Not only is US Sen. Larry Craig the ideal moral fabric of Republicans, but he is a Creationist!
Hypocrisy always seems to go hand-in-hand with denialism.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Mitt Romney and His Unwarranted Claims
Mitt Romney responded to the recent Iowa district court ruling:
The Constitution was constructed such that government mandated only social and civil duties; morality is explicitly left to the opinion of the individual. This individual's opinion is protected under the first amendment, but the first amendment also prevents the government from acting on mere opinion alone. There must be a rationality between the particulars of a certain mandate and the interests of the state. Laws against gay marriage go directly against this principle. An amendment goes directly against this principle.
The day American politics become subservient to sectarian ideologies is the day America loses sight of her very history and makes a mockery of the men and women who died in the service of protecting and maintaining our Constitution.
The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.It doesn't surprise me at all that a politician has absolutely no clue about the historical foundations of this country, let alone a conservative Republican. Such an amendment would be the antithesis to the philosophy of the founding fathers: the individual's ability to procure life and liberty with equal protection under the law. Of course, I doubt Romney or anyone involved in his campaign actually read the opinion. If they had, they would have been shown that (1) there was a failure to support the rationale between state interests and excluding same-sex couples from legally recognized marriage and (2) a moral perspective, even if supported by the voting majority, is not an appreciable justification.
The Constitution was constructed such that government mandated only social and civil duties; morality is explicitly left to the opinion of the individual. This individual's opinion is protected under the first amendment, but the first amendment also prevents the government from acting on mere opinion alone. There must be a rationality between the particulars of a certain mandate and the interests of the state. Laws against gay marriage go directly against this principle. An amendment goes directly against this principle.
The day American politics become subservient to sectarian ideologies is the day America loses sight of her very history and makes a mockery of the men and women who died in the service of protecting and maintaining our Constitution.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Props to Iowa District Courts
While the blogosphere seems to be all in a stir over Larry Craig, a recent decision by an Iowa District Court will probably get similar attention soon. If not, I'll be the first to point out some interesting tidbits in the rather hefty 63-page decision by Judge Robert Hanson.
Introduction and Undisputed Facts
Six same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses in Polk County, Iowa. Each couple was denied to due gender restrictions of marriage under Iowa law. The Iowa code reads (595.2): "Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid". Reading through the harms of not being able to marry, one major complaint centered around the inability to conveniently care for adopted and surrogate children. The lack of a marriage license puts financial and temporal strains into obtaining legally recognized parent-child relationships, if it is even possible for second parent adoption to occur in a given state. Same-sex couples are also legally burdened concerning medical care, requiring health care proxies to verify the legal ability for health care decisions to be made. Health care proxies prove to be a burden in instances of same-sex couples where honored marriage would be sufficient. The other complaints include financial opportunities not available to same-sex couples who upheld every other condition of being legally recognized as married other than gender, such as spousal pension benefits, inheritance, and recognized economic units for joint or communal property purchases.
From reading through the decision, one sees a laundry list of expert testimony for the defense being thrown out: Margaret Somerville, Paul Nathanson, Katherine Young, Allan Carlson, and Steven Rhoad. The reason for being inadmissible: the individuals were either speaking outside of their area of professional expertise, lacked empirical data supporting their arguments, or both. Some of the plaintiff's expert testimony were also removed due to the accounts being anecdotal as opposed to empirical or specialized knowledge.
I find the following from the section titled "Sexual Orientation and Same-Sex Relationships" (p. 28) interesting:
plaintiffs case instead in that the studies indicate that extending legal marriage to same-sex couples would create family ties necessary for healthy child development.
Pages 37 through 39 give a short history of marriage. Marriage evolved in Iowa and elsewhere in America from the woman becoming property of the man to equal rights granted to men and women in legally recognized marriage. The judge also noted "the removal of criminal restrictions on extramarital and non-procreative sexual activities" (p. 39) during the history of the definition of marriage. This is an important consideration, because many anti same-sex marriage advocates consider the procreative role of opposite-sex couples as an attribute of legal marriage. However, modern medical technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, allows surrogate parenthood to be actualized. As well, such an extension to require procreation upon a committed marriage infringes upon the couple's natural right to refrain from concieving children altogether, whether their abstention be due to medical reasons or of mere opinion.
The opinion also outlines the level of discrimination gays in general receive in both the public and private sector in Iowa, most following the lines of social and civil exclusion due to erroneous preconceived notions perpetuated by the anti-gay movements (p. 40-42). Worth particular notice is the legislature's history of preventing and even aiding in the discrimination of gays, including the reactionary language of Chapter 595.2 of the Iowa Code to a court's ruling on a lesbian couple's civil union and a lawsuit against an "executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in State employment" (ibid.).
