Jesus and Mo Strike Another Chord!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipediatricians -- what a concept!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Years! The DI looks Back at 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kennie Ham Doesn't Like Santa Claus

In a new post over on AiG, "Naughty or Nice?" one of kennie's 'Hamians' said a few things, like this:

"Believing that Santa is watching their every move and judging their actions to see if they deserve gifts may be an effective way of getting children to behave during the holiday season, but what message is this sending?"

However, isn't that exactly what kennie does with his religion?  Let's paraphrase part this a bit and see where we go:

'Believing that God is watching their every move and judging their actions to see if they deserve gifts [like everlasting life]'

God, that omniscient and omnipresent 'entity', is doing pretty much what is also attributed to Santa.  The Hamian also said:

"It also urges children to “be good for goodness’ sake!” But some vague idea of “goodness’ sake” or the hope of reaping a reward from Santa (or anyone else) should never be our motivation for being good."

Wait a minute, a reward should never be our motivation for being good . . . yet isn't that the main selling point for religions?  Listen to the preachers when they are trying to convince you to join their particular religion!  They use both the threat of everlasting punishment as well as the reward of everlasting life in their sales pitch.

What I hear from every theists who wants to talk to me is how I am going to burn in hell for my failing to share their particular belief set -- and if I simply join them and repent all my sins, then I can live forever in one version of a heaven or another.  The same exact sales pitch, only Santa's rewards come in annually instead of running a lifetime account and coal in your stocking is certainly better than burning in hell, but the sales pitch is the same.  Do this and be rewarded, or fail to do this and get punished.  That's the message!

Here is where the post gets confusing . . . here is another quote:

"But this is completely upside-down compared to the gospel . . . Now he offers the gift of eternal life and freedom from slavery to sin to all who will put their faith and trust in him (Romans 10:9). And it has nothing to do with what we do—but it has everything to do with God’s mercy to us."

If it has nothing to do with what we do . . . why are religions so controlling?  Romans 10:9 says:

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

So now I have a question for little kennie ham and any of his Hamians, why are you so homophobic?  Romans makes no mention that an LGBTQ person cannot do that confession and believe in their heart the rest, if it really has nothing to do with what we do -- then why be so homophobic?  Those are the authors words.

No, this post is nothing but trying to hide their controlling behavior and claiming one thing, but their behavior says something very different. It is all about what you do, not just what you believe. Ham won't hire someone for his ministries if they don't share the same set of beliefs. He's rabidly homophobic, while claiming love the sinner -- as long as they don't actually behave in a way he dislikes. He was even dis-invited to a couple of home school conferences because of his:

""unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited" remarks about the conventions and other speakers."

Here is the last thing.  Early in the post, the poster briefly discusses "for goodness sake" as something too vague and ambiguous to actually be applied.  Yet, look at this quote toward the end:

"As believers, we have favor with God because we are clothed in Christ’s righteousness."

Talk about vague and ambiguous!  Every version of Christianity has a different list of what is righteous!  No one really knows what that means, but they were it like a cloak.

In closing, a little bit of timely humor.  Calvin and Hobbes is no longer being written, but the strips are being re-run.  Yesterday's strip was quite timely and appropriate, don't you think?

(From: http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2017/12/20)

The Discovery Institute (DI) is begging for contributions, again.

This time the sales pitch is asking : "In 2018, Please Help Us Take Intelligent Design to the World!".  It starts off with this:

"Living in the United States, we’re accustomed to evolution being thoroughly politicized, in the sense that the media encourage everyone to divide into armed camps: evolutionists versus Darwin skeptics. In both the U.S. media and academia, there’s a kind of social panic for many about being classed with the dreaded “creationists.”"

First off, who is politicizing Evolution?  It's not the scientists, they treat it as a scientific theory.  It's not the general public, they tend to ignore such things, for the most part.  So who is doing all this politicizing?  Yes, Creationists, including those less-than-honest folks at the Discovery Institute -- which also includes the author of this piece, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  Yes, if it wasn't for these people, there would be just as much politicizing of the Theory of Evolution as there is about Germ Theory, Gravity, and the other scientific theories.

Second thing, is there some sort of 'social panic' about being classed with the Creationists?  Certainly if this were so then many fewer people would self-identify as Creationists.  But, you know the DI, if there isn't a real problem, invent one.  The main reason no one takes Intelligent Design (ID) seriously is because there haven't been a single scientific breakthrough or even discovery based on ID.  I'm not talk about all the DI claims that using intelligence is an example of ID, but actual scientific research and discoveries that has as its basis the DI's 'theory' of Intelligent Design?  There aren't any and no one seems to be actually doing anything to change that.

