Evolution, It's All The Fault of the Media!

The Discovery Institute's (DI) little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer is positively gushing over this:  "Tom Bethell's Rebuke to Fellow Journalists: A Skeptical Look at Evolution Is Not Beyond Your Powers", I have to wonder why.  I see all the nice things he claims and all the nice things he says others say about Tom Bethell, which tells me a few things.  This guy in not a 'fellow' at the DI, but if they had a 'Friends of the DI', Bethell would certainly be listed there.  Little klingy says:

"I admit he's a longtime friendly acquaintance and a contributor to Evolution News, so I'm not unbiased. But others who, like me, have followed him for years agree in savoring his work."

For a change, klingy admits to being biased, which is very unusual.  The normal course of actions is for the DI talking head to hide any previous relationship of bias, like what Stepehn C. Meyer did when he said:

"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."

When in reality both Nevin and Skell were already ID proponents, just not DI fellows (Intelligent Design Sh** or Get Off the Pot).  Or like when a new DI talking head was announced, Heather Zeigler, was announced with:

"Today we welcome a new contributing writer to Evolution News & Views, Heather Zeiger. Ms. Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials."

Bragging about her education, but forgetting to mention her more complete background and why she was perfect for the DI (So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II):

"She interned at Probe Ministries prior to graduate school and now serves with Probe as a Research Associate. Her interests involve science and culture issues, including bioethics, origins, and the environment. She is currently working on a M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International University. "

That's why it's so funny for klingy to be open about his bias, usually they try and hide those minor details that make it look like they are stacking the deck . . . oh wait, it doesn't make it look like they are stacking it, they are stacking it and think the rest of us aren't smart enough to realize it.

So, my guess is Bethell has said some nice things about Intelligent Design (ID) in the past, at least that is my suspicion.  His name rings a small bell, but I am not sure from where.  Time to do a little Googling and see what I can find.  As for the reason for my suspicion, it's simple -- klingy is gushing and "savoring", that's more than a little disturbing.  The last time he gushed like this was following a visit to a strip club. (Strip Clubs and David Klinghoffer)

Wow, that took all of 8 seconds and one click after searching for Bethell.  According to Wikipedia:

"Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis which denies that HIV causes AIDS. In the The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (2005), he promotes skepticism of the existence of man-made global warming, AIDS denialism, and skepticism of evolution (which Bethell denies is "real science"), promoting intelligent design instead." (Wikipedia: Tom Bethell)

No wonder klingy loves him!  He is already a drinker of the kool-aid and has been for quite a while.  OK, now we have a better context for anything Tom Bethell has to say, and a good understanding as to why he's in the very good graces of the DI.  let's look at what he says and what klingy says about his book.  Little klingy sorta summarizes the whole thing with:

"Lo and behold, it's not beyond the intellectual reach of a reporter to get to the bottom of the controversy and to estimate the plausibility of Darwin's theory."

I guess this makes sense since the DI has been on a kick lately about how anyone's intuition is as good, or better than scientific investigation.  So having a reporter, especially one already in bed with the DI estimate the plausibility of the Theory of Evolution . . . which I should remind klingy that 'Darwin's Theory' is 150+ years old and has been augmented and detailed by hundreds, even thousands of scientists to the point that most would be unrecognizable to Darwin.  But that being said, you can see how and why klingy would rely more on a reporter than on actual scientists doing real science and studying biology instead of journalism.  He further says about Bethell:

"Not a religious apologist or a cheerleader for any competing view, but rather an old-fashioned skeptic"

 Really?  Read the stuff on Bethell from Wikipedia again.  Does this sound like an old-fashioned skeptic?  AIDS/HIV denier, climate change denier, evolution denier . . . this is not a skeptic, but an old-fashioned denier.  How can you tell the difference?