The plaintiffs sued the then Polk County Recorder and Registrar for violating the "fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Iowa State Constitution" (p. 43). For reference, the Iowa State Constitution reads: "[N]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Article I, Section 9).
Analysis of Plaintiff Claims
According to Judge Hanson, higher courts have determined that the right to marry is a fundamental right (cf. Loving v Virginia), and when a law interferes with this right the law itself is subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This means that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the law indeed achieves the state's interest via narrow tailoring. Though no precedent for same-sex marriage being afforded as a fundamental right exists, Judge Hanson notes an extensive case history from Iowa courts to show that the protection of Due Process rights does not depend the historical aspect of the right. These cases span the topics of race, gender, and sexual orientation concerning individual rights and parental/custodial rights.
Judge Hanson found that the defendant failed to support the rationales for the gender-specific language of 595.2(1) as well as failed to support the rationales as state interests. The defendant claimed the following rationales: promotion of procreation, healthy development of children, promotion of stable opposite sex couples, "conservation of state and private resources", and maintaining the traditional view on marriage (p. 45). The court failed to see how the absolute prohibition of same-sex marriage is closely tied to the interests of the state due to the inability of the defendant to link the rationales with state interests.
Onto a more interesting note. The Iowa Constitution also has Equal Protection rights (aka the Uniform Operation of Laws):
Judge Hanson also ran the gender-specific statute through a rational basis rational. That is, a statute is considered constitutional if and only if it serves a legitimate interest of the state and the means to employ the statute reflects a rational relationship to the interest of the state. Judge Hanson points to Supreme Court case law (cf. Lawrence v. Texas and Callendar v. Skiles) that indicates that moral disapproval is an insufficient justification for state interest. Therefore, the fifth rationale concerning the traditional view of marriage failed as a state interest.
Judge Hanson grouped the first three rationales together under the term "responsible procreation". Judge Hanson stresses that the defendant failed to indicate how same-sex parents cannot provide responsible procreation, specifically in the venue of child development, and in fact the Court indicates that the defendant agrees that same-sex couples give proper adjustment to children under their care. The judge also cites a list of case law that shows the courts refusal "to limit or restrict parents' custody or visitation rights or obligations based upon their sexual orientation". Judge Hanson thusly determined that the current statute actually excludes qualified individuals from marrying if the goal of marriage was responsible procreation. Thus, the statute is over-exclusive in its wording.
Simultaneously, the statute is under-inclusive. As stated previously by my commentary and in the opinion, there is no distinction between opposite-sex couples who either cannot physically
reproduce or possess an opinion contra developing a family and same-sex couples. If procreation was indeed a state interest than the statute would contain those words. By the statute being under-inclusive in only indicating same-sex couples and over-exclusive in removing qualified individuals in being parents than the statute in its current form is unconstitutional, according to Judge Hanson. That is, though the state interest of responsible procreation may be credible, the Court determined that the execution of the law was completely arbitrary and failed the rational analysis.
Concerning the rationale that barring same-sex marriage would conserve state and private resources, the defendant failed to build a case. Instead, he could only build a list denials without evidence against the claims of the plaintiffs. Therefore, Judge Hanson concluded that there is no rational basis between the state interest and the gender-specific language of 595.2(1), and thus the exclusion of same-sex marriage was determined to be arbitrary.
Conclusion
Therefore, Judge Hanson determined that 595.2 must be rewritten with gender-neutral language due to the failure to provide a non-arbitrary rationale. This case will more than likely go on to the Iowa Supreme Court. I am not familiar with the ISC, so one can only guess on the outcome. However, Hanson's opinion and the subsequent case materials is a powerful argument of the unconstitutional nature of limiting legally recognized marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Introduction and Undisputed Facts
Six same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses in Polk County, Iowa. Each couple was denied to due gender restrictions of marriage under Iowa law. The Iowa code reads (595.2): "Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid". Reading through the harms of not being able to marry, one major complaint centered around the inability to conveniently care for adopted and surrogate children. The lack of a marriage license puts financial and temporal strains into obtaining legally recognized parent-child relationships, if it is even possible for second parent adoption to occur in a given state. Same-sex couples are also legally burdened concerning medical care, requiring health care proxies to verify the legal ability for health care decisions to be made. Health care proxies prove to be a burden in instances of same-sex couples where honored marriage would be sufficient. The other complaints include financial opportunities not available to same-sex couples who upheld every other condition of being legally recognized as married other than gender, such as spousal pension benefits, inheritance, and recognized economic units for joint or communal property purchases.
