Abridging Faith, Is That Such a Thing? Plus Arguing with Non-existent Abuse?

Sorry I have been a bit busy with other activities and haven't been posting.  Sometimes real life gets in the way of entertainment, and I do so find the whole anti-science arguments from creationists of various stripes truly entertaining.

While I haven't been posting, I have been trying to keep up on events, like little kennie ham 'abridging' his Statement of Faith and Kentucky's Governor inventing cases of child abuser to lash out at teachers who were striking:

Little kennie is changing his Statement of Faith because they can't seem to find enough workers to fill the vacancies at his various ministries.  He mentioned it here:

"We hope you’ll consider joining our team! We are a Christian organization, so we do require you to sign a statement of faith regarding your adherence to the fundamentals of the Christian faith—one for seasonal workers and a more detailed statement of faith for higher job positions." (little kennie's blog post)

He further explains it in the Facebook video:

“We are a Christian organization, and as a Christian organization, we employ people who are Christians. We actually, for the seasonals, we actually have a more abridged Statement of Faith, the fundamentals of Christianity, not our detailed one for all of our full-time managers and others. So for seasonals, I know there’s a lot of young people who still aren’t necessarily mature in all their thinking in lots of areas, but if they can sign the tenets of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, they can… work here.” (little kennie Facebook post, about the 5:45 mark)

I have to ask . . . an 'Abridged Statement of Faith'?  What exactly is that?  You know for someone claiming the Bible is the source of all knowledge and a self-described Biblical Literalist, how does one 'abridge' ones faith?

What little kennie should do is stop discriminating against people who don't share his narrow view of the world and then we might be surprised how many people apply to work there.  The number one criteria should be the ability to perform a job, not whether or not you go to the same church.  I have yet to understand how believing in kennie's strain of pseudo-Christianity would improve my ability to write computer code, or a plumber's ability to maintain plumbing.

As for the other Kentucky debacle, Governor Matt Bevin (R) said on Friday that he knew kids were hurt by the teachers’ supposed selfishness:

“I guarantee you somewhere in Kentucky today, a child was sexually assaulted that was left at home because there was nobody there to watch them,” Bevin told reporters outside the Capitol. “I guarantee you somewhere today, a child was physically harmed or ingested poison because they were left alone because a single parent didn’t have any money to take care of them.”

I don't know about you, but when I use the word 'guarantee' I am not waxing poetic.  Today he recanted . . . well . . . he sorta recanted:

I don't think he regrets what he said for one second, he was just looking to bash teachers for doing things like wanting to improve education in Kentucky with improved funding and repair the damage done to the teacher's retirement system which is underfunded by something like 66%.  

No, he really didn't recant, the only regret he has is the criticism he's been getting over his comments.  If you wonder why I pay any attention to Bevin, remember that he was the one who decided to let little kennie continue his religious discrimination -- after kennie originally said his for-profit corporation would comply with State and Federal Hiring laws.  Yea, that guy!  He's also the guy who let kim davis get away with breaking the law.

While I might have taken a break, you can see I haven't been completely out of the loop.  I'll try and post a bit more because some of these things are just so incredibly entertaining . . . to me.  I feel for the people of Kentucky.  Between Bevin and little kennie, those folks are going to paying for their decisions for years to come.

Another Meaningless Name Change

It was pointed out to me by a Commentor (Thanks again Matthew) that the Discovery Institute pseudo-blog has changed it's name.  It was called "Evolution News and Views (ENV).  Of course, I usually referred to it as "Evolution 'news' and Views (E'n'V)" because news was not it's forte.  It was always bringing you their [the DI's] view on nearly any topic.  Oh, they might reference other pieces of information -- including someone else's actual science -- but the purpose of E'n'V was never to educate, but show you the Intelligent Design (ID) perspective.

So, they would sometimes point out some actual science and then spin their ID magic on it and lo-and behold one of two things usually happened.  Either the real science could be spun in such a way as to appear to support ID or they declared that the real science must be wrong because of ID.  Of course, they never bothered to support either contention with anything resembling evidence or scientific experimentation, it was all rhetoric*.

One other point, I also normally referred to it as a pseudo-blog because they never, ever let people comment on it.  For all their talk about 'free speech', letting people comment would probably show more of the weaknesses in their arguments than identify any actual strengths -- but then strengths and weaknesses aren't their forte either (pun intended).  To my knowledge, they never even tried to moderate comments, which is how many other sites control views they do not like.  To date, I have only removed comments that were abusive (once) or sales marketing (three). All other comments are still there.  Funny, I've had more authors remove their own comments than anything I have done.

Back to the topic at hand, the DI pseudo-blog changed it's name.  It's now called "Evolution News and Science Today (ENST)".  I took a quick look through the postings for this month and it really doesn't look like anything has changed.  Sarah Chaffee is talking about a subject she doesn't seem to know anything about -- free speech, pseudo-historian Richard Weikart is busy trying to re-write history, and little davely 'klingy' klinghoffer is bragging that this pseudo-blog is now available in Spanish.  -- which I thought was almost interesting because their new intelligent design center is in Brazil, and their official language in Portuguese.  Nope, nothing new and still no commenting allowed.

Which means the new name is even more misleading than the old one.  I mean not only was it not presenting news, now they are hiding their views under the label of 'science'.  Does anyone actually believe actual science will be coming out from the DI, let alone published in their pseudo-blog?  But then, like their other avenues of publication, be it books, articles, or posts, there is no standard for supporting their 'work'.  Which means E'ns'T will continue in the less-than-proud traditions of E'n'V and give us things to laugh at rather than actually enlighten us!

*rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

When One Idea Doesn't Work, Change the Name and Do It Again

Ever bother to read the label on your shampoo bottle?  If it's like mine it's pretty simple:

• Lather
• Rinse
• Repeat

It seems the Discovery Institute is trying something similar, only in their case it more:

• Fail
• Change the Name
• Repeat

A few examples:

• First off, I can't blame this on just the DI, but look at Intelligent Design.  It was originally known as Creationism.  When efforts to keep it in the science classroom failed, Creationists changed the name to "Creation Science" and kept on pushing.  When that one failed, they changed the name to "Intelligent Design".  So far that one isn't making much headway either, so expect a name change in the near future.
• How about Intelligent Design Journals?  
• The first was the  Origins & Design (ISSN 0748- 9919), produced by the Access Research Network which ceased publishing in 1999.  
• The next was from a DI homeboy, WIld Bill Dembski (who is no longer one of their members).  He founded the  International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design which published Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (ISSN 1555-5089) which hasn't been heard form since 2005.
• The on-line Journal of Evolutionary Informatics (no ISSN) was sponsored by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, a project of Dembski and Robert Marks, which became defunct before managing to publish a single issue.  
• The current one is called Bio-Complexity (ISSN 2151- 7444), and it's put out by the DI's pet lab 'The Biologics Institute', a lab that is funded by and has a public contact point at the DI itself.
• So my latest example: Clubs
• Do you remember the Discovery Institute's IDEA clubs?  This was the brainchild of the former DI publicist little casey luskin and a few others dating back to 1999.  You might remember casey as the guy with both a law degree and a biology degree who was relegated to handing out pamphlets during the Dover trail.  Well, casey was heading up this idea [pun intended] for building student-based clubs as high schools and colleges all over the country.  Here is the link from the DI's site, and here's a screenshot in case they finally notice it's still up and decide to take it down:

Even though the pages are still up, it's been pretty dead since 2008.  In fact:

In December 2008, biologist Allen MacNeill stated, on the basis of analysis of the webpages of the national organization and local chapters, that it appeared that the organization is moribund.(The "Intelligent Design" Movement on College and University Campuses is Dead)

So, another dead idea.  So in true DI tradition, let's change the name and try again.  This time they are called: "Science and Culture Network (SCN)".  Currently they have two chapters Houston and Colorado:

They not only share the moniker of 'SCN' but they also have something else in common.  I circled it in red, it reads: 

"This program has no upcoming events"

SO they have opened two chapters of this new club, but nothing is going on.  It does make you wonder.  I mean court cases caused the name change, failure to produce science killed the journals, and nothing happening might have been the reason the IDEA clubs died off. Are they repeating themselves again?

