Technology at an Decidedly Non-Technological Ministry

Maybe it's just my sense of humor, but where in the Bible does it mention Lasers?  Little kennie ham is hawking his latest attraction to bring in contributors. "Ark Encounter Introduces Christmas Light Show":

"Christians and non-Christians alike will enjoy this technologically cutting-edge program,” said Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, the ministry which created Ark Encounter."

Yes, technology and cutting-edge are words you don't associate with kennie's ministries.  He, and his Hamians, spend most of his time trying to destroy science and science education.  Of course they have no issue with using the technology that was developed by the very science they cannot accept because there isn't a hint of deference to their version of a deity.  Anyone else see how hypocritical that is?

I am sure little kennie will find some rationalization as to how lasers aren't anti-religion, but evolution is.  But that's all that is, a rationalization.  Science does not address issues involving the supernatural, that doesn't make any scientific discipline anti-religious.  The problem here isn't science, but kennie.

You see kennie, like most theists, have a list of things they insist one deity or another did.  It doesn't matter if the action is written in one of their religious tracts or not.  If they claim it, then they defend it, regardless of reality.  They will fight tooth and nail to protect their religious beliefs, even though they have nothing concrete to stand on.

Since lasers don't brush up against on of those beliefs, it's OK to use them, but evolution, geology, cosmology all brush up against their creation stories and that scares them.  I mean if they have to accept that maybe their deity didn't create everything in 144 hours, then what other parts of their 'holy' books are not real?  Just because there is no evidence of it, doesn't stop them from protecting their beliefs, no matter how far they have to stretch their minds to come up with am explanation that allows them to not actually think.

I hate to break the news them . . . actually that's not true, I enjoy saying things like this:  "The theories behind lasers were developed using the same scientific methodology that was used in the Theory of Evolution!"  I actually enjoy pointing out such hypocrisies.  I know hard-core believers won't accept anything I say, but when I see some of the less-hardcore react to some of the things I -- and many others -- have said, I still have hope.  Of course my laughter when I get told I am going to burn in Hell really pisses them off!

So, in the meantime enjoy the fact that little kennie uses the very science he denigrates to push his messages of homophobia, divisiveness, fear, and hatred.

So You Want To Know What's Wrong With Religion? (7)

Caught this little gem from the Sensuous Curmudgeon, one of the blogs I read quite religiously (pun intended), "Creation alone!", by an Aaron Swartzentruber.  It's hilarious!  Here is his opening:

"Athiests or evolutionists who flat out reject God and Creation is one thing, God have mercy on them and open their blind eyes, but what is worse yet is that there are now many “professing Christians” who are trying to mingle evolution with creation."

Aside from misspelling 'Atheist', I started immediately wondering about his justification for assuming anyone who agree with evolution is an atheist or all atheists agree with evolution, but the rest of the opening made me realize his real target are the multitude of Christians who understand and support real science and real science education.

This guy is setting himself up as the one who gets to decide who is a 'real' Christian and who is not.  Doesn't he know little kennie ham keeps trying for that job himself.  Maybe we will get a pseudo-Christian cage match!  I guess the over 13,900 signatures of Christian Clergy supporting the science of evolution and the teaching of such science to our child just burns his ass!

The rest of his letter is a mix of Bible quotes with him interspersing his own take on what it all means.  Did you ever heard the phrase "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians"?  What it means is that when you take a set of data, you can often twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean.  Religion is like that as well.  Let's jumble a bunch of Biblical reference, ignore the ones we don't like and force them into a narrow viewpoint that we demand everyone follow.  So how many religions are there that do that and conflict with each other over and over again?  How about all of them!  Even those who use the same starting point, like the Bible.

His final paragraph starts with this line:

"If you are one of those who are mingling evolution with creation, you are doing the Devil’s work and I would be doing you, and God, a disservice to tell you otherwise"

Obviously he doesn't see anyone who doesn't agree with his incredibly narrow viewpoint to be an actual Christian (have to mention again the over 13,900 Christian clergy who disagree with Aaron).  Of course if you look at the claims of the Bible of what Jesus taught, Aaron here wouldn't be a real Christian either.  But he's managed to convince himself that he's doing us all a favor by telling us this.

No, he's not doing me any favors because I don't share his narrow views and I will never share his narrow views!  Apparently the majority of the world doesn't share it either!  But do you think he would listen to anything resembling an opposing view!  Yea, neither do I!

Does the Discovery Institute Understand Scientific Methodology At All? Apparently Not!

I've explained this many times, but it bears repeating because the Discovery Institute continues to trot out the same erroneous arguments.  An analogy of a Scientific Theory is that it is like a snapshot in time.  It is the best explanation based on the available evidence we have right now.  In the future, as we learn more, scientific theories change.  While the DI likes to brand this as a weakness, it's actually one of its strengths.  If it were incapable of change, we certainly wouldn't have gone to the Moon, flown a single balloon -- let alone an airplane, nor cured and eliminated many diseases.

In this latest post, new evidence is changing some of the theories around evolution and the DI is complaining.  There complaint goes like this:  Since science is changeable, it means it's wrong, and therefore cannot be counted on.

Here's the post: "With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence".  Without even going into the post, you can see the complaint.  That's why I have to question an organization claiming to be a scientific organization not understanding how science works.  But when you see the DI for what it really is, a religious ministry, it's not so hard to understand.

If you do read the post, it's little new, except for this little gem:

"Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics."

Yes, Physics and the other hard sciences make no allowances for new discoveries at all.  Scientific theories in Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy . . . never change when something new is discovered, really?  So Nobel Prizes are awarded for what?  Maintaining the status quo?  I can hear the announcement from Stockholm now "And the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2018 goes to John Smith, for doing nothing at all!" and everyone applauds, except for me -- I mean, I did nothing in Physics at all, so where is my Nobel?

I do find is funny that this post uses Physics as it's example because the DI has frequently poked at Physics, as well as most of the rest of the hard sciences.  Usually they are trying to tear down support for Biology from any of the other sciences, but equally as often they are trying to use new discoveries in those science to disprove biology.  Funny because in this post they claim that the other hard sciences don't change with new discoveries, and yet when new discoveries are made they try and twist it into something against Biology.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that a scientific theory is not:

"merely a loose collection of narratives that are forged to fit the evidence"

That's what the DI would like people to believe.  Which is why they like using such disreputable tactics as "It's Only a Theory" and calling Evolution 'Darwinism', both designed to make Evolution appear to be less than it is, a Scientific Theory -- which is, just in case you need a refresher:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." (Wikipedia: Scientific Theory)

Just a wee bit more than a 'loose collection of narratives' . . . which happens to much closer to the definition of something else:

"The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. 
Many different authors contributed to the Bible. What is regarded as canonical text differs depending on traditions and groups; a number of Bible canons have evolved, with overlapping and diverging contents.
" (Wikipedia: Bible)

Many different authors, collection, different canons . . . certainly sounds more like a 'loose collection of narratives' than a 'repeatedly tested' and 'withstood rigorous scrutiny', doesn't it?

