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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did Methodological Naturalism Replace a Theological View of the Universe?

Sort of interesting article from the Adventist Review Online: "Cliff’s Edge – The Neo-Darwinian Inquisition", but like many similar arguments, it misses a simple, yet key, point.

Cliff Goldstein said:

"Sure, like 400 or 500 years ago, “natural philosophers” (the term “scientist” is a nineteenth century creation) nibbled away at the dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority that for eons dominated the intellectual landscape. My favorite line in the history of the West came when—defying the stranglehold that Aristotle (the Darwin of his day) had on just about every discipline (like Darwinism today)—Englishman Francis Bacon declared, “I cannot be called upon to abide by the sentence of a tribunal which is itself on trial.” Wow! In other words, How dare you condemn me for violating a tenet of your worldview when your worldview itself is what I am challenging to begin with?"

I think Cliff is missing a few points.  First off a question, why did dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority dominate the intellectual landscape for eons?  Do you see what I am getting at?  Cliff is complaining that natural philosophers nibbled away at that authority, but does Cliff explore why that authority was so paramount for so long?  Eons is stretching it, but it was the principle authority for a long, long time.  So why was it so?

In all honesty, it was the only game in town, wasn't it?  Who controlled the educational system?  Religious groups, did they not?  Monarchies ruled by the grace of one deity or another, didn't they?  Look at every town and you find often the largest and most ornate building was a religious one.  There were regular mandatory gatherings, and people were not allowed to exempt themselves, were they?  It literally was the only option, and it wasn't much of an option.  Even in the largest cities you might have multiple religious groups, but often they were segregated in certain areas -- or often they segregated themselves.  Marriages were often based on religion, children raised in the religion of their parents . . . and endless list helping to keep religion the only game in town.

Cliff also doesn't want to remind people that religions are incredibly jealous masters, even Christianity, which sells itself as being good and wholesome, has as its first commandment 'Thou shalt have no God before me'.  OK, sometimes it's listed second -- after the one about idols.  But the point is that adherence to the Christian God is before murder, theft, and adultery -- which is a perfect example of religion's priorities.  Most religions decry other religions, often tolerating them more than actually accepting them.  Many theists might never admit it, but anyone not of their specific religion is looking down as some sort of lesser human being. They are taught to feel sorry for others who fail to share their belief set and are constantly trying to convert them

Not complying with the religious authority could get you ostracized, banished, or even killed, it was hard to even consider any possible alternative.  Now let's ask the same question in a different way?  Did those dogmatic, traditional, or ecclesiastical authorities offer answers that actually worked?  Did prayer cure disease?  Did a deity help you plant the crops that would let you survive through a barren winter?  Did it help you build shelters, or explain how the sun rose each night or where it went at the end of every day?  In other words did religious answers provide anything useful in a practical sense?

So, even though it was the only game in town, and an incredibly jealous master, the answers that authority provided weren't particularly useful.  You have a very sick child -- then you were supposed to pray!  If the child died it's your fault for not praying hard enough!  If the child lived, praise your deity!  Sound familiar?  Even today when a disaster strikes, there are religious zealots who want to blame the lack of faith of the people affected.  Disagree?  Well then I guess you weren't watching the news about the some of the recent events like mass shooting and hurricanes.  I've mentioned the religious tendency to blame the victims a number of times, for example.

The reason I raise the question the way I have is because of another point Cliff misses.  Not the fact that science is replacing much of the religious dogma that has been taught for centuries, but why is science so successful at replacing religious answers?

It's funny, in the past when one set of religious dogma replaced another, it's stories and traditions simply replaced the old.  It wasn't that it was any better or more usable, just different.

Cliff makes it sound that such ecclesiastical authority was some monolithic structure, but the reality is it was different wherever and whenever you lived.  Every religion had their own set of stories, the only difference was the time and location -- Norse Gods, Roman Gods, Native American Spirits, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu . . . we could go on for days just listing them all.    How many different explanations for the Sun going across the sky existed?  Apollo's chariot (or Surya's chariot in Hindu mythology) or Sol, the Norse Goddess of the Sun are just two examples -- there were many others.  Even when the Sun was understood not to be a chariot, it was said to go around the Earth, because the Earth was the center of the Universe.  While they were different in specific detail, they all shared the same idea -- when you fail to understand something, slap a deity in front of it and start praying.

