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!

So You Want To Know What's Wrong with Religion? (10)

Apparently Vista Print is being sued by a Gay couple who ordered wedding programs and were slightly (heavy sarcasm) perturbed when they opened the box the evening before the event and found anti-gay propaganda pamphlets instead. They are suing! Read a little about it yourself: "A Gay Couple Ordered Wedding Programs; They Got Anti-Gay Pamphlets Instead".  If had been just a messed up order, they would be upset, but not to the point of suing.  The fact it was some pretty vile anti-gay pamphlets makes more than likely a deliberate act.

Now, unlike some organizations, Vista Print does not have a history of being anti-LGBT.  So what probably happened is an employee took it upon themselves to make the change.  What I figure will probably happen is the Vista Print investigation will find the employee who decided printing programs for a Gay wedding violated their sincerely-held religious beliefs.  I hope Vista Print has the testicular fortitude to fire them!

You know, now that I think about it, Vista Print also should sue them for any damages they [VP] ends up paying because of the screw-up.  I mean they are being sued by the Gay couple, and at first glance, the responsibility certainly is their responsibility.  It also might be more than one person because I would assume some quality control.  

The more I think about it, I am willing to bet the person, or persons, get fired also sues Vista Print for a perceived violation of their religious rights.  I mean theists are known for not accepting responsibility for their actions, they try and pass it all onto their deity, don't they?

In any event I hope Stephen and Andrew have a long and happy life together and this incident didn't wreck what should have been a joyous occasion.

So You Want To Know What's Wrong With Religion? (9)

Caught this post from The Friendly Atheist:  "Should an Iowa College Grant Official Recognition to an Anti-Gay Christian Club?"  Apparently a Christian Business Group at a college wants to be able to discriminate against other students and still gain all the benefits of being a recognized student organization.  Yes, the usual "My religious rights are sacrosanct, your civil rights don't mean crap!" argument.

The group, Business Leaders in Christ, lost their affiliation and is suing to get it back. The school dropped them because of their refusing to adhere to the school non-discrimination policies.  They claim they weren't discriminating against another student because he was gay, but because he refused to sign their Statement of Faith, which includes sexual immorality clause. 

"The group disagrees and says Miller was rejected from leadership, not because he was gay, but because he didn’t agree that same-sex relationships were sinful."

So being Gay is OK, as long as you recognize that it's a sin?  How utterly ridiculous!  It's just like little kennie ham's arguments that being gay isn't an issue as long as you don't act on those 'sinful' impulses. It's pretty simple., the group discriminates, the school said that's against policy and dropped their affiliation.  Like so many theists seem to think that if it's done in the name of religion, it's not really discrimination -- which is crap!

This is simply another example of someone trying to use their religious beliefs to deny rights to other people.  I hope the ruling goes against this group, but in today's courts you never know.   This Christian group is asking for special rights, over and above everyone else.  Unlike Kentucky, maybe Iowa will remember a little thing called the US Constitution.

So You Want To Know What's Wrong With Religion? (8)

In recent months, Hollywood has exploded over the issue of sexual misconduct.  No, that's to simple a phrase.  It's exploded over allegations of rape, sexual extortion, and harassment.  Calling it sexual misconduct makes it sound like a little boy trying to peek under a skirt!  This is nothing more than criminal behavior.  But, you might ask how does this tie into religion?

Back a few years ago, the Catholic Church imploded with a scandal over pedophile priests.  I am sure you heard about it.  It was not only pedophiles, but the cover-up instituted by the Church hierarchy.  You might take a look at the movie "Spotlight", which is described as "The true story of how the Boston Globe uncovered the massive scandal of child molestation and cover-up within the local Catholic Archdiocese, shaking the entire Catholic Church to its core." I highly recommend it.

Three recent articles made me think more on this topic.  The first one is almost humorous:  "Bill Donohue: The Catholic Church is a “Model” for Handling Sexual Misconduct"  I say 'almost' because I hope no organization handles it the way the Catholic Church did.  There are lessons that Hollywood can learn from what the Catholic Church did and did not do, but calling them a 'model' is stretching things way out of line.  Bill said:

"If they want to navigate the issue properly, they should really look to an organization that has done everything right regarding abuse: The Catholic Church."

