeal need only to hope for harsh, vindictive, and unthinking forms of religion to arise in the West.

Here, the rise of the religious right, particularly in the USA, seems like an ominous contradiction of McGrath's optimism. Andrew Sullivan quotes a recent study which reported that:

Fully 44% of Americans believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people while a substantial minority (36%) thinks that "the state of Israel is a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus"

As you may have read, the leading Evangelist Pat Robertson recently embarrassed the hell out of himself by implying that Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for his withdrawal from Gaza. Sullivan notes:

When a poll of all adults finds over a third holding the view that the state of Israel is fulfilling the prophecy of the imminent Second Coming, you can see that pre-millenarianism is not some fringe idea, touted by Robertson. It's fundamentalist orthodoxy. Robertson is cruel and tactless, and many evangelicals would agree. Their compassion forbids them from making personal attacks as Robertson does. But he didn't make up his theology. And it's mainstream.

Many on the web are arguing that Pat Robertson is not representative of mainstream evangelical thought. While the poll figures seem to suggest otherwise, I think this is the case. Most evangelical Christians, even in the US, aren't as cold and heartless (or as stupid) as Robertson.

So what does that mean for religion & spirituality in the 21st century? is McGrath right? Is atheism dying? More on this to come ;>

Happy 2006

A couple of quickies...

Rolf gives a Happy New Year to all fundies where he discusses the writings of early fathers of the Christian church, and in particular Origen:

Origen explains that to those "not altogether blind the gospels are full of passages of this kind," which are "recorded as actual events, but which did no happen literally." He quotes as an example the story of Jesus being tempted by the evil. Jesus is taken up a high mountain where he is shown all the kingdoms of the world, which the Devil offers him if he will only fall down and worship him. Origen pours scorn on the idea that anyone could actually see all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a mountain and affirms that this is meant to be understood allegorically. He tells us:

"The careful reader will detect thousands of other passages like this in the gospels."

Also check out Andrew's excellent Handling Challenges to Evolution, the TalkOrigins post of the month for November 2005, where he discusses a superb talk on evolution by a high school biology teacher:

"What a scientific theory is is the explanation which fits all observable facts. If you perform an experiment which contradicts your theory, the theory is changed to explain this new data. The theory of evolution has been changed and added to countless times since Darwin first proposed it; it will be changed and added to countless times in the future, the day may come when many of Darwin's ideas will be seen as absurd by the scientific community; but at this moment, the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains all the observable data we have in our hands right now."

"Is evolution a theory? Absolutely. Does this mean that we're not sure that it's true? Absolutely not."

On a side note, it appears that Darrick Dean's woeful IDiotic blog ScienceWatch seems to have vanished. Maybe he's seen the light? ;>

Anatomy of a Fundamentalist

It's been a while since I posted as PTET, and a recent comment I received from a visitor called Svensun reminded me why.

He is well-meaning but deluded, sanctimonious, bigoted, ignorant and frankly dishonest. Harsh words? Judge for yourself, as I give you an Anatomy of a Fundamentalist...

Svensun: Regarding Naturalism, in response to your statement that:

"the overwhelming majority of scientists who are recognised authorities in biology do not believe in a personal God. A much higher proportion are atheists and agnostics than the general population."

my answer would be: OF COURSE! These are people who by and large have abandoned whatever traditional beliefs they may have had or been raised with to follow their new GOD: materialistic Naturalism.

What, all of them? Who says? They don't themselves. These scientists are, as my statement says, simply people who don't believe in a personal God. Some, like Steven Hawking (and Einstein before him) believe in an impersonal God as described by Spinoza... Some are atheists, some are agnostics, and some simply don't or won't say. In general, these scientists will say that they do not know what the answers are... All they ask is that science is allowed to be limited to what it can and cannot say - and their general view is that theological questions are outside the scope of science...

But Svensun, like the fundamentalists criticised in my original post, lumps them together as godless (indeed anti-god) heretics who's diverse and complex views and opinions can simply be rejected and ridiculed. Who needs to understand, this implies, when you can simply pigeon-hole and condemn?

But for Svensun, it's a case of us-versus-them - and to the devil with what people might have to say for themselves...