Science, on the other hand, isn't replacing one set of theistic explanations for the world we live in, but all of them.  Why is that, Cliff?

Cliff seems to be trying to equate one religion being replaced by another with the changes science has made in the landscape  . . . but he keeps forgetting one key feature.  The point Cliff is missing is 'Why', not why did this happen, after all belief sets have been coming and going for centuries.  The 'why' is more why did science manage to replace theology in addressing questions, and not just one set of theological, but all of them.

Think about it, right now, in modern times there are still hundreds of different religions, even if you look at the main branches, you are looking at tens of different ones -- all with their own set of religions stories.  Science isn't one religion replacing another, as people like Cliff would like you to believe.  But it's one set of answers replacing all the religious stories for a very simple reason, they works.

It works regardless of what religion might be prevalent in a region, it works regardless of national borders, it even works regardless of the opinions of pandering politicians.  Science works, Cliff.  That's the point you keep missing.  When you say things like:

"Newton’s formula (within limits), and modern science in general, worked so well, their predicative and technological successes so stunning, that today science wields oppressive power over most every intellectual endeavor. "

Cliff, you aren't recognizing the truth in your face.  Modern science, mainly scientific methodology, doesn't wield oppressive power the way religions did for centuries, but it does wield tremendous influence because it works!  Of course religious alternatives don't gain traction, not because of that influence, but because they don't work.

That's where the modern Intelligent Design Movement, and all the other religious concepts keep failing so many challenges.  I'll put the question to you, What's been the single biggest difference between the challenges put forth by yet another religion, and the one by science?  It's a pretty simple answer . . . which one works?  Which one meets the evidence, which one can be used to produce results, predictable and consistent results?

Yes, there is the point Cliff conveniently forgets to mention.  When science answers a question they offer support as in evidence, as in testable explanations, as in predictions that later discoveries confirm.  I'm being serious, can you point to a specific example of a deity taking action?  Be my guest, but in reality, you cannot.  If you are a theist the best you can do is identify something you think a deity may have done, but you cannot substantiate it in any way.  When pressed you drag out your religious tome as if that's evidence.  Even if your one example is in fact the actions of a deity, can it be applied consistently?  Can it be depended upon to work?  If so then the lottery would have millions of winners each week, wouldn't it!

We haven't found a single turtle holding up the Earth or pillars holding up the sky, nor found an angry deity causing an earthquake. Scientific theories have offered more and better explanations than any religious story I have every heard, and I would hazard a guess that science will continue to provide better explanations regardless of your religious beliefs.

Hopefully you can see the difference.  While religious explanations seem to touch something within some people, the reality is they don't offer much in the way of explanatory power.  Science, on the other hand, actually works.  That's the point Cliff seems to keep missing.

So what's a theist to do?  Well, the majority of them seem to have no issues with dealing with the world around them as it is as opposed to someone's claims a deity says it is.  Some small, yet vocal, minorities like to resort to all sorts of activities to try and protect what they perceive to be their 'turf'.  The problem is their explanations still do not work, not matter how many politicians pass laws 'protecting' them or their theistic 'pseudo-scientists' claim otherwise.

If you disagree I will ask once again, show me an actual scientific advance that how at it's core a religious concept?  I've had this conversation with different people over the years and at best they claim that a deity was the inspiration behind a scientific advance.  That's it!  They can't point to one scientific theory, or even part of a theory, and tell me anything specific.  They offer nothing but their own conjectures and lots and lots of wishful thinking.  But when it comes down to testable, measurable, and usable explanations, science leaves religion in the dust.