No, the Church has not done everything right, and Bill claiming this was a problem is pretty much history is ridiculous.  Take a look at "Timeline: A look at the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandals".  Australia, 2017, The Dominican Republic 2014, The Netherlands 2011 . . . the list goes on.  It is doing things better -- maybe, but right -- that remains to be seen.  But the Catholic Church isn't the only religious organization with self-induced problems.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have apparently done similarly stupid things, not just abuse, but protecting the abusers!  "FaithLeaks Releases Documents Surrounding Sexual Abuse Investigation in Jehovah’s Witness Congregation".  While they, the Jehovah's Witnesses, have refused to hand over documents, costing them $4000 a day to keep them away from public view.  Court records do show

" . . .the Jehovah’s Witnesses actually knew that Campos abused numerous children, yet they continued to promote him and didn’t take any steps to keep him from doing it again. The church actually gave him more responsibility and more access to children, despite their knowledge of his admitted wrongdoings."

Even modern megachurches aren't immune.  Just recently allegations of a sexual relationship between a pastor and a 17 year old girl have become public.  The pastor has admitted to it and, more importantly the victim is pressing charges.  However two points bother the hell out of me, one is that this -- after the allegations went public Memphis Megachurch Pastor Andy Savage, got up in front of his Megachurch and sort-of confessed.  He told his congregation that he had sinned and that it was never a secret from church leaders.  ("Memphis Pastor Admits ‘Sexual Incident’ With High School Student 20 Years Ago")

Huh?  Church Leaders knew about this and didn't do anything but let him continue his career?  I hope charges also get pressed on those who knew!  The other thing that is disturbing is his congregation gave him a standing ovation after his sort-of confession.  Let me repeat that -- They applauded!  This group of people STOOD UP AND APPLAUDED sexual assault!

Church leaders transferring known criminals, covering-up their crimes, refusing to cooperate with investigations, and at least one congregation applauding the crimes of their pastor!  And you wonder why I have problems with religion?

And the Award Goes to Ourselves!

The Di is asking for nominations for Censor of the Year, something don't recall them doing before.  I was just used to them talking through some possibilities and then making the award.  But if you are interested, you can certainly "Submit Nominations for 2018 Censor of the Year Now!"

I am sure you can guess my issues with this whole deal, but for fun I will lay them out. First off, this award is only people or groups who annoy the Discovery Institute (DI). It really has nothing to do with censorship at all. If you look up the definition of censor:

"a : an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter
Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful"
(Merriam-Webster: Censor) 

You will find that the previous three winners (Jerry Coyne, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and the United Methodist Church (UMC) did nothing to the DI that meets that definition of a censor.  Nothing the DI has accused them of comes anywhere near censorship.  The DI is still free to publish, prevaricate, and market with the best of them.  The only thing they cannot do is pass of Intelligent Design as if it was science in the public school classroom.  They sure haven't stopped trying to pass it off as science anywhere else!

If you look for all of 30 seconds, you will find that no one is censoring the DI.  What groups like the are doing is applying standards of scholarship that the DI refuses to meet.  Where is the research, where is the evidence, and where is the support?  There are many things that would make ID acceptable as science and in the science classroom, and the DI hasn't offered up a single one.  

OK, back to the topic at hand.  If we expand the scope from just pissing off the DI to actual Censorship, who would be your choice for Censor of the Year?  Looking back over 2017, I would have to say "The Trump 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 liar and misogynist, 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, not the watered down "Pissing on the DI's cornflakes" version.

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.

Another real possibility is the self-censorship the DI does to themselves.  They claim they are doing it to protect career possibilities of ID proponents, but that seems fishy to me because for all their claims of censorship, they are the only ones doing any censoring -- and they are doing it to themselves.  So self-awarding themselves as Censor of the Year would be totally within character, don't you agree?

Mommy Spanking Daddy as a Lesson for Three-Year Old?

One of little kennie ham's Answers in Genesis (AiG) talking heads discussed in a video how he explain Jesus dying for our sins to his young son.  According to his story, his son did something wrong, so instead of being spanked, Daddy [Terry Mortenson of AiG] took the spanking in his place.  Apparently he let his wife spank him with a wooden spoon.  Don't believe me, you can watch the video of Terry talking about here, and no the video isn't one of him being spanked!