Svensun: Obviously, to those in the thrall of such a faith, any challenge to it's basic assumptions is unacceptable, just as rejection of the basic tenets of Christianity are personally unthinkable to a fundamentalist like myself.

Here Svensun shows that it's not just non-Christians who his pernicious straw man arguments dishonestly misrepresent... It's Christians and other theists too... For even amongst those who believe in a personal God (and amongst Christians and even Fundamentalists themselves) there is a diverse range of opinions and beliefs.

Not all Christians think that evolution is wrong, or that the Bible is infallible or even inerrant... And not all people describing themselves as Fundamentalists share the same beliefs, about the age of the Earth, for example, or the primacy of certain versions of the Bible. I wonder what Svensun thinks the "basic tenants" of Christianity are. He doesn't say...

As Svensun demonstrates, Fundamentalism itself seems to have certain unspoken tenants... On no account let people of differing opinions speak for themselves; and it is, it seems, quite permissible to lie if you do it in God's name...

Svensun: I think Johnson's point is that, for those not worshipping at the altar of the Church of Materialistic Naturalism, otherwise known as Neo-Darwinism, it's promises and explanations ring hollow.

As I have to point out each and every time I answer a Fundamentalist, the majority of Christian scientists accept that neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory is overwhelmingly supported by over a century of evidence and research, and poses no threat to their faith.

And take the Discovery Institutes much-vaunted list of over 400 scientists who reject standard evolutionary theory... Compare that with the list of over 10,000 clergy in the USA who reject the non-scientific and purely political idiocy of intelligent design to support the standard understanding of evolution...

You will not read about these facts from Svensun or from any other Fundamentalist... To paraphrase Gould, "whether this is due to stupidity or ignorance, I do not know". One thing is for sure, it certainly is not honest.

Svensun: Regarding Morality, I will gladly and freely answer your question. If I ceased believing that that I was forgiven for my sins and didn't have to worry about whether I was saved or not because there was no eternal reward or punishment, and my body and physical experience was the sum total of what I am or ever will be, I might be tempted to commit more 'immoral' or criminal acts, depending upon whether or not I would face earthly punishment.

Notice how Svensun doesn't answer the question at all! Would he be less moral or more criminal, or wouldn't he? He doesn't say!

Svensun: But this begs the question. You are implicitly claiming that morality exists among humans independent of the existence or God, or even of the belief in God.

Yes I am - and that's the very point. Fundamentalists expressly claim that non-believers are less moral than believers... And they present no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

Look at the evidence... Are atheists in the USA more likely to commit crime? Or go prison? Or be unemployed or uneducated? Of course they aren't. That doesn't stop Fundamentalists dishonestly (and without presenting a shred of evidence to support their libels) saying otherwise...

Svensun: I suppose you would argue, then, that morality has 'evolved' in some way, that there is some materialist explanation for why people, or at least most people, don't kill or steal or rob, at least openly (I think almost all of us are guilty of stealing in one form or another - think about it!). But if it's true that morality has 'evolved' whether by means of sociobiology or some other more intricate mechanism, then it must also be true that belief in God has also 'evolved', since isn't belief in God, or Gods, or the divine, a basic part of the human experience worldwide...

Hey! I could joke about hearing the cogs turn in Svensun's head - but at least he's thinking, so I applaud him for that...

Svensun: ...with the exception, perhaps, of certain university departments?

Clunk. Does Svensun really believe that only ivory-towered academics don't believe in God? Does he really not know that 8% of the US population and over a quarter of the UK population are atheists or agnotsics? If he doesn't, he is being deliberately and studiously ignorant. If he does (even if he pretends to himself otherwise), he is being dishonest.

Svensun: If so, then isn't it also possible to assume that these two separate behavioural 'morphologies', morality and belief in the divine, could have 'evolved' together, and that they are in some way interdependent upon one another? And just as certain morphologies vanish or become vestigial in certain species as conditions change, isn't it possible that as belief in the divine become a 'vestigial remnant' among humans, that morality itself will become a useless appendage, no longer necessary for human 'fitness'? After all, if you believe naturalism rules the world, how in the world can you exempt yourself from it's influences? What is insulting about that?