I do have to point out one more 'little' thing.  While they also hold meetings, look at where Houston holds their's: 

"We meet monthly in various churches across the greater Houston area on a rotating basis. "

Yes, we meet monthly in various churches . . . and yet what is the mantra of the DI?  How they are a scientific organization and not a religious one?  Is there anyone who actually believes that who isn't on the DI payroll or a member of one of their 'chapters'? Colorado doesn't have anything more specific other than they plan to hold meetings, but no location.

But do you see the tactics, or in the case 'strategy' might be a better word.  When one method fails, change the name and try to same routine over again.  As they say "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", only in these cases 'sweet' might not be the smell these things give off.  Think about it, if Intelligent Design was such a worthwhile endeavor, then aren't there be IDEA clubs all over the place?  Wouldn't there be multiple ID journals instead of one after another going defunct?  I mean how many scientific journals are there?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  And Creationists certainly wouldn't have had to keep changing the name if there was any actual merit to their claims, would they?  And by 'merit' I am talking scientific merit -- you know things supported by actual evidence.

You guys and gals might try real science instead of pseudo-science next time.  If that fails you might really give that some thought, instead of simply repackaging it and having a go again.  What's that definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  You really should think about that while you are at it.

The Ark Park . . . Disney It Ain't!

Nothing surprising, little kennie ham is 'restructuring' his ticket prices, well that's not totally true.  He's raising the Adult prices, lower the Kids prices, and eliminating Group Discounts.  I am sure the net plan is to see a bump in revenue overall.  After all, what business lowers prices to make less money.

My guess is the group discounts weren't bringing in many groups, so eliminating them probably doesn't affect much.  If they were a cash cow, he would probably be keeping them to entice more groups visits.  But since kids rarely travel alone, you know every child is accompanied by at least one adult, that change should be more profitable, and we know kennie is all about profit.

But what cracked me up is little kennie comparing his ministries to Disney World:

It's not just a dollars comparison, here is a quote:

"Many of our visitors have told me that the quality of our Christian-themed attractions exceeds what they’ve experienced at the Disney parks, Universal Studios, and the Smithsonian museums."

I would like to see what context of the word 'quality' his 'Many visitors' were using.  If they were talking about entertainment quality, I doubt there is a valid qualitative or quantitative comparison with anything other than another religious ministry.  If they are talking about a construction quality as in how well little kennie's exhibit creators did against Disney and others, he might have a point.  He did spend lots of money to make sure the quality of the construction isn't as cheesy as say a roadside attraction in Roswell:

Little kennie's mock-ups are well done.  If that's the quality he's talking about, he might have a point.  Of course if you are talking any other quality, he tends to fall short.  With kennie, the cheesiness isn't in the construction, but in the message.  It's not a Biblical message, but the Bible according to little kennie ham, two very different things.

Here is another quote:

"Disney’s parks and AiG’s attractions are, in a sense, competing for a family’s time for vacation, offering the best possible quality in all they and we do. However, you can spend many hours waiting in long lines for short rides at amusement parks. At our Ark and museum, however, you can easily spend a full day or two at each location, experiencing edu-tainment all day and rarely standing in a long line."

While there is probably competition for the same vacation budget, in the terms and money and time, does little kennie really think his ministries offer the same quality as an entertainment location as Disney, Universal, or even the Smithsonian?  His only criteria seems to be 'standing in line'.  Well based on that, maybe -- if that is one of the things people base their vacations on being in lines.  But do you really use that when comparing vacation options?

No, the lack of 'standing in line' tells me two things.  First of all, the massive crowds kennie kept predicting have not materialized.  Therefore there is no reason to wait in a line because no one is queuing up.  The second thing is why do people stand in line anyway?  They anticipate something worthwhile for their small investment in time.  So what that tells me is that little kennie's exhibits aren't worth that sort of investment.

Let's compare with the Smithsonian for a moment, since kennie uses one of his selling points as 'edu-tainment'.  You remember when he tried to explain that his ministries were more educational than entertainment.  He tried that argument a couple of years back.  We discussed it here: The 'Ark Park' is not an Educational Institution! Nor is its purpose Recreational or Historical!.  Little kennie tried to claim his ministries fit an educational, recreational, or historical purpose in order to justify public schools paying for trips to the ark park.  So something like the Smithsonian, which it's wealth of educational and historical information, comparable to kennie's ministries?  Unlike kennie's Creation pseudo-museum and his ark park, the Smithsonian has a mission statement:

“For the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” (Smithsonian Institution Mission Statement)

Does anyone really belief that is similar in any way to kennie's mission statement?  Here, you compare them, here is kennie's:

• We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
• We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
• We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

Little kennie even stated his real reason for building his pseudo-museum and ark park:

"Our real motive for building the Creation Museum, and now the Ark, can be summed up in these verses:

• Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations. (Matthew 28:19)
• But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15)
• Contend earnestly for the faith. (Jude 3)
• Do business till I come. (Luke 19:13)"

It makes it hard to see much of any comparison with kennie and his ministries with any non-religious organization, be it in the entertainment industry or educational.  For further comparison, look at Disney theme park mission statement:

"We create happiness by providing the best in entertainment for people of all ages everywhere." (Disney Theme Park mission Statement)

Does it succeed?  Well I have been to Disneyland in California and Disney World in Florida with my daughters and granddaughter on multiple occasions -- the answer is an unequivocal "Yes!"  To quote my granddaughter, who had no idea we were going and was asleep in the back seat as we drove up to the entrance.  We shook her awake and she exclaimed "Best Day Ever!" before we even got in the park.

Now, if you doubt that kennie is building ministries and not theme parks, he said it himself:

"Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

So what's the purpose in raising . . . oh, I mean re-structuring  . . . ticket prices?  Why else . . . to make more money!  No one with a working brain is going to see an honest comparison between his ministries and Disney, or any other theme park.  But kennie doesn't really care, as long as they spend more money!  If they think they are getting Disney, maybe they will spend more.

So let's do a little comparing of our own, when Disney World opened in 1971 a single day ticket was $3.50, which is the equivalent of $21.68 today.  Little kennie opened his ark park last year with ticket prices at $40 for an adult.  So his tickets started at nearly double what Disney started at when you count for inflation.  Granted Disney's price for one park for one day has topped $100 today (although you can find deals for $59), Disney has added and updated a great many attractions over the years.