Is science perfect?  By no means!  But don't try and tell me perfection only applies to deities . . . if that was true, why do we need thousands of religions?  But when it comes to actually providing real answers, science, and the scientific methodology, is that only one that provides them.  Medicines cure disease, Materials science explains how structure we build remain standing, Geology explains earthquakes, Physics explains gravity, . . . -- all without invoking a single deity.  Do we know everything on every subject, no.  We will continue to learn and grow -- but working and workable answers will continue to leave out the deity, all of the deities!

And while we continue to advance on the scientific front, religions will continue to fight tooth and nail to protect their beliefs.  The tactics of mistakes they use will continue as long as they are donors willing to fund them.  People like kennie ham in Kentucky or those less than honest dealers in pseudoscience at the Discovery Institute will continue to both market their beliefs and fail to withstand any actual scrutiny, as long as their a people willing to fund them.  Science will continue, not because of a stranglehold of ideas, but because science simply works.

Theism and Morality, any Correlation? Apparently Not!

One of the sillier posts from the Discovery Institute's Evolution 'news' and Views site is this: "On Atheism and Morality, Study Confirms Voltaire?"  The basic question is "Can you be good without God?"  Michael Engor, one of the DI's talking heads has a lot to say about it.  I do enjoy his opening line:

"Can you be good without God? Of the various questions raised in the theist/atheist debate, this question has, I believe, occasioned more witless commentary than any other. "

You can find a wonderful example of 'witless commentary' than the rest of Michael's post.  He begins with a discussion of what 'without God' means -- and he starts that with an assumption:

"If God does not exist, you cannot be good. You cannot be evil."

I think he missed the metaphysical boat on this one -- but then with how often the DI claims not to have religious roots, they, and all their talking heads, love to discuss theistic subjects.  That aside, where I think Micheal blew it by not really addressing what it means to be 'good' or 'bad'?

If those concepts are really driven by religious beliefs, then Michael might have a point, but if they are not, then the whole 'with and without God' discussion is -- as Michael would say -- 'witless commentary'.

So, just what is the source of Morality?  Let's do something the DI hardly ever does and define our terms:

"Morality (from the Latin moralis "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness"." (Wikipedia: Morality)

Look at this line in particular:

'Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.'

So the source of what is determined to be 'good' or 'bad' may or may not come from a religion, it could just as easily come from many other sources.  What that tells me is that the source is unimportant.  That might annoy some, but think it through.  Regardless of the source, the key is how it's defined by society, not a particular religion.  And if you look at the things generally defined as 'moral' and 'immoral', what is the key?  Human impact!

Murder, slavery, child welfare, among many others have all been codified into a set of morals because of the impact they have on us as people.  Many groups, religious and secular, have defined similar codes.  Is the insertion of a deity required for such a code to exist?

To support that, look at all of the things we consider 'good' and 'bad' and tell me is there one religion that holds all of those same standards?  Many of today's moral improprieties are not against religious beliefs, but societal ones -- human ones.  Plus many religions conflict on matters of morality.  Is Birth Control a sin?  Depends on which set of religious beliefs to which you subscribe.  What about alcohol?  Some religions call any alcohol immoral, others only claim drunkenness is immoral, and still other standards of morality don't bother with alcohol unless you are driving or acting up in public.  Was it moral to send children to work in coal mines?  Is killing a non-believer murder?  Pre-marital sex, often religiously immoral, but still practiced by many -- including theists. I went to a wedding a few years ago, music was allowed, but dancing was a sin.  Do you know how hard it is to prevent my granddaughter, who was 5 or 6 at the time, from not dancing at a wedding when every other wedding she had been had hours of it.  At my nephew's wedding there were nearly as many pictures of her dancing as the newlyweds. The definitions of 'morality' change from religion to religion as often as they do from country to country and culture to culture.

So, 'good' and 'bad' are determined by society, not by a religious tradition.  Some of our moral 'standards', for lack of a better word, can trace their history back to various religious beliefs, but that has little to do with those moral standards in place today.  It's the human impact, regardless of apparent source, that matters.  Add in the conflicts between religion and the enforcement of those standards on society, you really see that the source of a moral position matters little.  It's societies' acceptance of those standards that are important, many of them further codified into laws.