It is insulting, bozo, because this argument again implies that non-believers are or will be less moral than believers - with no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Svensun: Morality, in a naturalistic world, IS meaningless, apart from the 'fitness' it provides, right? Therefore, what if morality only increases fitness in an environment where belief in the divine is widespread? Once that vanishes from the environment, perhaps traditional morality, defined by you as an aversion to killing, raping and stealing, will become another useless appendage, so to speak, handicapping those individuals who retain it.

That is utter gibberish, of course. Society itself - all societies - have rules against killing, raping and stealing... And with good reason, for these behaviours are destructive to society... And again I ask, is Svensun really saying that he'd be more likely to do these things if he was a non-believer? Why won't he answer?

But wait - it get's better... Look at the Bible. It clearly states that God condones killing, raping and stealing when it suits "Him". So much for "Absolute Morality"...

KILLING: "And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. At God's instructions, the Israelites "utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones" leaving "none to remain. "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain..." [Dt 2:33-34]

RAPING: "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." [Is 13:16]

STEALING: "And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: God encourages the Israelites to steal from the Egyptians. And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians." [Ex 12:36-36

Let's spell this out for the hard of thinking... Just because some people have argued that a nihilistic naturalistic view of nature could justify a rejection of all morality, it by no means follows that all non-theists end up being immoral or criminal. Perhaps Svensun should spend less time worrying about non-believers, and more time worrying about why his own belief system requires him to be actively ignorant and dishonest...

And let's look at Christianity. In the past, this has been used to justify genocide, slavery, the subjugation of women, beating children with sticks, bombing abortion clinics, and every other horror imaginable. Does this mean that Christianity inevitably leads to these things? Of course it doesn't. If anyone argued that, they would be rightly ridiculed.

So why do Fundamentalists get away with making the same ridiculous arguments about atheists? Why indeed...

Svensun: It's something to think about, anyway.

Not if you are a Fundamentalist like Svensun it's not. He's already checked his brains at the door.

Svensun: Regarding the Bible, that's exactly what Christians do, 'idolize' Scripture! Recall the opening words of the Gospel of John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

And yet even the most whack-job Fundie will accept that the Bible was not written until centuries after the creation of the Earth... And so my point remains - it is idolatry in direct violation of the First Commandment to place the authority of "Scripture" over all the over evidence that God, if God exists - has placed for us in the Universe to ponder.

So, if you want to know why I've not been posting much lately, read Svensun's post again, and weep...

Back for the Fall Term...

Hello world... I'm back. I went on holiday for two weeks - but I guess that wasn't enough of a break from religious craziness and anti-logic. So, I worked on some other projects, took a break from blogging here, and tried to make the most of the summer. But hey, I guess I just missed the old place... so here I am.


The progressive conservative (gay, British, inclusive and worth reading) blogger Andrew Sullivan recently noted:

The Catholic bishops of England tell American fundamentalists the bleeding obvious: not Everything in the Bible is literally true. Money quote: "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision." Of course. Anyone who believes that the world was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago is not expressing his or her "religious beliefs". Believing something that is demonstrably and empirically untrue is not religion. It is simply superstition or lunacy. It has nothing to do with faith in things we cannot know. The notion that it should actually be taught in public schools as science is beneath even debating.

And yet recent Gallup Polls say that 54% of USicans believe that Creationism should be taught in public science classes - even though 55% "also said evolution was definitely or probably true"...

So who's to blame? The media for failing to stand up to pseudoscience & anti-intellectualism? Or the politicians and churchmen who make capital out of both? What do you think?

Travel Time

I'll be on the road over the next couple of weeks. I'll only be able to post sporadically. Have fun ya'll...

Sciencewatch Continues To Show IDiotic Bias

Although Darrick has stopped me (anyone!?) commenting on his Sciencewatch blog, he can't stop me reading it.

He quotes on his main page that paragon of scientific virtue, the eminent lawyer Phillip E. Johnson, saying these fine words:

"Science should never fear honest intellectual tools such as precise use of terms, unbiased investigation of evidence and refusal to accept unjustified extrapolations."

It is utterly bizarre, therefore, that Darrick's posts to his Blog continue to be so woefully and idiotically biased.