"The world is wide open to scientific arguments for design in nature. The big launch of ID in Brazil is a case in point,"

Really?  Could the reason why the DI has had this success in Brazil have something to do Brazil being one of the most religious countries in the world?  I just have to ask this again to properly frame this part of the discussion . . . just what actual scientific advances have been made based on Intelligent Design?

You see, it doesn't matter how many adherents the DI thinks they have.  Their pet version of Creationism, ID, will never gain any real scientific ground until it is being used for science.  To date not only is there nothing scientific about it, but the pretend science they keep crowing about has had no impact on actual scientific developments, let alone breakthroughs -- significant or otherwise.  Bragging that ID is 'gaining ground' because you have pumped some of your money to fund an ID center in a highly religious country is not a good example of ID gaining ground, is it?

So, with all their 'successes', mostly bought and paid for by the DI itself, now they want more money to push their religious agenda on to other countries mainly because their success in the US has been so limited.  They still refuse to realize why they  have been so unsuccessful, lack of scientific evidence or any actual scientific work certainly is the main limiting factor.

Failing to provide real science is the actuality, claiming that scientists are close-mined is the marketing tactic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why 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.

Is This an Example of a Big Christmas Present? I Don't Think So!

I celebrate Christmas, which might surprise some of you.  I consider it a secular holiday more than a religious one -- regardless of its history.  And while I sometimes get annoyed at Christians who insist of 'putting the Christ back in Christmas' usually while they are complaining about the lines while they are buying their Christmas presents, I like to tell them of the Pagan origins of the holiday so that way we are all annoyed :-)  Plus it's fun!

But that aside, I am curious.  If you received a gift card to Ark Encounter, would you consider that a Big Christmas gift? Apparently little, small-minded kennie ham seems to think so: "Give Something BIG This Christmas".

First of all, I was always taught to try and tailor my gifts to the person you are giving them to . . . with one possible exception, and I'll explain that one later.  The reasoning for the tailoring is that you really do not want to give a gift that would be unwelcome or unappreciated, regardless of the words exchanged upon opening.  My joy in giving gifts is the reaction upon opening, which is why I never bought my children underwear as a Christmas gift.  I always try and aim for something they need and also something they like.  If the two can come in one package, so much the better!

So giving a gift such as little kennie is suggesting would only be appreciated if they share kennie's belief set, which few really do.  I know kennie doesn't recognize any belief set other than his own, but the rest of the world certainly does.  Kennie's narrow-mindedness shouldn't ruin a perfectly good holiday for everyone else!

So before giving a gift for one of kennie's ministries, shouldn't you understand if such a gift would be appreciated?  I know kennie doesn't really care, because he will have his money regardless of whether or not the recipient actually goes to one of his ego-monuments.  But shouldn't you care if such a gift would be well received?  After all, you are buying a gift for a friend/relative/co-worker.

I also realize that, like little kennie's ruinous foray into Halloween trick-or-treating, what he is really doing is not only making money, but getting you to pay for the privilege of doing his preaching for him.  He's trying to inject himself into one of the more fun parts of the holiday, and at the same time, ruin people's gift giving.

OK, I did mention that I had one possible exception when sizing up potential gifts, and that is when looking for something as a joke gift.  Like the time my daughter got me gold-lame boxer shorts!  Appropriate?  Hardly, but funny as hell and something commented on occasionally since that year's gift exchange.  Now I don't recommend a gift card to one of kennie's ministries as a joke since ticket prices are running in the $40 range, an expensive price for a joke.  But that would be the only reason I would even consider giving one to anyone.

Hey, if anyone has an empty kennie gift card, that might work . . . sorta like those phony lottery tickets that were the rage a few years back . . . only at least with those the recipient had a small period of excitement upon opening, instead of the 'WTF' look kennie's card would most likely receive.

I wonder if one of the local strip clubs in Kentucky sells gift cards??  Now that would be funny to send kennie, almost as good as that thank-you letter he got from Planned Parenthood!

Can We Agree To Disagree? No!

It's only been recently that I've heard people actually use the expression "We can agree to disagree!".  Before that people disagreeing didn't require any sort of statement because what was usually happening was two people arguing about something inconsequential and couldn't find a way to end the argument, so without stating it, they would simply drop it.  The key for me was that it was always something inconsequential, like two fans of different sports teams or an opinion of a movie or restaurant.  Both parties recognized not only were they never going to agree, but whatever they were arguing about was really nothing important.

