It’s tiresome when Christians continuously attack evolution because they view it as part of some package deal with atheism.  I’m not trying to argue whether the creation story of the Bible is true.  It is horribly inconsistent with the evidence.  We’d have to throw out practically everything we know about modern science – not to mention rational thought – to accommodate a ten-thousand-year-old earth or the human race descending from a single man and woman.

The point I’m trying to make is that the theory of evolution doesn’t say anything about whether God exists or not.  It doesn’t account for ultimate beginnings, a purpose for life, or how we should treat each other.  It is an explanatory tool.  It’s a model scientists have put together because the evidence pointing that way is overwhelming.  It’s not as if Charles Darwin set out to prove creationism wrong or show that God didn’t create us.  No, the evidence supporting common ancestry and gradual change over a period of time is compelling.  That’s all.

Evolutionary scientists are doing their jobs.  They’re showing the evidence that they’ve discovered, and it’s consistent with evolution.  They’re performing experiments and testing the predictive power of the theory.  They’re even trying to poke holes in the theory, prove old notions wrong, and overturn commonly accepted ideas.

If a scientist who accepts the evidence for evolution also happens to be an atheist, that doesn’t say anything about the theory of evolution.  Creationists are fond of using Richard Dawkins’s quote about evolution making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.  Whatever Dawkins’s individual position, I’m quite positive he would admit that evolution doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist.  In fact it says nothing about God’s existence at all. (For all the creationists shrieking about Dawkins and his book The God Delusion, he made it very clear in the first few pages that we can’t know for certain that God doesn’t exist.  Since this doesn’t fit with the creationists’ mindless stereotyping, they never mention it.)

When it comes to religion, the only thing evolution shows is that the biblical account of creation is baloney.  Take what you want from that: reassess your faith in the meaning of Genesis, ignore it and keep on thinking dinosaurs were eating Native Americans, whatever.  But please, please stop treating the theory of evolution as the antithesis of religion.  It’s no more an attempt to refute God than the germ theory of disease is.

Image by Wikipedia

Supposed that this is the most famous question among physicists, astronomer and any other kind of field that relates to the universe, why? Because they’d work around the clock and make ends meet just to answer this simple yet incomprehensible question. Perhaps that right now you’re brainstorming for a reliable answer that suits your pleasure, putative that those answers might speak costly as they frequently do.

Image by Aiwaz

There are quite a number of theories and assumption that had been made ever since mankind started kicking and screaming in this very world, relatively religion creationism such as *Adam & Eve* and I’m certain of this fact that there’re many of you still believe that we are the offspring of “Adam & Eve*. Not only that but also that we were created by the name of “God” in the last day of the “7 Day Creation* of which *Da Bible* spoke of it and yet some people still do, bestseller too. Why would people believe such an outlandish tale from the bible? Perhaps that’s what people wants.

Image by MIT

Besides those science-fictional books, we’ll head onto science which does have evidences to support their findings. That would be *Human Evolution* that scientists considered the great apes to be the closest relatives of human beings due to morphological and anatomical similarities. The possibility of linking humans with earlier apes by descent only became clear after 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. This argued for the idea of the evolution of new species from earlier ones. Darwin’s book did not address the question of human evolution, saying only that “Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history”.

Apart from that, we’d focus on those * Extraterrestrial Being*, why? Because there’re certain people who also believe that we are a experimental subject who is genetically engineered by those small-little-green-men or *Aliens* if you may. This idea was made by Raelian as in his *Raelian Theory* and can be called *Panspermia* which means that there was life exist beyond our observation and gives our earth the *Seeds of Life*.

]]> http://doctore0.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/kirk-cameron-ray-comfort-brain-dead/ Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:42:18 +0000 doctore0 http://doctore0.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/kirk-cameron-ray-comfort-brain-dead/

It burns…. have you noticed that the friends of the master of the universe are always insane and mega stupid…
Bypass your intellect folks, then gawd will become obvious

Are you crazy enough to make it to the imaginary hevn, to the imaginary mass murderer in the sky… or will you go to imaginary hell, to the imaginary mass murderers right hand devil, Satan.
Check it

Yes I know you are asking yourself if hell is that bad.. consider being in hevn with Ray and Kirk for frigging ever… that’s hell right there.