His recent post Environmental Extremists Costing American Economy Billions references an article Steve Milloy - who is hardly an "unbiased" source.

His RNA Still Unsolvable Problem for Evolution quotes a scientific paper as evidence against evolution - without mentioning that the authors of that paper see it as nothing of the sort. What kind of dishonesty is that?

Most hilarious is the post Hundreds of Scientists Defect from Evolution Pseudoscience. This links to a list of "more than 300 scientists" who "have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution..." The article is dated 1 April 2004. Why did Darrick post it on his blog this week? I'd say that my recent posts on the overwhelming scientific support for evolution probably have something to do with it. In any event, DD's list contains at most six "Steves".

Compare that with the NCSE's list of over 500 scientist "Steves" who have signed up to this statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

There are also substantially more than six Steves on the list of over 4,000 Christian Pastors who have signed a recent statement saying that they accept standard evolutionary theory alongside their faith.

Darrick's attempt to show the lack of scientific support for evolutionary theory does just the opposite. Instead he has clearly demonstrated that only around 1% of scientists think that there is any real controversy over standard evolutionary theory. And he has also shown that, despite the empty words of Phillip Johnson, his Blog remains a bastion of bias and unjustified extrapolations.

Well done Darrick.

An open letter to Jonathan Bartlett

Dear Jonathan

You kindly took the time to respond to my essay Just who is immoral in the evolution debate?, which I posted at soc.religion.christian.

My answer to your post will appear there in due course... But in the meantime I thought it would be worth contacting you directly. One of the benefits of posting publicly is the opportunity it gives to understand how other people see things... And as I hope I can demonstrate here, I think your views on Intelligent Design and Evolution are mistaken.

EVOLUTION
You seem to think that standard evolutionary theory discounts the hand of God. It does not. It may discount certain notions of "God" - the YEC interpretation being a prime example - but it most certainly does not equate with atheism. It also does not say that evolution occurs through "chance". Similarly, there are certain atheists who argue that evolution disproves any notion of God. (I do not agree with them.) Again, that position is beyond the scope of standard evolutionary science.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
As I wrote in my essay, the Catholic Church accepts standard evolutionary theory. (A great many other Christian and Jewish organisations do to). As I noted, their position is "that evolution is the product of divine will - but that is a question beyond the scope of science". They clearly do not accept certain "atheistic" views of what evolution means, but that doesn't stop them agreeing that life evolved through natural processes, from microbes to man. (They believe that God provided man with a soul - but again that is beyond the scope of science to demonstrate or disprove).

INTELLIGENT DESIGN
You seem to think that disproving or challenging some part of evolution is support for an "alternate" theory of Intelligent Design. It does not. Intelligent Design makes specific claims (depending on whom you ask) that all life. or certain aspect of molecular evolution, could not have occurred naturally - and more than that, that we can reasonably infer the hand of an "intelligent designer" in this process. This position has almost no scientific support. It does, of course, have vocal and powerful support amongst the US population... But quite staggeringly, even ID scientists themselves admit Intelligent Design does not (yet?) offer a viable, teachable, useable alternative to standard evolutionary theory. What is most incredible in all of this is that ID supporters do not appear to care about any of this. All that matters to them, it seems, is that evolution is "wrong".

FALSE WITNESS
Let me be clear. I am not saying that Bonnie Alba, Ken Ham or anyone else are bearing false witness by not believing in standard evolutionary theory. My accusation is specific. They misrepresent what other Christians believe - either deliberately or through ignorance. That is bearing false witness. That is wrong. The fact that they know that they are misrepresenting other Christians makes it more than wrong. It makes them dishonest. Even more worrying, they do not care.

NATURALISM
In your reply to my post, you wrote: " That [Philip Johnson]... believes the falsehood of pure naturalism is so bogus that nearly everyone can easily recognize it? How is that dishonest?" It is dishonest because the overwhelming majority of scientists who are recognised authorities in biology do not believe in a personal God. A much higher proportion are atheists and agnostics than the general population.