Of course multi-day and annual passes have a different price structure, but in a realistic comparison just based on prices, little kennie comes up short no matter how you want to look at it.  I mean, how many days do you need to go through his ark park?  I visited his Creation pseudo-museum and it didn't take very long.  And it wasn't a just walk through, you were in a line what went through in a structured way to tell the story little kennie wanted to tell in the way kennie wanted to tell it.  Your pace was the pace of the line, not your own.  My guess it would have taken even less time, remember I described it as more a carnival ride than a museum visit.

So, my advice to any one planning a vacation.  If you are looking for recreational, historical, or educational vacation, little kennie's ministries are not the way to go.  If you are looking for a religious experience, I would recommend the tour of St Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.  But if you are looking for a small laugh at the expense of your children -- tell them you are going to a place 'just like Disney' and end up at little kennie's version.  Just wait until you see the look on their faces when the truth dawns on them.

True, you won't have to wait in any lines, and that's all that's important, right?

Visiting Old Friends Can Bring New Insight

This post might start out looking like an aside, but I will tie it into the blog topics.  Just thought a little background might help place it in context.

We [my entire family] love to read!  You would realize that if you ever visited my home and saw the 4 overstuffed bookcases in our dining room (my wife's office), the three others (also overstuffed) in my basement, and the three (not quite overstuffed) in my basement office.  If you wander through the house you will see books tucked and piled up in all sorts of places.  No, we aren't one pile away from an episode of Hoarders . . . well everywhere except my office.  In addition to the several thousand actual books, My daughter and I several hundred e-books from Kindle, Barnes and Noble, and generic sources between us.  Needless to say my family certainly loves reading.

One of my friends finds it strange that I not only like reading, but re-reading.  He is an avid reader as well, but uses the local library much, much more than any bookstore.  He finds it hard to believe that I re-read books, especially fiction.

To me, re-reading a book is like visiting an old friend.  For example, I have read 'The Lord of the Rings' so many times I had to replace my original paperback copies with hardbacks and I think I am getting close to replacing those due several decades of wear and tear.  They were the only books that accompanied me on my one-year assignment to the Republic of Korea (of course, I came home with a suitcase full of new friends).  I love re-reading books.

Yes, this is leading up to something related to the main topics of this blog.

Recently, I re-read 'Friday' by Robert Heinlein.  It's a classic originally published in the early 1980's.  What I enjoy about visiting old friends is that I frequently see something I hadn't seen before or see something in a very different light than when I last read it.  The reason is simple, I am not the same person I was in 1982 when I first read Friday.  I'm also not the same person at any point in the past when I re-read the book.  Here is a quote from a very brief point in the book, a small part of a conversation between two characters:

" “. . .Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named…but a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.”
“Really?”
“Pfui, I should have forced you to dig it out for yourself; then you would know it. This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength.” " (Friday: Robert A. Heinlein, 1982)

At the time I simply took this as nothing more than a plot device.  One of those things presented by the author as a foregone conclusion that moves the story along.  I really didn't give it much thought.  Even in the years since and the multiple times I re-read the book, this passage didn't strike me as significant.  It's been several years and the other evening I picked it up and this passage struck me!  Look at the things going on today!  Tell me it doesn't ring with you as well?

Personal rudeness has become the norm.  People who aren't part of your group are ignored or looked down upon.  People are often inconsiderate about major and minor matters.  For example, I do not believe there is a war on Christmas!  When someone wishes me a Happy Hanukkah or a Merry Kwanzaa, I simply take it in the spirit it was intended and thank them.  I have been watching more and more people go ballistic over a simple Merry Christmas.  Or the server who called everyone "Honey!" out of decades of habit -- nearly got struck in a restaurant when a patron objected in an almost violent manner.  These are such minor things, but too many people expand them into reasons to be insulted and even fight.

Then they like to band together with other like-minded people, using those others to reinforce their own prejudices.  It's not just the conservatives, although they do come to mind pretty easily.  But many other groups are doing the exact same thing.  

As I've said before, when it comes to religion I do believe you have the right to believe what you wish, but I expect the same courtesy for my beliefs -- or lack of them.  I feel that way in many things.  If you want to hang a Confederate Flag out your window, be my guest, but not only do you not have to right to demand I hang one out of my window, if I hang a different flag I expect you to not whine about it.  That's freedom to me!

But we don't have that freedom today.  People take exception of anything and everything that doesn't align with their own belief set and expect the rest of the people around them to not only accept their beliefs, but adopt them.  And when they don't, out come the lawyers sniffing blood.  What happen to mannerly disagreements or acceptance of our differences?  

That's why the passage from 'Friday' hit me so hard today.  I was struck by what's been happening politically today.  Not just here in the US with a certain hamster-haired serial liar and misogynist, but with every day people around the world.  The divisiveness between nearly every group, the intolerance of any viewpoint other than their own, and the absolute certainty in the righteousness of that viewpoint has become the norm rather than the exception.

To often they cling to those beliefs, convincing themselves that their belief set is the only thing saving them from an uncertain future.  But . . . are we a sick or dying culture?  Of course, you have to think about just what is American culture?

To examine this, here is the last part of a speech by a character in the HBO show 'The Newsroom'.  I'll link to the video at the end of this post.  But I want you to look at this first:

"We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one—America is not the greatest country in the world anymore." (Will McAvoy, The Newsroom)

Listed in that speech are many of the things we have often self-identified as the things that make us Americans, I underlined a few.  But do they still hold true?  I hate to look at it like this, but the reality is we don't live up to those ideals any more.  Instead of celebrating our diversity and the strength and perspective it brought us, now we fracture America on those, and many other, lines.  We huddle together within those differences and build an illusion that by clinging to those differences we are the stronger.  The challenges of the past could not, would not, be met by today's Americans.  I think the question is not meeting the challenges of the of the past, but can we really meet the challenges of the future?

Not heading down the road we appear to be on.  Every time we denigrate other Americans, or any other people, we go further along the road that our past selves would have not taken.  Did we make mistakes in the past, most certainly.  But we were on the way to resolving many of those.  Not instantly, but as we recognized them, we were trying to addressing them.  But today labels are used to further divide us and prevent any forward motion on real issues.  The labels become the issue.  Every time I hear a conservative cry 'snowflake' it further drives a wedge between people and instead of dealing with the issues that have caused division, we tend to slap a label on it and try and ignore it.  "The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one." You can't solve a issue by just labeling it.

We are certainly no longer the culture we once were, the culture we like to convince ourselves we still are -- but we are not.  As a whole we have lost sight of the ideals that started this country.  Partisanship has become the norm, cooperation and acceptance is the exception rather than the rule.  That needs to change!

I repeat -- That Needs To Change!

Here is the whole of what has been often described as the best 3 minutes on television:

Why Do Theists Think Inflicting Their Beliefs on Others is a Right?

These two 'parents' are suing to prevent their child from getting the hormones and therapy prescribed because of gender dysphoria.  Their reasoning: it violates their religious beliefs.  "Parents Sue to Stop Trans Son from Having Hormone Therapy for Religious Reasons".  Of course they make no mention as to if it violates their child's belief set!  Since they are resorting to a lawsuit  they obviously do not have custody, I guess telling your child he should kill himself isn't a good example of proper parenting in Ohio.  Here's a couple of quotes from the Friendly Atheist blog post:

"They also told their son he should kill himself because he’s “going to hell anyway,” which tells you everything you need to know about why they don’t deserve custody."