That being said, the question becomes are atheists as capable as theists of leading a 'good' life when the 'good' is not based on a religious tradition, even if a specific moral judgment may have historically been part of one.  So what else would support a contention that theism is a necessary part of such a life?

I know, how about US Prison populations?  Theists like to claim that without a set of theistic beliefs, usually their own specific set, you have no basis for the idea of good or bad, therefore Atheists are more likely to be criminals.  So the expectation is that Atheists will have a higher percentage within the prison population than Theists.  If it's not true then Theists are just as likely as anyone else to commit crimes.  I know many would like to think their religious beliefs place them on some sort of moral high-ground, but there doesn't seem to be much data to back that up.

The first question I wanted to know was if there are specific instances of religion having an impact on certain types of crimes.  With one exception, there doesn't seem to be a correlation, and that is fraud, it's apparently a high percentage problem with many non-profits, including churches.  Churches seem particularly susceptible to fraud and embezzlement, mainly because they are exempt from filing annual reports to the IRS.  Forbes discusses it in a 2013 article.  The other reason is religious groups try to keep their legal and moral issues internal . . . yea, we saw how well that works a few years back for the Catholic Church, didn't we.  Other forms of crime, theists seems to commit them more often than atheists.

In a Wikipedia article, "Correlations of Criminal Behavior", there are few studies that hint people with strong religious convictions may be less likely to commit certain types of crimes, there's not enough evidence to back up that claim.  A 1997 study found little correlation between religion and a lack of criminal activity, or drug use.  Funny it found a much more statistically relevant connection between religion and alcohol.  How about Prison Statistics?

Hmm, interesting, "Mean religious affiliation of inmates in U.S. prisons, as reported by prison chaplains in 2011" has an interesting graphic:

It's a little hard to read, but you can see that over half the inmates are reported to have a Protestant religious affiliation, 50.6%.  Only 10.6% profess no religious preference, and only 5% are unknown.  There is no category for Atheists, so making a comparison is difficult.  But form the above statistics, you can see that those with 'no preferences' and 'unknowns' are are less than one-quarter of the total just comparing then to Protestants and Catholics (65.1% v. 15.6%).  While I believe I can safely assume some of those unknowns and no preferences are Atheists, all that would do would make the statistic even more lopsided, in favor of the Atheists being less likely than Theists in committing criminal offenses.

I found another set of stats from a study done in 2013.  This one actual identified a category for Atheists:

While the Protestant percentage dropped and Catholics nearly doubled from the previous stats, the percentage of Atheists is 0.1%, or 1/10 of 1%.  So far, the idea of morality requiring a religion seems to be taking a beating.  If being a theist means you were less likely to commit crimes, that doesn't seem to hold up when you actually start digging.  I guess theists simply like to claim it as a point in pride, but the reality is that is just doesn't seem to be true.

So, looking at the prison population, while Atheists represent 0.7% of the general population, only 1/7th of them are represented in the prison population.  Yet theists of varying types, represent 99.3% of the general population also represent 99.9% of the prison population.  So there really doesn't seem to be much to support the idea that you require a deity to have a standard of good and bad. Society lays out those standards, the historical source is immaterial.

So, based on all this, Atheists and Theists alike have the choice of what type of life they lead.  Being a Theist doesn't seem to offer any better chance the life led will be morally better than an Atheist.  At best the idea of religion may be a factor that weighs in a Theists mind before heading down a religiously forbidden path, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to show being aware of that forbidden path actually stops people from treading on it.

One last thought, if Theism was a viable deterrent to immoral behavior, there should, not only be statistics to back that up, but then many types of these behaviors should be able to be handled by theistic groups.  However, looking the example discussed above, theistic groups don't seem to have a good record of policing themselves.  A quote from the Forbes article cited included this gem:

"Johnson [the author of the study] told me [the Forbes article author] that "part of it is a reluctance to see the bad side of a nice pastor, a secretary or a board member of the church." Johnson even cited one quote from a church member who knew of an embezzlement and said, "I know he stole my money but I still think he's a wonderful person.""