From reading through the decision, one sees a laundry list of expert testimony for the defense being thrown out: Margaret Somerville, Paul Nathanson, Katherine Young, Allan Carlson, and Steven Rhoad. The reason for being inadmissible: the individuals were either speaking outside of their area of professional expertise, lacked empirical data supporting their arguments, or both. Some of the plaintiff's expert testimony were also removed due to the accounts being anecdotal as opposed to empirical or specialized knowledge.
I find the following from the section titled "Sexual Orientation and Same-Sex Relationships" (p. 28) interesting:
Interventions aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation have not been demonstrated by empirical research to be effective or safe. They are considered ethically suspect and have generated cautionary statements from virtually all of the major mental health professional associations because such interventions can be and have been harmful to the psychological well-being of those who attempt them.I know of a few websites with anecdotal testimony. One of the more promising ones seem to be Ex-Gay Watch. For those interested in psychology, perhaps a perusal of the journals would entice your curiosity. Another interesting remark concerning social science (p. 30):
Social science literature demonstrates that children who are reared by a married mother and father have more positive outcomes on a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures...However, same-sex couples are not included amongst the "other adequately studied family structures" referred to above.Likewise, in the next statement, though children in a stable marriage are likely to exceed in academic attainment and possess fewer behavioral problems, the studies made no distinction between same-sex marriage versus opposite-sex marriage. Likewise, several professional organizations have issued statements that the sexual orientation of parents have no effect on a child's adjustment (eg. healthy development). As well, testimony discredited the notion that research on maladjustment of children concerning one-parent families is equivalent to same-sex families. Testimony showed, however, that this research instead supports the
plaintiffs case instead in that the studies indicate that extending legal marriage to same-sex couples would create family ties necessary for healthy child development.
Pages 37 through 39 give a short history of marriage. Marriage evolved in Iowa and elsewhere in America from the woman becoming property of the man to equal rights granted to men and women in legally recognized marriage. The judge also noted "the removal of criminal restrictions on extramarital and non-procreative sexual activities" (p. 39) during the history of the definition of marriage. This is an important consideration, because many anti same-sex marriage advocates consider the procreative role of opposite-sex couples as an attribute of legal marriage. However, modern medical technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, allows surrogate parenthood to be actualized. As well, such an extension to require procreation upon a committed marriage infringes upon the couple's natural right to refrain from concieving children altogether, whether their abstention be due to medical reasons or of mere opinion.
The opinion also outlines the level of discrimination gays in general receive in both the public and private sector in Iowa, most following the lines of social and civil exclusion due to erroneous preconceived notions perpetuated by the anti-gay movements (p. 40-42). Worth particular notice is the legislature's history of preventing and even aiding in the discrimination of gays, including the reactionary language of Chapter 595.2 of the Iowa Code to a court's ruling on a lesbian couple's civil union and a lawsuit against an "executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in State employment" (ibid.).
The plaintiffs sued the then Polk County Recorder and Registrar for violating the "fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Iowa State Constitution" (p. 43). For reference, the Iowa State Constitution reads: "[N]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Article I, Section 9).
Analysis of Plaintiff Claims
According to Judge Hanson, higher courts have determined that the right to marry is a fundamental right (cf. Loving v Virginia), and when a law interferes with this right the law itself is subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This means that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the law indeed achieves the state's interest via narrow tailoring. Though no precedent for same-sex marriage being afforded as a fundamental right exists, Judge Hanson notes an extensive case history from Iowa courts to show that the protection of Due Process rights does not depend the historical aspect of the right. These cases span the topics of race, gender, and sexual orientation concerning individual rights and parental/custodial rights.
Judge Hanson found that the defendant failed to support the rationales for the gender-specific language of 595.2(1) as well as failed to support the rationales as state interests. The defendant claimed the following rationales: promotion of procreation, healthy development of children, promotion of stable opposite sex couples, "conservation of state and private resources", and maintaining the traditional view on marriage (p. 45). The court failed to see how the absolute prohibition of same-sex marriage is closely tied to the interests of the state due to the inability of the defendant to link the rationales with state interests.
Onto a more interesting note. The Iowa Constitution also has Equal Protection rights (aka the Uniform Operation of Laws):
All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.Again, Judge Hanson determined that the burden of proof rested on the defendant to show that the current statute rests on state interests. Judge Hanson determined that due to the failures previously expressed, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof to show his five rationales as state interests. To use Judge Hanson's words (p. 48-9):
The Defendant produced no evidence indicating that precluding men from marrying other men and women from marrying other women will promote procreation, will encourage child rearing by mothers and fathers, will promote stability for opposite sex marriages, will conserve resources or will promote heterosexual marriage.Rational Analysis to Determine Constitutionality
Judge Hanson also ran the gender-specific statute through a rational basis rational. That is, a statute is considered constitutional if and only if it serves a legitimate interest of the state and the means to employ the statute reflects a rational relationship to the interest of the state. Judge Hanson points to Supreme Court case law (cf. Lawrence v. Texas and Callendar v. Skiles) that indicates that moral disapproval is an insufficient justification for state interest. Therefore, the fifth rationale concerning the traditional view of marriage failed as a state interest.