"Medical experts testified that the father's ongoing refusal to call the child by his chosen name and the parents' rejection of the teen's gender identity have triggered suicidal feelings."

We discussed something related a few post back ("A Disrespectful Christian Fundraiser!") about the importance of one's support group, and usually parents are a large part of that support group, especially for their children. But there are too many times when the 'support' part of the group goes off the rails and the impact can be terrible.  The child is currently in the legal custody of the county and living with maternal grandparents, who apparently are willing to violate their daughter and son-in-law's deeply held religious beliefs.  Good for them!

I have a couple of issues with this whole story.  First off, what lawyer took this case?  I guess one of those religion-before humanity types, like the ones who defended the Dover School Board.  But seriously, I have to wonder how many lawyers did the parents talk too before finding one that advised them a lawsuit was the best course of action.

Secondly, why does the parents religion give the right to load up more emotional abuse on a child?  You know I have seen parents disown their children.  I've seen and heard of young girls kicked out of their homes for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, children kicked out for falling in love with a someone outside the religion or race of the parents.  I disagree with such decisions, but a lawsuit after you have already lost custody?  That's like pouring salt on an open wound!

I feel for the child, but I have little sympathy for the parents.  You know for all the lip service about the wonderful things religious groups like to claim about themselves, their willingness to inflict their belief set on other people often is at odds with their public image.  I am all for Religious Freedom, but real religious freedom.  I have no issue with you believing something I disagree with, but religious freedom doesn't give you the right to tell me I have to conform to your beliefs!

I've said it before, children can't smoke, drink, drive, or vote until they reach what's called the 'legal age'.  They shouldn't be exposed to religion until a similar age!  That way they can make an informed decision!

Congratulations to Wikipedia, 'winner' of the Discovery Institute 'Censor of the Year' -- while not doing any actual censoring!

Last month I was discussing the upcoming awards season, which includes the Discovery Institute's (DI) "Censor of the Year" award.  It's awarded annually on Darwin's birthday.  One of the things previous 'winners' have had in common is that they don't actual censor anything, they simply say or do things the DI disagrees with.  I gave three predictions.

The first was that the DI would give the award to themselves.  I based that on the simple fact that while there is no evidence of actual censorship of Intelligent Design, the DI does self-censor themselves and then claim they do so because of all the censorship they use as an excuse to avoid doing any real scientific work.  Of course, since there is no real censorship, I wasn't sure they would give the award to themselves because they might have to admit that their whole censorship argument was nothing more than a lie, so they would pick on someone else.

My second suggestion is an example of real censorship, and my nominee would have been the current Administration. Who was is that It banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” A certain hamster-haired serial lying misogynist control freak, that's who! His Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, reprimanded the Joshua Tree National Park’s superintendent for tweeting about climate change. Trump is also trying to censor a free press. These are prime examples of censorship.  But since the DI was not Trump's target, I didn't think they would pick him.

My final prediction was Wikipedia, and I said:

"But we know the DI will stick to their guns and pick on someone, or something, that didn't actually censor them, just did something that annoyed them.  My guess would be Wikipedia.  I think Wikipedia has been a nominee before (2015 almost certainly for "Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!"), and this past year they [Wikipedia] annoyed the DI by dropping a Wikipedia bio for one of their senior fellows ("Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?"), which they keep whining about pretty constantly.  Which is why I believe Wikipedia will win this year."

And. guess what? They made their announcement and Wikipedia has 'won':  "Happy Darwin Day! Our 2018 Censor of the Year Is Wikipedia".  Yes, another instance of a censorship award for not having done any censorship.  Here is their 'rationale':

1. They don't like how Intelligent Design is represented in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia keeps busting them in their efforts to self-edit the page.
2. They disagree that one of their own fellows isn't notable enough to rate a Wikipedia page -- even though most of their fellows do not have a page.
3. When all else fails, call it 'fake news'.  Gee, how come whenever a conservative group -- and you don't get that much more conservative than the DI ministry -- calls something 'fake news' is always turns out to be true?

Nothing here is an actual example of censorship.  Wikipedia's description of ID is accurate, and also agrees with court cases involving ID.  Of course the DI doesn't like it, since Wikipedia calls out ID to be the pseudo-science that it really is.  All of their efforts to edit it has run smack dab into the editing policies of Wikipedia.  While Britannica Online doesn't call it pseudo-science, it does explain how it is built upon an argument for design for the existence of God.  Why isn't the DI complaining about that?

While removing one less-than-notable pseudo-scientist's Wikipedia entry might seem like censorship, it's more accurate to say that it was in line with the encyclopedia's policies.  If it was actual censirship then none of the ID proponents would have Wikipedia pages!   Bechly [the guy whose page was deep-sixed] isn't notable enough to have a page on Britannica Online either:

Yet, the DI doesn't seem to be whining about that.  Could it be because anyone can create a Wikipedia page, whereas Britannica has different policies when adding subject pages?  Of course both encyclopedias have inclusion standards, the difference is that Wikipedia's are applied after the subject page is created, and Britannica's are done prior to the creation.  So that means Bechly does not meet the criteria of either encyclopedia for being 'notable'.

And, then finally, hop on the 'fake news' bandwagon and complain about something that is true by claiming it's 'fake news'.  Tell me, has anyone found anything that certain hamster-haired serial liar misogynist control freak claimed to be 'fake news' to actually be fake?  Yea, neither have I.

So there you have it, another censorship award to a group that doesn't actual do any censoring.  I congratulate Wikipedia on being a thorn in the side of the DI!  I hope one day I will have done something to annoy the DI enough that I may be a nominee for such an 'honor'!

Where Does It End?

In many ways I look forward to the future.  One of the things I most look forward too is watching one of these 'religious protection laws' eventually bite some theist right where it hurts the most.

For example, we are all familiar with the case of the Colorado baker who refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing his religion for legal protection.  We are also familiar with the Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex couples marriage licenses also citing her religion.  These are just a couple of examples to make my point.

As a result, a number of states have enacted, or are working on enacting laws that protect people who use their religion to discriminate.  They are referred to as 'shields laws".  While the lawmakers repeatedly claim the laws cannot be used for discrimination, the reality is they certainly can be, and are!  There is nothing written in the law when there is a conflict between a religious belief and a civil right -- the way those laws are worded, the religious belief taking precedence.

Here is what I think will eventually happen.  Sooner or later someone is going to use those religious belief to discriminate against other theists.  For example, if I were the owner of the building the Colorado bakery was in, I would cancel their lease.  Or if I were a clerk in the department of motor vehicles, I would refuse to grant a drivers license renewal for that Kentucky clerk.  In each case I would cite my deeply held beliefs that their religious beliefs were interfering with my belief set!

Imagine the hue and cry!  I would thoroughly enjoy watching it!  Imagine if a bank called a mortgage due immediately on one of these theists who use their belief set to discriminate?  Or a restaurant refused service for the Colorado baker and his family?  They would immediately start whining about the whole imaginary 'war on Christians', yet if there are laws protecting religious-based discrimination, the law would not be on the theists side.  Yes, I know you might claim not all belief sets are religious beliefs, but imagine trying to defend that in court.

Back in the mid-to-late 80's two young airmen assigned to Nellis AFB refused to salute the flag or to salute and obey the orders of female officers (The Spokesman-Review) claiming a religious objection.  They were held responsible for their actions and placed in confinement (military jail).