We discussed this a little just recently, basically a skeptic is someone who questions, but as the questions are answered, the skepticism is reduced.  A denier is someone who refuses to face the evidence, or when faced with it -- they denies it.  Deniers seem to feel their opinion outweighs everything else. We discussed this a bit last year when . . . oh look, guess who . . . klingy was whining that the NY Times was going to change terminology and call climate-change skeptics 'climate-change deniers'.  (Skeptics vs Deniers, is there a difference?).  We also discussed it a bit more recently in a very nice post: Skepticism vs. Scholarship (From James F. McGrath).  The bottom line seems to be that, to the DI, if you agree with Intelligent Design, then you are a 'skeptic' of evolution.  However, if you believe in evolution, you are denying Intelligent Design.  That reminds me of an old lesson in terms "I am firm, you are stubborn, and they are bull-headed" using different terms to mean the same thing, but expressed differently depending on your target.  The DI seems to think something along these lines:  "I disagree with you makes me a skeptic.  You disagree with me makes you a denier."  The difference, the part the DI can't seem to remember, is the actual evidence.

Obviously, as an ID proponent, anything Bethell denies makes him a DI version of a skeptic, but to the rest of the world, he's a denier -- he just happens to be one that writes well, at least klingy thinks so. Although in my opinion that's probably more of a Halo Effect.  Well, reading though klingy's comments, and his purported quotes from Bethell, he says:

"He concludes that while confidence in the pillars of Darwinism -- common descent and innovation through natural selection -- hit their high-water mark at the centenary celebration of the Origin of Species in 1959, the evidence has steadily and increasingly gone against the theory. The whole edifice rested on a 19th century faith in Progress, propped up by a dogmatic commitment to materialism. As the former falters, the structure is in danger of collapse."

Ah yes, yet another prediction in the imminent demise of the Theory of Evolution, which has also been called "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism".  Little klingy also called it 'Darwinism' here which immediately reveals his prejudice.  I would call this less a conclusion and more an opinion.  While klingy mentions all this 'evidence', why is it that he, and the rest of the DI, never managed to produce it?  

So what this is, is nothing more than a restatement of a few of the DI's latest tactics. 

• First characterize someone as being reasonable and even unbiased, when in reality he's a firm believer.  
• Then toss out the idea that you don't have to be a scientist to raise unsupported questions about Evolution -- so simple even even a journalist can do it, or should we call such journalists 'pseudo-journalists'?  
• Finally come to the 'conclusion' that edifice of evolution is about the collapse, something people have been predicting since Darwin first published.

And klingy calls us naive about understanding and accepting evolution?  He also put the blame on the media:

"The naivety is heartbreaking, foisted on us by the credulous, pampered media. "

Little klingy forget to mention the clear majority of the educational system which teaches actual science rather than pseudo-science.  He also forgets the the something like 99% of scientists in biology and biology-related fields who understand accept evolution.  Yes, he forgot the mention all of the avenues in which we reach this level of 'naivety'.  Does he also forget to mention how often he, and the rest of the DI, complain about the media if they don't say nice things about ID?  So . . . bottom line . . . since the media rarely says anything nice about ID, therefore it's the media's fault that evolution is taught at all.

What I expect to see is a rash of articles complaining about the media.  It's currently in vogue right now.  Since, according to the DI, the media won't give ID equal billing with real science, let's join the Trumpist-style circus and attack the media.  Too bad they can't seem to put the same energy in supporting their pseudo-scientific ideas as they so attacking anyone who disagrees while fawning over those few that agree with them.  

Do You Blame the Scientific Community From Giving You Ammunition?

Ridiculous post over on the Discovery Institute's (DI) usual haunt, 'Whatever You Do, Don't Say "Irreducible Complexity"'.  Apparently there is an article in a real scientific journal that warned against using the word 'complex' because of it's association with 'biocomplexity' and 'irreducible complexity'.  Can you blame them?