Judge Hanson grouped the first three rationales together under the term "responsible procreation". Judge Hanson stresses that the defendant failed to indicate how same-sex parents cannot provide responsible procreation, specifically in the venue of child development, and in fact the Court indicates that the defendant agrees that same-sex couples give proper adjustment to children under their care. The judge also cites a list of case law that shows the courts refusal "to limit or restrict parents' custody or visitation rights or obligations based upon their sexual orientation". Judge Hanson thusly determined that the current statute actually excludes qualified individuals from marrying if the goal of marriage was responsible procreation. Thus, the statute is over-exclusive in its wording.
Simultaneously, the statute is under-inclusive. As stated previously by my commentary and in the opinion, there is no distinction between opposite-sex couples who either cannot physically
reproduce or possess an opinion contra developing a family and same-sex couples. If procreation was indeed a state interest than the statute would contain those words. By the statute being under-inclusive in only indicating same-sex couples and over-exclusive in removing qualified individuals in being parents than the statute in its current form is unconstitutional, according to Judge Hanson. That is, though the state interest of responsible procreation may be credible, the Court determined that the execution of the law was completely arbitrary and failed the rational analysis.
Concerning the rationale that barring same-sex marriage would conserve state and private resources, the defendant failed to build a case. Instead, he could only build a list denials without evidence against the claims of the plaintiffs. Therefore, Judge Hanson concluded that there is no rational basis between the state interest and the gender-specific language of 595.2(1), and thus the exclusion of same-sex marriage was determined to be arbitrary.
Conclusion
Therefore, Judge Hanson determined that 595.2 must be rewritten with gender-neutral language due to the failure to provide a non-arbitrary rationale. This case will more than likely go on to the Iowa Supreme Court. I am not familiar with the ISC, so one can only guess on the outcome. However, Hanson's opinion and the subsequent case materials is a powerful argument of the unconstitutional nature of limiting legally recognized marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Send Them Crawling Back to Their Old Hovel
A common creationist reply to examples of evolution in prairie mice, fish, insects, bacteria, and viruses is that those organisms are still prairie mice, fish, insects, bacteria, and viruses, respectively. Despite the level of obliviousness to the genetics and physiologies that differentiates populations from one another, creationists have no problem promoting the "microevolution but not macroevolution" meme. This tactic is simply them crawling into a hole filled with ignorance. Ignorance of biology specifically and science in general. But what happens when they attempt to crawl out of their hovel...?
Nick Matzke indicates that criticisms concerning the classic example of natural selection, the peppered moth story, arose vehemently from the creationist corner when a simple critique of methodology was addressed by, ironically, scientists who study peppered moths. However, to due to the incompetency of the creationists, the creationists failed to differentiate criticisms from a complete dismantling and declared early victories for an alleged defeat of a "Darwinian" paradigm.
However, the very scientist who creationists quoted to support their early victories has been for the past seven years carefully studying the bird predation of the peppered moth. From a news story about his recent talk:
That point aside, Matzke gave us an enlightening tidbit at the end of his post. From the ARN blog:
Nick Matzke indicates that criticisms concerning the classic example of natural selection, the peppered moth story, arose vehemently from the creationist corner when a simple critique of methodology was addressed by, ironically, scientists who study peppered moths. However, to due to the incompetency of the creationists, the creationists failed to differentiate criticisms from a complete dismantling and declared early victories for an alleged defeat of a "Darwinian" paradigm.
However, the very scientist who creationists quoted to support their early victories has been for the past seven years carefully studying the bird predation of the peppered moth. From a news story about his recent talk:
Though I would use my words more carefully than Majerus at the end, it would only be because he has tenure at a prestigious university and I am simply a student in progress of my bachelors. Simply put, the peppered moth story is a classic example of natural selection in action. Though the science literature is full of other examples, none are as more easily comprehensible as the story of the peppered moth as it is built off of visualization, a tool even the below average student possesses. So instead of saying generic evolution, as Majerus had, I probably would have simply stated natural selection.Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.
He wanted a definitive test of the idea that selective predation by birds really was responsible for the differences in the chances of survival among black and peppered varieties of B. betularia. His garden outside Cambridge is in an unpolluted area so in this setting it should be the typical or peppered variety of the moth that has a better chance of survival than that of the black or carbonaria form; it is unlikely to be seen by birds against the mottled background of the lichen-covered trees.