But the DI would have you believe that scientific theories are nothing more than a bunch of stories with no evidence at all . . . exactly what their pet idea of Intelligent Design has always been.  You think one day they might learn . . . oh wait, but anyone who thinks scientific theories should never be able to be changed isn't demonstrating the capacity for learning, are they?

Who 'Owns' a Rainbow?

A British Pastor claims that "God owns the rainbow not gay pride". Apparently this guy is taking lessons from little kennie ham, who is trying to "Reclaim the Rainbow". Just like little kennie, the Pastor ignores all the other symbolism involving rainbows and focuses on the LBGT community, who have been using if as a symbol since the late 1970's.

So, also like kennie, we see this isn't really about the rainbow, but yet another theistic attack on the LGBT community for not following the same lifestyle at the pastor and his particular flock. The Reverend quoted the Christian Bible:

“I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.” (Chapter 9, verse 4 of the book of Genesis)

A token, in other words -- a symbol. So theists of this particular stripe did exactly what the LGBT community, Skittles candy, Rainbow Brite, the Care Bears, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, and many politicians across both aisles in the US Congress have done, they's adopted a natural event as a symbol representing something. That's not ownership!

The Reverend also said:

“God is saying, it’s my rainbow. It belongs to me. And it does. He owns the copyright for the rainbow. The copyright for the rainbow belongs to almighty God. Not to the LGBT movement.”

So there are Copyright laws in Heaven? Oh, there are some people who are going to get really upset. What are the rules, how does one apply for a heavenly copyright? Is there a time limit, can it cross national borders? How much does it cost . . . although that's a question I would never put to a clergyman. (old joke about a dog being declared a Catholic)  Does this apply to trademarks as well? Does the little copyright symbol look different when it's given by a deity? Maybe it has a star around it instead of a circle?

Little kennie doesn't seem to have a problem with other groups adopting symbols that are also used by the various theist groups. Why isn't kennie complaining when the KKK uses a cross, and burns it?  How about all this Fish-related industries who dare to use a Fish as a symbol? Why aren't kennie and this pastor whining about reserving the fish symbol?  There's a Chicago Street Gang who use a 6-pointed star as a symbol, why is no one claiming copyright on the Star of David?  Or is it only the Christian God who needs copyrights?  How many organization is use a ship's wheel as a symbol, why aren't the Buddhists claiming ownership?

Sound even sillier now, doesn't it? No one, not even a capricious deity, owns a rainbow. Claiming otherwise makes you look even sillier than usual. It's not really an ownership issue, this is just another attack on a group of people who live a life different from the Pastor's and little kennie. So much for Christian ideals and values.

Maybe it is Too Soon To Retire the 'So There's Nothing Religious About Intelligent Design' Post Title?

I was going to retire the "So there's nothing religious about Intelligent Design (ID)" post title, but this one popped up and I just cannot resist, it fits to perfectly. For the less than honest fellows at the Discovery Institute posted: "For Culturally Illiterate Science Reporters, Canaanite DNA Yields Occasion to Slap Bible Around".  I don't really care to deal with their typical spin on any story, the part that interests me is right at the beginning and near the end. Here is the first line:

"Obviously, your friends at Evolution News are not here to do Biblical exegesis. However, when science headlines tendentiously try to manipulate readers in order to slam the Bible, well, that’s fair game."

Exegesis is defined as:

"is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text." (Wikipedia: exegesis)

Simply put the Discovery Institute (DI) is going to explain the Bible to us.  I don't think that's particularly correct, but I'll explain my thinking on that a little later in this post.  So, for this opening line itself, if there is nothing inherently religious about the DI and ID, then why is this post even necessary?  Who is the DI, that bastion of pseudo-science, to interpret the Bible to us anyway?  That's what I find so funny.

The second to last paragraph is the most interesting:

"Not “may have survived.” In the Bible’s account, they definitely survived, in large numbers. The original headline? “Ancient DNA counters biblical account of the mysterious Canaanites.” It should be, “Ancient DNA confirms biblical account…”"

So not only is the DI 'interpreting' the Bible for us, they are changing the meaning.  The Bible says the Canaanites were wiped out.  Deuteronomy shows the order to 'let none survive.  So how is the fact that they survived, show that the Biblical account is confirmed -- as claimed by the DI?  It sure doesn't seem confirmed to me!

OK, my issue is that there seems to be words the DI uses that means the exact opposite of what they say. This post wasn't an example of 'exegesis', but one of 'eisegesis', which is defined as:

" . . . is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. " (Wikipedia: eisegesis)

You can read the whole article and tell me that's isn't exactly what they are doing.  They are spinning in order to claim that science is messing up.  The reality is they are trying to introduce their anti-science agenda into the conversation, while claiming otherwise.  They aren't just 'interpreting', but they are changing the story -- eisegesis not exegesis -- not that we use those terms very often.

Personally when I tell a story and try and be very specific when I am putting my own interpretation on things, especially if I have no idea of the details.  I differentiate carefully between the facts I am trying to explain and my interpretation of those facts.  But then facts and the DI don't seem to have much of a relationship.  I wonder if they used the word 'exegesis' to either sound academic or deliberately mislead people.  I know I had to check the definition myself.  

Further Evidence of the Myth of Biblical Literalism

I haven't posted about Biblical Literalism lately, there really hasn't much to say.  However, today, over on one of the other blogs I read regularly, "Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath" is a new post which drives home one of the many issues with Biblical Literalism "The Bible is Getting More Loving".

The issue I am talking about is something often denied by literalists, on how the Bible changes with the various translations.  Yes, the Bible changes, much more often than people realize!  Today's post is a clear demonstration of that:

Original Source

As you can see the Bible is constantly changing . . . evolving, you might say if you really want to annoy most literalists.  One of the common themes of such literalists is doing their best to ignore many of the more uncomfortable parts of the Bible.  As Prof McGrath posted back in 2008, and I discussed here, a recipe for Biblical Literalism:

"Take one part overly-familiar Bible verses. 

Repeat these verses over and over again until a thick, opaque layer is formed. Use this layer to cover the remaining 39 parts consisting of Bible verses that do not talk about the same subject as those more familiar verses, verses which seem to disagree with them, as well as verses you don't understand, verses you understand but do not put into practice, and any other verses you could happily live without. Bake until the lower verses are obscured from view.

Avoid stirring and serve."

Prof McGrath closed this latest post with::

"It illustrates the way translations reflect linguistic, cultural, and theological changes."

I think he missed one, 'political', because many of the changes noted in the King James Version (KJV) were specifically designed to deal with some of the political issues facing the King.  Imagine what the Bible would look like if a certain hampster-haired serial liar and misogynist got to direct a re-write?  Scary, huh?

And so we close another chapter on the ongoing myth of Biblical Literalism!

Evolution is just a story . . . really?