According to Wikipedia the phrase actually has a long history, much longer than I had realized, dating back the to 1770:

"There are many doctrines of a less essential nature ... In these we may think and let think; we may 'agree to disagree.' But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials"

Note the phrase 'less essential nature', in other words 'inconsequential.  The problem is that when I hear the phrase being used, it's not an inconsequential argument.  As I said previously the argument would end without having to declare agreeing to disagree.  But nowadays when I hear it, it's taken on a very different connotation for me.

There is an example in this blog, you might remember a commenter named 'Rory'. He responded to one of my posts: "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!", in it he claimed  . . . well, here is his comment:

"Actually, an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe in an intelligent designer of the universe and life, and this is now an established one way trend. To understand this turn of events, including perspectives of many leading scientists, see Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design."

The link is to a webpage of his own which didn't do a very good job of making his case that 'an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe . . .'.  I didn't respond in a comment, but drafted a separate post: "In response to a comment".  In my response I went searching for independent confirmation of Rory's claim:

• I visited the Discovery 'Institute' (D'I') to see if they showed a significant increase in signatories to their anti-evolution petition -- which they did not.
• I also checked out the Biologics 'Institute' (D'I' private pseudo-lab) to see if they were publishing anything supporting Intelligent Design -- which they had not!
• I searched on Pub Med to see if there was an increase in the number of Intelligent Design-friendly papers being posted and used for further research -- and found none.
• I also hit several secular and non-secular universities to see if ID appeared in their curriculum -- which it has not.
• Finally I reviewed Rory's link and found it to be mostly quote-mines and showed a severe lack of scholarship and hardly any research at all.

Bottom line, Rory had absolutely nothing to support his claim and I said so in my response post. Of course he had to respond and before repeating some of the same stuff over and over again, he started his long-winded response with:

"Thanks for your comments and rebuttal. We can agree to disagree."

So, can we really 'agree to disagree'?  At the time I said 'Yes, we can', but the more I hear the phrase, the more I realize that we cannot.  I see two reasons, the first is that 'agreeing to disagree' is a tacit agreement that the arguments being made are equivalent.  My second issue is that such arguments are not about inconsequential things.

Arguments such as the one with foolish Rory was about Science and scientific methodology.  Rory was in it to praise his version of a deity.  Since that is something not addressed by science or any rational scientific methodology, Rory was doing nothing but preaching and using lies and distorting other people's words (quote-mines) to do so.  How can anyone agree to disagree when faced with such disreputable tactics?

Arguments concerning Evolution, Vaccinations, and Climate-change are not inconsequential!  These are important areas that should not be trivialized because of one's religious beliefs.  Belief in a deity is not going to save children from getting preventable diseases, it's not going to develop cures and new medical techniques, and it's certainly not going to change how humans have impacted our environment!  That's why most Christians have no issue with those areas at all!

So I have come to the conclusion that when someone says "We can agree to disagree" really means they have lost the argument and are looking for way out without having to actually concede.  In recent conversations, the people who uttered that ridiculous phrase seem to be trying to equate their complete lack of factual support with the opposition's facts and evidence.  But, it doesn't work that way.

My example of Rory should how little factual support he had for his arguments, so he tried the 'agree to disagree' BS.  No, I do not agree to disagree, particular when your arguments are based on lies and distortions.  Bring the evidence that supports your arguments and then we can discuss.  If you have no evidence, don't expect me to let you off the hook by agreeing to disagree.

Look at the parent who says something like "I know what's best for my child!"  In many cases that's true, but when it comes to vaccinations and medical treatment, is the opinion of a parent the same as a trained medical professional?  It's not even close!  Yet groups, like the Discovery 'Institute' (New Discovery Institute Key Word: "Intuition") keep trying to sell folks that their intuition is as good as scientific methodology!  Show me one scientific breakthrough that is based on intuition or even opinion?  Intuition and opinions do not keep buildings standing, that's called engineering and it's based on sound scientific principles.

So if you ever say to me 'We can agree to disagree' and we are talking about something more important than the NY Giants chances for the Superbowl, you can forget it -- because we cannot agree to disagree and we never shall!

Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?

This story has been rumbling around the web for a while, in fact the DiscoveryInstitute talking heads have had a great deal to say about it. Before you read it, you might need to understand that Wikipedia has standards, one of the set of standards is academic notability. While nearly anyone can create a page on Wikipedia, it's contributors can easily remove pages that fail to meet those standards.

That's what happened to Dr. Günter Bechly, there was a Wikipedia page for him and Wikipedia took it down because it failed to meet their standards for academic notability.  Of course the DI immediately declared it an outrage, claiming all sorts of collusion, discrimination, and cover-ups -- much like their defense of Guillermo Gonzalez.  If you remember Gonzalez was denied tenure after failing to achieve the requirements for tenure.  The DI claimed the denial was based on him being a Creationist, but they never addressed several issues like:

1. The Chronicle [Chronicle of High Education] observed that Gonzalez  . . . had published no significant research during that time
2.  . . .had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.
3. According to the Des Moines Register, "Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez's peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure.