In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting.
"I conclude that differential bird predation here is a major factor responsible for the decline of carbonaria frequency in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007," Professor Majerus said.
"If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution," he said.
That point aside, Matzke gave us an enlightening tidbit at the end of his post. From the ARN blog:
IMHO...a couple of issues with the most recent peppered moth study. It's still a moth, and the evolution is an oscillation of populations, just like the finches of Galapagos. Of course, the Darwinists will appeal to the "great creators", random chance, natural selection, and the jackpot, hundreds of millions of years. Given enough time, anything can happen, right?Game. Set. Match. The IDists are forced to crawl back to their creationist meme. Given enough time, perhaps they will finally own up to their history. However, this is doubtful. Those in great denial will do anything to remain in that ignorance-filled hovel.
Monday, August 27, 2007
We Have Found God!
Okay, not really. However, astronomers have found a big void in outer space:
Astronomers have found a giant "hole" in the universe that measures nearly a billion light-year across. The large galactic void is empty of galaxies, stars, dust clouds and, oddly enough, even dark matter. The discovery has left scientists clambering for a plausible explanation, however, as of right now one hasn't arisen. Scientists claim that a galactic void this large is far from a normal occurrence.Cold, empty, impersonable...yes, those are all characteristics exhibited by the popular gods.
Friday, August 24, 2007
An Atheist Survey
angelsdepart posted an atheist survey. I have not had the chance to air out my views on various topics. Perhaps I can utilize this venue to give a general description for each topic covered.
1. Why do you not believe in God?
I do not subscribe myself to various versions of deities, such as the God of Abraham or those of the Hindus, due to lack of historical accountability of the various myths espoused by their holy books, priests, shamans, etc., failure for consistent reproducibility of outcomes for specified rituals, and the gods possessing the faulty attribute of pure self-interest. There are also unique and general philosophical questions and faults possessed in analyzing each dogma.
I do not subscribe myself to a form of agnostic deism for pragmatic reasons. It is impractical, in my opinion, to state that some unknown and unknowable entity is involved in the underlying mechanics of the universe, whether the mechanics involve solely creation of the universe, shaping the universe into its current state or form, or being completely involved in every function within this universe. I simply do not find this approach any pragmatically different than the metaphysical naturalism with which I ascribe to. That is, the questions of our existence and life in general yield either similar answers or the answer is completely impractical. I will expand on this thesis at a later date.
2. Where do your morals come from?
I am human. Despite the push for individualism in modern society, our physiology is not that much different from person to person. So my morals and ethical decision making stem from not a static list of rules in a handbook but a living document of human experience and human empathy.
3. What is the meaning of life?
This question always makes me ponder a similar question: "Does life really have a meaning?" If the answer is yes, then the question above is asked. But what if the answer to my inquiry no?
The answer is yes or no depending on what one means by "meaning". Does life have an extrinsic definition or goal? No. There is no universal goal to life. Biologically speaking, this generation's goal is to continue the species via reproduction. But is that really a universal goal or a consequence of evolution and the history of the phyla? Socially we have goals and terms to meet and exceed, but are those really universal? No, not at all. So, no, there is no extrinsic, or rather platonic, meaning to life.
However, there is a particular pattern or certain reduced formalism we all undergo during our living. Thus, my answer is a cliché; the meaning of life is to live. What I mean by to live is this pattern with which we experience: growth. We grow physically due to biological processes. We grow emotionally from social experiences. We grow in knowledge through experience. These three avenues of personal growth is life. How one wishes to involve themselves with each arena (eg. with life) is solely up to their own.
4. Is atheism a religion?
No. It is a view on/of religion, but religion is often defined by ritual practices concerning a belief in divinities and higher entities. Atheism could be viewed as a religious opinion or religious point of view, but in and of itself it is not a religion. Nor is deism based on my definition above, as deism typically does not involve rituals or dogma.
5. If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?
I take as much command of myself and attempt to maintain as much order as possible. As a result, I often find myself volunteering and taking action to fix or ease the tensions created by the troubling situation. From a personal account, when Hurricane Katrina made landfall and devastated the coast of Mississippi and the storm surge laid waste to New Orleans, while everyone was praying for a solution I was attempting to act out a solution. I became a Red Cross volunteer and worked the shelter established at the local conference center (the Rivercenter of Baton Rouge) during the day. During the evening and "graveyard" hours I volunteered at the temporary triage set up at my university (Louisiana State University) as an orderly/nurse practitioner. Essentially I used what resources I had available (my physical strength and manpower) to help ease the suffering of the victims. I have also volunteered several times to help clean up the hardest hit portions of New Orleans and Mississippi, regions which to this day are still wastelands and ghost towns.
