"People critical of religion may fear it", Sort of!

In a letter to the editor "People critical of religion may fear it" may have a point, but I do not believe it is the one Joe [the letter-writer] is trying to make.  First off, a few things from his letter:

"My children were taught in public schools that their ancestors were monkeys, then perhaps they evolved all the way back to the ooze in the Nile River. "

He obviously doesn't really understand what evolution is, let alone how it's being taught in the classroom.  But that's pretty typical of theists.  They seem more afraid of something causing them to actually think about their religious beliefs than damn near anything else.  As for morality:

"Hollywood immorality seems to have crept into our society. If we are but evolved animals, any established morality is out the window. "

Is religion a viable source of morality?  I know theists like to make such claims, but when you look at not only the scores of differences between the moral beliefs of the multitude of religions in the world, but also look at many of the things done in the name of a religion!

Yes, some of the ideas of what is considered moral today and what is not may stem from one or more religious beliefs -- but it is not the belief in a particular religion that makes something moral, but societies decision of what is considered moral!  If that was true then theists wouldn't be committing any crimes let alone the most heinous!  How many religious leaders have been found to be much less moral than their own teachings?  How many children have to die from medical neglect due to someone's religious beliefs. No, as we have discussed many times, morality and religion do not go hand-in-hand, as many theists like to delude themselves.  And Joe, your information about Hitler is just plain wrong:

"By the way, Adolf Hitler, of no known religious affiliation, was an angry man who killed thousands of religious people."

Hitler's words often invoked Christianity, for example: (I underlined for emphasis)

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years." (Adolf Hitler from the address he gave after coming to power in Germany (from "My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939", Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press, London, 1942)."

As you can see, Hitler agrees with you about your Christianity being the very basis for morality, don't you feel special -- you have the same moral code as Adolf Hitler!  Yes, if you read any of Hitler's speeches, you will see Hitler invoked Christianity often!  Joe, you said:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

Freedom 'of' includes the freedom to not believe -- or else it's not really freedom is it?  Just another form of religious control and oppression.  Joe, I have a question, supposed we did turn the US into a theocracy, which seems to be what you are preaching.  Suppose it didn't pick your particular version of Christianity.  What would you do then?  Freedom of Religion is what should be preventing that, but you aren't really about Freedom of Religion.  Your idea seems to be Freedom of religion, as long as the religion is yours.  That's not freedom!

OK, enough of his letter for the moment.  I would like to talk about fear!  I am not afraid of religion, and every non-theist I know isn't afraid of it.  If there is some deity that I will meet after I die, I will stand by my life!  Instead of trying to use a deity as an excuse, I live my life here and now!  When I make a mistake I pay for it now!  I make amends with people, I have committed no crimes, nor contemplated any, I don't even cheat on my taxes.  And I live my life without the need to beg forgiveness from anyone, let alone your version of a deity.  You, on the other hand, live in fear!

Yes, look at your religion, it's based on fear.  You try and live some aspects of your life by a set of rules handed to you by other men -- in the hopes your deity has the same set of rules.  You refuse to take responsibility for your actions because you regularly ask your deity to forgive your trespasses, instead of getting the forgiveness from the people you have hurt.  You believe because you are scared of some eternal punishment.  If you disagree, tell me how do you preach to non-believers?  Look at this article from the World News Daily, "Will scientists who reject God face greater judgment?".  While the WND isn't great source for news, I see this article as an example of the fear Christians keep trying to play upon.

"Are those who have a science degree and have rejected Christ going to be held more accountable before God based upon Romans 1:20?"

Why could this be the case, because -- according to the author:

"The holder of a science degree has had a high level of exposure to irreducible complexity, information science and special design, clearly illustrating the existence of God and His attributes."

So . . . since you have a science degree, you are more exposed to pseudoscience . . . and if you fail to recognize pseudoscience as God's work, you will be judged by God more harshly than anyone else.  Anyone else see the 'fear' at work.  It's not' believe because it's right', it's not' believe because it's good' . . . no, the message is 'believe or else'.  It's not just being judged more harshly, but your condemnation will be greater because you refuse to agree that pseudoscience is really some deity playing around..

"They spend years, if not a lifetime, being exposed to an unlimited amount of detail of special design, and many still reject it. As a result, will their condemnation be greater? I believe so."

You typically hear things along this line from theists when they mention things like 'going to hell!' . . . I have a question . . . why do they feel they have to threaten to gain adherents?  The first thing I usually hear is not all the good things done in the name of a particular religion, but that if I don't join their particular branch, I will burn for all eternity.  Fear is the marketing message!

If you read the whole WND article, don't you just love the author's analogy at the end.  Eating high cholesterol food isn't bad for you!  How can it be bad for you, it's in the Bible:

"Since her restrictions were completely contrary to what I can eat based upon Scripture, I knew it was her source of information, “man’s wisdom,” that was wrong and not mine."

Scientific evidence has supported for years that saturated fats and high level of cholesterol are bad for your arteries and your heart.  But, this guy treats the Bible as a nutritional textbook!  Even the research he hints at claiming that it's not really bad for you is misleading.  The degree is what has changed, not the unhealthy aspects of such a diet. But it doesn't matter to the author, if anything is based on man's knowledge, it gets immediately dismissed.

Back to the original article and the idea of 'fear', you are afraid to live your life, to take responsibility for your actions, to live without the crutch of an ancient belief set. And you think it's others that are afraid?

There is one thing I fear, it's the damage theists do, all in the name of their religion.  Your homophobia, your intolerance, your willingness to execute your own children through a lack of basic medical care, your efforts to destroy science education in the name of your belief set, your need to pass laws protecting your rights at the expense of the rights of others -- are just a few examples.  Disagree?  How about your own intolerance.  Let me repeat:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

You see?  You can't even handle the idea of non-believers, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or apathists.   What you seem to be afraid of is a dissenting point of view.

Why Won't ID Proponents Identify Their Designer?

In a recent post on the Discovery Institute's Evolution 'news' and Views site, Walter Myers III said "In Refusing to Identify a “Designer,” ID Proponents Aren’t Being Coy".  The question to me is what has driven them to not identify their designer?   Reading the original Wedge Strategy document, you see it loaded with references to Christianity and the Christian God, for example

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and the replace it with a science constant with Christian and theistic convictions" (Wikipedia: Wedge Strategy)

How can you write things like that, in your guiding strategy document, and then deny the identity of the designer . . . well 'officially deny' that identity.  Often ID proponents have identified their designer as the Christian God, but they rarely do it officially, one exception to that is the head of their own pet lab, Douglas Axe, whose latest religious missive included this description on Amazon:

"Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God." (Amazon: Undeniable)

I am curious where did that description came from?  It was also repeated at the HarperOne website (the religious imprint of Harper-Collins). which makes me think it's part of the press release for the book.  Pretty clear-cut who the designer is, isn't it?

A different point comes from Robert Pennock, writing about Intelligent Design:

"When lobbying for ID in the public schools, wedge members sometimes deny that ID makes any claims about the identity of the designer. It is ironic that their political strategy leads them to deny God in the public square more often than Peter did."(Stephen Meyer and the Return of the God Hypothesis)

So ID proponents refuse to official designer as a deity comes across a just another tactic.  As soon as they make the designer a deity, they get lumped in with the other religious nut jobs who keep trying to push their belief set onto everyone else . . . you know folks like little kennie ham and Mike Pence.  If Pence doesn't ring a bell, he's the hamster-haired misogynist's vice-president and his efforts to push his religious beliefs on everyone was well documented when he was Governor of Indiana.