Huh?

What lesson did the child really learn?  "Oh look, I can get away with something and watch Mammy spank Daddy!"  Is a child really capable of understanding this very abstract concept, especially a three-year old?  In any event, Terry might get to look forward to many more beatings . . . how kinky!  Terry might be glad his son was three, because an older child would have whipped out his cell phone and captured the video for all the world to see!

Here is my main issue with this scenario -- There are so many transgressions a child can commit that are not sins!  Plus many of the 'sins' are only sins in one particular religion and not sins in many others.  Of course, since Terry is part of the very narrow version of Evangelical Christianity -- Ham's AiG -- whatever the child did, it certainly may not be a sin in other belief sets!  How confusing that might be as that child grows up.

Actually if I were Terry's little boy I would be very, very careful.  After all Terry's God killed his only son to protect followers from his own wrath.  A note to Terry's son, watch it when Daddy gets mad at other people!  You might want to duck and cover.

Don't 'Give Till It Hurts' . . . the new message is 'Give Or Else It Will Hurt'

Check out this little gem, courtesy of the Friendly Atheist: "Trump’s Spiritual Advisor: Give My Church One Month’s Pay or Face “Consequences”".  It's also being reported in The Christian Post: "Paula White Urges Followers to Sow 'First Fruits' Offering of Up to 1 Month's Pay"

Yes, A certain hamster haired serial liar and misogynist's spiritual advisor is telling people to give their entire January paychecks to her, or else.  Here it is in her own words:

"All Firsts belong to God. When you honor this principle it provides the foundation and structure for God’s blessings and promises in your life, it unlocks deep dimensions of spiritual truths that literally transform your life! When you apply this everything comes in divine alignment for His plan and promises for you. When you don’t honor it, whether through ignorance or direct disobedience there are consequences."

Yes, Paula White says a pretty typically vague promise of rewards if you donate, and promises consequences if you don't.  The downside is there are people who will fall for this.  She's preaching the Prosperity Gospel, which had such a perfect take down on Last Week Tonight starring John Oliver:

We should also note that twice-divorced Paula is worth about $5 million dollars and many in the religious circles don't even consider her a preacher because of her lifestyle.  I know that shouldn't make a difference, but don't ya just love Christians and their ability to rationalize things.

Here's how I see things.  Goods things happen, and so do bad things.  Some of the people who donate will have something good happen and Paula will be happy to use them in her marketing for further donations.  The contributors who have bad things happen to them will be told their belief wasn't strong enough -- in other words they need to donate more.  Sound familiar?

Self-Censorship and the DI

A while back I wrote about censorship and how there doesn't seem to be much support for the Discovery Institute (DI) claims of censorship.  In "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?" there doesn't seem to be any actual censorship . . . so of course, the DI annually award a 'Censor of the Year', and so far there awardees have done little in the way of actual censorship.

Previous 'winners' for 'Censor of the Year' are Jerry Coyne, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the United Methodist Church (UMC). The DI says Coyne's 'crime' was encouraging Ball State University to stop teaching Intelligent Design. That's not exactly true. What Ball State University did was stop teaching Intelligent Design as if it was science.  Now, what did Neil deGrasse Tyson did to offend the DI? He hosted the updated Carl Sagan series Cosmos, which presented a few segments on religion's negative impact on scientific inquiry over the centuries. The DI really took exception to that.  The UMC had the audacity to decide that their annual convention was for their members and not to let the DI present their belief set at their own convention -- a belief set not shared by the UMC.

One of this years contenders seems to be something called 'self-censorship'. In this post from their blog "Quiet Self-Censorship and the Academic “Consensus”" they describe a phenomena in which Intelligent Design supporters never admit to being supporters because it might have an adverse impact on their academic and professional life.

I certainly hope being an ID supporter would have an impact!  After all, if you are in, or are entering in, a scientific field, shouldn't you be focused on actual science and not pseudo-science?  That's the point folks like Sarah Chaffee, the author of this particular piece and a regular DI mouthpiece, seem to miss.  She mentions this:

"We know a tenured science professor who in giving presentations in a private setting needs to begin his talks with a peculiar slide — a disclaimer that he does not speak on behalf of his university. He must include it, even though, again, he is speaking at a private event."