Thus, I do not pray nor do I hope. Those do nothing. I act, and my action depends on the situation in question.
6. Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?
Should atheists in general do so? No. But for those who believe that the development and retention of religion is the worst thing to have occurred in human history, then I think they are obligated to discuss the reasoning behind their viewpoint. It is their job to convince people that their position is valid. Validity does not always imply conversion.
7. Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?
Yes, but not due to their atheism. People should be measured by their actions not their thoughts. Besides, only the individual truly knows what they believe; others can only guess and weigh the words of individual testimony.
8. How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?
Ironically, this question is spot on. But I would phrase the question more like: "how could anyone know anything about God?" There are reported ways of how the nature of the divine can be determined (eg revelation), but the sheer amount of differences amongst individual revelations questions the reliance of such methods.
Simply put, people can be wrong due to flawed methods of determining what they seek.
9. Why does the universe exist?
Is there a platonic reason for the universe's existence? No. The universe exists because the universe exists. This simple tautology is the logical truth of the matter. Everything else is a conjecture, a guess, or an attempt to rationalize opinions with this truth. Though conjecturing can be fun and even lead one to defining and learning more about oneself or the world we experience, it does not give a finite or satisfactory answer to this question. But we do know how the universe exists and why it is in its current form. That is nothing particularly special to this question, though.
10. How did life originate?
Based on current understanding, the organic molecules of life were synthesized and collected on Earth to form the first cell-like blob of chemical mass. Eventually, these chemical mechanisms began constructing structures and patterns we recognize as being patterns found in living organisms.
11. Is all religion harmful?
One cannot make a general statement that encompasses all forms of religious belief. Conviction and piety via asceticism may prevent the individual from experiencing what human culture and nature offers. However, that is the individual's choice. In social settings, religion tends to be more harmful than good. Mob mentality comes to my mind when church services gather. The unquestioning attitude exhibited by some dogmas also illicit more harm than good.
In general, the question cannot be addressed. Specifics need to be specified for a complete analysis.
12. What’s so bad about religious moderates?
From my experience, they do not address the fundamental problem that plagues fundamentalism: the failure to practice what one preaches. Moderates tend to tolerate their highly deluded and misinformed brothers and sisters in this aspect.
13. Is there anything redeeming about religion?
Personal reconciliation with the individual and his/her environment is the only redeeming quality I can think of.
14. What if you’re wrong about God's existence?
Which one's existence, though?
15. Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?
On an individual level, sure. I don't dislike a particular person because of their personal belief system. However, religious groups that attempt to qualify their political stake from sectarian values as opposed to secular ones deserve criticism.
16. Are atheists smarter than theists?
Atheists are definitely smarter than the theists who insist and argue through dogma that their religion is the One and Only TruthTM. Comparisons to theists of other persuasions require specifics.
17. How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?
Basically, it has not been historically verified that he rose from the dead and was lifted into heaven. But even if he had done and said everything in the Bible, the possibility of Jesus being a ploy for the archetypal "god of evil" to dissuade everyone from the archetypal "god of good" is a possibility (see answer to 8 for why). I guess, though, this is when faith comes into play.
18. Would the world be better off without any religion?
In my opinion, yes.
19. What happens when we die?
I have the view based on my little knowledge of neurochemistry that an hallucinogenic compound is released during the time the brain lacks oxygen to continue cellular metabolism. Essentially, during the time period preceding absolute death, our sensory data become significantly distorted between our consciousness and the sense organs. We see, hear, taste, feel, smell things which do not exist. We drop unconscious right before absolute death (eg. no sensory data is able to be processed) and then our brain is completely dead. Every thought, emotion, and memory is destroyed. Thus, our metaphorical soul or spirit physically dies.
Immortality is obtained through being retained by the memories of future generations; nothing more or less.
1. Why do you not believe in God?
I do not subscribe myself to various versions of deities, such as the God of Abraham or those of the Hindus, due to lack of historical accountability of the various myths espoused by their holy books, priests, shamans, etc., failure for consistent reproducibility of outcomes for specified rituals, and the gods possessing the faulty attribute of pure self-interest. There are also unique and general philosophical questions and faults possessed in analyzing each dogma.
I do not subscribe myself to a form of agnostic deism for pragmatic reasons. It is impractical, in my opinion, to state that some unknown and unknowable entity is involved in the underlying mechanics of the universe, whether the mechanics involve solely creation of the universe, shaping the universe into its current state or form, or being completely involved in every function within this universe. I simply do not find this approach any pragmatically different than the metaphysical naturalism with which I ascribe to. That is, the questions of our existence and life in general yield either similar answers or the answer is completely impractical. I will expand on this thesis at a later date.