'he stole my money but I still think he's a wonderful person'?  And the DI thinks belief in a Deity makes a person more moral than someone who does not believe?  Seriously?  If Theism is a reason to still believe that someone who stole your money is still a wonderful person, then the impact of theism isn't on whether or not a theist can commit a crime, but on the gullibility of theists in general.  I think we are done here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, a few more comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another quote from kennie:

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

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

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

One final point from kennie:

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

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

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

The Very Definition of Irony

Please lower the gain on your irony-meters for this one, you might not want to replace it after you read this post.

 I was doing a little catch-up reading and caught this one over at Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog: "A refreshing admission on Uncommon Descent", without reading his post, I knew it was going to be fun.  The only sanity you get from Uncommon Descent is either unintentional or an attempt at obfuscation.  Unlike most ID Proponents, I will get to the whole article to see the context of the Uncommon Descent post.  If you aren't familiar with Uncommon Descent, it's the blog that used to belong to Wild Bill Dembski, who has since not only left the Discovery Institute fold, but a few years back he turned it over to a revolving collection of apologists.  I can't in good conscience refer to Uncommon Descent as 'UD' because here in Dayton Ohio that's the initials and common reference to one of the finest Catholic Universities in the country, the University of Dayton, and also one that teaches actual science in their biology classes.  In fact, as I mentioned in a previous post, UD doesn't even mention ID on it's website, but it does have classes on Evolution, quite a few of them in fact.

I've written about Uncommon Descent before -- a few times about how my comments on one of their posts or another magically disappears. One time it was because of something one of their posters claimed: "Creationists know more about Evolution?", which was really hilarious to read.  Another time was about something called an 'Intelligent Design (ID) Quiz', which was really nothing more than a survey and made little sense, "An Intelligent Design Quiz . . . not really" and for once my answers did make it on the site, not my direct comment, but part of another post by the 'quiz' author, who thought I was 'sneering and arrogant', (comment posted # 49).  Of course my posted response to him never found it's way onto their site, which is pretty much par for the course.  I find it funny that he asks for my opinion and because he didn't like it, I was sneering and arrogant.  But when I mention how his quiz was little more than a ploy to give those who already drank the DI's kool-aid to stroke his ego, the comment never makes it online.  Yet he was full of self-congratulations from the people who said nice things about ID, who he called thoughtful and kind.  Wonder why? 

As you can tell I have little to no respect for Uncommon Descent, whether it was under Dembski's moniker or one of the other posters.  So once I saw Larry's post, I knew it was going to be good.  I just have to post the opening paragraph from Uncommon Descent:

"Probably one of the most daunting aspects of carrying on debates either about proper critical thinking, theism vs atheism, or intelligent design and its implications is the seeming implacable nature of those we debate here and elsewhere. It most often seems that no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse makes one iota of difference to our interlocutors; however, I think this is probably because most of those who will take the time to seek our position out and criticize it on its home turf are already fully committed against such positions, and are often emotionally entrenched."(Uncommon Descent: The Benefit of Arguments at UD)

I just had to underline a couple of things to point out, and will address them, but I have to address the irony of the whole post.  If you read just this paragraph, you might not realize it was an ID proponent.  It would be easy to confuse because what you are seeing is a common DI tactic.  They take innocuous phrases and try and spin them for their own purposes.  The words sound so reasonable, but really?  Let's take a closer look.  If you read the rest of the post, William J. Murray, one of the multitude of ID apologists on Uncommon Descent, tells the story of how he 'taught' his granddaughter to a theist by telling why he was one.  Hmmm, sounds fishy to me, how about you?

I recall a book by Ann Coulter, you know the Bill O'Reilly for people who can actually read.  She decided to learn about the whole Evolution vs ID issue by visiting the Discovery Institute.  There she knelt down in front of a few of their usual talking heads and swallowed the kool-aid whole.  Now a reasonable person might have taken a little bit of time to get the scientific view from . . . oh, I don't know . . . actual working biologists, but not Coulter.  She prefers her science of the pseudo-science variety.  Why muddy up the waters with facts.  Like Coulter, Murray, isn't interested in an opposing view, so he tells his granddaughter one side and lo-and-behold, claims she's sold.  Isn't that such a cute story.