OK, so I guess I have to see what Walt says about the subject.  believe me, my expectations are pretty low.  His sums up his argument with this:

"In not specifying a designer, ID leaves science open to pursue plausible explanations of biological complexity without getting tangled up in extraneous theological or philosophical discussions. The everyday practice of the current scientific establishment already curtails and constrains what science is able to discover. ID resists this trend, and instead seeks to democratize scientific investigation."

Really?  They offer absolutely no scientific support for ID, and Walt thinks not naming the designer is an example of opening the door for plausible explanations?  Anyone buy into that?  No, not you current ID proponent, you'll believe anything Walt says.  But anyone else who isn't a current drinker of DI kool-aid? 

Let's break this down a little bit.  Walt admits that science has limits.  The limits Walt is talking about is that science and it's framework of methodological naturalism.  Walt says:

"ID proponents would certainly not be adherents of metaphysical naturalism, but they do accept methodological naturalism as an ostensibly normative principle for doing science, while believing it unnecessarily constrains science from entertaining empirical proof of intelligent agency."

Here is where Walt is trying to build a strawman, on the one hand claiming to accept scientific methodology and yet at the same time wanting to bring in the supernatural.  Since methodological naturalism references natural causes and events -- not supernatural ones, Walt says that is what limits science from taking ID seriously . . . and yet in the same sentence he claims ID proponents would not be 'adherents to metaphysical naturalism . . . which rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.  So that means ID proponents are interested in supernatural causation . . . so why won't they identify officially their designer?  Isn't that pretty much what Walt just admitted too?

So all Walt is trying to sell to people that ID isn't religious . . . and yet, once again, everything about ID is religious, from their guiding document to their core audience.  So back to the original question, why do ID proponents hesitate to identify the designer?  So, Walt himself is the one being coy here,  his article is nothing more than another tactic to try and divorce the DI from their religion -- and another failing one at that.

Is the DI Joining the AiG Ministry?

Little kennie ham has some help, apparently he's not the only group pushing how science is not secular and, of course, claiming the mantle of science of his religion. Over at the DI, Michael Engor posted "Atheism Is a Catastrophe for Science", claiming:

"Modern theoretical science arose only in the Christian milieu."

To him, I give the same answer I gave little kennie (Christianity is the Source of All Science, Well According to AiG is it.).

• Where in the scientific work, from all the names you drop, do you see the part about the Christian Deity?
• Why are you discriminating against every other religion on the planet? 
• What do we gain from inserting homage to a deity in a scientific theory?

Micheal, in other words what part of the work is based on their, or your, religious beliefs?  Seriously, where does you version of a deity play in real science?  Little kennie ham claimed that his God's role was establishing the rules, but does that really matter?  How is adding homage to a deity add to our understanding?  Seriously, take any theory, explain how your God fits in and then tell me how the theory changes!

All the Christians you name, all the other Theists you like to ignore, and all the Atheists (Larry Moran over on Sandwalk has a nice list) have made multiple scientific advances and in not a single one of them do you see evidence of any deity taking a hand.  There are no boxes or clouds exclaiming "Goddidthis!"  The best you have is making unsupported claims:

"It is astonishing (and beautiful) that the very retinaculum of the universe, from the subatomic world to the cosmos, is drawn in elegant abstract mathematics. The universe screams intelligent authority. "

Why, because you cling to a belief set so strongly that you demand we acknowledge it for you?  Seriously Michael, what does adding in a deity do for our understanding?  Let's put the ball in your court, take any scientific theory, maybe Thermodynamics.  Look at modern thermodynamic theory and tell me what changes if all the scientists and engineers who work on and with this theory (or set of theories to be more accurate) would change by answering your demand for a universe screaming for your God?  Come on, Mike, put up!  I am offering you a chance here.

Another foolish quote:

"The fact is that during the 20th century atheist ideological systems that "assum[ed] that the world is a product of natural, undirected processes" governed a third of humanity. What's the scientific "track record" of atheism? Atheism had its run: it heralded a scientific dark age in any nation unfortunate enough to fall under its heel. Atheism is as much a catastrophe for science as it is a catastrophe for humanity. The only thing atheist systems produced reliably (and still produce reliably) is corpses."

So now Atheism is equated to economic systems like Communism and dictatorial governments?  You like to build strawman, just like the rest of your Discovery Institute ilk.   Hate to break the news to you, but those systems welcomed religion, after all wasn't it Marx who called 'religion is the opium of the people'.  Didn't Hitler extort and use Christianity to justify all of his actions?  If you don't think so then you are as much a student of history as you are a student of science, more's the pity.  Do your homework for a change! 

Your own link is to North Korea lists the causes of the famine as

"The famine in DPRK is the result of the cumulative effects of a fractured economic infrastructure and inadequate food production."  

It also cites natural disasters and politics as issues acerbating the problem.  They even have a national religion, Cheondoism.  While your religion is illegal, they are not nearly as atheistic as you seem to believe.

How long did Christianity have a stranglehold on  many countries?  How many wars were started, how many diseases flourished, how widespread was starvation and famine under Christian religious regimes?  You really need to read a bit deeper into history, and not just the rosy-colored history that people like kennie ham want you to think, or even the history re-writes from the DI's own 'pseudo-historian', Michael Flannery.  Care to explain the millions who died during the Thirty-Years War directly from the war and indirectly through disease and famine caused by the war.  Go ahead, try and blame that one on Atheists.

I bet you think that's all ancient history, how many people have died from AIDS in Africa due in part to the Christian religious objections to condoms?  Estimates range widely but keep climbing annually.  You own a share of 38,000,000 deaths over that one. How about the religious genocides of the Congo and Rwanda.  You own a share of those 15,000,000 people as well.  Religion is much more to blame for those atrocities than Atheism is responsible for Communism!

The bottom line here is you have a set of religious beliefs and you are trying to demand that the rest of the world somehow justify your own beliefs by inserting them where they are not needed and, in fact, do damage.  Are you forgetting how your Christianity controlled the educational system is many countries for decades, even centuries, and how hard it was to get an idea across if even it was perceived to be contrary to the teaching of the Church.  Disagree, well I would ask you to talk to Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, just to name a few. If you have an honest bone in your body, you know the list is much longer!

Not very long ago people believed things like the Sun, the Rain, even the Death of a loved one was all because God did it.  Tell me how scientifically advanced they were?  We know a great deal more about many topics, and all without needing to thrust a deity into the mix.  Must raise some serious feelings of inadequacy -- but it's OK, there's a little pill for that . . . developed by scientists and no one prays over each batch as they are created!

You really had your eyes closed on this one.  Like kennie, you seem to have a thick pair of biblical-colored glasses to view the world through.  You might try taking them off once in a while because they certainly aren't doing you any good.  Maybe I should say they are doing you as much good as they do kennie ham.

Christianity is the Source of All Science, Well According to AiG is it.

Here's something . . . well not new, but certainly consistent . . . from little kennie ham: "Is Science Secular?"  Now before getting into the article, I want to consider just the title, 'Is Science Secular?'.  Looking at all of the scientific advances, from Newton to Einstein, from the Industrial Revolution to today's most cutting edge science, can you find one iota of religion within those scientific theories?