If you are looking for a Christmas present for a creationist friend make sure you check those:

Provide proof of evolution (even in car magnets) with these “jesus fish” feet.

Great as a holiday gift to an atheist or as a gag to a hardcore Christian. Also makes a fun weekend activity in any parking lot: jesus fish conversion!*

Fits precisely under most Jesus fish and affixes quickly and securely with a magnet.

 

 

 

The February 2009 issue of The American Biology Teacher (Vol. 71, No. 2) was devoted to Darwin and evolution education. Here is the table of contents:

We Are All Intellectual Descendants of Charles Darwin
Randy Moore

The Struggle for Existence: 1859 & Today
Joseph A. Walsh

The Influence of Darwin on Evolutionary Algorithms from “Dinner with Darwin”
David L. Overbye

Putting Darwin in His Place: The Need To Watch Our Language
Paul S. Braterman & J. Britt Holbrook

Spork & Beans: Addressing Evolutionary Misconceptions
Stephen R. Burton & Christopher Dobson

A Suggested Project-Based Evolution Unit for High School: Teaching Content Through Application
Kristin Cook

Darwin, Earthworms & Circadian Rhythms: A Fertile Field for Science Fair Experiments
John T. Burns, Paul J. Scurti, & Amy M. Furda

Teaching Evolution Through Inquiry-Based Lessons of Uncontroversial Science
Larisa R.G. Desantis

Darwin & the Strategic Plan
Maura C. Flannery

Celebrating Darwin’s Errors
Douglas Allchin

Book Reviews
Elizabeth Cowles

Rejecting Darwin: The Occurrence & Impact of Creationism in High School Biology Classrooms
Randy Moore & Sehoya Cotner

Explaining Biogeographic Data: Evidence for Evolution
Paul M. Beardsley, Stephen R. Getty, & Paul Numedahl

Să nu-ţi faci chip cioplit, nici vreo înfăţişare a lucrurilor cari sînt sus în ceruri, sau jos pe pămînt, sau în apele mai de jos de cît pămîntul. (Exod 20:4)

Daca cititi Exod cap. 32, veti vedea ca in timp ce Moise era pe muntele Sinai pentru a primi Legea, poporul Israel se saturase sa astepte si ii spun lui Aaron fratele lui Moise sa le faca un dumnezeu (idol). Acesta le respecta dorinta, le face un vitel de aur spunandu-le: “Israele! Iata dumnezeul tau care te-a scos din tara Egiptului” (Exod 32:4)

Ei vazusera minunile pe care le facuse Dumnezeu in Egipt, dar nu-L vazusera cu ochii lor, vazusera ca le-a dat mana din cer, si totusi nu L-au vazut, vedeau un stalp de foc noaptea si un nor ziua care ii conducea prin pustie, dar nu L-au vazut pe El. Asa ca si-au facut un vitel de aur si au spus ca asta este dumnezeul care a facut toate minunile vazute de ei.

Una dintre problemele ateilor este ca daca nu-L vad pe Dumnezeu cu ochii deduc ca nici nu exista. Multi mi-au spus ca daca l-ar vedea pe Dumnezeu ar crede. Existenta creatiei dovedeste ca exista un Creator, minunatiile care ne inconjoara ne dovedesc ca avem un Creator minunat. Ar trebui sa va uitati la natura care inca nu este invadata de om si veti vedea ce frumos isi deruleaza existenta, „parca” a fost programata de Cineva, apoi priviti natura unde omul a intervenit, uitati-va la copiii din Africa care sufera din cauza coruptiei si rautatii omului si nu a lui Dumnezeu asa cum multi atei considera. Daca omul ar fi derivat din „alte animale” macar ar fi pastrat natura in felul cum isi pastreaza ele habitatul natural. Si de aici putem observa ca nu ne inrudim cu animalele deloc. Vezi si Creaturi incredibile ce sfideaza evolutia (I)

A doua problema legata de aceasta porunca este ca unii si-au facut in mintea lor o imagine despre Dumnezeul care a creat totul. O imagine creata de ei insisi, un dumnezeu care are niste caracteristici cu care omul respectiv se simte confortabil. In momentul in care vede ca Dumnezeul despre care vorbeste Biblia este asa de diferit de imaginea pe care si-o facuse in mintea sa despre El, omul incepe sa aiba indoieli, lui nu-i place acest Dumnezeu al Bibliei pentru ca nu este asa cum si L-a imaginat. Un urmator pas ar fi sa spuna ca daca ar exista un dumnezeu, nu ar fi Dumnezeul Bibliei. Daca suntem sinceri vom vedea ca oamenii au idei diferite despre cum este Dumnezeu in realitate, in functie de poftele lor. Oamenii pot avea un dumnezeu care iubeste pacatul asa cum il iubesc ei, un dumnezeu care nu ii pedepseste, un dumnezeu iubitor care le da tot ceea ce vor si cand vor, un dumnezeu care este mai mult o marioneta in mainlie celui care l-a creat.