I would be surprised if she wasn't talking about Michael Behe, one of the few tenured professors who support ID and is a senior fellow at the DI.  He is tenured at Lehigh University, which has this disclaimer:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Without such a disclaimer, it would be easy to assume any presentations by Behe would have the support and approval of Lehigh University.  By requiring such a disclaimer, the University recognizes both Behe's right of freedom of expression, but their own right to not be construed as supporting pseudo-science.  It might sound funny, but I respect both Lehigh and Behe for dealing opening and honesty about his support for ID.  One thing Behe doesn't seem to do is let his support for ID affect his teaching and research at Lehigh.

You will note that Behe isn't being censored, but he isn't allowed to present in such a fashion that his presentations imply that ID actual science. When it comes to his work for the university, he leaves ID at the door instead of demanding it be allowed at the science lectern. After all, Lehigh is pretty unequivocal when it said "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Sarah goes on to say that during their Summer Seminars on ID, they didn't take any pictures of people's faces, and asked that they not posting on social media about it, all so: 

"their career prospects will not be harmed by an association with intelligent design."

So the DI is censoring themselves!  Maybe they do deserve to award themselves as 'Censor of the Year'.  But they are missing the reason.  Think it through!  Would their career prospects be hurt if they profess their support for ID?  Most likely!  But why?  Don't just stop there, take it to the next logical step, why might their career prospects be in jeopardy?

That's the part Sarah and her friends never want to really examine.  Say you are a Physicist about to graduate and you publicly support Dark Matter Research?  Would that cause you difficulties in getting a job?  How about a Rocket Scientist who expresses an interest in Ionic Propulsion?  No, why?  Because those fields are part of the overall concept of Physics and Rocket Science.  So why does such career impacts happen with ID?  Simple, ID isn't part of Biology and until ID proponents stop whining and produce actual, viable, repeatable and falsifiable science, it never will be.

Suppose a mathematician posts all over Facebook stuff on Numerology and teaches it as Math, wouldn't that affect his career prospects?  That's the part Sarah doesn't get.  ID is not science, it is a religious proposition and supporting such may have negative impacts on your career -- unless you do what Behe does and separate them.

I know Sarah will trot out people like Gonzalez and Croker who claim to have had negative career consequences because of their support for ID.  But that's not the whole story, Gonazlez and Croker, along with Sternberg, Abahams, and a few others all have something else in common -- they let their support for ID interfere with doing the job they were hired to do.  Gonzalez failed as a tenure applicant, Croker failed to teach her subject, Sternberg violated publishing rules for the journal he was the outgoing editor for, and Abrahams refused to do his job as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'.  It's not their support for ID that had career impacts, but their refusal to do their jobs!  They put their religious beliefs ahead of the professional responsibilities and the expectations of their employers!  In other words, they were held accountable and they can't stand it!

So maybe the DI is a self-censor, but they aren't doing it to protect people, they are using this concept of self-censoring as another tactic to try and discredit real science.  Look at this post, do you really think they are trying to hide their supporters?  No, they are selling the idea of censorship.  But when you look at it, what is being censored?  Are they still able to publish and post?  Oh, sure they cannot do it as if they really are science, but that's not because of censorship, but because they haven't provided anything other than marketing material.  No science, no discoveries, no advances, just religious preaching.

In reality, the censor of the year award doesn't seem to be awarded for actual censorship.  It seems to be an award for not agreeing with the DI.  Hey, maybe I could be a nominee one day?  Oh we can only hope!  My family would be so proud!

Another example of Cherry-Picking

It has been long been theorized that North America was originally populated by people coming over a land-bridge across what is now the Bering Sea.  Evidence of such migration has been presented often and little disputes it.  There are disputes over the exact dates, number, and duration of such migrations, in other words some of the details, but the basic theory is well supported.

Well, I caught a new headline from The Christian Times from my Google Alerts.  I know, I know, it's not exactly an authoritative source for much of anything, but it does support something I have said often -- creation pseudo-scientists are perfectly willing to accept some science, providing they can cherry-pick only certain parts of it and discard anything that disagrees with their religious beliefs.  Here's the story: "Discovery of ancient DNA in Alaska supports Tower of Babel account, creationists say".