Just yesterday I posted how the DI is willing to grasp any use of intelligence and claiming it as a victory for their pet religious concept of Intelligent Design. (More Misdirection from the Discovery Institute).  In that post I said:

"What we have also learned, yet again, is that whenever anyone uses their brain (intelligence) and discovers anything that can be interpreted, or even mis-interpreted, as 'design' then the DI is going to try and claim yet another victory for their pet concept ID.  They, the DI, still cannot tell the difference between their Intelligent Design 'theory' and use of intelligence in scientific discoveries."

Since the DI is so quick to make such claims, is it any wonder an article's author might want to avoid some specific terms that would supply the DI with more opportunities?  How many other words do we avoid using because of a specific connotation?  I'm sure you can think of a few, I know I certainly came up with a dozen without much effort.

Of course the DI tries to spin that this as some sort of prejudice . . . and they are right, although not in the way they intended.  Should actual science be prejudiced against pseudo-science?  Most certainly!  The DI doesn't see themselves as pseudo-scientists, but admitting it might have a negative funding impact on the DI.  I mean it's hard to push religion if the donations dry-up.

I do wish to point out one other . ..  lie . . . I know, sugar-coating things isn't my style.  Here's a quote from the DI post:

"Oh, and isn't BIO-Complexity the title of a peer-reviewed science journal open to examining ideas supportive of intelligent design?"

Two problems here.  The first is simple, the paper they found so offensive suggested avoiding the term 'biocomplexity'.  According to Wikipedia:

" . . . some researchers have begun to use the term biocomplexity in a narrower sense to denote the complex behavioral, biological, social, chemical, and physical interactions of living organisms with their environment. This relatively new subfield of biocomplexity encompasses other domains such as biodiversity and ecology." 

Which means the original paper might not have been addressing the DI's journal at all.  The second problem is that even if they were addressing Bio-Complexity, is it really a peer-reviewed science journal?  Not in the least.  It's been identified as the latest Intelligent Design journal. Origins & Design from Access Research Network (ARN) and Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design  from Wild Bill Dembski were two previous attempts.  I said this about Bio-Complexity a while back:

"The National. Center for Science Education had a lot to say about Bio-Complexity shortly after it was announced.  Here is my favorite comment:

"Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics — or perhaps the mot juste is “apes” — not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."

So you see, even if the original offending paper was addressing the DI's in-house journal, calling it a peer-reviewed science journal is at best humorous, at worse just another lie.   Real science peer review is not the same thing as having a few people who already agree with you read your papers and pat you on the head.

Personally, I think avoiding certain terms are a waste of time, not because they might cause an association with something the DI might say.  It's because since when does the DI need actual words to try and form an association.  Look at my own post link at the start of this post.  The DI took something unrelated and drew an imaginary line to Intelligent Design.  After all, wasn't it the DI who handed to Ohio State School Board a list of 44 peer-reviewed publications that they said showed support for Intelligent Design?  A list that was fraudulently represented by them! (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-discovery-institutes-bibliography).

Yea, the DI 'don't need no stinkin' words!

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!).

The Return of casey luskin

When he departed the Discovery Institute, lawyer and pamphlet distributor (at the Dover Trial) I figured wherever casey luskin landed we had not heard the last of him.  The Discovery Institute's Evolution 'News' and Views website had this little article about something little casey had written. However, something seemed off to me.  Here is the link: "In Court Rulings on Teaching Origins Science, Law Review Article Finds a Double Standard".  Of course, since this post is on the DI's site, it needs to be taken with a large bag of salt.

Before reading their post or even the link to the article itself, I had to wonder about the source. According to the DI, this is article was published in 'a' Law Review.  OK, which one?  They don't say. Isn't that just the tiniest bit suspicious to you?  The link to the article itself is another DI link, not to the source.  Normally when quoting an article, you go to the authoritative source, not a copy.  Why would the DI not want to identify the source?  If it was something like the 'Harvard Law Review', I'm pretty sure it would be a large part of the article, if not the overwhelming content.  So, where in the world did casey's little missive get published.  It's going to take a little more research on that.  In the mean time, here are a few examples of other times the DI tried to hide things.  You can check it out while I do a little Googling.