Unii oameni spun: „Dumnezeu nu poate sa arunce sa ne arunce in iad pentru ca am pacatuit”. Asa este, dumnezeul pe care ei si-l imagineaza nu poate sa faca asta, dar Dumnezeul adevarat o va face cu siguranta.

Ateii si-au pus increderea intr-un dumnezeu fals, iar acesta i-a dezamagit, si este normal sa se intample asa din moment ce este doar o imaginatie. Oare il cautati pe Dumnezeul cel adevarat, sau ati vrea ca El sa fie dupa poftele voastre? Pocaiti-va de aceasta greseala si puneti-va increderea in Isus Hristos care a luat plata pacatelor noastre ca noi sa putem fi iertati.

apparently there has been a new study on that most magical of numbers, 7.  researches have long known about 7 (plus or minus 2) being the number the maximum number of things we can recall with short-term, or working, memory.  in this new study, however, researchers tried to create a model of brain activity to explain how the firing and suppressing of neurons involved in this process explains why it gets exponentially more difficult (for normal minds) to continue adding to this working memory.  it seems, as has been demonstrated repeatedly with human subjects, 7 seems to be the breaking point.  as the article states,

As a sentence or a string of numbers gets longer, it becomes exponentially harder for the excited cluster to suppress the others from firing, resulting in pathways that are weak or barely there. Recalling seven items requires about 15 times the suppression needed to recall three. Ten items requires inhibitory powers that are 50 times stronger, and 20 or more items would require suppression hundreds of times stronger still. That, Rabinovich explained, is normally not biologically feasible.

now, I’m not troubling myself with the details of the study here because it’s not what is interesting me right now.  instead, I’m thinking back to all the sermons heard and lessons learned in Sunday school about how 7 was the number of God.  7 days in creation, 7 days in the week, 7 days of Passover (ignoring that these are all pretty much the same thing…), 7 spirits of God, 7 churches in Asia,

the 10 commandments are found in the 70th chapter of the Bible (ignoring, of course, the later, sometimes arbitrary origin of those divisions), 7 loaves of bread,

7 deadly sins,

and so on.

of course, 7’s magicalness extends beyond the Bible: in addition to it simply being a lucky number, we have the 7 chakras in Hinduism, 7 heavens in Islam (as well as 7 fires of hell), Judaism’s 7-branched candelabrum (of the temple, not Hanukkah),

7 lucky Japanese gods of fortune

and, of course, the 7-layer whopper released in Japan last month.

so assuming that this new study is true — heck, let’s up the ante and say that the number 7 is not just the statistical average of things that can be held in short-term memory but in fact “written” into the brain’s hardwiring — I can’t help but think about how this story could and should be interpreted in light of the importance of the number in various cultures and their myths and religions.  one the one hand, there’s the could.  some people will surely see this as evidence that God — whose number is 7, remember? — created us in such a way that his number could be found implanted within our brains.  oh, the trickster!  glory!

on the other hand, there’s the should.  that the number 7 may be found across various cultures because of the structure of our brains.  now again, this is taking this study beyond face value and assuming way more than necessary, but it’s illustrative of a larger problem of how we interpret evidence.  for instance, you often hear about how the conditions on this planet, nay, universe, are perfect for life.  if the earth moved an inch in its orbit, we would all burn of freeze (nobody really knows the physics, they just know this).  everything we need for life and health is bountifully provided on the planet by the plants (and animals, if you’re one of those ).  and when we’re not inconsiderately interfering, the planet is fairly good at balancing itself out and maintaining homeostasis.  in short, clear evidence of design and of the hand of a beneficent creator.