2. Where do your morals come from?
I am human. Despite the push for individualism in modern society, our physiology is not that much different from person to person. So my morals and ethical decision making stem from not a static list of rules in a handbook but a living document of human experience and human empathy.
3. What is the meaning of life?
This question always makes me ponder a similar question: "Does life really have a meaning?" If the answer is yes, then the question above is asked. But what if the answer to my inquiry no?
The answer is yes or no depending on what one means by "meaning". Does life have an extrinsic definition or goal? No. There is no universal goal to life. Biologically speaking, this generation's goal is to continue the species via reproduction. But is that really a universal goal or a consequence of evolution and the history of the phyla? Socially we have goals and terms to meet and exceed, but are those really universal? No, not at all. So, no, there is no extrinsic, or rather platonic, meaning to life.
However, there is a particular pattern or certain reduced formalism we all undergo during our living. Thus, my answer is a cliché; the meaning of life is to live. What I mean by to live is this pattern with which we experience: growth. We grow physically due to biological processes. We grow emotionally from social experiences. We grow in knowledge through experience. These three avenues of personal growth is life. How one wishes to involve themselves with each arena (eg. with life) is solely up to their own.
4. Is atheism a religion?
No. It is a view on/of religion, but religion is often defined by ritual practices concerning a belief in divinities and higher entities. Atheism could be viewed as a religious opinion or religious point of view, but in and of itself it is not a religion. Nor is deism based on my definition above, as deism typically does not involve rituals or dogma.
5. If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?
I take as much command of myself and attempt to maintain as much order as possible. As a result, I often find myself volunteering and taking action to fix or ease the tensions created by the troubling situation. From a personal account, when Hurricane Katrina made landfall and devastated the coast of Mississippi and the storm surge laid waste to New Orleans, while everyone was praying for a solution I was attempting to act out a solution. I became a Red Cross volunteer and worked the shelter established at the local conference center (the Rivercenter of Baton Rouge) during the day. During the evening and "graveyard" hours I volunteered at the temporary triage set up at my university (Louisiana State University) as an orderly/nurse practitioner. Essentially I used what resources I had available (my physical strength and manpower) to help ease the suffering of the victims. I have also volunteered several times to help clean up the hardest hit portions of New Orleans and Mississippi, regions which to this day are still wastelands and ghost towns.
Thus, I do not pray nor do I hope. Those do nothing. I act, and my action depends on the situation in question.
6. Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?
Should atheists in general do so? No. But for those who believe that the development and retention of religion is the worst thing to have occurred in human history, then I think they are obligated to discuss the reasoning behind their viewpoint. It is their job to convince people that their position is valid. Validity does not always imply conversion.
7. Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?
Yes, but not due to their atheism. People should be measured by their actions not their thoughts. Besides, only the individual truly knows what they believe; others can only guess and weigh the words of individual testimony.
8. How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?
Ironically, this question is spot on. But I would phrase the question more like: "how could anyone know anything about God?" There are reported ways of how the nature of the divine can be determined (eg revelation), but the sheer amount of differences amongst individual revelations questions the reliance of such methods.
Simply put, people can be wrong due to flawed methods of determining what they seek.
9. Why does the universe exist?
Is there a platonic reason for the universe's existence? No. The universe exists because the universe exists. This simple tautology is the logical truth of the matter. Everything else is a conjecture, a guess, or an attempt to rationalize opinions with this truth. Though conjecturing can be fun and even lead one to defining and learning more about oneself or the world we experience, it does not give a finite or satisfactory answer to this question. But we do know how the universe exists and why it is in its current form. That is nothing particularly special to this question, though.
10. How did life originate?
Based on current understanding, the organic molecules of life were synthesized and collected on Earth to form the first cell-like blob of chemical mass. Eventually, these chemical mechanisms began constructing structures and patterns we recognize as being patterns found in living organisms.
11. Is all religion harmful?
One cannot make a general statement that encompasses all forms of religious belief. Conviction and piety via asceticism may prevent the individual from experiencing what human culture and nature offers. However, that is the individual's choice. In social settings, religion tends to be more harmful than good. Mob mentality comes to my mind when church services gather. The unquestioning attitude exhibited by some dogmas also illicit more harm than good.
In general, the question cannot be addressed. Specifics need to be specified for a complete analysis.
12. What’s so bad about religious moderates?
From my experience, they do not address the fundamental problem that plagues fundamentalism: the failure to practice what one preaches. Moderates tend to tolerate their highly deluded and misinformed brothers and sisters in this aspect.