Imagine the difficulties in aligning military requirements and responsibilities with the religious beliefs of all of the members, the hundreds if not thousands of different belief sets.  The military reasoning is simple, your religious beliefs take a step back when it comes to military requirements.  Think about it, refusing to obey an officer due to their gender, or refusing to fulfill duty requirements on whichever holy day your religion mandates?  Military discipline cannot take a back seat.

Where does it end?  Where are the lines to be drawn protecting civil rights, including religious freedoms?  The current laws in work are designed to elevate discrimination through belief set and make it legal.  There is a problem with that.  I am pretty sure that if you line up all the religious belief sets and all the civil rights, you will find that more than likely all the civil rights we have can be negated by one of more of the list of religions.

I know where I believe it should end.  Religious-based discrimination should never be legal and those religious protection laws need to either be dropped -- or at least placed behind other statutes dealing with discrimination.  Civil rights should always come before religious rights, similar to how the military places their requirements ahead of those religious beliefs.

Here is one last example, religious child-care facilities that do not have to adhere to the laws preventing child abuse.  Check out: "Whipped, hit and locked in closets: Life inside some religious day cares".  See what the lack of protection can do to children in religious day care facilities?  Those places should be required to comply with ALL laws and regulations for non-religious day care before putting their religious spin on things.  But no, too many places place their religious beliefs ahead of protecting children!  And now they want to do the same thing for laws against discrimination.

A Disrespectful Christian Fundraiser!

A drum that various Christians refuse to put down happened in 2008. A young man committed suicide. That's a tragedy, without a doubt. What a grieving father did was blame his son's reading of Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" for his son's death. Christian speakers have brought this up immediately and it's been a recurring theme.

 Of course the father (a Fundamentalist Pastor) is looking for someone to blame. The more objective press reported a number of things, like the suicide rate for returning Iraqi veterans, of which the young man was one -- and also chidren who are on the receiving end of negative feedback from parents -- of which the young man may have been one (based on comments from some of his friends).  In other words, there were a number of factors that could have been a player in this tragedy, but groups like the Discovery Institute like to use this story to raise funds.

It was mentioned again this this past week: "Christian Speaker Claims The God Delusion Drove Former Believer to Suicide".  While the original tragedy was in 2008, in January of 2010 it was reported that The God Delusion had sold over 2 million copies.  In 2014 it 3 million.  If this book is so incredibly dangerous as to cause suicide, where are they?  Selling another million copies over 4 years should have seen an jump in suicides by true believers -- yet that didn't happen.

That's not a flippant statement, even though it may sound like one.  I'm serious.  The problem isn't this book, the problem is much closer to home!  According to many reports Jesse Kilgore was a conservative Christian raised by a retired military chaplain who was also a fundamentalist minister.  Jesse recently began to question his faith -- well before reading Dawkins' book.  Is it possible that Jesse, described as a sensitive young man, was struggling with his faith and that played a part in his decision?  Of course it's possible!  But in reality, we really have no idea of the cause for Jesse to commit suicide.  If his family and friends knew about his crisis of faith, how did they react and what did they do for him -- if anything?  Pointing at one specific book isn't helping the matter.

But that doesn't stop the DI and other Christian speakers from bring up his name over and over again and using it to raise funds.  What's needed here is not to give them more money, but find ways to help anyone suffering to the point of considering suicide!

I don't care if they are returning veteran, an LGBT person who is struggling with their identify, or a young Christian trying to reconcile his faith.  The problem isn't with a single book, the problem is these people need places to go for help!  When they feel they have no place to go, suicide is too often their last resort.

Now the question about Jesse isn't what impact a single book may have had on him, but why didn't he have someplace to go for help?  That's the key!  How did those who knew he may have been struggling with his faith react when they realized it?  Did they offer help or disdain?  Who did he rely on and did he go there for help?

A young lady I knew committed suicide in the mid-1980's.  I didn't know her well, she had been a student of mine for one class and I didn't even know her first name -- in the military it was rank and last name in those classes.  I happened to run into her just a few days before she took her own life.  Just brief "Hello!" sort of meeting that happens regularly with folks.  When I heard the circumstances I always wonder what I didn't see that could have done something, anything!  I'll never be able to answer those questions, but I also have to ask what about the people that were closer to her, the ones in her daily life?  What did they see, or miss seeing?  How did they feel?  We often look at the people around us as a sort of support group.  Where was her's and where was Jesse's?

That is a much more important question to ask!  It's not a question that gets asked by the DI or this particular Christian speaker because it's not a question that gets donations.  It's easier to use this tragedy to frighten people into adding to the coffers of some televangelist or ministry than use the money to create services that might have helped Jesse.

Pointing to one book isn't any help for Jesse or people like him.  But, apparently, it's a good fundraiser!  

Seven Tenets of One Religion v. the Ten Commandments

I found this incredibly interesting, and it will probably infuriate some.  There is a religious group that doesn't use a version of the 10 Commandments, but instead have these 7 things they call their Seven Fundamental Tenets.  Talk a look:

• One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
• The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
• One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
• The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
• Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
• People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
• Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word

I have had issues with the 10 Commandments.  For example the list is different is separate books of the Bible and the first couple usually deal with the deity and things like murder are much further down the list.  But these tenets look much more reasonable.

Obviously these would never pass muster in a Christian church.  I mean Respecting other people's freedoms, Conform beliefs to our best scientific understanding, acting with compassion . . . these things seem more an anathema to Christians than anything else.  I mean can you imagine an Evangelical Christian suggesting "One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone." while telling women at the same time their body isn't their own!

So whose tenets are they?  Take a look: 7 Fundamental Tenets.  See, I told you it would piss some people off.  Of course Christians would dismiss it out of hand if they knew the source before looking at the tenets themselves.  I like this list, regardless of source.  In some ways it reminds me of Asimov's Three laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I would reword them slightly, but I think they could easily be better guiding principles than the 10 Commandments.  Think about it:

1. Don't hurt other people or, through inaction, allow others to be hurt.
2. Obey the Law except where obeying the Law would cause others to be hurt.
3. Protect yourself, however not to the point where you have to disobey the law or hurt other people.

You know, even those few 10 Commandments I agree with could easily fit within these three Laws, or those 7 Tenets -- all without invoking the need to project a deity into the process.

Certainly bears thinking, doesn't it?

Is Ignorance Bliss?

Caught an interesting line from a post over on The Slowly Boiled Frog: "The conservative Christian freak-out over Barna's Gen-Z study".  While's its subject isn't my usual cup of tea, I was caught by one line in particular:

"Religious literalism causes people to be wrong most of the time yet never uncertain. In effect it is a celebration and affirmation of ignorance. "

'Wrong, but never uncertain!'   It certainly can explain a few things, maybe even more than a few things.  Theists are always so sure, whether or not they can articulate any sort of valid reasoning for what they are so sure about.  I think that's one of the things that annoys me the most.  They embrace ignorance, celebrate it, want to pass laws protecting it, and  . . . worst of all . . . demand the right to force their ignorance on all schoolchildren, not just their own.

I know any theists will claim not to be ignorant, but the word applies.  What does a theist usually do when faced with actual evidence?  Look at little kennie ham and his Kentucky ministries for example.  He ignores it.  If he cannot ignore it, he denies it.  If that doesn't work, he rationalizes it.  When pressed he comes up with the most outlandish stories to remain as ignorant as possible.  Plus, like all to many others, he makes his living pushing such ignorance.