I've asked this before -- when you look at something like Newton's work, where is the part where you say "And here is where God does his thing!"?  You might notice that there isn't one.  There is nothing that identifies where the 'magic' happens.  How I see it is that there are many Theists who have advanced many scientific theories, but when the science conflicts with religious views, they manage to rise above those views and see the world in a much clearer and sharper light.  Does anyone really think this is how Newton did his scientific work:

I don't believe it, but one of the many arguments made over the years is that many of the greatest scientists were Christians.  I would even phrase it differently, many of histories greatest minds were Theists!  I word it that way because often Christians forget that many advances were made by other-than-Christian believers, I do have to wonder if kennie will forget that little item.  OK, with my point made, I have to wonder what direction little kennie is going to take his article?  OK, here goes -- time to get muddy.

"Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab."

Strawman alert!  While little kennie and his Hamians may think this, this is not what is being said. Many current scientists are Theists and believe in one religious tradition or another.  What has been said, and proven over and over again, is that if you let your viewpoint blind you to the realities of the world around you, you aren't doing much in the way of science.   This goes for religious or other viewpoints, for example political.

A perfect example is little kennie's concept of the 'same evidence but different conclusions' nonsense. Little kennie's 'creation paleontologists' do not look at the same evidence as an actual paleontologist, his start by rejecting the majority of the evidence because it conflicts with kennie's story of a 6,000 year old Earth.  How is that starting from the same evidence?  An honest answer is that it's not, but don't expect kennie to admit that.  A real scientist starts with a much cleaner plate than one of kennie's.  Imagine if one of his pet 'scientists' put out a paper even suggesting an older Earth.  How long do you think they will be employed by kennie?  Not for very long, I would think.  Or, like what happened to Wild Bill Demski, the 'scientist is question would have to retract any suggestion to the contrary, or he will get kicked out of the club.

"Strictly speaking, my project in The End of Christianity  . . . at the very end of the book, I raised some questions about Noah’s flood in light of an old earth . . . At the meeting with president, provost, dean, and senior professor, the president made it clear to me from the start that my job was on the line.  . . . My questioning the universality of Noah’s flood meant I was a heretic . . . I said just enough to keep my job, and just enough to give me room to recant, as I’m doing here." (Dembki Interview)

What kennie has done here is create a strawman to tell you one thing and then he will try and demolish the strawman and claim victory.  He tried it a few months ago when he was bragging how one of the inventors of the MRI is a creation scientist.  But back then I pointed out that at no point in kennie's bragsheet was any evidence that supported how Creationism was involved in the MRI.  His second sentence compounds his error.

"Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies."

No, that is not what is normally said.  What has been said over and over again is that someone's belief set is in no way part and parcel of any scientific breakthroughs.  I don't care how many prominent Theists you can name, and I figure name-dropping is next, but at no point can you point to their work and say "God did this part!"  It's not part of a single equation, it's not listed in the documentation and explanations.  If there is a conflict, the scientist has to be able to see clearly, and Biblical-colored glasses don't allow that.  How many new technologies has kennie and his cohorts actually developed using their religious beliefs?  Again, none!  OK, let's read the rest of the article before commenting further.

OK, a few more comments:

"If science is a strictly secular endeavor without any need for a biblical worldview, then why were most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians?"

As expected, kennie focuses on Christians, ignoring contributions from any other religion.  But it does lead me to another comment.  Is kennie forgetting that the education system, for decades and centuries, was dominated by religious groups?  Even Charles Darwin went to religious schools and even once studied to be a Parson (Wikipedia: Charles Darwin Early Life and Education).  

So, now that I think about it, would kennie classify Charles Darwin as a Christian?  Based on his early life and education, an honest person would.  If you look at the details of his religious views (Wikipedia: Charles Darwin Religious Views), you would see he was certainly a Christian in his many viewpoints -- at least a Christian as defined by his times.  What you could never call him is a Christian as little kennie ham see it.  Simply put, one of the areas Darwin and kennie would disagree on is the Bible as a history book.  The list would grow from there.

So the bottom line here is no one is saying Theists or any religious tradition cannot be scientists or perform actual scientific work.  However, that is more than just hanging a label on a door.  You have to be willing to set aside your religious viewpoint if and when it conflicts with your scientific work -- either that of set aside your scientific work and add the label 'creation', as does kennie and his stable of pet 'creation scientists'.

"The U.S. will lose out in “science” when its education system limits science in the classroom exclusively to the religion of secular humanism."

Wow another strawman!  US science classes do not teach secular humanism, science is guided by a philosophy called "Methodological naturalism", which states:

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events." (Wikipedia: Methodological Naturalism)

Science is, and has been for a long time, based on the natural world, on explanations that can be repeated and explained without the involvement of any supernatural causation.  Little kennie hates that because it doesn't pay homage, or even address, his personal deity.  What kennie can't handle is that science does not address such things on purpose!  How do you replicate an occurrence when it relies on the actions of a deity?  It's not possible!  Science may not be the only world view, but it's the only one that gives us repeated results and rational and usable explanations, isn't it?  Drop something, does it fall because a deity wanted it to fall, or does it fall because of the attraction between two objects of mass as explained by the Scientific Theory of Gravity?  Learning about Gravity doesn't require paying homage to one deity or another, and even paying such homage wouldn't advance our understanding of it, would it?

Now when it comes to something like Gravity, kennie tries to tell us that the whole basis for Gravity is his version of a deity.  So, how does that add to our understanding of Gravity?  Think it through, look at current gravitational theory, where does adding in a homage to a deity add anything?  You see my point, science doesn't address it because it adds nothing to our understanding.  Injecting the actoins of a deity does nothing but give kennie a warm feeling.

Little kennie tries to take things up a level and claim this:

"Real science is observable and repeatable experimentation that only makes sense in a biblical worldview where God’s power keeps the laws of nature consistent. In other words, science proceeds from a biblical worldview."

He was close, but he should have ended his comment after the word 'experimentation'.  What has the Biblical worldview offered in the way of explanation?  Does our understanding of any scientific discipline improve when you try and insert a religious viewpoint?  No, it doesn't improve, it degrades.  For example denying geological evidence of the age of the Earth or trying to explain geographic biodiversity using log rafts after Noah's flood.  These viewpoints limit our understanding, they do not improve it.

Here's another quote from kennie:

"In the secular view, where all matter originated by chance from nothing, there is no ultimate cause or reason for anything that happens, and explanations are constantly changing, so there is no basis for science. "

Why does there have to be an 'ultimate cause'?  Seriously, I can't have any answers to any questions until I know absolutely everything 100% perfectly, including how it all started billions of years ago? So science has no basis, and yet science took us to the moon, science built that stupid ark pseudo-replica kennie is so proud of, science cures and treats diseases that would have killed people if they tried to rely on prayer . . . science has more of a basis, and one based on rationality, than any of the thousands of religions that exist or have existed in the world, including kennie's narrow version of Evangelicalism I like to call 'Hamian'.

After all his name-dropping, as expected, he goes on to the tired argument how science is supposedly some sort of religion.  Really?  What religion took us to the Moon?  What religion explains thermodynamics that lets us build engines?  What religion developed this world-wide communications system we call the Internet?  If science was just another religion worshiping a book, meeting once a week to self-flagellate ourselves with guilt, and keep our minds as closed as possible to other people and ideas, we wouldn't have left the cave!  No, I take that back, we wouldn't have gone into the cave to seek shelter, because since God created the rain, seeking shelter is obviously a form of blasphemy!