MORALITY
You write: "without God morality has no intellectual basis" and "that if morality is simply the _result_ of an unguided evolutionary process, then it is, in its essence... meaningless". That is gibberish and, frankly, insulting. I'll ask you what I have asked a great many Christians. If you ceased believing in God, would you suddenly go out and kill and rape and steal? Would nothing stop you? Answer that question. No other Fundamentalist Christian I have asked has had the courage, wit or courtesy to.

THE BIBLE
In your post, you referred me approvingly to a Blog entry by Crevo which contains the following statement:

"By its own admission, scientific knowledge is tentative. However, we let the tentative results of science trump belief in the authoritative word from scripture. As Christians, our authority is in scripture. Ceding that to other authorities is the equivalent of idolatry."

Please explain to me why insisting upon the "truth" of the Bible in the face of all of the wonders of creation is not idolizing scripture.

In closing, if you can provide cogent, reasoned, arguments against anything I have written here, I am prepared to change my position, Can you say the same thing?

Thanks for your time!

Astrology & Uncritical Thinking

From Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology:

"...astrology promotes the worst thing in the world: uncritical thinking. The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces, and while astrology may not be at the heart of that, it has its role."

"...astrology takes away from the real grandeur of the Universe. We live in an amazing place, this Universe of ours, and it's quite fantastic enough without needing people to make up things about it. Astrology dims the beauty of nature, cheapens it. "

Too, too true.

And, of course, born-again Christians are more likely to believe in channeling, astrology and reincarnation than the rest of the population.

God - a paranoid, violent psychotic role model?

If you want to see the "clash of worldviews" in action, consider these two recent posts...

First is my old friend Darkstar218. He writes of his six year old daughter:

"Ruth... asked something along the lines of 'well, when will I find a husband for me to love?' I smiled and told her 'sweetheart, someday Daddy will find you a good man. He will find you a man that will love you the way Daddy loves Mommy. He will be a Godly man. And when the time is right, Daddy will bring him to you.' ..."

"When Fathers turn their hearts toward their children, and the children turn their hearts toward their fathers - it prepares the way for children for a right relationship with God. When children have their hearts turned to their earthly fathers, the way is paved for them to easily turn their hearts to God to be their Heavenly Father. But if Fathers don’t prepare their children’s hearts, if children grow up in rebellion against their earthly fathers, if they never have their hearts COMPLETELY turned to their earthly fathers, there will always be a struggle for them to surrender completely to their Heavenly Father..."

"I told her that when she looks to me, she should see God. I told her that someday, she will have a relationship with God much like she has with me - that I might be her father on earth, but God is our Heavenly Father. And whereas I might not always be perfect, God is perfect always. If she learns to trust me, obey me, and love me - she will someday understand how to trust, obey, and love God as well."

In other words, Darkstar218 says, his job as a father is to prepare her daughter for submission to God by teaching her to submit to him.

Interesting, huh?

Especially when you consider what the Bible says this about God:

"No man may see me and live" [Exodus 33:20]

As the Raving Atheist points out today:

"Look, omnibenevolence has it limits. It’s not that God’s a paranoid, violent psychotic, just don’t fucking stare at it or it will massacre you, okay??? Oh, and the word 'man' in 'no man may see me and live' includes women this time because there is no Hebrew word for 'person,' and because God likes to kill women."

Extreme? I don't think so. Consider this passage in the Bible, where God threatens to punish King David for disobedience:

"This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight." [2 Samuel 12:11]

A while ago, I asked Darkstar218 about the morality of threatening this rape (or at the very least sexual immorality, then subject to the death penalty) as punishment. He replied:

"Most of the time, we focus on David’s sin for sleeping with Bathsheba.However, doesn’t the door swing both ways?We are not certain from Scripture, but there is no mention of Bathsheba resisting David’s advances.Could it be that she chose to sin as well and needs to be punished?2.) We are also uncertain by the passage in 2 Samuel 12 that the wives that are taken by Absalom were raped.On the contrary, we know that Absalom was known for being very handsome and most likely adored by women.Could it be that this punishment hurt and embarrassed David as King more so than anyone else?... Even if the incident was painful for David’s wives, it don’t see how that detracts from an Absolute Morality in the least."

In other words, Darkstar218 argues, God can do anything he wants, including breaking his own rules, because he is the absolute authority. He is, after all, God.