OK, if you want to argue semantics, I guess it's acceptable to be ignorant when you are not exposed to something.  But once you have been exposed, remaining ignorant is a choice, and it's one all too many theists make.  What they 'know', particularly when it comes to science, is pretense.  Here is a Jesus and Mo strip that explains it well:

" . . . as long as there are questions, there are people who will pretend to know the answers!"  Great line, but it gets even worse when they convince other people to join them in their pretense, and then they get organized and the followers pay for the privilege of being ignorant.  The final step is they want everyone, not just their followers, to pay for their ignorance.  Think about how much money the taxpayers of Kentucky have paid and will continue to pay for little kennie's ministries!

Now, just to be clear, when I say 'ignorant', I am not talking about intelligence.  There is nothing to indicate theists are more or less intelligent than non-theists.  While there was a study that some sites tried to make such a claim, it really doesn't support that idea. (Did a Study Find That Atheists Are Smarter Than Religious People? Not Quite.)  What the study did find that when intuition comes into play, non-theists tend to do better.  I believe that's because a theists intuition will invariably follow their religious beliefs -- which often turn out wrong in the real world, as we stated above.

The old saying "Ignorance is Bliss" doesn't seem to apply either.  I mean are theists really more blissful than non-theists?  The more hardcore ones certainly are not.  They are at war with the rest of the world all the time.  One of the most common reasons for war are religious differences.  And we are not just taking war, but fighting and disagreements in general.

Case in point, remember Tammy Kitzmiller, she was a parent in the Dover PA school district and one of the 11 parents who were plaintiffs in the Dover suit. For whatever reason her name was listed first so the suit is commonly referred to as Kitzmiller v. The Dover Area School District. According to Lauri Lebo's excellent book "The Devil in Dover" and many articles about the trial, Ms Kitzmiller and her family suffered verbal abuse and attacks from self-identified Christians. In a York Dispatch article they mentioned some of it:

• One letter she received, scrawled in big letters across a sheet of yellow notebook paper, begins, "When you open your eyes in hell. ..."
• One boy at school told the girls to tell their mother to "go to hell," delivering the message through a third person.
• The atmosphere worsened as campaigning began for a hotly contested school board election and people prepared for the trial. There were nasty phone calls and confrontations in restaurants and on the streets.

These attacks were enough to have her stop her daughters from even answering the phone! This isn't the only example. The judge in the Dover, Judge John E. Jones also received death threats as a result of which he and his family were given around-the-clock federal protection. I believe the parents who sued John Freshwater after he burned a cross into their son's arm also received similar backlash once their identity was revealed. The members of the Iowa State University, after they refused to give Guillermo Gonzalez tenure -- tenure let me remind you that he failed to earn -- were vilified by some online blogs and posts, same with Ball State University's president, Jo Ann M. Gora and the whole Hedin/Gonzalez issue (yes, the same Gonzalez who screwed up so spectacularly at ISU).

So, what have we discovered?  While theists may be as intelligent as non-theists, often they are wrong when it comes to matters that impact their belief system - mainly because they rely on that system to answer questions it is unsuited to answer.  And while they may be certain, certainty is not a measure of being right.  By the same token, that certainty often bring them into conflict, conflict driven by those same beliefs.  That conflict manifests in everything from full-scale war to make attacks against people who refuse to share their belief system.

It's this close-mined certainty that makes dealing with many theists so challenging.  As soon as you challenge any part of their belief system, they avoid, deny, or outright lie to protect it -- regardless of any actual evidential support for their position.  Ignorance may breed certainty, but it sure doesn't bring out the bliss.

Ark Park Costing Kentucky Taxpayers Even More

"$3.5 Million Road Project Expected to Improve Access to Ark Encounter" paid for by whom?  The taxpayers of Kentucky!  Aren't you guys getting a little tired of funding a religious ministry?

Think about it, the only reason this project is going forward is to improve access to the ark park.  Not because it needs an upgrade, not because the people living there demand it, not for any reason but to support a non-existent flood of traffic to the ark park.  Doesn't that seem a bit off to you -- Kentucky Taxpayer?

Don't forget that early estimates by little kennie ham said the first year would being a minimum of 2.1 million people to see his ark -- of course he later changed that to give himself a little breathing room to 1.4 to 2.1 million visitors.  At its first anniversary, they hadn't hit a million yet, they said it would come later in that month -- but nothing authoritative on if they actually hit it, only little kennie's word.  The areas around the ark park have often reported that they have not been the beneficiary of all the economic windfalls kennie said they would receive. ('"It's Not My Fault" . . . The Gospel According to Little Kennie Ham').  Yes, there were a few sporadic reports of an upswing in tourism overall . . . but remember the area also hosted a Major League Baseball All-Star Game as well, which always shows a small tourism boost.  So the only way to know it the ark park really has had a positive economic benefit is to look at the numbers long term, but we have no long term numbers.  Not only haven't they been released for the first year -- but there doesn't seem to be requirement for kennie to admit them publically.  But, to date, the numbers we have heard from kennie have fallen well short of his projections, his most pessimistic projections.

So, we have a religious ministry passing itself off as a tourist attraction.  It has failed to live up to the hype kennie used to get it built -- and when you add up the money already given by the taxpayers, the money they will never see because of the rebates promised to kennie, the blatant religious discrimination in their hiring practices, and let us not forget kennie's attempt to sell the ark to himself to avoid a local tax for emergency services . . . hasn't Kentucky swallowed enough of its pride over this subject?  I guess not, because you are going to pay another $3.5 million dollars to fix up Interstate exit ramps for the express purpose of supporting the ark park.

You know, in the early-to-mid 1990s, several interchanges were constructed and/or upgraded to accommodate increasing traffic to and from Walt Disney World. However, that was 20 years after the park opened and the need for such interchange improvements were well validated by the actual traffic, not imaginary requirements.

Yes. yes, proper planning says those sort of changes should happen before a validated need exists, but does anyone really think the ark park is going to need $3.5 million in highway improvements?  Everywhere I have lived never saw highway improvements done ahead of time, it always came well after the need.  But the question does exist, will future traffic require the need for these improvements?  Many pictures of the ark park parking lots show mostly empty spots.  In fact, just for the fun of it, here is a picture little kennie himself tweeted in 19 July 2017 (more than a year after the ark park opened):

Look at the crowd!  Yes, sarcasm was intended.  I know little kennie was just trying to show off his latest ministry, but seriously, look at how empty it is!  I wonder why he didn't post any pictures of the parking lot?  To be honest, I don't know what day of the week this picture was taken, but . . . little kennie is the one who posted it!  I am sure weekends would show more folks . . . but enough to justify this taxpayer expense?  Does this look like a place that needs an upgraded Interstate access?

Here is the most current (as of 26 Jan 2018) of the Google Maps view of the ark park parking lot:

Doesn't look too busy to me.  Over a dozen of kennie's buses doing nothing in the bus lot, the lot itself looks about 1/4 full -- maybe 1/3 if we are feeling generous, and nothing in the adjacent lot or overflow parking.  The small parking lot in the center of the image, I wonder if that is employee parking?  Well in any event, I will ask my question again, does this look like a place that needs an upgraded Interstate access?  You can probably guess my answer, but the only answer that counts now are the taxpayers of Kentucky.