More fodder for the irony meter, his last line:

"Every once in a while it’s nice to be reminded that, sometimes, reason and evidence can actually get through to a person."(Uncommon Descent: The Benefit of Arguments at UD)

Reason and evidence? I am almost curious at what he considers reason and evidence? He does list a few things -- cosmological fine-tuning, bio-semiotics and cellular nano-technology, and also first-cause and moral arguments -- but are those things based on reason and evidence or based on wishful thinking and conjecture?  Has there been anything actually resembling evidence presents that supports a theistic position on any of those topics?  Now, remember, claiming to have evidence and actually having evidence are radically different things.

I do want to address a few of the things I underlined in the first quote: 

First of all, Critical Thinking, is the ID community really interested in Critical Thinking?  Has anyone actually seen any evidence of this?  I would like to remind everyone of one of the lines from the judicial decision from the Kitzmiller v. Dover et al:

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [Intelligent Design Movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p89)

They use the term all the time, but they really don't want people thinking critically about Intelligent Design, their idea of critical thinking is an effort to damage science education on the assumption that it would allow ID to wedge it's way into the science classroom.  So far, it's been an abject failure . . . primarily because ID proponents haven't managed to support their version of Creationism with anything but wishful thinking.

OK, next up, Theism vs Atheism.  How many times has this come up in a debate about ID, and yet people like those at Uncommon Descent keep claiming that ID is not a form of Creationism.  If that were true, then why should theism vs atheism even come up?  We all know why, because Intelligent Design is Creationism minus any specific reference to the Christian God.  Therefore any debate quickly boils down to one apologist or another defending their religious faith while trying not to use religious terms.  How many times has an ID proponent unofficially identified the 'designer' as the Christian God?  How many times have their denied their religious roots while speaking at religious meetings, organized by religious organizations, and published in the religious press?  So there is a definite 'theistic' side, but then where does the 'atheism' come in?

So here is another example where an ID proponent is using the same sort of 'evidence' they claim supports ID as the support for their religious beliefs . . . Yes, read the whole post for yourself.  An ID proponent is publicly acknowledging that his ID beliefs are based on and the basis for his religious beliefs.  I know it won't impact the DI's constant denial of their religious beliefs, but here it is, again.  And I love the head-patting and sucking up many of the commenters gave Murray.  So they obviously agree! 

Here's one part I will never be able to forgive the ID supporters, the accusation that science is in some way atheistic.  That is a lie and nothing more than another gutter level tactic. They try and sell the idea that if you support science, you are obviously an atheist.  They are trying to create an artificial binary choice as a tactic to push theists into the Creationism/ID side.  But most theists haven't bought into it.  Creationists, like the DI and the posters at Uncommon Descent, are not making much headway against not only actual scientists, but the religious groups and schools where they believe pushing their religion would be an advantage -- but major religious groups haven't bought into their snake oil.  Just check out the Clergy Letter project again to see what I am talking about, over 14,000 signatures of Christian, Jewish, Unitarian, and Buddhist clergy supporting real science over pseudo-science.

The third things I underlined, ID and it's implications.  Just what implications are they talking about?  What has the ID Movement (IDM) actually accomplished?  What implications are their for science?  So far, with the exception of a few politicians pandering for votes, exactly what has the impact of the past 20 years of the DI's marketing campaign been on science and on science education?  Pretty minimal.  They have achieved none of their goals, they have done nothing in the way of actual scientific research, and their collection of tactics and strategies relies on lies and mis-direction.

Finally, no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse, really?  Scientific theories get changed all the time.  Real scientists working in actual labs and studying biology have updated and augmented the Theory of Evolution since Darwin.  Logic and discourse are two of the tools they use regularly.  Although I have heard that the discourse isn't always considered 'reasonable', and you can always find examples of scientists who are dug in so deep it takes something like dynamite to get them to accept change, but if you look at the changes over the decades, you can see even the most entrenched 'evolutionist' has changed considerably over time.  Can Creationists say the same thing?