the problem, of course, is that this type of thinking is backward.  it involves looking at the end product, irrespective of how it developed, concluding that things couldn’t have been any other way — that this was the intended product, or even the only imaginable one — and consequently marveling at the fact that conditions or means just happened to exactly what was necessary.  it entails looking first at the nutrients we need to develop and survive and then at what’s available in the world, which, lo and behold, match up quite nicely.  what are the odds?!  this is essentially how I learned to look at the world — excuse me, creation — growing up in church.  it is, like many other un or pseudoscientific views preferred by the church over time, alarmingly egotistic.

the correct view, of course, even crudely understood, is just the opposite.  the essential nutrients and conditions of life are not there to meet our needs as we are, but rather we are the way we are — and life is the way it is — because “we” evolved as we were able to break down those nutrients for energy and as “we” were capable of surviving — better, thriving — in those environments.  God didn’t create bluish/grayish eyes — much less give them specifically to me — so that people whom he wanted to live in cold environments with less sunlight could thrive; rather, the genetic mutation spread — and in recent evolutionary memory, at that — because of benefits for those who were already living in those environments.  I mean, that’s a pithy, pathetic explanation, but it’s immediately more reasonable that the former position, as humbling as that might be.

this doesn’t provide any really satisfying answer as to why the number 7 can be found in so many cultures, playing such an important role, but I’m not interested enough right now to sift through any explanations there might be.  plus, let’s not pretend that 7 is really that prevalent around the globe, or that it’s even all that important in the Bible.  rather, this is an instance of the human tendency to look for patterns and to bias all the instances of what we’re looking for — ignoring all the other numbers that are just as important/mundane.

There seems to be a big mobilisation of climate change deniers at the moment. Someone on Twitter described selective use of stolen emails, “Climategate”, as pre-Copenhagen smears. They added a quote from Churchill which I think is very apt: “A lie is halfway round the world before the truth can get its pants on.”

Most of the local media seems to be taking a relatively balanced approach to the Climategate email issue (see for example A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?). However, we now have  a “controversy” manufactured by the local Climate Science Coalition an Climate Conversation Group. A group of climate change deniers, none of them climate scientists themselves, who attempt to cast doubt on the science produced by real climate scientists. This started with a press release (Are we feeling warmer yet?). picked up and promoted by Ian Wishart (a local conspiracy theorist and climate change denier) and some local conservative and religious apologist blogs (see for example I confess I now believe in manmade Global Warming, Climate scientists caught lying and New Zealand not warming?).

Basically, it was a manipulation of raw data from NZ weather stations to support their preconceived claim of no temperature change over time. Accompanied by a claim that NIWA has dishonestly adjusted the same data to produce a temperature change.

The issues, and the scientific facts, are well covered by Garth at Hot Topic (NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist) and items at the NIWA web site. I recommend reading these.

Nature of the distortions

The scientific issues involved, and the distortions made by the deniers, are an interesting example of how scientific data can be manipulated dishonestly. The issues are well illustrated by these graphs from NIWA. The figure shows the raw temperature data from three stations in Wellington. The main Kelburn station data (green) shows what is most probably a significant increase of temperature over time. This data is consistent, taken from the same site since 1930.

However there was also data available from before 1930 from a separate station at Thorndon site (blue). This site was much closer to sea level and understandably gave higher readings.

In essence, what the climate change deniers did was combine the data from these two stations without any corrections. it produced the result they wanted because the combined raw data was skewed by the higher temperatures at the Thorndon site and hence removed the temperature trend. They simply attached the blue plot to the green one!

The figure illustrates how climate scientists deal with these sort of problems. Unfortunately there was no overlapping data for the two stations. But there were concurrent data (red) for the Airport station (at approximately the same elevation as the Thorndon station was) and the Kelburn station. This enable determination of an adjustment factor which could reasonably be applied to the raw Thorndon data.

The resulting graph after proper combination of the data from the three stations is shown in the next figure. (Here, the red and blue data have been adjusted by the factor determined fror the red and green data).

Now, of course,  the complete data made available by NIWA, and their graphical presentation of NZ temperature trends over time, are more complex than this. They contain information from more met stations. But, I think, the consideration of the Wellington station data clearly presents the issues involved.

It also clearly demonstrates the deception attempted by the NZ Climate Science Coalition.