1.  First up, back a while ago, in a post "So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II" I discussed Heather Zeigler. One of my points was that the DI described her as:

"[NOTE: Today we welcome a new contributing writer to Evolution News & Views, Heather Zeiger. Ms. Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials.]"

and yet forgot to mention all her credentials, like [the bold were the words they used, the rest they forgot to mention.  I added the underlines for emphasis]:

"Heather Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials. She interned at Probe Ministries prior to graduate school and now serves with Probe as a Research Associate. Her interests involve science and culture issues, including bioethics, origins, and the environment. She is currently working on a M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International University. She is married to David, another former Probe intern and teacher at Trinity Christian Academy. "

In other words, they decided to not mention that Heather is one who already drank their kool-aid and tried to pass her off as somewhat objective.  Of course, when you look at her a little bit closer, you realize that she probably won't be particularly objective at all.  I don't think they hired her for her objectivity.

2.  A while back the DI discovered the power of polling, we discussed in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!" The DI announced the results of a poll, yet they forget to tell you it was their poll and they worded the questions and twisted the results for their own purposes.  In another poll they even forget to tell you what questions were asked ("Another poll from the Discovery Institute, oh boy, oh boy!"), they only presented their spin on the results.  Their version of a poll is something like one kid asking another, "Have you stopped beating up your sister?  Yes or No."

3. In "Klinghoffer lies by Omission" we discussed a new 'Biography' of Alfred Russel Wallace written by the Michael Flannery.  In the piece, little davery klinghoffer described Flannery as:

"Michael A. Flannery is Professor and Associate Director for Historical Collections at the Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and editor of Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution (2008)."

For some reason little davey forgot to mention that Michael Flannery is also Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Now why in the world for davey not bother mentioning that little item? He says so many nice things about Flannery, but not once does he mention that he and Flannery are buddies who share the same political masters, the DI. Why would that be?

Are you sensing the same trend here?  When there is information about any subject that might cast the slightest doubt on whatever point the DI is trying to make with anything resembling honesty and maybe a little objectivity, the DI always seems to fail to mention it.

4.  Sometimes the lie is pretty blatant, like in 2010 when I posted "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!"  When Stephen C. Meyer was quoted as saying:

"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 back then:

"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."

Continuing that trend, it took a little digging to uncover where little casey had his article published, "Trinity Law Review", which is published by the Trinity Law School. Now that might sound prestigious, but it's not. If just the name 'Trinity' doesn't give it away, their own website states:

"At its core, our community is shaped by our commitment to the Gospel – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. We exist to serve Christ by championing a biblical view of human law and government through our students, graduates, faculty, and staff." (Trinity Law School: About Page)

You can check them out in Wikipedia (Trinity Law School), which has a bit more to say like:

"Trinity Law School ranked second on The National Jurist's list of "Most Devout Christian Law Schools,"

"At present, Trinity Law School is not approved by the American Bar Association (ABA)"

"[They are the] publisher of Journal of Christian Legal Thought, a publication of Christian Legal Society"

OK, so without even reading little casey's missive, we know that it was published not in a prestigious law review, but a Christian Apologetic version of a law review.  No wonder the DI didn't publicize the venue.

So what else does that tell us?  I am pretty sure this is going to be nothing more than what casey used to write for the DI.  A fluff piece that takes an unsupported, and possibly even unsupportable position and make it sound like ID is not the religious proposition that we all, including the DI, know it is.  Anyone want to take a bet on it?  OK, this is long enough and it's getting late.  I will post again tomorrow after I read the DI post and casey's 'Christian Law Review' article. 

What is the source of morality?

A common theme running through many a post by one theist or another is that without religion, you cannot possibly be moral.  I disagree, but maybe not for the reasons you might think.  The question to isn't what is the source of morality, but whether or not the source is important?