I think we have a new tactic being tested out by the Discovery Institute (DI).  In this post: "Theory of Evolution? Call It a "Narrative" Instead" by one of the more prolific DI talking heads: little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, he would like you to think of Evolution as being just a 'Narrative'.  Is he kidding? Actually I have trouble distinguishing when klingy is trying to be funny or serious, but that's neither here nor there.  So let's briefly discuss.

What is a Narrative anyway?  Wikipedia defines is as:

"A narrative or story is any report of connected events, real or imaginary, presented in a sequence of written or spoken words, and/or still or moving images."

From this point of view, I guess you can call Evolution a 'Narrative' because it certainly does tell a story of connected events.  Evolution tells the story of life on this planet, not the initial spark of how life formed, but once life existed how it changed and the many forces driving those changes until we reach the present day and we see the incredible variety of life we have today.

So how do I feel about calling Evolution a narrative?  I'm not that bothered by it that much because by the definition, you can call it that.  Just like by definition you can call a diamond 'a rock' and The Biltmore  'a house'.  But by doing so in any way do them justice?  What you cannot do is to call a diamond just a rock, or the Biltmore just a house, can you?

So what is the Discovery Institute (DI) up to?  What we have is nothing more than another word game, something the DI does instead of actual science.  By calling Evolution 'a narrative', they are trying to make it less than it really is, trying to box it into something they can throw away.  Since they have made very little headway getting people to question evolution, they keep trying to re-define it.  Not too long ago their tactic was 'it's only a theory.', today is 'it's only a story.'  In between their original attacks they tried to pass off Evolution as a philosophy called 'Darwinism', a religion, an antiquated concept, and even a violation of physics.  They keep trying to re-define it, but none of it seems to stick.  They keep failing because Evolution tells a compelling story, one loaded with evidence, predictive power, and because it works.  They consistently keep trying to denigrate evolution using such word games because when it comes to the science, they have been failing miserably.   

Just for fun, let's contrast something for a minute.  Creationism, and it's little brother Intelligent Design, also tell a story, doesn't it.  The source document is the Christian Bible . . . and if you disagree let me, let me also remind you that the DI and it's pet concept of Intelligent Design (ID) are religious propositions, not matter how often they claim otherwise.  It was determined in court and also in their own documents.  We've dealt with that issue many times, so let us simply call it what it is, a religious concept.  Since it's underpinnings are based on a specific religion and that religion also has a series of interconnected stories, you can call ID a narrative as well.

Of course, you can look back at the definition of 'narrative' and please note the two words I placed in in italics, real or imaginary.  Therein lies the difference between Evolution as a narrative and ID as a narrative.  As we have already said, Evolution cannot be called only a narrative due to an incredible amount of supporting evidence, decades of scientific study and confirmation.  Yes, it's a narrative, but it is also a real story and it's considerably more than just being a story.  It best fits all the current scientific evidence, so that makes if a pretty damn good story.

Intelligent Design can also be called a narrative, but without supporting evidence, that's about all you can call it.  No one has done any scientific work that lets you call it much else.  It's not a scientific theory, it's not a valid explanation of how life changed on this planet over millions of years, it's not even a good bedtime story because one you hit 'god-did-it', the story is over.  So while you can call Creationism/ID a narrative, you really can't call it much more than that.

Of course klingy doesn't say that. He just tries to reduce down evolution to the status of just being a story. He also does it by trying to mischaracterize evolution as only being:

"evolution by natural selection operating on random mutations"

However, in typical DI fashion, klingy forgets to mention the other multitude of evolutionary forces at work, ones that expand greatly the explanatory power of evolution.  No one in the scientific community would characterize evolution as solely being natural selection operating on random mutations.  That sort of straw-man is most often used by Creationists, including Intelligent Design proponents.  Which certainly clearly characterized klingy.

So, yes Evolution is a story!  It's also a Scientific Theory, or rather an overarching scientific theory made up of hundreds of other scientific theories, each of those theories tell a story that makes up part of the evolutionary whole.  Intelligent Design is truly just a story and one that says surprisingly little.

The Ark isn't Impressive to All!

Today over on the Motherboard website is a nice article on little kennie ham's latest folly, "A Visit to 'Ark Encounter', Where Creationism and Dinosaurs Collide", by Taylor Dorrell.  Little kennie won't like it for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the most obvious reason, is because Taylor didn't bend a knee and give kennie the homage he seems to expect.  To kennie, the world is a binary set of people, those who agree completely with him and everyone else.  The simple fact that 'everyone else' is a huge majority doesn't matter much to kennie, he's convinced in his own righteousness.  Even if you are a member of one of the many similar religious groups -- if you aren't a member of kennie's, you aren't.

Taylor obviously is not.  Instead of simply re-iterating all the things kennie has said about his latest ministry, Taylor wrote honestly about his visit.  I'm not convinced honesty is a word that comes up often where kennie is concerned.  Here's a great quote:

"After experiencing both the Creation Museum and the Ark, I’ve concluded that most of the people visiting are very nice, but I see [Neil DeGrasse] Tyson’s concern with teaching children stories as fact: Ken Ham’s arguments against the Earth being billions of years old rely on the inconsistency of radiometric dating; he doesn’t believe that the light from far away stars and galaxies take billions of years to reach the Earth. When making these arguments, he’s quoting the Bible, not science or any discovery or data in the modern world, as a viable source."

As you can see Taylor sees one of my own issues, the education of our children.  I saw it when I visited kennie's other ministry, the poorly named Creation 'museum' in 2009.  It wasn't so much the adults wandering around looking like they were about to genuflect every three steps, it was listening to the adults 'explain' the exhibits to their children that was positively frightening.

The other reason little kennie might not like this article can be summed up with one little quote:

"I went on the first Sunday it was opened, expecting a large crowd. However there were very few visitors."

Yes, a first hand account on the dearth of visitors.  I know I have been waiting for some idea of how popular, or not popular, kennie's new monument to scientific ignorance is -- but so far the ark folks have been pretty quiet about it.  Other than kennie getting busted claiming the press day picture, with lots of people, was the opening day to the public, so far all unofficial reports have mentioned a lack of visitors.  I am reasonable sure kennie will find lots of people to blame, like the FFRF who sent a letter to area public schools suggesting that visiting the ark is a bad idea, or even Taylor here for not simply re-hashing a kennie ham press release.  But it seems that attendance at the ark ministry isn't coming close to little kennie's extremely generous projections.  Which could leave the taxpayers of Kentucky with a hefty bill.

So I can safely assume kennie will comment on this article, if he can find it among all the other negative articles about the ark park.  I'm sure kennie will accuse the writer of something like being an atheist of some sort, without a clue to his actual religious beliefs.  Obviously kennie isn't responsible for the falling attendance of his 'museum' and the apparent poor attendance of his phony replica . . . well what would you call it?  How can you make a replica of a non-existent ship?  A model maybe, but calling it a replica means that there had to have been an original.  In any event, kennie will find others to blame and if if gets worse, he will get to dump the bill on Kentucky and probably remind us how God told him to do it.