One final point from kennie:

"Christians will continue to conduct scientific inquiry and invent things, processes, and science fields as we always have."

Again I would say 'Theists' rather than just limiting it to Christians..  I would have to add and just like the past few centuries, not one of those scientific inquiries or inventions will reference any part of ham's, or anyone else's, religious dogma.  If you disagree, I offer anyone another chance to explain how Newton's specific religious beliefs are used in his work?  If you don't like that one, tell me how even little kennie ham's religious beliefs are used in actual scientific inquiries?  What box do they put God in on the diagrams?  If there a PowerPoint clip-art defining 'God'?

Between kennie and his Answers in Genesis (AiG) Ministry, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and the Discovery Institute (DI), they have many people on staff they like to call 'scientists'.  Just how many scientific advances have been made by any of them using their religious beliefs?  I believe the answer is a resounding 'None!', not a single one!  Oh they will still make claims, but nothing validated by reality.  Just keep kneeling in front of the Bible, kennie, and maybe one day you will understand the lessons it was trying to teach instead of just worshiping the words.

Biblical Math

Gryphen had an interesting post over on The Immoral Minority Blog : "Flood of "biblical proportions" destroys home of president of anti-gay Christian group. Really the jokes just write themselves."  While it would be tempting to turn this post into some sort of swipe at this particular religious nut, after all saying for years that disasters occur to gay people as God's retribution for being gay, you just have to see some level of humor in this.  However, having your home destroyed is a devastating event, but what I find most interesting is the Christian Hate-Monger calling it a flood of 'biblical proportions'.

Maybe what we have here is an excellent example of 'Biblical Math'.  I have to wonder if Liberty University or kennie ham teach classes in it.  Let's break down this example,  Tony Perkins is caught in a flood and loses his home, he and his family make their escape in a canoe.  So, let's break this down:

• Flood
• Canoe

Now the Noah story is something more like this:

• World-wide catastrophic flood
• Ark

What makes this interesting is that Tony describes the flood of being 'biblical proportions'.  Now I am in Ohio, only about 900 miles from Louisiana and we haven't been impacted by any flooding from this storm.  So obviously 'biblical proportions' either no longer means what it did back in Noah's day, or maybe the flood kennie and Tony like to talk about was one of less than 'biblical' proportions.  

Since I cannot imagine Tony or kennie admitting to any error, the current flood must be of 'biblical proportions', which means that if the proportion of the world flooded currently is the same as the proportion of the world that flooded back then . . . something must have happened to expand the flood from a localized event to a world-wide catastrophe!  That's where Bible Math comes in.

You use this type of extrapolation in Junior High Math classes for determining percentage:  

Solving for 'x' lets you determine what percentage 4 is of 12.  Since it holds true for numeric percentages, why not use it to prove whole Noah story?

So that being said, if the local flooding is of biblical proportions, then the canoe also needs to be of biblical proportions, right?  Yeas, that's the ticket.  We now have proof of the validity of the Bible, all we needed was a judicious application of 'Bible Math'!

And there you have it!  Solve for 'X' and you have determined that an Ark is the only possible answer.  Biblical Math in action, Noah's Flood has 'mathematical' proof!  I'm just not sure if little kennie will see the humor, or simply become even more apoplectic than he typically is.

Is there Really a War on Christians

Since I commented on this in a recent post "Growing and Disturbing Trend, Discrimination by Theists!", one of my friends asked about my opinion on the, often-mentioned in the press, the 'War on Religion . . . most often expressed as a 'War on Christians'.  In my opinion, I do believe that some people have gone way to far . .  for example wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency or trying to mandate 'Happy Holidays' instead of, what has certainly become a secular holiday for most of us, 'Merry Christmas'.  I also think many theist go overboard on professing their faith, like the waitress who says "May Jesus Bless You." to all of her customers.  But what I do not agree with is that there is some sort of war on religion.

If you look at nearly every cry of "War on Religion/Christians", what do you see?  Very little taking away of a citizen's rights, but most often -- by a huge majority -- it is the taking away of an effort to force people other to conform to their beliefs.  Think it through.  What is wanted most often isn't to protect someone's actual religious freedom, but to demand special privileges for no other reason than their specific belief set.

Here's my take.  For decades religion has forced it's way into many non-religious aspects of our lives. For example, did you know that the phrase 'Under God' wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, almost 67 years after it was written.  "Blue Laws" are another example, you can argue about them all you want, their original purpose was using civil law to enforce a specific set of religious beliefs, beliefs not shared by all Americans!  If you dig a bit into the history of 'marriage', you might be surprised to discover that religions weren't originally a source of authority for granting marriages, that came along later in many cultures.

What I am trying to get at is that religion, and here in the US that means most often one variant of Christianity or another, has played a large part in all of our lives -- whether we share the beliefs or not.  The majority of what gets termed a 'War on Christians' isn't taking away any of their rights, but removing their ability to force other people to share their beliefs.

You don't agree?  OK, explain how Kim Davis' refusal to put her name on a legal document infringes on her religious beliefs?  You can give it all the energy you want, but all you are doing is rationalizing her behavior.  She had a job and she refused to do it, claiming some sort of special privilege because she disagrees with gay marriage and citing her narrow-minded religious beliefs as an excuse.  You may sell yourself on your rationalization, but you can't sell it to me.

I've read all her excuses and the comments from the pandering politicians and other theists who want to hold her up as a symbol.  None of it means anything!  She wanted, and still wants as far as I can tell, special privilege to not do her job when she disagrees with something and Kentucky let her get away with it.  If the Governor had any balls, she would have stayed in jail until she was relieved of her duties and then removed from office following proper procedure.  It would have been because of her refusal to do her job . . . not her religious beliefs.

Find me another example, just one, where the 'war' wasn't a demand for some special privilege.  I haven't been able to find any.  Removing the 10 Commandments from public buildings seems a bit extreme, but if out government organizations are supposed to be blind when it comes to supporting one faith over another, maybe it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

So what exactly is the 'war', I see it as an excuse.  Christianity, and most organized religions, are on the decrease.  There is a myriad of reasons, but people don't seem to handle the myriad of reasons all too well . . . so they pick on one or two and blame everything on that.  Plus religious leaders, like political leaders, like to polarize their followers by pointing at something or someone to blame.   Look at the number one reason cited often, gay rights . . . so the highly publicized sex scandals, the demographic changes of our population, the increase in cross-religious marriages, the higher education, and the stand of many religions on nonsensical positions (like evolution and birth control) has nothing to do with the decline, it's all the fault of the one group of people who are doing nothing more than demanding for the same rights as everyone else!  (source)

Funny you don't see LGBT advocates asking for special privileges, you see them demanding the same rights as every other citizen.  In fact when you look back at the Civil Rights Movement and even going back to the Suffragettes of the early part of the 20th century, what you see is not a request for special privileges, but a demand for the same rights as other citizens.  I believe that's why those movement were ultimately successful, because no matter how you dress it up, denying any group of citizens the same rights as others is eventually found to be illegal and Unconstitutional, as it should be!

But that's not true of the religious 'war' hawks.  They don't want the same rights, they demand special privileges and are using this artificial persecution as one of the means for getting it.  They want the right to scoff at public law and use their religion as a basis for discrimination, like Kim Davis.  They want the ability to pick and choose their clientele based not only on their religion but on the religion or sexual preference of their potential clients, like Masterpiece Bakery.  It's one thing to make decisions based on legal areas . . for example a bartender who refuses service to someone already inebriated.  But it's another thing to refuse service because of a different religion, sexual orientation, race . . ..