While I have no doubt that Darkstar218 is a loving and capable father, I find it disturbing that he expects absolute obedience from his children... And that he uses as his model for absolute authority an Old Testament view of God who his subject to no limits in His enforcement of that authority.

Just who is immoral in the evolution debate?

You can't look far in the debate over evolution, creationism and intelligent design without finding some warning about morality.

The writer Christopher Hitchens recently described conservative Christian extremists as a "creeping and creepy movement" that is "trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent."

The creationist Reverend Jerry Falwell thundered in reply: "That is certainly a simplistic - and wildly exaggerated - way to define the efforts of religious conservatives who want to preserve their rapidly disappearing rights in this great land... Mr. Hitchens has specifically gone to great lengths to define creationism as 'nonsense' and to belittle those who dare to disbelieve that the universe just randomly appeared."

He went on to praise Answers in Genesis (AiG) founder Ken Ham, who states, "If you can't trust the Bible's history, how can you trust its morality?" and added "Christians must be equipped to defend their faith and be prepared to give an answer to everyone who challenges them on their views."

But how moral is creationism?

In answer to an accusation of dishonesty in a book it promotes, AiG replied that its opponents must "justify the very concept of honesty if we are just rearranged pond scum."

I had a similar recent experience with creationist columnist Bonnie Alba. I pointed out a recent article of hers on evolution was blatantly wrong, and asked her about the Biblical prohibition on bearing false witness. She answered "There can be no meaning of what I write or the commandments of God for a humanist or an atheist since all is relative, is it not?". I asked her how that justified her own behaviour. She did not answer.

There is something insidiously nasty at work here.

These Conservative Christians say that without creationism there can be no morality. They conveniently ignore the facts that every human culture has morality and that evolutionary theory provides ample explanations for moral and altruistic behaviour. We can even see apparent examples of such behaviour in the animal world.

These Creationists also deliberately ignore the fact that organisations representing more than half of the Christian world say that there is no conflict between an earth that is billions of years old; standard evolutionary theory; and their faith. And they mislead their followers by pretending that any more than a tiny portion of scientists see that there is any "controversy" in evolutionary theory.

But it is not just creationists who push this false claim that only they can be moral - and who are dishonest about the beliefs of other Christians.

Philip Johnson, a lawyer and leading member of the Intelligent Design movement, says: "The fundamental and most far-reaching assumption of Darwinism is that life is the product of forces that are impersonal and purposeless - that life is a cosmic accident... This is a philosophy that strikes most Americans as false, not just fundamentalists. If Christians frame the debate that way, we can't be marginalized." And there is the key to this dishonesty.

The leaders of the Creationist and Intelligent Design movements have a vested interest in misleading the public over the beliefs of other Christians and the overwhelming scientific support for evolution.

The ignorance they preach is repeated - deliberately or otherwise - throughout the creationist and ID movements.

Please understand - I am not saying that Creationists and ID supporters are insincere in their beliefs. I am only saying that they are misguided in their actions and motives. And and, by bearing false witness against science and other Christians, they are behaving immorally.

There simply is no need for this behavior. Religious leaders hardly come more conservative and "Biblically moral" than the new Catholic Pope Benedict XVI.

As a Cardinal under Pope John Paul II, the then Joseph Ratzinger presided over the church's International Theological Commission. This stated that "since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism."

Oh course, he believes that evolution is the product of divine will - but that is a question beyond the scope of science.

If Pope Benedict XVI can preach Biblical morality without relying on dishonest statements about science or the beliefs of other Christians, then why can't the Creationist and Intelligent Design movements?

If Jerry Falwell, Ken Ham, Philip Johnson and others wish to push their brand of Biblical Morality, they should do it honestly. They should openly recognise that the vast majority of scientists, and a great many Christians, see no "controversy" in evolution.

For now, the political influence of the Creationist and ID movements its easy to see. Publicly, President Bush may say that "the jury is still out" on evolution - but his science advisor John Marburger is clear: "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory... I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."

The American public, led by well intentioned but misguided religious leaders, haven't quite realised that yet.