OK, enough of this, I am sure there will be more articles in the future, but the activity does seem to be dying down.  I used to get 5 or 6 links to articles about the ark park every day,  It's slowed to a maybe 2 a week, apparently it's falling just like it's attendance.

I Believe it is Time to Part Ways with the Republican Party

I have been a Republican my entire voting life.  I registered Republican when I was eligible and while I have never voted strictly down party lines, I have believed in much of what the Republican Party has stood for in previous years.  But now, does anyone know what the Republican Party stands for today?

You see my dilemma, and while I would love to blame this parting of the ways on Donald Trump, I have to say it's been a long time coming.

For example something happened recently that makes me question much of the existing crop of Republicans, and it's something that has happened before.  Let me explain -- anyone remember the Dixie Chicks?  They made a few comments about then-President Bush that got them in a hot water with their fans, radio stations, and record companies.

Let me be clear, I disagreed with what they said. But as this quote, often mis-identified as being from Voltaire, explains my position:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

John F. Kennedy said something similar:

"If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."

We are supposed to have certain individual freedoms in this country, and one of those freedoms is free speech.  While I disagreed with the Dixie Chicks comment, they have the right to say it!  They were subjected to comments that threatened their citizenship, their career, their lives, and the lives of their children!  Much of the worse invective came from self-described patriots and conservatives.  I can understand not wanting to buy or listen to their music anymore, but death threats!

Apparently when it comes to 'free speech', far too many people think it means that folks are only free to speak publicly if they say something you agree with -- if not, you get to threaten their children.  That's not free speech!  Free speech doesn't not give anyone the right to threaten!  Make no mistake, death threats are an assault!  You've heard the phrase 'assault and battery'?

"In criminal and civil law, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.  It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact."(Wikipedia: Assault)

The Republican Party was founded on the ideology of 'Republicanism' which, among other things, stresses the rights of the individual.  Tell me what part of individual rights means you cannot speak out your opinion without fear of death threats for you and your children?  It is not patriotic to threaten someone with whom you disagree!  I would go as far as to say it's Un-American -- but when you consider the bombast and vitriol dripping from many self-avowed Republicans in recent years it's seems to be becoming Un-American not to threaten those you disagree with!

I would love to say this is an isolated incident, but it's happening again!  I disagree with Colin Kaepernick, one of the quarterbacks on the San Francisco 49'ers.  If you haven't heard, he refused to stand for the National Anthem and has cited several reasons why he will not stand.  Like I said, I disagree with him, but he has that right!  Like the Dixie Chicks, he's getting quite a backlash, again from self-described patriots and conservatives, including that rather ridiculous figure that gives Alaska so much negative publicity:

"America - let's sack this ungrateful punk. Kaepernick - yeah, you're really "down with the oppressed" in this nation. Enjoying your $114 million contract, your previous adoring fans, sucking up a life of luxury... GOD AND COUNTRY GAVE YOU THIS OPPORTUNITY. You can't acknowledge that? Then on behalf of every Vet I'm privileged to know: GET THE HELL OUT."(Palin's Facebook)

Agree or disagree -- fine -- but demand he leave?  He's probably cost himself millions in endorsements and it might jeopardize his position as an NFL Quarterback, but he has that right!  But no, right-wing nut jobs are threatening him and ones like Palin want to kick him out.  You know when people disagreed with Palin, they simply didn't vote for her.  Imagine the hue and whine if people treated her the way she's trying to treat Kaepernick!

I didn't want to turn this into an anti-Palin piece, but anyone else remember her defending that Duck Dynasty guy, claiming his right to free speech was violated?  Hmm, where was her defense of the Dixie Chicks, or for that matter, Colin Kaepernick?

 "Sarah Palin for one said (per CNN):

"Those 'intolerants' hatin' and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us," Palin, who met the series' cast while on a book tour in Louisiana, wrote on Facebook, along with a photo of her and the cast of the A&E series." (What’s the difference between Duck Dynasty & The Dixie Chicks?)

See what I mean?  As much as I would love to put the blame on people like Palin and Trump, it goes deeper than that.  They epitomize the problem, but they are not the cause for it.  I almost had some respect for Paul Ryan, but when he kowtowed and supported Trump, it was gone!  There don't seem to be any Republicans worthy of the label 'Republican'.

What I see is a disturbing trend that is being exemplified by people all too many people who self-identify as Republicans.  For quite some time I have felt that electing a President and Congress folks has not been an exercise in selecting the best person, but all too often it has boiled down to selecting the lesser of two evils.  That was bad enough several Presidents ago, but it's gotten to the point of being a farce.

Republicans used to stand for so many things that made sense, reducing the national debt, smaller government, conservative fiscal policies, individual freedoms . . . but where has that all gone?  The best you get today is lip service from dinosaurs who are so indebted to special interests that they forget they are supposed to be representing their constituents.  Disagree?  I welcome it, unlike others.

Here's a few examples:

• The political power of the oil and gas companies and the nearly incessant denial of climate change, contrary to all of the evidence. 
• The power of the NRA to block any legislation that might stand a prayer of dealing with the issue of gun violence. You might educate yourself on the Dickey Amendment, not just the language, but the impact over the last 20 years.
• How many Republicans are pandering for the votes of the Christian Right?  It's not because they share the same beliefs, but because voicing narrow views shared by religious conservatives is a way to get them to vote for you.  Sure, tell me Donald has actually read the Bible?  Anyone believe that?
• The amount of money shelled out by pharmaceutical companies for ownership of more than a small block of politicians, emphasizes most recently by the cost of EpiPens!.  
• How about which politicians helped to tobacco and lead-additive companies get away with poisoning us for decades!

Now for more recent events, look at the collection of losers that ran for the Republican Nomination for President in 2015/16, look at them!  Religious panderers, failed business people, bombastic politicians who have never had an honest job.  You wouldn't let any of them babysit your kids and people want to give someone like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Donald Trump the nuclear codes?

No, it's time for the modern day Republican Party to dissolve.  It's over.  The party of Jefferson and Lincoln no longer exists!  The party I have supported for so long and continued to want to support has disappeared!  It's time for a new party, one that represents and respects individual rights!

Yet Another Post That is Sure to Annoy Little kennie ham, Yes!

Yes, another Christian basically saying kennie's off his rocker . . . and not just any Christian, but a Pastor!  Here's the article: "Noah’s Ark facsimile raises questions that go beyond fact"
Pastor Steve Hammer, Esperanza Lutheran Church in Phoenix, AZ, had quite a bit to say.  Including these gems:

"One of the things you will see at the Ark Encounter is human beings coexisting with dinosaurs even though the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and human beings as we know them have only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years." 

"This may seem obvious to some, but sacred story is story. It is not science, it is not journalism, it is not history." 

". . .as the old saying goes, a good story teller never lets the facts get in the way of the truth."

I had to underline a few things to highlight some of the things sure to raise little kennie's blood pressure.  I can't help but wonder how many other Christians do not treat the Bible as if it were a science textbook?  From everything I have read over the years, including time spent in parochial school -- I have to say that it's not just most of them, but the overwhelming majority of them do not treat the Bible as a science, history, or even philosophy text. . . and that has to get little kennie's goat every time anyone posts about it.