(Sure, I am going to get deniers who wish to talk about the non-Wellington data – a tactic for prolonging the attack and divert attention away from the dishonesty of the Climate Science Coalition and the Climate Conversation Group).

Attack to divert attention

Some of the deniers have partly acknowledge their deception. Richard Treadgold, who collated the information in the press release has acknowledged that they purposely avoided proper adjustment for site differences. However, he still attempts to shift the criticism by claiming NIWA hadn’t provided details on adjustment method.  NIWA claims that they had made the Coalition aware of methodology several years ago.

But you can see the tactic. The best defense is attack – accusation of more cover ups! Similar to the way creationists react to discovery of fossils of transitional forms – by then claiming there are two “missing gaps” instead of one! Anything to prevent attention turning back to the deception of the Climate Change Coalition the Climate Conversation Group. And the climate change denial blogs have quickly taken up that chorus.

But the real question for those bloggers was asked by US blogger Deltoid: “I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?” (See New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends).

My concern about the attacks on reason, on science. While some people have been concerned about the implications of the “Climategate” emails others have resorted to extreme and emotional  attacks on integrity of scientists involved. Some are even attacking the very idea of science! Peter Griffin from the NZ Science Media Centre described it this way a few days ago: “The comment sections of some blogs have become particularly grubby places to congregate” (see Climategate brought out the worst in us).

Mind you – it would be interesting, wouldn’t it, if somebody hacked into the servers used by the Climate Change Coalition and the Climate Conversation Group. Just imagine the exchanges which probably took place over how this data should be massaged and presented. Over who could be used to release the “report.” And what blogs and newspapers could be trusted to carry their message uncritically.

Just imagine the “Deniergate” that could result!

Permalink

Similar articles

I have not been on youtube for awhile.  Just look at all the good things I miss.   Thanks Thunderfoot.

A recent edition of Science Illustrated ran an article about a potentially revolutionary understanding of mammalian evolution. Reponomamus robustus, a large mammal from the Cretaceous Era has been found with dinosaur bones in its stomach. The implication, of course, is that this early mammal may have eaten dinosaurs instead of the conventional reverse of the scenario. Science is open to such radical ideas, but my thoughts turned to the culture war being waged on automobile bumpers across the United States.

Several years ago the Jesus Fish or ichthus symbol began appearing on the backend of cars in what seemed at first to be a “baby on board” tactic with a don’t-ram-me-I’m-a-Christian subtext. Some drivers, however, associated the Jesus Fish with an evangelical power play, a showing of numbers that indicted all other drivers as “non-Christian,” and therefore, by implication, accident-worthy. The Darwin Fish showed up soon thereafter, a counter-symbol for those who seemed to be declaring that Christians could be evolutionists as well. Sensing a challenge — which always appears as a threat in neo-con eyes — the Jesus Fish or Truth Ichthus swallowing the Darwin Fish swam onto car posteriors. Then the dinosaur eating a Jesus Fish came out, and I am certain that I once saw a Jesus Fish eating a T-rex on some oversized vehicle hind-end.

A friend once asked me why I spent my time arguing with those who are so obviously wrong (the anti-evolutionists). The unfortunate answer showed up in the White House at the turn of the millennium and the radical restructuring of society encouraged by the “religious right” gains credibility from the sheer number of people willing to adorn their cars with Jesus Fish. The real victim in this volley of statements in chrome is a guy who said nothing about evolution and who, I’m sure, would be amazed at how misrepresented he is. As the love-hate relationship between Jesus and dinosaurs continues to wax and wane, I’m staying out of it, but I’m more frightened by the fish than by the dinosaur.

I just completed my first Research Paper that is now available on my Research Paper section of my blog.

The paper is titled “Why The Behemoth is Unlikely to be a Dinosaur”

In this paper I use the sexual reproduction system of dinosaur to demonstrate how the behemoth is unlikely to be a dinosaur as many Young Earth Creationist claim.

Do enjoy.

Professor Dawkins makes a plausible case for militant atheism. I invite you to listen to the lecture. Do come back here to let us know what you think about it.

]]> http://blueollie.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/in-joplin-mo28-november-09/ Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:18:37 +0000 blueollie http://blueollie.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/in-joplin-mo28-november-09/

Workout notes 1 mile open water swim at Barton Springs in 35:41.

Travel: I-35 wasn’t that bad today (Austin to I-20 just south of Dallas.)