Evolution "warning labels"

The Panda's Thumb has a great piece NCSE files amicus brief on the history of evolution "warning labels" which has this eye-popping stat on the relative scientific support for & against evolution:

In comparison to the Discovery Institute’s forty-eight (48) scientist signatories, the Science Organizations Amicus Brief is signed by fifty-six (56) science organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  In comparison to the eight (8) biologists who signed the DI brief, the Science Organizations Amicus Brief is signed by about twenty-one (21) biology organizations.  Altogether, hundreds of thousands of scientists are represented by this collection of organizations.

Silly Humans - Atheist Dominion?

That's right kiddies, the atheists have taken over America and are trying to bury your God and eradicate your right to worship it!

Well, unless you want to acknowledge reality.

In the latest Associated Press/Ipsos poll on religious attitudes within 10 industrialized nations, Americans came out as the most willfully delusioned people in the group...



The poll shows that around 70% of the US population have no doubts that God exists. The figure for the UK is just 23%.

More stats from 2003 and before are available on my Facts For Fundamentalists page.

MODERN TIMES

The irony is that fundamentalists surely acknowledge that nature, the human brain, and reason are among God's gifts. What could be more Godly, for example, than the attempt by contemporary scientists to understand the creation of the universe by observing the heavens themselves? Did sacred revelation suddenly cease 2000 years ago? Indeed, it seems egotistical and presumptuous to allow creationist dogma to trump the evidence from both God's universe and our God-given brains. Why do fundamentalists so despise the notion that we are connected through evolution to the rest of God's Earthly creations, that indeed God created humans and evolution is the way he/she did it?

Creationism promotes the worst form of pollution, namely pollution of minds. A person who is convinced that eternal damnation is a possible consequence of rational thinking is likely to shun rationality, and thus forfeit the very faculty that most makes us human. As the Enlightenment forerunner Galileo put it, 'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.' America's future will be dim if fundamentalists win their home-grown holy war.

Creationism, Modern Times, by Art Hobson, NWA Times 28 May 2005

Bonnie Alba's War On Culture

Bonnie Alba's latest salvos in the Culture Wars are attacks on "Evolutionary Psychology". *

Her previous writings have shown her to be ignorant both about evolution (which she apparently opposes) and "Intelligent Design" (which she purports to support). This time, she keeps things subjective. Only those who believe that their "mind-soul will survive death", she says, "will see the merits" of her arguments.

Bonnie's position is essentially this: science alone cannot achieve absolute knowledge. Its truths are always provisional, in that other information may come along to change them. Therefore science alone cannot be trusted to make moral judgements. When faced with questions of science and morality, Bonnie argues, we should ask what is "beneficial for the progress of mankind?"

But why is this controversial? Morality and ethics have been debated by philosophers for thousands of years. Does one really need to believe in an afterlife to hold that there are moral and ethical questions which science alone cannot answer?

Bonnie certainly thinks so. She recently wrote: "Churches and Christians must teach their young people the difference between the worldviews so they are better prepared to reach the conclusive, objective biblical truth of who God is and what he says about himself and his creation."

In other words, Bonnie argues, religious truth is "objective", and can override the "subjective" truths of science. Now, as Bonnie points out, I cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything beyond the physical world. But I can demonstrate that she is dishonest in her arguments. Bonnie claims, for example: "Today’s scientists see no boundaries in proposing their singular unethical theories".

If that statement sounds ridiculous, then that's because it is. If you have visions of thousands of mad atheistic scientists roaming the streets looking for embryos to experiment on and animals to have sex with, then good - that's precisely what Bonnie wants you to imagine.

"Darwin’s theory", she continues, "is... a produced-in-the-brain idea which threatens to overtake all of humankind to dissatisfactorily explain all things".

But wait - isn't Darwin's theory accepted by the Catholic Church, an august and conservative organisation with a moral line very similar to that championed by Ms Alba? Well yes, it is.

The flaw in Bonnie's magical thinking is this... She claims that her basic beliefs in Christianity and the Bible are objectively "true". But how can she be so sure? If her "truth" comes from religious revelation, then who is to say that it is more true than any other claim of "truth" from religious revelation - such as that claimed by Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, abortion clinic bombers or anybody else?

The real truth is that objectivity is something we must strive for - not something that we can claim to have by default.