Why am I picturing students being assigned to certain college classes because the professor doesn't want to teach LGBT students because of their religion?  How about a professor who refuses to teach women or minorities?  I'm sure you can scare up a religion that will let you justify that.

The bottom-line for me is that as soon as you hear someone claiming a war on their religion . . . look at what they trying to do.  Odds are excellent that what they are asking for is not a protection of their rights, but the requirement to force other people to conform to their beliefs.  That's not Religious Freedom, that path leads to tyranny!

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

A couple of stories caught my eye, one from the Discovery Institute and the other from the Facebook posts of one of the all too many Christian Evangelistas.

The one from the DI is almost funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.  Many times in the past I, and many others, have watched the DI use tactics that on the one hand they claim to abhor, yet are perfectly willing to use the tactics themselves.  For example claiming that scientists are discriminating against Creationists when the reality shows that it's not discrimination for getting fired (or not receiving tenure) when you refuse to do your job.  Or claiming that they cannot get published in mainstream scientific journals because of some hidden conspiracy -- when they aren't even submitting to mainstream scientific journals.  My personal favorite is scream discrimination when someone like David Coppedge or John Freshwater get fired yet when a Christian school fires a science teacher for teaching actual science, why aren't they screaming discrimination then?

You see, they have a habit of using disreputable tactics while frequently accusing the opposing side of using those same tactics, regardless of lack of evidence of their opposition actually using those same tactics.  So I want to talk to you about religious indoctrination for a moment and then get back onto the DI's back.  When does religious indoctrination start?  Well in most cases it starts pretty much at birth.  Children are exposed to the religious traditions of their parents.  Examples include baptisms, confirmations, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs  . . . the list is pretty endless.  Children get quite seeped in it, various schools like Catechism classes, Jewish life classes, and many other religious themed community events geared toward children.  And yet . . . if anyone dare suggest science classes at an earlier age, the cries of 'brainwashing' get thrown around immediately.

Back to the DI, and their Evolution 'news' and Views site, "Evolution in Kindergarten: Now Brought to You by the National Science Foundation".  Now, the accurate part of the post is that the National Science Foundation  has awarded a grant (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1561401) designed to address a fundamental problem in education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, that natural selection is one of the most misunderstood biological processes.  Now, wouldn't you think an organization like the DI, who make public claims about wanting to improve the education of our young, would support such efforts?  But no, the DI calls it brainwashing and are dead set against it!

Anyone else see the problem here?  It's OK to start kids down a religious path from birth, but the very idea of correcting an identified problem with an important part of biological study is considered brainwashing?  Like so many other times, it's a case of 'Do as I say and Not as I do!"  They, and other religious organization, want, and in my opinion, need to start on kids when they are young.  The very idea of teaching real science at a younger age is the equivalent to brainwashing?  Seriously?  Remember this is the group who supports some Ohio teachers who wanted to inject Intelligent Design into the science curriculum back in 2004 and who have developed whole lesson plans for teaching ID to pretty much any age group.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qcQR0psc44s/maxresdefault.jpg)

I've said it before.  If we don't let children drive, drink, or vote before a certain age, they shouldn't be exposed to religion until that age either.  Haven't the dangers of religion been clearly identified over the years?  How much bigotry and intolerance have their root in the religious beliefs of the offenders, and how young were they when they started down this path?

---

The second one, and the one most egregious was identified to me by The Friendly Atheist (TFA), "Franklin Graham: Boycotting Companies Is Only Okay When I Say It Is".  In the article TFA posts copies of two of Franklin Graham's Facebook posts.  Here are the links to the actual posts if you want to read them yourself (Hobby Lobby post and Target post).  The comments are somewhat interesting too, but be prepared, especially if you do not know who Graham is.

In the first post he equates the boycotting of Hobby Lobby over their discrimination of employees because of the company owner's religious beliefs as:

" . . . calling for a boycott. Doesn't this sound like bullying, intolerance, and discrimination . . ."

In the second post he is promoting the boycott of Target stores because of their LGBT bathroom policy:

" I'm glad people are standing up and letting them know this is wrong."

If you're not familiar with Graham, don't worry.  Just think about any one of the Christians Evangelista that you are familiar with, and you'll get the picture.  I have trouble telling any of them apart.  They want to tell me how to live and to make me pay them for the privilege of telling me how to live.  I prefer the John Oliver discussion on televangalistas:

But as to the subject at hand . . . to me this is another example of 'Do as I say and not as I do'.  Boycotting Hobby Lobby is bullying, intolerance and discrimination . . . but boycott Target because it's the right thing to do, according to Graham.  Of course you see the difference, Graham agrees with Hobby Lobby and disagrees with Target. 

Reminds me of when little kennie ham whined and cried about on of his pet creation 'scientists' getting sandbagged into a debate with an actual scientists just about a year after he did the exact same thing and sandbagged a scientist into debating him.  It was OK when he did it because a little "Lie for Jesus" is OK because it's for God, but it should have been criminal when the same tactic is used against him (Turnabout is fair play!).

Kentucky, Why Do You Put Up with This?

Caught this one from over on The Panda's Thumb blog, "The Ark Park is hiring".  You probably know the story.  Little kennie ham formed a for-profit business to develop his version of a Noah's Ark, he called it "Ark Encounters", I call it the ark park.  Well, the reason he formed this for-profit company was to take advantage of the taxpayers of Kentucky and get some level of financial support from them to promote his ministry . . . which violates the US and Kentucky Constitution. If you doubt that it's going to be a ministry, here's a quote from kennie himself:

Here is an image from the site where kennie originally posted ark park job openings:
 The pertinent part is that first paragraph, which might be a bit hard to read, it says (I underlined the interesting phrase):

"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."

Along the way he promised that the Ark Park would be complying with all State and Federal laws for hiring, which include no discrimination based on religion.  How many actually believed him?  Anyone? . . .Bueller . . .Bueller?  Here is a quote from his own blog:

"The Ark Encounter has confirmed over and over to the state and media that it will carefully adhere to all applicable federal and state laws in hiring"

That fiction didn't last long.  Back in 2011 I blogged "Kentuckians, kennie ham is making a mockery of you!" describing the blatant religious discrimination that kennie was requiring of his Ark Park employees.  The State of Kentucky tried to do something about it, but just recently a judge sided with kennie.  I don't think Kentucky has given up, they are delaying the improvements for a nearby Interstate exit that would have made it easier for people to flock to the park.  But I don't think any politician is going to really take action, I think they are too afraid of the religious communities in their State -- which I find funny because most Christian Denominations do not agree with little kennie's narrow viewpoint.  But then politicians don't really care as long as they can pander for votes.

Do I sound cynical?  You bet!  You can read more about it at Panda's Thumb and you can also read this article, "Noah's Ark job float your boat? Then you must be Christian".  I really enjoyed this comment:

"Ham said the statement signed by future ark employees won't distinguish between Christian denominations."

So let's re-cap.  In order to get access to taxpayer funds, little kennie stated he would comply with non-discriminatory hiring practices.  He reneged on that!  Now, it sounds like he's softening the blow by saying his discriminatory practices will only target non-Christians, that his practices won't distinguish between the multitude of Christian Denominations.

A simple question, does anyone actually believe that?  Check out the first paragraph of Ham's Statement of Faith.

"In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly."