Posts
Some time ago (1996) a meteorite from Mars was found to have wormholes; the standard explanation was that these wormholes were the result of a inorganic process.

That hypothesis has been refuted; perhaps life (as we know it) formed these holes?

Times Online

New Scientist

In 1996, David McKay of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texax, and colleagues proposed that that a chunk of Mars rock found in Antarctica, called ALH 84001, contained possible signs of past life on the Red Planet, such as complex carbon-based molecules and microscopic objects shaped like bacteria

Many researchers doubt the claim, however, and various suggestions have been made for how the structures could have been created without life.

One area of disagreement centred around nanocrystal magnetites in the rock, some of which appear to have chemical and physical features identical to those produced by contemporary bacteria. Sceptics of the biological explanation suggested that the magnetites were created when carbonate decomposed under high pressures and temperatures, perhaps in the heat of the impact that ejected the meteorite 15 million years ago or deep beneath the Martian surface.

Now a fresh analysis by McKay and colleagues rules out the carbonate decomposition explanation.

The researchers have used high-resolution electron microscopy not available 13 years ago to study the physical and chemical make-up of the magnetites in detail, and found that no plausible geological scenario could explain the carbonate decomposition origin.

Hat tip: Peoria Pundit.

Creationists fucking piss me off, man. Not because they’re idiots or because they believe what is clearly not true, but because they won’t fucking listen. They go back to their mantra of  “Show me your evidence”, to paraphrase the book, and won’t SHUT THE FUCK UP when you give them good reason. They’ve lost, but they still think they’re winning, and so more dumb-shit, didn’t-pass-year-9-science rednecks join the cult.

The opening line of the book is pretty great and sums up the importance of understanding evolution. “Imagine you are a teacher of Latin, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world . . . yet you find your time continually preyed upon . . . by a  baying pack of ignoramuses who scurry about attempting to persuade your pupils that the Romans never existed. . . . That Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese and their dialects sprang instantaneously into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.”

Consider the same scenario with modern history, with some smirking brat unashamedly shouting that the Holocaust never happened. Imagine that the prospective U.S. president, his soccer-mum ticket-sharer and the Pope are saying that the theory is equally as valid and should be given equal time to both theories. It’s a ridiculous scenario, but it’s the same type of situation that confronts science teachers the world over.

When they try to teach their students the essential and time-tested principle of evolution, they are met with the angry letters of the purposefully ignorant parents of aforementioned brain-washed children and the anxious grimaces of school principals pandering the the minority that wants its will pushed onto the majority, despite massive amounts of conclusive clinical test results, and far-reaching fossil records.

Dawkins’ new book calmly rebuts those he calls the history deniers, explaining the reasons that firstly, the creation stories told by creationists are impossible, and second, how evolution is the fact behind the existence of every living being on Earth, ever. The book charts the evolution of whales, humans, turtles and dogs, showing every step form one species to the next as well as the advantages of each subsequent adaptation. The book also follows experiments conclusively showing evolution over incredibly short geological timescales in clinical trials. The book also explains the supposed lack of “intermediates”, spouted by the people behind creationism.

The Greatest Show on Earth is a fascinating and persuasive read that brings together the threads of 150 years of evolutionary biology. Despite being an excellent book, I feel some of its value has been wasted from the start.

As Dawkins’ states, even when confronted with undeniable and conclusive evidence, creationists will invariably deny its validity, or even its existence, surprisingly enough. After denying it, they go back to their mantra of “Show me your evidence”, and stop short of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, “LALALA I’M NOT LISTENING, I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALA!”

In a particularly frustrating part of the book, Dawkins recounts an interview with Wendy Wright, essentially amounting to this:

Dawkins: Science.

Wright: Nazi, paedophile.

Dawkins: Science, here, evidence.

Wright: No it’s not.

And so it goes. For an hour.

As Dawkins states, Creationists choose not to believe the facts and aren’t likely to shift. Their logic system is too deeply rooted in superstition and religious lies to follow an argument built entirely with fact. The only people who will read  The Greatest Show on Earth are the ones who already have a basic understanding of evolution. This book may be excellent and persuasive, but as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Still, that’s no reason to let the horse teach your children science.