PS: I haven't even posted this yet, when I checking my Google News Alerts and found that little kennie has certainly read Pastor Steve's article and responded to it! "Ken Ham Tells Pastors: If Noah Is a Myth, Then Jesus Is a Liar".  Little kennie accuses the Pastor of being a Liberal, which doesn't mean that the Pastor is actually a political Liberal.  You should realize that there are very few people to the political right of kennie ham.  To kennie, anyone who disagrees with him is a Liberal.  Here is a quote:

 ". . . says the account of Noah is not history, but if that's true then Jesus, Peter, and the author of Hebrews lied. The pastor says Genesis is myth."

Which isn't exactly what the Pastor said, he never claimed creation was a myth, but he did say it was a story and not a historical fact.  Little kennie can't stand it!  Genesis has to be historical for kennie, which give you a hint just how weak kennie's faith really is.  Little kennie also said:

"Would the pastor rather have children be taught evolution as fact and creation as myth?"

The majority of Christians are taught the Bible is a collection of allegorical stories designed to teach various moral lessons.  The stories are not presented as factual histories and it was never an issue about the lessons it attempts to teach. Let me repeat that -- it was never an issue when it comes to the lessons it tries to teach!  Even if Mose's didn't actually come down the mountain carrying two stone tablets, that doesn't invalidate the lesson of "Thou shalt not kill" does it?  But, apparently, to kennie it does matter.  Instead of learning the lessons the Bible tries to impart, kennie gets hung up on spending more time trying to market it as historical.  Where is any sort of compassion, where are any of the positive messages from the Bible? 

Little kennie is a living example of this quote often attributed to Gandhi:

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

Does kennie offer any support as to the factual nature of Genesis?  No, he never has, and I doubt he ever will.  But in reality he seems to be missing the point.  Does the historical accuracy of the Bible really mean all that much?  It doesn't seem to  . . . not to anyone but the most narrow of the Evangelical Christian sects, like kennie and his Hamians.  The rest of Christianity seems to focus on other things.

John Hagee says not voting for Trump will piss off God!

"Evangelical preacher John Hagee warns his followers that God "will not hold them harmless" if they do not vote for Donald Trump." is the headline of a post from over on The Immoral Minority blog.  It links to a video posted on YouTube where one of the televangelistas, John Hagee, is pretty much instructing his followers not just to vote . . . which wouldn't actually bother me at all . . . and he's not just telling them who to vote for . . . which I do find a bit disturbing . . . be he is also telling them that God will be holding them responsible if they do not vote for Trump . . . that I find absolutely reprehensible.  Here, check it out yourself:

I am sure if the government attempted to tell Hagee's mega-church who should they 'elect' as the leader of that church, Hagee would be the first person screaming about the separation of church and state.  Conveniently he forgets it when it comes to his own political statements, and that he is actually threatening his followers with God if they don't toe his particular line.

This isn't the first time Hagee stepped into the pool of politics, but I do think it's the first time he has basically threatened his followers in this way, at least about politics.  I would find it hard to believe he hasn't threatened them with God's wrath many times before.  After all, it's the only weapon he has to control other people and have them donate to support his lifestyle, after all he's the 11th wealthiest televangelista in the US.  That didn't happen though a vow of poverty now did it?

It does make a certain amount of sense.  After all Hagee is one of those 'prosperity preachers', you know the ones John Oliver lampooned so perfectly not too long ago.  I am more than a bit surprised that he seems to think Trump is doing anything ther than vote pandering.  Seriously, look at Trump's past, where was his deep religious beliefs then?  Did anyone see any signed during his failed business deals, during his divorces, or during his infidelity?  Nope, but when he decided to run for office, he suddenly started waving a Bible. 

In reality, I don't really care what politico Hagee wants to support, it's using his religious beliefs to not just influence, but threaten his followers.  That's a new low, even for a televangelista.  And no, that's not a misspelling, I prefer to term televangelista.  It's not in the dictionary, but I think it makes a point more than calling him a preacher or evangelist.

Well, I would feel sorry for the members of his mega-church, but they seem to be good little sheep and will more than likely do what he says.  More's the pity!  And people wonder why I tend to laugh a great deal at organized religion, particularly the televangelista variety.  Hagee bought his followers' souls years ago, now he wants to own their votes.

Another Discovery Institute Poll, how did we ever live without them!

Recently the Discovery Institute (DI) has been playing with a new way to make their pronouncements to the world, polling. We discussed this in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!" and "Another poll from the Discovery Institute, oh boy, oh boy!"  If you recall the bottom line of polling like this is to ask questions in a 'certain' way and then slant your various announcements to try and justify your positions based on these polls.

Well, they are doing it again only this time things look even fuzzier.  "New Poll Reveals Evolution's Corrosive Impact on Beliefs about Human Uniqueness"  They don't release the actual poll data, just their own spin on the poll.  Now since I, and anyone with a functioning brain, do not trust anything the DI says, that does make it a little hard to respond.   Apparently only three questions were asked:

• "Evolution shows that no living thing is more important than any other."
• "Evolution shows that human beings are not fundamentally different from other animals."
• "Evolution shows that moral beliefs evolve over time based on their survival value in various times and places."

I'm not terribly concerned with the results, since the DI would only release things that, they contend, support their ideas.  But take a look at the statements.  Talk about misleading!

First a brief discussion on 'human uniqueness', or as it is also known Anthropocentrism, homocentricism, human exceptionalism, or human supremacism.  We like to think ourselves to be special, in some fashion.  This is usually a cultural 'ism' rather than factual.  In many ways humans are unique, but when you examine any other species on this planet you can find things unique about them as well.  I've said before humans like to think we are somehow the pinnacle of development, but put one of us in the room with a hungry tiger and somehow telling the tiger that we are special isn't going to be much help.

So, as a cultural thing, it's nothing more than a belief that we like to see ourselves as somehow above the rest of the organisms on this planet.  Is that true?  Maybe!  In many ways we have certainly had more of an impact on Earth than any other single species.  We harness and use other organisms in ways few others can emulate.  But when it all boils down, we are talking a philosophy rather than a scientific viewpoint.  We even create religions to help us justify our perceived superiority.  Science can tell us what makes us different from other species, but does that automatically mean superior? Here is a conclusion about it that makes the most sense to me (I added the underlining)

"The 2012 documentary The Superior Human? systematically analyzes anthropocentrism and concludes that value is fundamentally an opinion, and since life forms naturally value their own traits, most humans are misled to believe that they are actually more valuable than other species. This natural bias, according to the film, combined with a received sense of comfort and an excuse for exploitation of non-humans cause anthropocentrism to remain in society."(Wikipedia: Anthropocentrism)

So, now back to the polls statements.  The first one: "Evolution shows that no living thing is more important than any other."  Before taking exception, look at the wording: "Evolution shows . . .".  If you understand evolutionary theory you know that this is not quite a true statement.  There is nothing in evolutionary theory that supports human uniqueness. . . because evolutionary theory doesn't address the issue!  Evolution doesn't show anything concerning importance.  It matters not where humans, or any organism, reside on some sort of metaphysical hierarchy, evolution still happens whether you think you are at the top or bottom.  Organisms still continue to evolve. Evolutionary theory doesn't address many things, but Creationists constantly blame many things on Evolution that are not addressed in the theory, such as Abiogenesis and Racism.