Does this really looking like it can encompass all of Christianity?  Let's not forget that most Christians denominations disagree with Ham and his narrow version of Christianity.  Here is another interesting quote from an AiG article "So You’re a Christian—Really?"

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

You know, that describes every gay Christian I know!  Somehow, I can't picture them getting accepted for a job at hammie's ark park.  Nope, just can't picture it.

How Can You Tell When your Religious Liberties are being Violated?

I caught this from one of my favorite blogs, Exploring Our Matrix, by James F. McGrath.  It's a topic I have been mulling over, especially this time of year when I keep hearing about this 'War on Christmas' and the constant 'War on Christians'.  Apparently many theists can't seem to grasp when their religious liberties are actually being violated, as opposed to when they CLAIM they are being violated.

So as a public service, I'm going to help them out and re-blog this bit and maybe some might actually learn the difference.  First up, the graphic, which sums it up perfectly:

The originator article, references by Dr. McGrath, is from the Huffington Post, "How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions".  They make a very telling point.  If you believe that anything from the right side of the graphic is a violation of your religious liberties, then you are most likely trying to use your religious liberties to violate the religious liberties, or even the civil rights, of other folks.

So, to be clear, what Kim Davis did last year was NOT a violation of her religious liberties.  It is a perfect example of her attempting to use her religion to violated the civil rights of other people.  No one was trying to stop her from practicing her religion, but they were trying to stop her from inflicting her religion on other people!

I posting this a while ago, but it bears repeating:

"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."

This isn't a far-fetched example, but something that actually occurred when I was stationed there!  I was teaching Professional Military Education (PME) at the time, and the case was something we discussed in many Leadership and Management classes at the time.

Any law that will permit businesses to discriminate based on the owner's religious beliefs should never be passed or signed into law!  I know that's a false hope because politicians will pander to anyone they can for votes, but that doesn't make it right!  There are laws being considered in many states for this express purpose.  I hate to see it, but I am waiting for the first lawsuit against a business for discrimination citing religious grounds.  Don't I recall many issues claiming religion as the reason for denying African-Americans their civil rights?  For denying women the right to vote?  Go back a while and wasn't religion also used to prevent women from owning property?

Are we really heading back to those days?

Let's expand a little beyond Religious Liberties.  I have a question for you.  Is not teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public school science classes a violation of Free Speech?  Think about it?  And yet that was one of the defenses used by John Freshwater when he was fired by the Mount Vernon school system.  It's also one of the tactics used by the conservative religious Discovery Institute in pushing for the replacement of actual science with religious dogma.

Follow-up to "So There is Nothing Religious About Intelligent Design (Part IX)"

As I mentioned earlier in the week, the Discovery Institute, while still claiming to not be a religious organization, is very concerned with young people losing their faith-based beliefs ("Are Young People Losing Their Faith Because of Science?").  They are offering a 'free' report to:

"Download this free report from Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture for information and resources to equip yourself, your family, and your congregation on issues of faith and science." 

Aside from this reminding me of those theists who used to roam the airport giving out a flower or a book and then asking for a monetary contribution . . . anyway . . .

One of the commenters on the Sensuous Curmudgeon blog, where I first caught the DI's report, apparently did download it.  If you remember I wasn't sure what five big truths the DI was going to 'explain' in order to help you counter the myth that belief in God is anti-science.  I did postulate some possibilities, and got a couple of them right.  Here is the list and my responses.  According to 'michaelfugate' they are [my comments follow and are italicized]:

• Christianity is not anti-science. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian worldview helped nurture the scientific revolution.
  This is one of the ones I did predict.  The DI loves to lay claim to such things, but they tend to do quite a bit of cherry picking and only remark with vague generalities.  Partially true, but across history the Judeo-Christian worldview also greatly inhibited science, especially science that disagreed with that worldview.  Can anyone remember how long it took before any part of the Judeo-Christian worldview apologized to Nicholas Copernicus? 500 years?  I guess they might consider it only took 350 years to apologize for what it did to Galileo an improvement.  But you cannot consider that a nurturing environment!  Making this claim doesn't support that belief in God is scientific, only that religious groups can use their belief set in many ways, including ways that do more damage than good.
  
• Even many secular scientists affirm the incredible fine-tuning of the laws of physics that make life possible. We live on a “privileged planet” designed in a multitude of ways for life and for scientific discovery.
  I would love to see their definition of a 'secular scientist' because this is patently untrue.  While real scientists have uncovered the laws of physics, they do not consider the 'fine-tuning' argument persuasive.  This top-down view of the evolution of life and the formation of the universe is much more a philosophical argument than a scientific one.  If you disagree, go out to PubMed and do a search for 'fine-tuned universe', there were six articles, and only two addressed this from a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific one.  The other four used the term 'fine-tuning' in a different context.
  
• Inside our cells are molecular machines of exquisite beauty and complexity that point powerfully to purposeful design.
  This was the other I predicted.  I figured they would try and work in their pet version of Creationism somehow.  While they often make this claim, they have yet to support it.  One of their own 'scientists', Ann Gauger said recently that not only do they not know the process of ID, but that since the Intelligent Agent (what the rest of religions call a Deity) is so far outside of us, we will never know that process.  Other than wishful thinking and conjecture, they not found anything that actually contradicts evolutionary theory.  They offer statements like this as if they are conclusions rather than just more speculation.  To make this claim, they have a great deal of work in front of them -- but so far it seems to be work they are unable or unwilling to do.
  
• Human beings are special and unique in a multitude of ways.
  As compared to what?  Tigers are special and unique in a multitude of ways as well, and in many ways we would fail to measure up.  Humans also share a great many ways with many other species on this planet.  DNA studies, physiology, and studies in comparative anatomy clearly demonstrate that while we might like to think we are unique and special, there isn't all that much evidence to support it. 
  
• Science is a wonderful human enterprise, but it is fallible and can be abused. It is therefore rational (and not “anti-science”) to explore competing scientific explanations, and to scrutinize cultural claims made in the name of science.
  As so goes the lesson in distrusting science that the DI has been pushing for years.  Is science perfect?  No!  But it's the exploration of other scientific theories, it's the validation with experimentation, it's following a methodological approach that makes science work and when science gets things wrong, it is often a self-correcting activity.  But it's not exploring just any ideas and trying to contrasting them with scientific theories that improves science, but actual scientific theories.  While they keep trying to claim it, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and until it's proponents get out of the marketing world and get into the weeds of scientific work, no one within science needs to take them particularly seriously.  By this wording here, every scientific discipline that gets questioned in any way by anybody is supposed to be addressed.  Talk about a complete and total waste of time.  For example do we really need to have Mathematicians spend time addressing Numerology?  How about Astronomers dealing with Astrology?  Archaeologists are going to have to address 'pyramid power' and chase down rumors and stories of ancient astronauts?  Until ID proponents do the actual scientific work to support their idea, real biologists should be focused real science, not trying to justify someone else's religious beliefs. 

This five things aren't 'truths', they are just more examples of the marketing of the Discovery Institute. 

So There is Nothing Religious About Intelligent Design (Part IX)

What would a month be without another example of religion courtesy of those folks who claim not to be a religious organization, yes -- I give you the Discovery Institute.