How different are the DI's arguments from the William Paley "Natural Theology" arguments of the early 19th century?  While the terminology is different, the basic arguments are the same.  Said of Paley's Watchmaker Analogy:

" . . . creationists revived versions of the argument to dispute the concepts of evolution and natural selection, and there was renewed interest in the watchmaker argument. They related the analogy to the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God, as well as for the intelligent design of the universe." (Wikipedia: Watchmaker Analogy)

All in all, I was entertained. I hope that Murray's granddaughter takes an actual science class from a school that teaches science, not the pseudo-science that Murray appears to like so much. OK, you can re-set the gain on your irony-meters back to normal. I just didn't want to be responsible for you having to replace them . . . yet again.

What if people stopped believing in Darwin?

Ann Gauger, you know the lady with the non-existent lab over at the Biologic Institute, posted something totally ridiculous:  "What If People Stopped Believing in Darwin?"

First the obvious, people do not 'believe' in Darwin, any more than they 'believe' in gravity.  What people do is accept the explanations from real scientists when it comes to explaining phenomena like Evolution and Gravity.  There is a world of difference between belief and acceptance of an explanation.  I do understand why Ann, and her cohorts at the Discovery Institute, have trouble understanding the difference, they demand faith with no supporting evidence.  But that's the obvious critique.  Let's have some fun.

First off, let us remember who Ann works for, the Biologics Institute, which is the pet apologetic 'lab' of the Discovery Institute (DI).  When you factor that in, you know she's not talking about evolution being out of the picture, but her religious alternative being the only game in town.   That being said, it certainly changes the picture, because everyone knows how open-minded and accepting theists can be, right?

One of her comments was a real corker:

"Biology students might feel free to express their opinions on origins."

Since when does having a religious explanation for anything make people feel free to express their opinions?  Annie's point is that because of Darwin students don't feel free to offer their opinion.  Of course that's not the whole truth, because I have yet to be in a classroom where student's didn't raise their opinion.  One of my students read this blog and wanted to discuss in class -- and I teach Information Technology!  What I think Ann means is that theists do not feel free to raise their non-scientific objections to evolution in science class.  If Ann had said that I would heartily agree.  Raising a religious objection to actual science IN science class is a waste of time and deserves to be shut down.  I did shut down my student by explaining that Life's Origins aren't an appropriate topic during Java Programming.  When he persisted, I invited him to comment on the blog or discuss it after class.  He chickened out and did neither.  But that's the point, Creationism is not science and other than a brief historical perspective, doesn't belong in science class.

Let me give you a for-instance.  Suppose you are a member of a church-going family who for years went to the same church as many of your neighbors, you are involved in church activities, and lived in the area and raised your family there.  Then you get more than a little annoyed when a cross gets burned in your son's arm by his science teacher and you dare to question it.  Not only that, but you learn that the 'science' teacher in question isn't teaching science, but his very evangelical view of science.  You have the audacity to complain.  What happens?

Well according to Ann, you should have been welcomed, your opinions and questioning should be encouraged, and all Christians are nothing but polite and accepting people, right?

However the reality seems a bit different, as an article about the family who dared raise questions about John Freshwater in Mt Vernon Oh:

"We've gotten phone calls, things in the mail, anonymous letters. They send scriptures and how you should raise your children, implying we're not raising our children correctly. Everywhere we go I feel like people know it's us so they don't talk to us or they will say things. Even in church." Eventually it was too much for the Dennis family. They moved 35 miles away."

This isn't an isolated instance, do you recall the Dover Trial, or shall we call it by it's usual name:  "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al".  What happened to Tammy Kitzmiller and her family?  More examples of welcoming, openness, and acceptance?  No, she and her daughters received hate mail, accusations of being atheists, her children confronted, confrontations in restaurants and in the street.