How about the second statement "Evolution shows that human beings are not fundamentally different from other animals."  This one is slightly truer!  But it's not Evolution that shows us this, but a host of sciences that show the similarities of humans to other organisms.  Evolution explains why we are so similar, but it's things like comparative anatomy and genetics that demonstrate the differences and similarities.  Whether you want to admit it or not, we are not very different from other animals.  We all have hearts, lungs, nervous systems, circulatory systems, brains . . . the list of similarities is tremendous.  However the DI wants this to be a negative for some reason as you can see from a partial quote from their press release about the 'survey':

" . . . leading scientists and other thinkers have insisted that human beings are just another animal . . ."

Note how they insert the word 'just'.  Is this true?  No!  Leading scientists have said that humans beings are animals, mammals to be more specific.  Does the DI refute this?  No because they know they cannot.  They don't like it, so they use the term 'just'.  I've said this is nothing more than taking a piece of information and turning it into a pejorative.

Think about the phrase 'Catherine is a woman'.  Nice simple and factual.  What you can gain from this sentence is that Catherine . . . a name I picked out of thin air . . . is female and one past the age where you might typically refer to her as a 'girl'.  Now, let's add in the word 'just', as in 'Catherine is just a woman'.  Do you get a very different meaning now?  Of course you do!  Now it's being said to present a woman in a negative light, usually revealing the speaker's prejudices.  That's what the DI did here.  In the survey they say one thing, but in the comments, they twist it to cast it negatively. Humans are animals in every sense of the word, scientists do not say 'just' animals -- that's just (pun intended) the DI's spin.

Now for the third comment: "Evolution shows that moral beliefs evolve over time based on their survival value in various times and places."  Like the others, this is a mix of truth and lies.  Have moral beliefs evolved?  Most certainly!    If you care to, read the Christian Bible and compare the morality of that time to modern times.  Morality has evolved, changed, and not just over time, but have also changed from one place to another.  Look at the moral beliefs in Saudi Arabia as compared to Japan or the United States.  Morality has changed, certainly.  But the real question is why did morals change?  Is it survival or something else?  We could spend decades debating this question, but look what the DI does to it.  They try and tie it to survival of the fittest . . . which is not even how biologists describe evolution.  Here is the partial quote:

" . . .morality evolves based on survival of the fittest . . ."

'Survival of the Fittest' is an archaic way of describing Evolution and one long disused by biologists because it doesn't fit Natural Selection well.  Evolution is not about individual survival but differentiating reproductive success rates.  Here, let me explain it a little better.  Suppose a trait offered an organism a reproductive or survival advantage.  All that means in evolution is that in subsequent generations that trait will become more prevalent in the population.  It doesn't mean organisms without that trait will die off, just that those organisms without that trait will become less numerous within the population.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia about how Creationists . . . and yes the DI are Creationists . . . like to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest':

"Critics of theories of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behavior that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.  However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is–ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. " (Wikipedia: Survival of the Fittest)

 As you can see this whole poll is nothing more than the Discovery Institute trying to use some measure of opinion to support their religious ideas.  But then when you can't support it with science, you need something to convince your backers to keep funding you.

Here is One of the Things that Annoys me about the Discovery Institute

In a brief post on their Evolution 'News' and Views site "The Physics of Intelligent Design" The Discovery Institute (DI) made prominent mention that David Snoke is a physicist who teaches at the University of Pittsburgh.  At first glance it looks like we have an outsider, a real scientist offering support for the DI and Intelligent Design (ID).  And if all you do is take their words in a straightforward manner, that's the impression you get.  However, knowing the history of the DI, I have to dig a tiny bit deeper -- as should anyone who reads their marketing material.

First glance and I see that Prof. Snoke is not a fellow at the DI.  Which I find refreshing.  In the past the DI tried to hide their affiliation, particularly when their members signed their little petition (the infamous list of 700 we've talked about before).  So that was a  positive sign, he might actually be objective.

While I don't expect to see someone's complete curriculum vitae, I would expect to be informed of any relationship with the DI when they go pushing his comments.  So the next question is does David Snoke have a relationship with the DI?  The answer is yes!

Prof. Snoke co-authored an article with Michael Behe.  Now Behe used this article during hearings in Kansas and during the Dover Trial as support for Intelligent Design.  In Judge Jones' Dover decision this paper, the only one cited by defense witnesses Behe and Scott Minnich (Both fellows at the DI), was called out:

"A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used."(Wikipedia: David Snoke)

Now this would certainly be a negative and establishes that the Professor is a current drinker of the DI's particular brand of kool-aid and that relationship should be made clear whenever they are citing him.  But they can't do that, because I believe they want you to have the impression that this isn't a current supporter, that he is objective on the subject at hand.  But we can see he's not objective, but is involved.  He also published a review of Denton's latest effort on ENV.  I wonder if he's becoming a new poster-boy for the DI?

This isn't the first time this type of 'forgetting to mention connections' has occurred.  I wrote about it another time, and that one was a bit more blatant.  There was a trilogy of articles about ID back several years ago and one of them was by the DI's Stephen C. Meyer.  Aside from the article itself, which I discussed in "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!", Meyer said this in the article:

First, the scientific community is not uniformly opposed to ID. My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain's top geneticists.

My response was this:

In my humble opinion Stephen C. Meyer is a liar. According to this quote Meyer states that Philip Skell and Norman Nevin were not previously advocates of Intelligent Design. Let's set the record straight, Skell is a Signatory of the very discredited "A Dissent From Darwinism", the list used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. Meyer is a liar, Skell may not have published a pro-ID fluff piece, but he is an advocate. Nevin is a supporter of "Truth in Science" a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. Meyer is once again, in my opinion, lying!

So you see, Meyer was much more deliberate about hiding connections, claiming that two ID supporters were not known to be ID supporters endorsed one of his books.  The tactic with Snoke is one of simply forgetting to mention any connections.

One last thing you might think about.  When looking up David Snoke I saw that he was actually there at the DI for a meeting of the 'Christian Scientific Society' and one of his previous publications was  A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.  I did mention this society last year when the DI both hosted and advertised for one of their meetings (So There is Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design (Part VIII)).

The DI is consistently trying to distance themselves for their appearing to be a Christian ministry.  I don't think this helped them any.  Their official position is they are a 'think tank'; however, their actions say a very different message.

What is the probability of a Creationist actually calculating the Odds of Evolution occurring?

Over the years I have had a number of problems with the calculations of folks who try and mathematically prove the impossibility of evolution. If you've been following this blog, you know about my Playing Card Analogy.