If you don’t know who Kent Hovind is, a quick look at his Wikipedia page should give you an idea what kind of ignorance we’re dealing with.  Above is Part 1 of a two-video YouTube video series by Shane Killian, who documents forty examples of blatant lies told by the convicted felon.  Part 2 is below, after the jump.  And just for shits and giggles, I threw in a video of Hovind on Da Ali G Show.  Watch it with your friends and then you can debate who is the bigger moron.

Religion = The most insane thing ever made… believing in gods in 2009, that’s pure insane madness spiced with greed and selfishness..

New Scientist magazine profiles one of my favorite bloggers, PZ Myers, the University of Minnesota biology professor who writes Pharyngula. Key quote:

In Pharyngula, Myers campaigns for evolutionary science, takes aim at creationists and proselytises for atheism while ridiculing religious beliefs with a sharp virtual tongue. In one blog post, for example, he wrote, “There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid… And nothing makes them stupider than religion.”

In person Myers says, “Religion in this country is protected by a wall of silence. You cannot argue with religion. As an atheist I try to teach people that you don’t have to respect religious differences or ideas. This is something that I would like to get across to people: disrespecting ideas is a good thing.”

Or, as I put it recently, ridiculing the ridiculous.

Embrace it.

Must Not See TV

One of the first cliches they teach you to rid yourself of at all costs in Journalism 101 is to never begin a column with the dictionary definition of a word. It’s hack, it’s played out and almost as unoriginal as opening with a quote from Bartlett’s.

That said, I would be remiss not to start things off by pointing out that I commented to co-workers at the bookstore I work at that “going rogue” would make an ideal sexual euphemism. Yep, you guessed it: somebody else already stepped on my punchline.

As I’ve stated before in previous posts, I work selling books and coffee for a chain that rhymes with Barnes & Noble. (Shhh!) One of the many curious things that happened the day Sarah Palin’s biography was released was that we got a call or two about two separate parodies with the same title: “Going Rouge.” One is a coloring book, one is not. Both look hilarious in their own right; great title either way. What made this interesting to me personally is that it was impossible for us to order these books. One might even go so far as to posit this was done on purpose.

Which isn’t that paranoid a thought to think, believe it or not. After all, this is sadly not a tactic even confined to the right wing side of the political spectrum. I distinctly recall not being able to place any orders for Al Franken backstock after he secured the DFL nomination for Minnesota Senator. Being a fan of Franken’s comedy, this was more than a tad disheartening. That is the sort of cowardly behavior I would expect of pathetic Ann Coulter types.

And speaking of complete idiots, I wrestle now with the notion that even discussing Sarah Palin gives her more legitimacy than she actually deserves. Like my Mom always said: if you ignore them long enough they’ll leave you alone. After all, that’s the same rationale Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould employed by making the formal decision to never formally debate a creationist/intelligent designer. The more attention is paid to Palin, the more it appears she has something valid to contribute to political discourse. And IMOHO, she simply doesn’t have what it takes for heavy intellectual lifting.

But upon serious reflection, this is simply too juicy to ignore. The comedic possibilities are literally endless. It gets better every day. I’d stop just short of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson’s famous proclamation that it’s “better than sex.” Certainly not better than “going rogue.”

*rimshot*

I am he as you are he as you are me

It’s like you’re standing outside a fancy steakhouse just staring into the window, hungrily licking your chops while holding a pink slip and the personification of everything you believe is wrong with America offers you their leftovers. What’s a man to do, provided he’s not a vegetarian of course?  And where the hell is this nonsensical metaphor heading, you may ask? It’s leading you to news that the same man responsible for a quickie Palin election season parody helped edit her book. I mean, c’mon people! How in the Sam Hell did that happen? And why was I not contacted first? *sigh*

Now I realize it’s 100% unfair to automatically assume that if some of the people responsible for the book happening are unapologetic racists, that makes the Palin constituency automatically closet racists by proxy. That’s not the claim I’m trying to make here, not in the least. Hell, I’m sure a certain amount of hard core racists held their nose and voted for Barack Obama last November.  But the amount of backpedaling and censoring and video-taking-down and lawsuit-filing and such does make you wonder if these nagging allegations are substantive after all.

Credit DitchWalk for asking the question no one else seems to have the necessary cojones to ask: did Palin actually write any of this? Seriously, aside from submitting all the gory hunting party photos she happily posed in, what credit can she take for any of this?