Is Any Scientist Really Inviolate? Not In The Least! Look At History!

Funny post from something called 'The Institute on Religion and Public Life': "St. Charles Darwin".  The basis is that no one is allowed to criticize Charles Darwin because . . . he's Charles Darwin.  The author is reacting to the many critical reviews of A. N. Wilson, Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker.  Actually critical is an understatement.  In response to those reviews, the author of this piece believes that 'committed evolutionists' are outraged about the biography simple because Wilson attacked Darwin.

Well, to a point; she's half right.  People are outraged at the 'biography', but not because Darwin is raised on some inviolate pedestal, but because it is completely contradicted by every other biography, Darwin's own letters, and the writings of people who actual knew Darwin.  Why wouldn't we be outraged at an obvious hatchet job!  Like many things written about Darwin by Creationists, it's basically a hit piece, and many of the reviewers called it such.

One, of the many things the author of this piece fails to acknowledge is how science actually works.  If something was discovered that offered a better scientific explanation of how life evolved on this planet, Darwin would go the way of Lamarck.  That's how science works, and you can dig for a few minutes and find long lists of scientists who were tops in their field at one point and now, no one knows their name.  But the workings of actual science is something rarely recognized by creationists, like this author and Wilson himself.

I've written a little about this pseudo-biography before: "Whats Wrong with This Picture -- A Review of a Review of a Book We Haven't Read Yet?" in which we discussed how the DI reviewed a review of a book they haven't even read yet.  I haven't read the book either, and probably won't.  But something about this particular post simply tickled me.

Let me see if I can lay it out for you.  The author, Charlotte Allen, tries to make the case that the only reason some people are more than a little outraged about Wilson's 'biography' is because he attacked Darwin.   She completed missed the point that the many of the reviews detail the  areas where Wilson got things wrong, creating things that never happened, and offered his negative opinion as if it was fact.

"Wilson appears to have hit upon a rich seam of cliches in his five years of research for his book,"("Some still attack Darwin and evolution. How can science fight back?")

If you look at the Amazon listing you will see 24 reviews.  Only 6 of them are 5-Star and if you look at the links for these 5-star reviewers, you see the the religious and/or political leanings that explain the ratings. None of them identified the things that made it a top review, they are simply happy that Wilson is bashing Darwin -- regardless of the truthfulness of what he is saying.  There was one 3-star review and the rest were 1-star that make up 75% of the reviews.  If you look at those 1-star reviews you will see a litany of things Wilson got wrong, disregarded, or just plain invented.

Those are the reasons for the outrage, but that doesn't even get lip service from Allen.  Looking at Wilson's own prejudices and his history of such less-than-factual biographies, you will see even more how and why this book was written.  But does Allen do any of that?  No, her only point was claiming that Darwin is:
"a holy saint who must not be criticized".  Here is her closing:

"A. N. Wilson may have written a bad, unfair, inaccurate, and error-ridden biography of Charles Darwin. But he has homed in on something real and obviously troubling to Darwin’s disciples: the vulnerability of Darwin’s personality and his theories."

This would be true if the biography wasn't a flawed piece of poor scholarship and obviously done for the express purpose of denigrating Darwin and his science for religious reasons.  Don't believe me, do a little research on AN Wilson, in fact here is the critique from Wikipedia on Wilson's page (the underlines are mine):

"Wilson's biography Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker, (2017), has been criticised by John van Wyhe in the New Scientist for confusing Darwin's theory of natural selection with Lamarckism at one point, as well as other scientific, historical and editorial errors.  Kathryn Hughes in The Guardian wrote it is "cheap attempt to ruffle feathers", with a dubious grasp of science and attempted character assassination. In The Evening Standard, Adrian Woolfson says that "..while for the greater part a lucid, elegantly written and thought-provoking social and intellectual history" Wilson's "speculations on evolutionary theory," produce a book that is "fatally flawed, mischievous, and ultimately misleading".  Steve Jones, an emeritus of University College London, commented in The Sunday Times: "In the classic mould of the contrarian, he despises anything said by mainstream biology in favour of marginal and sometimes preposterous theories." The geneticist and former editor of Nature, Adam Rutherford, called the book "deranged" and said Wilson "would fail GCSE biology catastrophically."" (Wikipedia:  AN Wilson)

Here is the funniest part.  Allen claims that the whole reason people are outraged at the biography is because of Darwin's status, while ignoring the obvious flaws. Rather than do a little homework and realize how 'bad, unfair, inaccurate, and error-ridden' it is, she dismisses all that to rationalize her own prejudice.

Bait and Switch, Discovery Institute Style

A new post over at the Discovery Institute site is pretty typical of their tactics, what I like to call their 'Tactics of Mistake'.  Here it is: "Helpful Atheist Makes a Case for God".  In it they summarize something PZ Myers said and then do the something typical -- moving the goal posts:

"But we can ask an interesting question . . . How far back can contingency go? . . .
Myers would likely reply that “the primordial universe is the start. The universe is the fundamental existing thing.” That’s the stock atheist answer. But it’s wrong — the universe can’t explain contingency completely. Here’s why."

Look at what they did, they ask a question -- which is fine, but then they form an answer as they claim Myers would answer it.  I don't know how Myers would answer it, but even if he gave the answer they claim, within the context of what Myers said, it would still be a perfectly acceptable answer.  The context wasn't 'essential cause chains', what they did was change the context and then spend the rest of the post explaining why Myers, and Evolution, is wrong.

What's funny is the artificial distinction they use to explain 'accident contingency' and 'essential contingency'.  There is nothing in the definition of an contingency that requires the continued existence of the parent contingency.  Here is how they define it:

"Essential causal chains are causes and effects that depend on the continued existence of the entire causal chain to produce an effect."

Does this make any sense to you?  They are trying to create this new concept called 'essential causal chains' and claiming that everything in the chain must continue to exist or the end result cannot exist.  Then they end with:

"So evolution, as a contingent process in nature that contains some essentially ordered series of causes, requires a First Cause that is outside of nature. Of course, that First Cause is what men have called God.

Really?  Other than twisting around words, what have they provided that supports their contention that Evolution requires a first cause?  And even if one is required, why does it have to be outside of nature?  That's the part of their explanation they never seem to support.  The only reason seems to be that they have to have something outside of nature or they will never accept it.

There is no evidence that however life started, it required a first cause to be outside of nature.  Remember it's not a requirement for the Theory of Evolution to explain exactly how life began, only that once it did, it evolved and been evolving ever since.  Yes, word games can make all this sound important, but the reality, all the DI's efforts to insert God into the equation have amounted to nothing.  Now they go a further step and try an tie in the concept of Atheism:

If P.Z. Myers follows his own argument about contingency a bit further, he would see that atheism is inconsistent with the contingency on which evolution necessarily depends."

Is the Theory of Evolution and Atheist theory?  Seriously, what in science addresses the concept of God?  God has always been within the realm of philosophy and metaphysics -- not science.  So, in fact, all of science can be considered atheistic.  Just like all of mathematics, cooking, finance, language . . . it's a pretty long list of all the things that fails to pay homage to a deity.  But does that make them inherently atheistic?

Of course not, but that doesn't stop folks like the DI from making the claim.  It's their belief set that requires it, and that's why they play these sort of 'bait and switch' games.