If you have, you can skip the rest of this paragraph because I will re-state it just to make sure we are all on the same page. The analogy goes like this: You take a plain deck of 52 playing cards. You shuffle them up and deal them out face up. Look at the order you dealt them out. The odds of dealing them out in that particular order are astronomical, 52 factorial (52!), which is 1*2*3 . . .*52). The question is did you beat those odds when dealing out the cards? The answer is no! Unless you predicted the order before dealing, which you did not do, then you did not beat the odds. The applicable odds were that the cards would be in some order, and the odds of that happening are 100%!

OK, now you are familiar, or you already were familiar with my analogy. Larry Moran, over on his Sandwalk blog, had an interesting post "Targets, arrows, and the lottery fallacy". He relates the most common problem when Creationists (Yes, I include the Discovery Institute in that list.) calculate the probabilities for evolution. It is an assumption that the outcome was in some manner predetermined, or that it is the only possible outcome.  As with my card analogy, the odds calculation makes no sense unless the order of the cards was the only possible outcome or the predicted outcome.

So the question, and it's certainly a philosophical one and not a scientific one, is whether or not the human form is the intended outcome? If you claim 'yes', then my next question will be for you to prove it. I can imagine someone whipping out an appropriate Biblical reference about being 'created in his image', but that does not constitute proof. Obviously there isn't anything that mandates the human form.  We are a result, no one can prove we are a predicted, or the only possibility.  We are only a result.

So let's apply this to the 'thinking' of folks like Behe and Dembski. When they declare something as Irreducibly Complex and use a 'design filter' to support that declaration, what they are in fact saying is that looking at the present state of the example, claiming it was the only possible outcome, therefore the odds are astronomical. They don't see, by intent, that the current state is a result, not a prediction. The reality is that some magical hindsight is nothing more than wishful thinking. Something like "I want there to be a God, so therefore I have to invent things that the God had to have done in order to fulfill my desire." Isn't that exactly what folks 'calculating' such probabilities are really saying?

Larry had this to say:

"Do you see the fallacy? Just because we observe a complex adaptation or structure does NOT mean that it was specified or pre-ordained. There are certainly many different structures that could have evolved—most of them we never see because they didn't happen. And when a particular result is observed it doesn't mean that there was only one pathway (target) to producing that structure"

Assuming only one possible outcome is just that, an assumption.  Folks like Behe and Dembski make that assumption and then reinforce it with their religious belief set.  They want to see design, therefore there must be design!  When are the folks from the DI going to acknowledge all the other possible outcomes other than the present state?  I have to assume never, because to admit that other outcomes were even possible would pretty much be a mortal hit to the whole Creationism/Intelligent Design idea.  Humans have to have been the intended outcome, in fact the only outcome, or ID is meaningless.

So, what is the probability of a Creationist actually calculating the odds of Evolution occurring?  How close to absolute zero can we get?  I think we found the both the theoretical and physical limit.

Religion = Crazy? It might work!

Jesus and Mo has done it again!  You have to see this one:  Wow.  After you read it and stop laughing, think for a second.  What tactic has not been tried by folks like kennie ham, the Institute for Creation Research, or those less-than-reputable folks at the Discovery Institute?  How crazy have some of those tactics been?  Is there anything they won't do in the cause of their religious beliefs?  Lying for Jesus, misrepresenting real science and science methodology, Quote-mining, and re-baptising historical figures as Creationists are just a few examples.  While I wouldn't be surprised if they tried what Jesus and Mo are suggesting, I think their next crazy tactic is to try and limit free speech by outlawing any criticism of a religious belief, sort of like the old-style blasphemy laws.  Of course, as usual, any law would only apply to Christianity, since Evangelicals tend to not accept any religion is a real religion except for theirs.  Burning Bibles is bad, but burning Korans would be a perfectly acceptable hobby.

So much for Inerrancy

One of the constant themes I hear from anti-science folks is the inerrancy of the Bible. Not only is it the 'Word of God' but the word has been unchanged since . . . well some say 6,000 years, others are more honest and claim the beginning of the Universe, you know Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists.

When you dare to question this inerrancy one of the things mentioned in its defense is the Hebrew tradition of copying the Torah. Here, Wikipedia said it better:

"They are written using a painstakingly careful methodology by highly qualified scribes. This has resulted in modern copies of the text that are unchanged from millennia-old copies. It is believed that every word, or marking, has divine meaning, and that not one part may be inadvertently changed lest it lead to error. The fidelity of the Hebrew text of the Tanakh, and the Torah in particular, is considered paramount, down to the last letter: translations or transcriptions are frowned upon for formal service use, and transcribing is done with painstaking care. An error of a single letter, ornamentation, or symbol of the 304,805 stylized letters which make up the Hebrew Torah text renders a Torah scroll unfit for use, hence a special skill is required and a scroll takes considerable time to write and check."

I have heard of this tradition many times. However . . . the Associated Press (AP) today "In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution" explains that the Hebrew tradition isn't nearly as precise as folks would like to believe. Over the past 53 years a group has been studying the Hebrew Bible, also know as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, and they've discovered that is has changed and we aren't talking about just a word or two. A couple of the more interesting changes show that the Book of Jeremiah is longer today and a 'prophecy' was added after the events actually happened.

Interesting article! I have said it many times since joining this political and cultural debate. The Bible may be a good book, it may even be a great book, but it certainly is not the only book! It's been written, re-written, translated, re-translated by men over the centuries. What is considered canon was decided in the First Council of Nicea (325), and has been changed in the many Ecumenical Councils since then, like the Council of Trent (1546) (Development of the Christian biblical canon). The most popular English version of the Bible was re-written in part by the direction of King James (Authorized King James Version).

Biblical inerrancy is a fun myth, but it's only a myth! Sorry to burst anyone's bubble -- but then having discussed this with a number of folks, I doubt I am going to make any believers change their mind, but with any luck a couple my just engage the brain a little bit.

Ken Ham believes in Evolution!

Ken Ham believes in Evolution! Yes, I just had to repeat that. It seems kennie may not agree, but it makes perfect sense, as you shall see.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon pointed this out in his post: "AIG and the Pillars of the Earth" He linked over to little kennie here. You really don't need to read kennie's site, SC will help you get the point without having to run up kennie's numbers and make him think people are reading his posts share his narrow belief set.

So if you haven't jumped ahead or read one of the links you are probably wondering how I could possibly make such a crazy statement like 'Kennie Ham believes in Evolution.' Aside from liking to say that over and over again, I really do have a point.

Kennie is annoyingly on record as being a Biblical Literalist. Now I have frequently stated that he is no such thing. Finally he admits it. I mean how else can you take comments like:

"The supposed contradiction quickly disappears when we examine the context of each passage and recognize it as figurative language.