I caught this one from one of my favorite blogs, The Sensuous Curmudgeon, and I doubt I could be in more agreement.  The source is from the DI: "Are Young People Losing Their Faith Because of Science?"  Now before diving into it, just read the title for a second.  If, and I mean a very large IF, the Discovery Institute (DI) was an actual scientific organization and the answer to the question poised was 'yes', then they themselves would be partly to blame, right?  It would only stand to reason, wouldn't it?  But since they aren't a scientific organization, the answer to the question would only be important if they were concerned about young people shifting away from faith-based beliefs.  Why would that be a concern for the DI?

In their post they claim to be addressing the following questions in their other material.  Oh, did I forget to mention that this wasn't just a post, it was an offer, a 'free' offer to download their  . . . well here it is in their own words:

"Download this free report from Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture for information and resources to equip yourself, your family, and your congregation on issues of faith and science." 

'Yourself, your family, and your congregation . . . faith and science' . . . sure no religious connotations there!  This 'free' report supposedly addresses several questions (My thoughts about their questions follow in italics):

• What percentage of young people now enter college believing that “the universe arose by chance”? 
  I would hope that young people entering college wouldn't believe that at all -- since Science doesn't teach it.  Theists with a grudge against science try and paint science in this way, but actual science doesn't teach this.
  
  
• What percentage of college faculty identify themselves as atheists or agnostics? 
  Why aren't they asking what percentage identify themselves as Christian or other theist?  The real question is should their religious identification make a difference?  If it does, then the school needs to take action!  Right now if a Christian biology teacher in a public school teaches their religion instead of actual science, they should be fired (John Freshwater for example).  That's how it should be!  Religious, or non-religious affiliation should not matter!  Imagine the hue and cry is a Islamic teacher made disparaging comments about Christian Creationism.  So the fact some of the teachers might be atheists or agnostics is an automatic problem?  It should be immaterial, and when it's not, action needs to be taken.
  
  
• How many young adults with a Christian background think “Christianity is anti-science”?
  Since the Discovery Institute is one of the organizations that teach the distrust of science, anyone who follows their rhetoric and actually believes it could certainly believe Christianity is anti-science.  But the reality is the DI, and groups like Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) do not represent the vast majority of Christians nor Christianity as a whole.  Many Christians are scientists and many theists in the past have made many scientific breakthroughs.  Christianity is not anti-science, a small sect, notably Evangelical Christians, exhibit behaviors that are certainly anti-science.
  
  
• What five big truths can help you counter the myth that belief in God is anti-science? 
  Not sure what five truths they are talking about, but if you go by the DI's history, they will attempt to paint many historical scientific figures by their religious beliefs and yet will, once again, fail to connect their science to their belief set.  Even in modern times, for example, one of the developers of the technology behind MRIs identifies himself as a Creation Scientist . . . and yet at no point in his actual scientific work does his religious beliefs appear.  Why is that?  It's not that Creation 'Scientists' are anti-science, it's that some of them do not let their religious beliefs get in the way of performing science.  On the other hand, what breakthroughs in various sciences are claimed by Creation 'Scientists' affiliated with religious organizations like the DI, AiG, or ICR?  Can anyone actually name any?  And if you can, can you point to where their religious beliefs enter into those breakthrough?  Not even the one-time golden boy of the DI, Michael Behe, has used his belief in ID in his work, only in his philosophical musings.
  
  They will also push their particular religious belief, intelligent design, as if it was actual science, but again forgetting to support it or demonstrate their scientific methodology.  If you read material by actual scientists rather than DI apologists, you see real science, you see the evidence laid out, you see the methodology used, you see scientists around the world dissecting and replicating their work.  When do you see anything of this for Intelligent Design?  Even Wikipedia describes it as psuedo-science, as much as someone keeps trying to edit that part out.
  
  They will continue to claim the use of human intelligence is an example of the 'theory of Intelligent Design', again forgetting to support the connection.  It would be a difficult connection for even them to make because they have yet to describe a theory of ID.
  
  They will more than likely keep twisting terminology, like 'Theory' and 'Academic Freedom' as ways of justifying their mistrust of science and scientific/educational institutions. 
  
  They might also continue to portray folks like David Coppedge, Richard Von Sternberg, and Guillermo Gonzales as 'victims' of religious persecution rather than the more accurate people who allowed their belief set to interfere with them performing a job and were held accountable. 
  
  Not sure what 'Truths' they will be marketing, but it might be entertaining.
  
  
• What resources are available to help you engage young people and others who think faith is anti-science? 
  Instead of downloading the DI's marketing material, I would recommend a real education more than anything else and that would include actual science, not pseudo-science like Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Does this change in young people moving away from faith-based beliefs worry the DI?  It should since without their faith-based audience, there would be no funding, no marketing, and no Discovery Institute.  But my bottom line is connecting the DI back to something they keep officially denying, their religious motivations.  Why else would they offer this 'free' download. 

To be clear, I am not going to download it.  Would the report itself support their claims for not being religious?  I doubt it, not with this post announcing it.  So I don't believe to need the material.  I've download much of their marketing material already, like their lesson plans for teaching ID . . . another something they claim to be opposed to.  Yes, they claim to not advocate teaching ID in the classroom, yet they had lesson plans posted for how to do it.  This post is another that lays waste to their often made claims of not being religious, the material itself would add nothing to that.

In case you missed them, here are the other 8 posts (8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) about the DI not being religious.  Take a peek and you will see that while they consistently try and distance themselves, they keep returning to their religious underpinnings.  I have said it before and I will continue to say it, the Discovery Institute is much more a religious ministry than anything else.  This post shows they have more in common with kennie ham (AiG), who is at least honest about being a ministry.

Should you understand something before you criticize it?

Caught this from Larry Moran's 'Sandwalk' and had to follow it up:  "You should know the basics of a theory before you attack it".  He warns you to turn off your irony meters before following the link to the original article.  It's from Dembski's blog, 'Uncommon Descent' and it's a dozy!

Here is the line that gets me:

"But what have I accomplished if I spout off some nonsense that Darwinism does not actually posit, refute it, and then say, “thus I have proven Darwinism wrong”?"

How many times has a Creationist of one sort or another, like a Biblical Literalist or Intelligent Design proponent, built a strawman of some part of evolutionary theory and then destroyed it, claiming victory?  Is it possible to even count the times?  Here on this blog we've discussed many of the various strawmen, like:

• The odds argument, such as "Eureka!  I have calculated the odds of me being here, therefore Evolution isn't possible!"
• What about a Hoyle-ism like "A tornado spinning through a junkyard and building a 747, therefore Evolution is impossible!" 
• The "Law of Biogenesis shows that Evolution is impossible!"
• How about the "But mutations can only be bad for you, therefore Evolution isn't possible!"
• An oldie, but one still bandied about: "Evolution violates Thermodynamics, therefore Evolution isn't possible!"
• My current favorite "Information cannot be increased, therefore Evolution isn't  . . .!"

When you list out the various strawmen created for the express purpose of claiming to refute Evolution, the list gets pretty long.  You certainly get the idea that these Creationists really don't know much about Evolution, yet they continue to build new ones so they can knock them down and claim a Victory for Jesus!

I have to agree, most Creationists don't know much about Evolution, and they don't want to know much more.  You combat them by giving good information and hopefully educating enough folks to minimize the damage they can do to our educational systems.  But I think there are those that may or may not know about Evolution, they simply don't care.

To me, those are the dangerous ones because the validity of Evolution means nothing to them, they are attacking it for purposes of their own.  Not because science is in error, but because they use people's religious beliefs to push some agenda of their own.  They pander to them, often to sell books and videos for financial gain, but they also do it for power.  They prey on people not because they believe Evolution is wrong, but because they know arguing against it is a way to gain power.