All the DI could do was whine and cry discrimination, yet the evidence says Gonzalez failed in the requirements for tenure -- requirements normally spelled out when you accept a tenure-seeking position.  Publishing research is probably the main requirement, but successful graduate students are also a typical responsibility, as is raising outside grant money.  Gonzales failed, and the DI never bothered to address his failings.

Doesn't that sounds exactly like the whining and crying they are now doing over Günter Bechly. According to Wikipedia, his academic achievements do not merit a Wikipedia page. So instead of showing Wikipedia a list of notable achievements -- related to actual science, they whine and cry about imaginary discrimination. Where is his Curriculum Vitae (CV)? CV's normally include information on academic background, including experience, degrees, research, awards, publications, presentations, and other achievements. Like Gonzalez, why isn't the DI publicizing Günter's?

The real question is -- is he truly notable?  According to WikiSpecies, he's been part of only 4 publications -- and he wasn't the lead on any of them.  Not particularly notable.  He is still listed in the German version of Wikipedia, which made me think a bit, what about his contemporaries?

Günter  used to work at the he State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, so I found their website and staff listing. I randomly selected a dozen members and have not found a single US Wikipedia page for any of them, in spite of several showing larger publications lists on the German version of Wikipedia.  Interesting, so Günter had a US Wikipedia page for some reason.  So that leads to my next question, what differentiates Günter from the rest of the staff?

There only seems to be one thing that separates Günter from the ones who still work there, his support for Intelligent Design.  So . . . why did he have a Wikipedia page in the first place?  Apparently his old co-workers didn't merit one?  Could it be his notoriety as one of the few scientists who support ID?  I don't know, but that seems to be the only distinction between Günter and his associates.

So, let's check a few other Wikipedia pages and see if the other members of the DI Religious Ministry have had their pages deleted.  Of course if Günter  was deleted because of some form of discrimination, logic says others will also have been deleted!

• Michael Behe -- page still there
• Wild Bill Dembski -- still there
• Phillip E. Johnson - still there
• Paul Nelson -- still there

I started searching individually, but then found a page at the DI that shows 12 of the 17  DI Senior Fellows have Wikipedia pages.  I would have to assume that the other 5 never had a page or the DI would be making even more of a hue and cry.  14 of the 24 Fellows have Wikipedia pages.  So I do not see any evidence of discrimination, only efforts to rationalize the removal of Günter's page.

I was pretty much laughing about the whole thing and had no intention of even addressing it until I saw this headline:

"Pro-Darwinists Destroy Scientist’s Career After He Turns to God-Based Evolution Theory"

Is his career ruined?  Currently he's working at the Biologic Institute (which is owned and operated by the very people who are raising the fuss -- the Discovery Institute.  Now since this job aligns well with his religious beliefs, you would think it would be a dream job for him.  Apparently he's still employed, so I have to ask, did the removal of his Wikipedia page really ruin his career?

Much like Gonzalez, the removal of the Wikipedia hasn't ended his career, so what might have had a negative impact?  Perhaps his time and energy and efforts promoting a non-scientific concepts may have played a role?  You get hired for a job and you spend most of your time doing a different job -- and then you find yourself working in a pseudo-lab instead of an actual lab?  Think about it, would you keep on a butcher who spend only part of his work time actually butchering meat?  How about a rocket scientist who spend hours a day preaching to co-workers?

No, if Günter's career is ruined, he cannot blame Wikipedia for enforcing their standards.  Günter, you have to look a bit closer to home and wonder if maybe you should have really kept your religion out of your workplace?  Spending your time and resources on your religious beliefs and not on actual science may have played a larger part -- not because of discrimination, but because you aren't doing your job.  You might look up Nathaniel Abraham, David Coppedge, Catherine Croker, or John Freshwater.  They also damaged their own careers because they put their personal religious beliefs ahead of their careers, and then seemed surprised when they were held accountable by their employers!

So now you are in the DI pet laboratory, the Biologics Institute.  Now you have a choice.  You can continue to whine and cry -- or you can do what no one else at the DI seems to be able or willing to do.  Get out of marketing and support your religious ideas with actual science -- not pseudo-science but actual science, following scientific methodology.  If you can do that, you might notice a significant career boost.  But if you fail at that, or simply keep whining and crying -- then you might one day realize your career was always in your own hands, not Wikipedia's.