"Please note the use of the term 'figurative'. Now I know my English might not be perfect, being from Brooklyn NY and all. But how can one be a Biblical Literalist and then 'explain' the Bible as being composed of figurative language? Kennie said it himself:

" . . .we interpret Scripture . . ."

and

"God uses this figurative language to create a mental picture . . ."

and

"All of these are obviously not literal statements but rather figures of speech that give a more interesting look at the concept being expressed."

Kennie ended his little 'explanation' with this example:

"So, God hangs the earth on nothing, but it’s not just dangling in space. He has firmly fixed an orbit for our planet and upholds it securely in its proper place in our solar system."

So, if I understand what little kennie is saying is that without any understanding of the Solar System, gravity, orbital mechanics, the many writers and translators of the Bible hit upon a way to explain how God did something and today kennie and his folks 'interpret' it so that God's word really means something completely different from how it was understood hundreds of years ago. Do I have that right?

Oh I know kennie is rationalizing by claiming that he and his pet creation 'scientists' are just interpreting things within the context of what the author meant. If that was so I would like you to look at this Bible quote:

"Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis Chapter 2)

or even this one:

"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2 (New International Version)

Two slightly different wordings, but the idea seems the same. Now remember the folks who wrote the Bible had no idea of biology, or genes or DNA. Could this be 'interpreted' within context to be an example of Abiogenesis, even Evolution? I mean there is no time limit mentioned here, no methodology, nothing that offered any hints. So any assumptions about it happening instantaneously are up to the interpretation of the reader? Right?

So based on this, I feel that claiming 'kennie believes in evolution' is a perfectly reasonable comment to make. I mean kennie is simply trying to apply a modern day context to ancient words. So where is the limit? Ay, there is the rub, as Shakespeare would say. Here is the problem, kennie has set an artificial limit on his 'interpreting'. Seriously? What is the actual limit when you try and interpret the Bible into modern concepts and ideas? Kennie slips in a term that most folks would not be familiar with 'hermeneutics', which is the philosophical study, theory and practice of interpretation.

I think he was being a bit sneaky here. Hermeneutics focuses on trying to apply context to language when making a translation. Kennie not only wants to translate the language, but change it to mean what kennie wants it to mean. I mean really . . . orbit? The author of these two quotes:

• For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and He has set the world upon them. (1 Samuel 2:8)
• He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. (Job 26:7)
  

Do you really think the original authors' context actually included Gravity and Orbital Mechanics? That's kennie deciding what the context means and trying to convince us that they are the same thing. I, obviously disagree. By little kennie's own words then everything in the Bible that even remotely hints anywhere in a very large ballpark of a modern science, including evolution, can be a perfectly acceptable 'interpretation' of the words from the Bible!

Now I am sure kennie will disagree with me. After all, his livelihood is based on gathering supporters and accepting their not-inconsiderable donations, and let us not forget trying to convince taxpayers to help him out with his little homage to HIS interpretation on Noah, the Great Flood and the inclusion of dinosaurs, including such help as:

• A property tax agreement meaning the new Ark Park will pay only 25 percent of the local taxes due.
• And the nearly $200,000 from Grant County's economic development arm gave as an enticement.
• Along with 100 acres of reduced-price land.
• Plus the $40 million worth of sales tax rebates from the state of Kentucky.
• And a possible $11 million in improvements to the nearby interstate highway, financed by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

All that is from a little article from Fox 19: Noah's Ark project gets property tax break. Just wanted to remind anyone from Kentucky who reads this how expensive kennie's new ministry is going to be. And yes, it is a ministry. Remember this:

"All job applicants need to supply a written statement of their testimony, a statement of what they believe regarding creation and a statement that they have read and can support the AiG statement of faith."

Yes, there is no way kennie is going to stop placing his imprint on what he claims is God's inerrant word. He will continue to twist the meaning as long as there are believers to 'contribute'. Hmmm in that context, would the word 'fleeced' be as appropriate. Maybe someone should ask kennie how it might be 'interpreted'?

Earthquake proves Genesis!

I'm glad Topix Evolution Forum came back up because I got to read this:

"The scale of difference is appropriate when comparing the Japan earthquake's measurable effects on the circumference of the earth and the catastrophic earth-changing forces involved in a global flood that covered the Himalayas. Genesis does indicate that God provided the uniformity of nature we enjoy including a 360 day year. Probably the Sun was a perfect 400 times larger and farther away than the Moon from us resulting in perfect Solar eclipses as well, among other things. We can also observe the current recession of the Moon's orbit which accomplishes this about 6,000 years ago but is impossible in an evolutionary timescale." (post 55731 from a posted called Urban Cowboy)

Isn't that just plain incredible? He was trying to justify how God originally made the Earth in a perfect 360 day orbit with 12 perfect months of 30 days each. I am surprised he didn't try and work in the perfection of a 360 degree circle, and 24 perfect hours of 60 perfect minutes each, and 60 perfect seconds in each minute. It was HILARIOUS. He started with an ICR article: Japan’s Earthquake Proves Noah’s Flood and took it to new lengths. It just cracked me up. For the record, my direct reply was:

"Anyone who reads this little diatribe will understand why I find you so entertaining. Look at the rationalization you had to build to justify this 'perfect' 360 day year. Without a single piece of supporting evidence except for a very liberal interpretation of Genesis (something you keep claiming is literally true), you re-defined the entire Solar System and completely ignored every bit of Astronomy theory, evidence, and observations. In order for this little POS to be true, you also have to re-define physics (including gravity, mass, centripetal force), geologic evidence (including continental drift) and even the climatological evidence of hundreds of ice core samples. It's mind boggling how much juggling of the facts you are willing to go through just so you can justify the existence of something that you are willing to say in a different breath cannot and should not require justification. You really need to take this on the road! Even Jesus is snickering at you right now! " (Post 55743)

Can't wait to see if he responds. I kinda doubt it. Urban Cowboy starts ignoring people who don't buy into his version of the Bible. Just because 99% of the Christians in the world wouldn't recognize it either isn't a deterrent. You really ought to wander by and join in, it's fun!

The Bible is NOT an economics text!

OK, in the past I have blogged against what I consider mistreatment and even disrespect to the Bible. I have frequently stated that the Bible is NOT an astronomy textbook and it certainly is not a Biology textbook and treating it as such does a disservice to the whole concept of God!

Well now I can add a new one. The Bible is NOT an economics textbook either, but I guess NY Times columnist Stanley Fish would disagree with me. In his latest column, "Faith and Deficits", Stanley concludes that not only is the Bible apparently an economics textbook, but that the only thing that will fix the economy is Faith.

So I guess Stanley has an inside track to not only understand God, but predict God's interest in all things economic and how God plans to intervene. What happened to God helps those who help themselves, there Stanley?

OK, you can read it for yourself, if you are interested. To me it's nothing more than another example of someone trying to use people's faith to help solve their own financial worries! I mean how do various televangelists afford those expensive suits?

No I am not anti-Bible, and neither am I anti-God, but I am certainly becoming more and more anti-religion as people like Stanley seem to want to use peoples beliefs to some purpose of their own, even if it means misusing the Bible. Sorry, not my cuppa tea!