"A team of researchers . . . sequenced the infant's DNA and compared it to that of modern Native Americans as well as to other ancient and living people across Eurasia and the Americas . . . The team believes that the infant's group and modern Native Americans shared common ancestry with people who crossed from Asia to North America through a land bridge called Beringia some 25,000 years ago."

OK, a study in Nature provides more evidence supporting the Bering Land Bridge.  That's fine in and of itself.  But then a creation pseudo-scientist who works for little kennie ham at Answers in Genesis (AiG) claims that this does support the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel's migration -- however the dating is flawed because it couldn't possible have happened some 25,000 years ago, kennie and his Hamians at AiG doesn't believe the Earth is that old.

So . . . according to kennie and co. when God messed with the people building the Tower and changed all their languages so they could not communicate and continue building a tower that would reach God's front door, they traveled from the Middle East, through all of Asia, crossed the Bering Land Bridge and settled North America all at once.  At the same time they migrated across Europe, Africa, Australia, and all the other islands of the world.  Hmmm, no stretching credibility there.

Of course, there isn't any real support for the Tower of Babel story, it's an origin myth to explain why there are so many human cultures and languages.  But notice how the AiG guy takes part of an actual scientific discovery and spins it to support his religious beliefs -- and yet dismisses other parts of the discovery because of those same religious beliefs:

"Nathaniel Jeanson, a Harvard-trained research biologist with Answers in Genesis (AiG), believes that the dating of the infant girl's DNA was not accurate. However, he said that the other details of the discovery support the Genesis 11 account of mass human migration after the attempt to build the Tower of Babel."

Does anyone really wonder why no one takes creation pseudo-scientists seriously?  AiG's Jeanson is joined by another pseudo-scientist:

"Kurt Wise, a Southern Baptist and Harvard-trained paleontologist, suggested that the 11,500 "radiocarbon years" cited in the study "amount to many fewer true (chronological) years (probably closer to 4,000-4,100 years).""

Were either of these two researchers on the team that made this discovery?  No!  They are simply taking other peoples work, cherry picking some of it, tossing aside the rest and declaring some sort of religious victory.  Have either of them provided evidence that the dating techniques are wrong?  No, they simply wave the Bible and use something called 'biblical chronology', which is somewhat interesting because there is no clear understanding of such a chronology, since it seems to change from sect to sect.  But details like that matter little to the dedicated pseudo-scientist!

Just to be clear, I am not using The Christian Times as an authoritative source, just as an example of how real science is cherry-picked by armchair pseudo-scientists.  I love how they work in that these two are Harvard-trained, like the education they may have been exposed to at Harvard means anything at all to them.  I would be very surprised if they were honest with their beliefs system or their planned use of their education while they were at Harvard.  In my opinion, these are two more examples in the 'Liars for Jesus' club.  Like so many others who misrepresented themselves for the purpose of having an assumed credibility based on their education.  

  I've written about Jeanson before "It's Late, but Answers in Genesis might be joining the 20th century . . . finally!"  I don't recall Wise, but I am sure his name will come up again.  He's a consultant at AiG as well as working at a private Christian college.  Well if that doesn't work out for them in their current positions, maybe the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Access Research Network (ARN), or Liberty University is looking for help.

Jesus and Mo Strike Another Chord!

I just love Jesus and Mo!  You can easily see why:

Self-awareness is not exactly a trait I have found to exist in most theists.  Now, self-righteousness certainly, but not self-awareness.  Often I like to point out the hypocrisy to a theist for fun.  They never get it!

Look at those theists who support a certain hamster-haired serial liar and misogynist for example.  Or how about those who supported that silly clerk in Kentucky or Roy Moore in Alabama.  The mental gyrations theists have to go through to self-justify their support for such people just cracks me up!  No, self-awareness is not a common trait in theists.

Even now after hamster-hair has broken most of his campaign promises, they still support him!  Many of his supporters are on the verge of losing medical coverage, and they still support him.  Many are not going to see any advantages in his tax bill, and might even end up paying more in taxes, they still support him.  It boggles the mind!  It would be even more entertaining, if it wasn't so tragic.