Morality, in it's simplest form is nothing more than behavior that is characterized as 'good' or 'bad'.  It's a standard that is set by society.  Regardless of the source, morality is what tends to keep people from doing things they realize are unacceptable to the society they live within.  The issue at hand isn't whether or not a particular behavior is moral, but is the source of the standard important to the application of the standard.

There's where I have issues with the whole religion = morality argument.  Yes, some of the moral standards we live with can be traced to one religion of another.  Others can be traced back to one legal system or another.  Still others have formed through custom and courtesies we see and practice ourselves.  Regardless of the source, morality is a driver of a surprising amount of our behavior.  Most of us try and make daily decisions based on our understanding of morality, often unconsciously.  I mean we rarely think specifically about morality unless it's a blatant issue, like abortion or pedophilia, but our morality comes out in much smaller ways.  How we treat other people, how we communicate, how we go about our day-to-day lives.  We might consider morality as we read about the latest school shooting, or how other people are treated around the world, but while we think about it, do we consider the source of the morality?

Rarely!  The source is less important than the imprint it left on us.  I look at it this way, it is immoral to murder someone.  Does it matter to me whether or not I learned it as part of the 10 Commandments or that I learned it from watching the news and forming an opinion?  When I consider the concept, the source is pretty much irrelevant.  For one reason or another I am full of what I consider 'moral' standards.  I am sure my upbringing as a Catholic was one of the sources, but they also include my parents and the rest of my family, my friends, my education, and most especially my own experiences added to the mix.  All of these things have formed various opinions that I use to judge my own and other people's behavior.  When I hold the door open for someone, it's a moral decision born of politeness and also of education from my mother and father.  My mother expected it and I saw my father do it regularly and I more or less picked it up.  Sure earth shattering it's not, but it's one of the judgements I make about my behavior and recently it made me think about the source of my morals.

I started a job in a secure building, one you needed a swipe card to enter.  The rules were such that if you let someone else in on your swipe, you could get fired.  So I had to develop the most uncomfortable behavior of literally closing the door in someone's face so the locking mechanism can engage and they can swipe themselves into the facility.  It might not sound like much, but it was one of the hardest things I ever had to do.  Closing a door in anyone's face is really hard, but it was actually harder when it was a woman.  Yes, it might be sexist of me, but that's how I was raised.  The first time I did it, I could see my mother standing over to one side looking at me with a very disappointed look.  I knew the rules and I am sure the lady behind me knew the rules, but it made me very uncomfortable performing that very simple act that in any other environment would have been considered rude and  . . . yes . . . immoral. Again, not earth shatteringly immoral, but immoral just the same. 

I am sure technically since it was an enforced rule you could argue that it is moral of me to shut the door in their face, but that didn't change how it made me feel.  Last night while I was think about it, one of my favorite online comics, Jesus and Mo had a perfect one and one that followed some of what I was thinking:

I haven't read the study they reference (Morality in everyday life), but the idea that theists and atheists could be identical in a moral sense made me think again about the source of my personal morality.  Once again I came to the conclusion that being moral is about behavior and the source that drove that behavior is immaterial to the result. 

So when any theists makes a claim of moral superiority simply because they are a theist, it makes no sense.  Believing in a religion doesn't make you moral.  It's your behavior stacked up against what society considered morality that makes you moral.  So when someone like kennie ham lies to get someone in an interview (Turnabout is fair play!) and even using the excuse that God will forgive such a little transgression because it's for some higher purpose, his beliefs matter little because his behavior is immoral.  When Philip E. Johnson (One of the founders of the modern Intelligent Design Movement) commented "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble." he should have been addressing the morality of their position rather than simply complain about the lack of scientific progress.

My conclusion is being a theist does not make you a moral person, just like being an atheist or agnostic doesn't make you immoral.  It's your behavior in large and small things by which you are judged by your fellow human beings.  Lies, distortions of the truth, and deliberate mis-characterizations are immoral whether you think you have a deity looking over your shoulder or not.