First, customers are "baited" by merchants advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods either are not available or are not as good as expected, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher-priced, items ("switching")." (Wikipedia: Bait and Switch)

The DI baited their argument with PZ Myers words, changed the definition and then went on to make their point about evolution and then somehow turned it into a atheism hit piece.  Creative, maybe, but not very well done at all.  Pronouncements like these require more evidence than 'Because I said so!"

What Do You Get When a True Believer Visits the Ark Park? Can You Say 'Fluff Piece'

Just like this one: "The ark — something to think about".  If you haven't heard of a 'fluff piece' before, it's jargon for an report that doesn't examine something with a critical eye.  This is a good example.  There have been many reports about the Creation pseudo-museum and the Ark Park that call them not just bad science, but bad religion.

"The problem, according to Harvard biblical professor Michael D. Coogan, is that the museum “rests on an assumption that the bible is literally true in everything that it says.” Coogan emphasized that in the case of Noah’s Ark “that is simply not the case,” adding that the early chapters of Genesis are known to contain mythological references, and that its writers “drew on previous sources directly in constructing their own account.”" (The Jewish Times: Noah’s Ark 2 – The Kentucky Years)

“I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind,” [Bill] Nye wrote about the experience.

The closing line from her opening paragraph certainly set the stage:

"The project stands as a powerful visual reminder of God’s twin attributes, justice and mercy."

So, supposedly killing millions of people in a world-wide flood . . . is an example of justice and which part is mercy?  I imagine the majority of the people supposedly killed shared one common crime -- a belief in one specific deity other than the Abrahambric God.  Funny how other civilizations at the time didn't mention this world-wide flood event, did they?

I love this line:

"But as Noah’s wife says in one fictional video, “Scoffers will scoff.”"

Yes, dismiss any critics by quoting Noah's wife and never address the meat of any criticisms like the lack of any evidence for the ark or a single world-wide flood, or the ability for one family to repopulate the Earth, let alone the time that would have taken --  just to name a few.  Forget the criticisms of how the ark park was financed or the discriminatory hiring practices little kennie put in place in violation of the law.  No, why get caught up on details when with the wave of one hand you can dismiss any critic as a 'scoffer'.

Her closing line:

"One thing is for sure: Anyone who enters the ark will leave with something significant to think about."

Well I have to disagree with the word 'significant'.  The author of this particular fluff piece already swallowed the kool-aid.  I doubt any of her thoughts following her visit were 'significant'.  Visiting little kennie ham's other monument to his own ego, the Creation pseudo-museum, didn't leave me with any significant thoughts.  I left more feeling a little sick to my stomach at realizing what a mockery of both religion and science it is.  I seriously doubt the ark park would do anything more significant than that.  Narrow-minded Evangelical believers will use it to reinforce their beliefs, the rest of the world will fall between finding it slight humorous or slightly nauseating.

No, I have no plans to visit the ark park.  Little kennie got enough of my money visiting his pseudo-museum.  However, if the Secular Students of America (SSA) decide to visit, i might change my mind.  They were an interesting group during my one and only visit to little kennie-land.

Descate's Blunder or the Discovery Institute's?

The Discovery Institute (DI) is getting all pseudo-philosophical again, this time the target is René Descartes and they take it upon themselves to decide Descartes is wrong.  Here is their post: "Descartes’s Blunder".  Now before diving into the DI's opinions, which I am sure will find a way to support Intelligent Design, let's look at their latest target for a minute.

René Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Dubbed the father of modern western philosophy, much of subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings.  For those of you who aren't familiar with his philosophy, maybe you are more familiar with his mathematics.  The Cartesian coordinate system was named after him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry, the bridge between algebra and geometry, used in the discovery of infinitesimal calculus and analysis. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the scientific revolution. (Wikipedia: René Descartes)

Just by that description, you can see why he is not one of the DI's favorite people.  I mean a key figure in the scientific revolution, you know the changes that replaced religion as the source of scientific knowledge and heralded modern science and the scientific methodology.  No wonder they don't like him.

OK, back to their post. The DI, though their talking head Michael Egnor, claim that self-awareness isn't the foundation for Epistemology, but that 'non-contradiction' comes first.  OK, some brief explanations, which I had to refresh myself because it's been a while since any philosophy courses. 

• Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.  
• Self-awareness somewhat based on Descartes' "I think, Therefore I am. (Cogito ergo sum)".  It actually goes quite a bit further, but the DI limits it to make their point.  Follow the link and you will see what I mean.  
• Non-contradiction originates from the writings of Aristotle, although the DI prefers to give credit to religious figure Thomas Aquinas who sorta simplified it.  The idea being that something cannot be both one thing and the opposite at the same time.

So, how does the DI tie all this together, and let's not forget my prediction of somehow tying to into support for their religious proposition of Intelligent Design (ID).  First off they want us to claim you cannot be self-aware if you aren't non-contradictory first.  

"Aquinas derives his principle from Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction: a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. It is the most fundamental thing we know, because if we do not know it, even Descartes’s first principle — cogito ergo sum — is not true. If being and not being could coexist, if contradiction were metaphysically possible, then it would be possible for me to think and at the same time not to exist.
The law of non-contradiction, not cogito ergo sum, is the foundation of knowledge."

OK, so is non-contradictory really the first thing we know -- remember we are talking epistemology here -- knowledge and how we know something.  I disagree with the DI, which probably comes as no surprise.  Look at it simply.  "I think, therefore I am" recognizes that you exist, that you accept your existence.  Until you accept your existence as reality, does the very idea of two contrary states even really occur to you?  I believe that it's only until after you accept your existence can the very idea that you cannot both exist and not exist at the same time even occur to you.

I know, I know, we could spend days on such chicken-egg arguments, but that's not the point.  What I am most curious about is how the DI spins this effort to unthrone Descartes as the 'father of Western Philosophy' into support for ID.  And, predictably, they do:

"Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable."

No!  When we refer to ID as to not being scientifically wrong, not being scientifically testable is only part of the reasoning.  Think about all the arguments against ID:  the lack of evidence, mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory, the lack of explanatory power of irreducible complexity and specified complexity (two pillars of ID), the lack of any falsifiability, and the religious connotations however they try to hide it.  It's not just a testability issue:

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components:

1. The logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible.
2. The practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist.

In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive. (Wikipedia: Testability)

Look at this part again: "In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience." and tell me how Intelligent Design has any real hope of being testable?  How does one construct a test for the actions of a deity?

But let's look further, where is the evidence for ID?  No one has managed to offer more than the appearance of design.  This lack of supporting evidence also explains why ID is scientifically wrong, you have nothing to test, no evidence to examine.  It's like trying to use a piece of vaporware.

So all this twisting and spinning to try and claim Descartes messed up is just another smokescreen to try and make some sort of claim as to the scientific viability of ID.  I would think that offering actual supporting evidence would be much more conclusive.

So let's summarize, rather than offer any evidence showing how scientifically testable ID is, the DI plays pseudo-philosophical word games trying to convince us that the only way anyone can claim it's not testable is by believing it must be testable.  Actually the DI should really pay more attention to the concept of non-contradiction.  After all, you cannot be pro-science and anti-science at the same time, can you?  No matter how many ill-fitting lab coats you wear, the anti-science shows through!