Here is how I see it.  To all too many theists, it doesn't matter what someone actually stands for, as long as they appear to stand for some of what the theists believe that counts.  Hold up a Bible and you will have lots of support.  It doesn't matter if it's never even been opened, it doesn't matter if you are a liar, a misogynist, or a pedophile -- it's the appearance that matters, not the content of your character! 

Pandering politicians are another popular example.  Regardless of what they actually believe, saying the right things and supporting ridiculous bills, such as trying to have the Bible as the official State Book, gains them lots of support -- even though it's a meaningless gesture.  Seriously, how many people even know what their State Book is, or even if their state has a State Book.  Ohio has a State song ("Beautiful Ohio") and a State Rock Song ("Hang On Sloopy"), but no State Book.  I think something by Paul Laurence Dunbar or Erma Bombeck, perhaps?

You would think they would learn, but no, they have no desire to learn -- especially anything that might cause them to question their own beliefs.  They would much rather rationalize than learn.  Appearance seems to be the only criteria to gain support from theists, and the more conservative the theists, the more support they give to the appearance of sharing their beliefs.

Wikipediatricians -- what a concept!

Caught an interesting post from Dr. James McGrath and his blog "Religion Prof". Professor McGrath is Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis.  While his blog isn't one you might think I read regularly, it certainly is.  I find his posts thought provoking, and this one certainly is:  "Wikipediatricians and Ways of Knowing".

Let's talk about Wikipedia for a moment.  I use it often and have also run up against criticism of it, usually from people who don't like their policies.  Yes, unlike what some people would like to believe, you just can't publish anything you want on Wikipedia.  There are processes, editorial policies, and rules that apply no only to those editing information, but what information can be included.  In other words, just like Encyclopedia Britannica, there are processes that must be followed.

For some background, I grew up with two sets of encyclopedias in the house and many an evening you could find my siblings and I huddled over one volume or another compiling information for school.  When I was in grade school -- even high school, I rarely questioned the encyclopedia.  However, once in college I used an encyclopedia reference in a paper just once and you would have thought the world had ended from the reaction of the professor.

That's where I got my first lesson in what an encyclopedia really was, a compilation of research, not an authoritative source -- and that you have to go to the source material for understanding.  While they are generally regarded as acceptable knowledge, when it comes to actual research and references, they are second or even third-hand information.

As a result, when I first saw Wikipedia, one of the benefits I saw was the live links to the source material supporting the articles. but I was curious as to how it stacked up against the gold-standard of encyclopedias "Britannica".  What I have found is that Wikipedia does have a slight bias to the left, especially in pages concerning corporations and governments, but, in my opinion, it wasn't a significant bias -- which may relate to my own biases; however, in scientific/technical subjects, it was as accurate as Britannica.  In some ways it is more current than a published encyclopedia because the editing is much more recent. Of course Britannica is also available online, but the currency issue still leans in favor of Wikipedia.

In 2005 Nature did a study comparing the two and found that all-in-all, they were pretty much on par as information sources:

"In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site [Wikipedia and Britannica]."

Nature didn't mention any bias, but Forbes did later in a 2015 study -- but like me didn't see it as significant.  In fact one of the findings I found fascinating in the Forbes study:

"Perhaps the most interesting finding of Zhu and Greenstein's research is that the more times an article is revised on Wikipedia, the less bias it is likely to show—directly contradicting the theory that ideological groups might self-select over time into increasingly biased camps."

Yes, the most times an article is edited, the less bias is present.  Which I find very interesting since the groups that seem to whine about Wikipedia most often are groups with an ideological bone to pick, as noted in Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!.

OK, back to Professor McGrath, now that you know where I stand on Wikipedia itself.  It's not the source of information that may be problematic, but, as he puts it:

" . . . a failure on the part of readers to understand how summaries relate to the processes whereby academic conclusions are drawn."