Look at how many politicians pander to the Christian Right, not because they agree with their positions, but because they know that right now that's how you win elections.  You stand-up a few srawmen, knock them down and when a large enough group cheers you on, you get elected!  Or in the case of the Discovery Institute, you get more funding so you can keep pushing your agenda of undermining science to push your religion onto others (Discovery Institute Still Undermining Science - Karl Giberson).

If you disagree, keep watching the elections that are coming.  How did the Republican contenders respond to questions about Evolution?  Do you really think a Republican Presidential hopeful will admit that Creationism isn't science publicly?  That would be a quick way off the podium!  Even Democratic candidates tread lightly.

Like I said, those are the folks that worry me more.  The way to combat people who really don't know much about Evolution is through education.  It's not easy, but you do see even the most hard-core Creationists abandoning some of their arguments.  Of course they do their best to build new ones, but those also can be overcome by education.  It may take a while, after all people won't let go of their beliefs easily.  But how do you fight those who don't care about the validity of actual science?   If bashing Evolution doesn't work, they would find something else to pander.   

Look at the Governor-Elect of Kentucky, Matt Blevin, and the comments he's made in support of that bigot Kim Davis who is pushing for a Christian version of Sharia Law.  Think I am overstating it?  Well what else do you call it when one group wants to enact laws in support of their religious beliefs and apply them to everyone?  Sure, it's not Islamic Sharia Law, but it's the same thing!  Is this what we want?  They may not know much about Evolution, or they may know a great deal, but that's irrelevant to them.  They pander to win, and the ends justify the means, right?  Scary!

Every time a bigoted 'Christian' opens their mouth, another Atheist is created!

In a recent post (Paul Nelson on Will Provine) I said the following:

"I have found Christians, as a group, to be remarkably close-minded, many quite intolerant, and still others as absolutely hateful."  

I am sure some Christians who read it disagreed with me, as is your right to do so.  But I wouldn't be too proud yet.  Take a look: "Shannon and Carmen Wampler-Collins apply for marriage license in Rowan County" and listen to the  . . . bigots  . . . in the background.  I can't even say what's running through my mind right now, it's making me sick!


I saw a picture of what was purported to be a sign outside of a church, I can't find the image again, but I remember the words:

"If you think your religion allows you to discriminate, you are doing it wrong!"  

These bigoted morons better hope they lose Pascal's Wager, because if they win, they are up hell's creek without a paddle! 

Paul Nelson on Will Provine

You don't hear much from Paul Nelson (Paul Nelson Day), but he recently posted a bit about Dr. William Provine.  It had a lot of nice things to say, but one thing struck me as a bit off.  He referred to him at the most Christian Atheist he'd ever known.  Now I am sure Nelson meant it as a compliment, but I have a small issue with it, and only a small issue with it. 

What Nelson was talking about were the many positive aspects of Dr. Provine's character, how he had a mischievous smile, his scholarly encouragement and playful nature, how he never had any personal malice, and a winning smile.  Based on what I have learned about Dr. Provine, if he heard Nelson describe him 'as the most Christian Atheist', he would more than likely take it in the spirit he would assume Nelson meant.  My issue isn't so much with Nelson calling Dr. Provine a 'Christian Atheist', it's the assumption that the positive aspects of Dr. Provine's character are associated with Christianity?  Really?  Maybe Christian ideals, but then has any Christian, since the idealistic picture painted of Christ, lived up to many of those ideals?  It brings to mind the Ghandi quote:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

To me, it is a huge assumption that positive character is somehow tied to someone's religious beliefs, particularly Christianity.  The implication, which theists love to claim, but never substantiate, is that to have such positive characteristics, you must be a theist of one stripe of another.  Which I find laughable because when you don't share the same specific church with most Christians, they look down on you and treat you like a second, or worse, class person.  If you tell them you are an atheist, they practically hold-up two fingers in a makeshift cross like you are a movie vampire,  Look at kennie ham for example.  He seems to think the only true Christians in the world are those that agree with him!  This assumption that being nice, pleasant, scholarly encouraging is somehow tied, at least in Neslon's mind, to being a Christian is what I can't buy.  I have found Christians, as a group, to be remarkably close-minded, many quite intolerant, and still others as absolutely hateful.  Remember the Ku Klux Klan claims to be a Christian Organization -- even though just about every Christian denomination eventually denounced them . . . probably one of the few cross-denominational agreements within Christianity.

This does tie to a common argument theists like the make about how theism is the source of all things positive in the world and how atheism is the source of everything evil.  We've discussed this before when theists try and claim to be the source of morality?.  Yet there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support this.  The single largest religion represented in US prisons is Christianity.  Everyone remember the whole pedophile priest issue?  Yea, I know many theists tried to play off that these priests weren't 'real' Christians, but reality disagrees!  Morality is based on behavior, regardless of the source of anything currently defined as moral.  Christians like to claim the moral high-ground simply because they are Christians, but there doesn't seem to be any rationale other than wishful thinking, certainly not most Christians behavior.  Yes, the Bible has a bunch of commandments listed, but did they originate within Christianity?  Study up before you answer!

A few years back my wife was having knee surgery.  We were in the surgical prep area for what they call day surgery.   It was a round area, the center was the nurse and technicians work area, around the circle were individual curtained off areas where each patient would wait until fully prepped for surgery.  All of the surgeries were considered routine affairs, non-life threatening stuff, like mole removal, arthroscopic knee surgery, even scoping.  You know, pretty basic stuff.  Well I was in with my wife and I was doing my best to keep things light.  We were laughing and marked a big 'X' on one knee with a note "The other one!".  They gave her a large bright green glass case that looked like a giant pill . . . if you know us, you could well imagine the comments we made about that thing.  Stuff like that.  Well, two spots down on the circle, someone else was in for minor surgery and they had many more people than could fit in their curtained area, so they spilled out a bit.  They were all praying, doing some hymns, and I guess they brought their preacher in with them.  If I hadn't known it was minor surgery, I would have thought a funeral was going on there.  After a while a nurse came in and said "The people down the way are complaining because they can hear you guys laughing.  It's disturbing their prayers."  I don't know what specific strain of Christianity they were, but apparently the kind that didn't have a sense of humor.  We thought about laughing harder and louder, but decided to remain at the level we were at.  I was there to maintain my wife's spirits, I did think it was rather rude of them to not allow me this freedom.  I was sorely tempted to complain about their loud depressing praying and especially their singing . . . which was pretty bad . . . but unlike my Christian neighbors, I was apparently raised better . . . . thanks Mom and Dad!

I had a conversation along these lines recently with a  . . . shall we say rabid . . . Christian.  When I attempted to make my point, he pointed to all the things Christian organizations have done, like feeding the hungry, opening up hospitals, running orphanages.  I asked if any other groups, theist and non-theist, do any of those same things?  He unhappily conceded that they do.  My point is that as a SOCIAL organization, theist or not, groups can choose to do a great many good things, but claiming some moral point because your group does some good things seems a bit of a reach to me. 

Dr. Provine's behavior was not a result of being a Christian, or even emulating a Christian, as Nelson seems to want to believe.  It is a result of the nature of his upbringing and decisions he made for himself when determining how he should behave under any particular set of circumstances.  Apparently Nelson's upbringing and decisions are to make assumptions about other people.  Wonder what he thinks of me?  LOL!