Who cares, right? We’re pretty sure Teri Hatcher wrote hers and anything is better than that. I’d rather plod through Japanese stereo instructions than suffer through that that festering bowl of dog snot.

Wrong. Dead wrong with your Devil’s Advocate argument, dude.

It cheapens the definition of “truthiness” but that’s a boring barroom philosopher exercise. More importantly, it cheapens what I’m doing right now: writing.  The reason why my Journalism degree is worthless, the reason why the media industry has all but collapsed, the reason why I work 5 part time jobs without health care…it’s all because nobody’s figured out how to get paid to write after the Interweb Tubez up and changed the game. (With the noticeable exception of Vice.) If you say writing doesn’t count, it won’t count. If you say writing is a more of a hobby than a “real” job, than it will stay a hobby. If you believe writing doesn’t matter, it won’t matter. And where does that get us as a culture? Writing blogs no one reads, just another lonely dreamer’s voice in the wilderness that will never properly be heard.

Wow, that got a lot heavier than I originally intended. Sorry about that, everybody.

Schizopolis 4-Evah

Per usual, FunnyOrDie is THE clearinghouse to visit if you really want to beat a dead meme horse into the ground with a minimal amount of effort. My three current favorite Palin parodies are as follows:

1. Pageant tape with snarky MST3K commentary.
2. The Sarah Palin Show, with very special guest Sarah Palin. Only on Fox!
3. Godwin’s Law states, as we all hopefully know by now, that any position of strength is immediately negated the nanosecond you play the Hitler card. However, this sly spoof on the amazing-in-it’s-own-right 2004 German film “Downfall” is for the win, as the kids say nowadays.

No, I'm Spartacus!

In other news: the rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Also, apparently treating white kids like they are black kids works about as well as asking men to pretend to feel what it’s like to be a woman. Let’s see, what else? Oh yeah, my bio-fuels project is apparently moving along swimmingly. And in case you were looking for inarguably the worst commercial of all time, I already went to the trouble of finding it for you so you didn’t have to. But hey, things could always be worse: you could have gotten called onto the carpet to explain why exactly you green-lighted this bad boy to everyone in corporate.

This just in: Kanye West is a gay fish. Which is way better than Mormon vampire teen romance novels any old day of the week.

I’m out like Seacrest.

Introduction

In my continuing series on logical fallacies, today we’re going to explore circular reasoning, more formally known as a “tautology” or a “tautological argument.”

What is a Tautology?

Throughout this post, I’m probably going to mainly use the term “tautology” rather than “circular reasoning” because it’s less to type. Circular reasoning is, like most fallacies, just what it sounds like: Making a circular argument, or when each stage of an argument refers back to the previous stage, or uses the previous stage as justification for that one. You just go around in circles.

Another way in which a tautological argument is used is to simply state the same thing twice, but in different ways. Like saying, “This is a brand-new never-before seen product!” is considered a tautology because “brand-new” and “never-before seen” mean the same thing.

The Example of Biblical Authority

This isn’t directly related to astronomy, but it underlies almost all young-Earth creationist claims and so I’ll put it in here. It would seem that the idea of biblical authority would be better-relegated to my upcoming post on the Argument from Authority, but it actually is a tautological argument as well.

If you ask a young-Earth creationist (YEC), or probably any person who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, why the Bible is true, you will get a tautology as illustrated in the diagram below:

Let’s have a hypothetical conversation:

Me: Why is the Bible true?
YEC: Because the Bible is infallible.
Me: Why is it infallible?
YEC: Because the Bible is the word of God.
Me: How do you know it’s the word of God?
YEC: Because the bible says it is the word of God.
Me: But how do you know that it’s telling you the truth?
YEC: Because the Bible is infallible.
…

We have entered the tautology. The YEC has not brought in outside information into the argument to back up the claim, they simply continue to go in circles.

Example from Family Life

An example of a tautology that’s closer to the second use I explained above is often found in every-day parlance, especially between parents and their children:

Parent: “It’s bed time, go to bed.”
Child: “Why?”
Parent: “Because I said so.”

Final Thoughts

Circular arguments and/or tautologies are yet another illogical way to argue because they do not bring any new information into the discussion. Rather, they argue what has already been (correctly or incorrectly) stated, and do not back it up with something else.

New one..