Encyclopedias, whether print or online, are simply summaries from a wide variety of other source materials.  They are compiled by writers and editors that probably do not have the same level of expertise as the original writers.  That doesn't mean encyclopedias should be discarded.  What it means, especially in this environment of distrusting experts and the Internet's apparent democratizing of every opinion, we still need to understand that our own perspective is limited and that any single individual or group might understand some things differently than we do.  We need to grasp those not just as limitations, but as strengths.  I am not a doctor, so a doctor's medical opinion is going to be better than mine . . . and equating such expertise to an unsupported opinion on the Internet can be both dangerous and foolish.  Multiple doctors opinions would weigh even more heavily.  That's how it should be!

Like Wikipedia. the best information seems to be when it is confirmed by multiple reliable sources.  I am not talking about when all Fox News talking heads agree, but if Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are presenting similar stories, you can more than likely rely on them.  But when one source is leaning hard in one direction and the majority of the other news sources have an opposing view, you can be pretty sure the one is 'showing their slip', so to speak.  As you look at a variety of sources, you will come to find ones that tend to be more objective than others, like MSNBC and NPR over Fox News or Breibart.  But you have to experience multiple sources to figure that out.

Academic consensus, including scientific consensus, isn't the voice of one person, but the collaboration and confirmation by multiple people with a particular expertise.  If you distrust it, you always have the option to examine the source of the material yourself.  Wikipedia makes it easy, as does Google.  But do not let your perception be stuck in a rut with one source.  Branch out, you might learn something!

One of my friends is a hard-line conservative, and as the years have gone by become much more conservative than I am comfortable with.  His favorite news sources include Fox, Limbaugh, and a few specific websites.  When he tells me anything, I head out and check carefully.  As much as he will dislike reading this, I usually find his information to be biased to the extreme and often outright wrong.  Sometimes it's just a little twisted, but all too often it's simply a lie.  He doesn't seem to like it when I call him on it and he gets rather defensive -- OK more than just 'rather defensive'.  But until he figures out his usual sources aren't particularly honest, we will keep playing this game.

But therein lies the problem.  He has very few sources of information and gets told by those sources that any other sources are 'fake news', and he buys into it.  He's not learning anything, all he's doing is getting reinforcement for his own prejudices.  That's the dangerous point.

It's not Wikipedia that's a problem, but how we take information, regardless of source, and use it.  Are we learning or are we reinforcing beliefs we already have? Are we getting information from authoritative sources, or are we assigning our own form of democratizing and thinking authoritative sources and alternative sources are equal?  A doctor v. Hollywood celebrity on vaccines?  A spokesman paid for by the oil companies v. actual scientists who study climate change?  A biologist v. a lawyer?

You really need to think about who is more likely to give you good information rather than tell you something you might want to hear!

Happy New Years! The DI looks Back at 2017

Before going forward, the Discovery Institute (DI) likes to look back at their top stories/accomplishments of the previous year.  It's become an annual tradition.  This year instead of looking at them one by one, I decided to let them drop their entire list and look at the their accomplishments as a whole. Here is the list:

1. Footprints from Crete Deepen Origins Mystery - And so a new discovery which may change some of the existing theories of human origins.  Of course, the DI didn't make the discovery, but they simply offer their spin to make it sound much bigger than it is.  What it really is -- is science in action, not pseudoscience.  New evidence may equate to theory changes  -- which, according to the DI is considered a weakness of science, but the actuality is it is one of science's strengths!
2. Clueless Reporters and Canaanite DNA - While claiming not to get into 'Biblical exegesis' (explaining the Bible), they then do exactly that.  Yet at the same time they try and remind people how they are not really a religious ministry.  If they weren't a ministry, then why try and explain the Bible?
3. Perfect Eclipse, Coincidence or Conspiracy? - Yes, the news was filled with the eclipse, but perfect?  By what standard?  Using math and numbers that were far from exact, they decided that the most recent eclipse was 'perfect', as in the moon 'perfectly' covered the sun (it was close) and a few other examples of 'perfection'.  Yet when you look at it objectively, you see it's only a coincidence because of the distances and diameters involved and the numbers aren't so 'perfect' after all.  Plus in a few centuries the numbers will be much further off as the moon gets further and further away, so we happen to live during the time when the size of the moon and sun 'appear' to be closely matched . . . so what?
4. Wiki Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on ID - This one isn't any sort of accomplishment, but it is a re-hash of their whines against any published content that doesn't say exactly what they want it to say.  Wikipedia has a history of failing to let the DI define Intelligent Design (ID) as if it was not pseudoscience and the DI really hates that.  So rather than offer evidence that it is not pseudoscience, they quote other people who agree with them.  Remember these are the same people who want to teach Evolution and ID and let the students decide for themselves which is true.  So Wikipedia has both the definition of  both of them, but they don't want students exposed to a non-DI version of an ID definition.
5. Of Course You Aren’t Living in a Computer Simulation. Here’s Why. - So now they take on the Matrix, a fictional environment and try and explain how intelligence cannot be programmed into a simulation.  Huh?  What this post really means is Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an imagination and the DI does not.
6. Dan Brown Pushes Atheism and Intelligent Design. Wait…What? - OK, the DI took a thriller, a fictional thriller, and somehow twisted it to some sort of support for Intelligent Design (ID).  Well, so far they have pretty well managed to spin anything they want into a back-handed support for ID, so not only shouldn't this surprise anyone, but is this such a big story it's one of their top 10?
7. Intelligent Design Shines in Brazil with Discovery-Mackenzie Launch - Yes, this might actually be considered an accomplishment, opening up a new religious ministry in one of the most religious countries in the world.  My prediction is we will see the same amount of actual science coming out of this center as we see from the DI and their self-owned lab (the Biologics Institute).  Do you remember when opening IDEA clubs at several college campuses was lauded, but where are they today?  Can we say 'extinct'.
8. Theorist Concedes, Evolution “Avoids” Questions - So there are questions yet to be answered . . . nothing new there.  Yet over the past 150+ years, how many questions has the Theory of Evolution answered?  Hundreds, even thousands.  Avoiding questions doesn't seem to be something real scientists actually do.  This is the DI trying to cast doubt on science because it hasn't answered every question.  Even with that, has ID answered anything at all?  Casting doubt is only effective if you have a viable alternative that provides better explanations.
9. Genetic Code Complexity Just Tripled - not really tripled, but then the DI's strong suit isn't math.  In any event the discovery mentioned wasn't done at the DI.  This is just their commentary and another effort to cast more doubt on real science.
10. Nobel Laureate Is “80 Percent” Confident in Intelligent Design - who says this without a single reference to anything accomplished by the DI.  He's expressing an opinion only.  Now if something done by the DI actually drove this particular opinion, that would be newsworthy, but as it is -- it means little.

OK, if you have read all, or even any, of them, you might have noticed the same thing I noticed, where is any original work?  The DI keeps claiming they are a scientific think tank, that they are doing actual science, and that all their issues with real science are based on science -- and yet where is it reflected in their annual list of stories/accomplishments?

Even their number one stories from recent years shows a lack of scientific work:

1. #1 of Our Top Stories of 2016: Happy New Year! Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered - claiming recognition for their 'scientists' that no one else noticed.  How underwhelming!
2. Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top Stories of 2015: A Scientific Debate that Can No Longer Be Denied -- about the release of the sequel to Darwin's Doubt -- you know, the book that was to address all the criticisms to the original, but they forgot to actual address those criticisms.
3.  "Happy New Year! Our #1 Evolution Story of 2014: New Paper from Biologic Institute, "Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?"" - a paper from themselves that never answer the question they want to raise.
4. Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top-Ten Evolution Stories of 2013: Responding to Charles Marshall’s Review of Darwin’s Doubt - More accurately, this is the first of four rebuttals to a devastating critique, and this rebuttal -- like the next three -- never manage to actually refute the criticisms.  The title of the critique should be the motto of the DI: "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" and it is an excellent read!

Wouldn't you assume that an organization that claims to be doing actual science, might be able to celebrate those achievements in their own blog?  Wouldn't you think that at least one of their own scientific accomplishments might rate a mention in their top 10 stories?  But no, their top stories reflect nothing of the scientific achievements because, as we all know, they haven't had any.  What these stories are is nothing more than a re-hash of their standard marketing material.

Sell, market, and try to sow doubt -- and at the same time push their religion while trying to deny that is what they do.  Yes, it's been a banner year for the DI.  Another year of spending other people's money and having nothing to show for it.

Of course, each one of their top 10 starts with a plea for a donation.  That way readers can contribute to another year of nothingness!