Sure, religion does nothing but open people's minds and hearts! Maybe other religions do, but apparently not Christianity. In a review of Lauri Lebo's excellent book "Devil in Dover" from the Aetiology blog:

" . . .that even most of the biology teachers at Dover were church-going Christians, yet they were ostracized and bad-mouthed by those supporting the school board’s anti-evolution stance–rejected and slandered by Christians who seemingly had no problem attacking fellow believers."

I have to repeat this phrase:  " . . .no problem attacking fellow believers".  Sure, Ann, dismissing Darwin makes everything sunny and bright.  Really?  As you can see I find it hard to believe that if somehow Darwin disappeared overnight, so much would change for the better.  Look at all the people living under repressive religious regimes.  Are you going to tell me Christianity would be different?  Was it in the past?  Tell me when?  Show me an example!

More from Ann:

"The world would see a new flush of academic freedom."

Since when does religion encourage academic freedom?  Seriously, I am asking.  How many professors and teachers have gotten in trouble for teaching evolution?  Too many to count, like John Scopes, Pamela Hensley, Tom Oord, Gary Scott, Stacy Mendrick . . ..  The impact was directly on them teaching evolution.  They did their job and got in trouble.  People forget that the textbook John Scopes was using included evolution or that Pamela Hensley and Stacy Mendrick were well regarded teachers who were teaching the required elements of their courses.  The list is quite long, and not always at a parochial school, but public schools as well usually due to parental pressure,  So this is how religion improves academic freedom?

Now aside from the marketing campaign by the DI, how many teachers got in trouble for teaching Creationism/ID?  While the DI likes to trot out people like Caroline Coker, John Freshwater, and Guillermo Gonzales, the real story is a little different.  These people were hired to perform a job, usually to teach science.  However they made a personal decision that their religious beliefs precluded them from performing their job.  And when they get held accountable, they whined about religious discrimination and the DI trots them out as victims.  I don't see them as victims.  They took the job under false pretenses -- I see them as liars.  Of course Freshwater did more than just fail in his job, but that's another story.

Now I would like to believe that I wouldn't accept a job that conflicted with my belief set so strongly I couldn't do it.  I would be honest about it rather than say one thing and then perform another.  But that's just me and how I was raised.  I guess that level of honesty isn't needed when you are lying in the cause of your religion.  You could ask kennie ham, but he does the same sort of stuff.


Of course she had to try and drag in 'Academic Freedom', which anyone with a functioning brain knows that's not what the Discovery Institute is interested in.  It's just another tactic to try and wedge their way into the classroom.  Their idea of academic freedom means to be able to teach their religion as if it were science and to remove real science from the classroom.  Don't blame me, it's their stated goal:  to replace science with a more theistic-ally friendly version.  It's again like little kennie ham who's idea of religious freedom is to be free to believe how he wants and force others to believe as he [kennie] wants as well.  Not very open-minded and accepting.

One last thing and then I will go back to ignoring most of annie's posts.  Here final comment:

 "That's why they say scientific revolutions happen one funeral at a time." 

Really, so scientific theories get replaced when the author or supporters die off?  Apparently that hasn't worked for Darwin and the Theory of Evolution at all, has it?  It didn't work for Alfred Wegener, whose theory of Continental Drift didn't get confirmed until 20 or 30 years after his death.  I wonder if she expecting the next generation of scientists to knock Darwin to the curb and instill her organization's pet ideas?  Maybe that does explain why they [the DI, annie, wild bill and the lot], don't bother doing science and only marketing and public relations in their efforts to damage science education.

I wonder where annie expects to next breakthroughs in vaccines, medical treatments, and new technologies to come from?  Divine intervention?  Yea, like that has worked real well so far.  Let's ask Ian, Neil, Matthew, Austin, Amy, Robyn, Andrew, Harrison, Nancy, Dennis, Arrian, Zachery, Troy, Shauntay, and Rhett.  Oh, wait you can't.  They all died because some people, often their theist parents, believed prayer beats out medical care.  Not a great track record.