Bonnie believes the Bible teaches that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The overwhelming majority of scientists say the evidence is conclusive - the Earth is vastly older than that.

Does that make the Bible "wrong"? Of course not. But it does make Bonnie's interpretation of the Bible wrong. And if the "truth" of the Bible is dependent upon one's interpretation of it, then that "truth" is clearly relative - not absolute.

The irony is that while Bonnie claims to champion absolute morality and truth, her own words and behaviour speak of morality and truth being relative. If her arguments were "absolutely true" she wouldn't have to pretend that only those who believe in an afterlife "will see the merits of" them.

There is a real moral debate about what is acceptable and what is not in science, whether that means animal testing, embryo research or genetic screening.

But it is not as facile as Bonnie pretends. She says that Evolutionary Psychology's "desire is to correct present adaptations of natural selection and eliminate God, religion, morality, values, standards and let 'right behavior' select itself -- their way. Most of us will fight tooth and nail to keep what has worked for civilization, knowing that without rules and morality, we have chaos and anarchy."

But in truth it is Bonnie and her ilk who wish to ignore "what has worked for civilisation". Her claim that "Science" calls for an abandonment of "rules and morality" is ignorant, bigoted and dishonest.

If we follow Bonnie and insist that the only "truth" comes from her interpretation of the Bible, then we are stuck with only her "truths" as a guide in this moral debate. Bonnie insists that we must reject everything else that humanity has learned over thousands of years in many different cultures. She insists that we must believe only as she believes - and that it does not matter if we are dishonest about what others believe, because they have less of a claim on "truth" than believers in her "true" religion.

Ask yourself: Is that beneficial for the progress of mankind?





* REFERENCES

The Evolutionary Information Gap Between Science and Bonnie Alba, PTET, May 20, 2005

Scientists Speeding Up Darwin's Natural Selection?, Bonnie Alba, May 23, 2005

That Old Magic - Evolutionary Psychology, Part I, Bonnie Alba, June 01, 2005

Nature Vs. Nurture - Evolutionary Psychology, Part II, Bonnie Alba, June 08, 2005

Scientific support continues to elude Intelligent Design

Over at Sciencewatch, my friend Darrick Dean makes this observation:

"While we have seen no science in the journals supporting young-earthism what-so-ever, here is what may be #200,899,999 evidence for an old universe..."

That got me thinking. Just how much evidence is there for Intelligent Design? Interestingly, the ID movement set itself a clear goal on this point. The Wedge Document, made public in 1997, Set ID a "five year" objective of "One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows". That five year period ended in at least 2002. And what has been published in support of ID?

"Although Davis and Kenyon... claim that intelligent design represents a viable alternative to neodarwinian evolution, the scientific literature does not support that claim. Compared with several thousand papers on evolution, the combined searches produced only 37 citations containing the keyword "intelligent design." A closer look at those 37 references suggests that none reports scientific research using intelligent design as a biological theory."

George W Gilchrist, The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory March 16, 2001


"Ultimately, whether a scientific issue is controversial or not is determined by the number of papers published in peer-reviewed journals. When the ratio is 1:1, there's a controversy. When it's 3:1, there's a dominant view and a more heterodox but still respectable view. When it's 100:1, it's safe to say that there's no controversy. In the case of evolution vs. creationism, if I had to bet I'd say that the ratio is in the vicinity of 10,000:1 in general and 1:0 in Nature and Science (i.e. no pro-ID papers have been published in either of these journals)."

Alon Levy, commenting on Lisa Peters is a hero!, at Pharyngula, 14-MAY-05 at 11:39

When faced with this lack of scientific papers supporting ID, its supporters generally claim that ID scientists are "censored" or ostracised by their peers. (The case of Richard Sternberg is often given as an example). But the thing is:Even "Intelligent Design" Scientists admit that ID is not yet a "Theory".

If there's no science for ID supporters to publish, then what is there to censor!?

Given the all but absolute lack of scientific support for "Intelligent Design", there surely can't be long left before its "supporters" give up on it as a theory all together...




Update: I'll link to this post from my ongoing discussion with “bareshiyth”.

Update 2: I meant to link to the Index to Creationist Claims page on Peer review & Intelligent design...