13. Is there anything redeeming about religion?
Personal reconciliation with the individual and his/her environment is the only redeeming quality I can think of.
14. What if you’re wrong about God's existence?
Which one's existence, though?
15. Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?
On an individual level, sure. I don't dislike a particular person because of their personal belief system. However, religious groups that attempt to qualify their political stake from sectarian values as opposed to secular ones deserve criticism.
16. Are atheists smarter than theists?
Atheists are definitely smarter than the theists who insist and argue through dogma that their religion is the One and Only TruthTM. Comparisons to theists of other persuasions require specifics.
17. How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?
Basically, it has not been historically verified that he rose from the dead and was lifted into heaven. But even if he had done and said everything in the Bible, the possibility of Jesus being a ploy for the archetypal "god of evil" to dissuade everyone from the archetypal "god of good" is a possibility (see answer to 8 for why). I guess, though, this is when faith comes into play.
18. Would the world be better off without any religion?
In my opinion, yes.
19. What happens when we die?
I have the view based on my little knowledge of neurochemistry that an hallucinogenic compound is released during the time the brain lacks oxygen to continue cellular metabolism. Essentially, during the time period preceding absolute death, our sensory data become significantly distorted between our consciousness and the sense organs. We see, hear, taste, feel, smell things which do not exist. We drop unconscious right before absolute death (eg. no sensory data is able to be processed) and then our brain is completely dead. Every thought, emotion, and memory is destroyed. Thus, our metaphorical soul or spirit physically dies.
Immortality is obtained through being retained by the memories of future generations; nothing more or less.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Religiously Oriented Chain Mail
I get chain mail every now and then from my religious friends. I don't know why exactly other than that I'm just on their address list. More than likely you have received something just like the following, so you don't have to read it all the way through.
But I guess the devout mind is rather simple to please. Give a story about God's "grace" and ignore specifics that actually show God's faults. The Christian God is not an all-loving deity willing to help humanity from our shortcomings. No, the Christian God is really a pathetic simpleton desiring to be surrounded by even more pathetic sycophants. Blindly devout Christians tend to sicken me in this respect. The blinders of faith are abound.
A girl went to a party in sexy clothes and she ended up staying longer than planned, her boyfriend got drunk and passed out and had to walk home alone. She wasn't afraid because it was a small town and she lived only a few blocks away around the corner of 4th & 16th. As she walked along passing "MacDonalds" Mary asked God to keep her safe from harm and danger. When she reached the alley, which was a short cut to her house, she decided to take it. However, halfway down the alley she noticed a man standing at the end as though he were waiting for her. She became uneasy and began to pray, asking for God's protection. Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness and security wrapped round her, she felt as though someone was walking with her. When she reached the end of the alley, she walked right past the man and arrived home safely.Anytime I read a story like this I cannot help but wonder: "Why didn't God protect the other girl as well?" I know this story intends on portraying God as some merciful protector, but it truly fails. God becomes instead a pretentious prick granting protection only to those willing to suck up to him.
The following day, she read in the newspaper that a young girl had been raped in the same alley just twenty minutes after she had been there. Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy and the fact that it could have been her, she began to weep. Thanking the Lord for her safety and to help this young woman, she decided to go to the police station. She felt she could recognize the man, so she told them her story. The police asked her if she would be willing to look at a lineup to see if she could identify him. She agreed and immediately pointed out the man she had seen in the alley the night before. When the man was told he had been identified, he immediately broke down and confessed.
The officer thanked Mary for her bravery and asked if there was anything they could do for her. She asked if they would ask the man one question. Mary was curious as to why he had not attacked her. When the policeman asked him, he answered, "Because she wasn't alone. She had two tall men walking on either side of her."
Amazingly, whether you believe or not, you're never alone. Did you know that 98% of teenagers will not stand up for God? Forward this story to all your friends if you truly believe in God.
But I guess the devout mind is rather simple to please. Give a story about God's "grace" and ignore specifics that actually show God's faults. The Christian God is not an all-loving deity willing to help humanity from our shortcomings. No, the Christian God is really a pathetic simpleton desiring to be surrounded by even more pathetic sycophants. Blindly devout Christians tend to sicken me in this respect. The blinders of faith are abound.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
I May Have Found My Niche
I've always been trying to find my niche on the internet. I wanted something that could possibly set this blog apart from all the other atheist/secular humanist/liberal/science web logs in the blogosphere.
I really wanted this blog to be my forum against Creationism and other evolutionist positions. However, I am not strong in biology as the contributors to Panda's Thumb or Antievolution. Nor am I strong in cosmology like Phil Plait. And I can only dream to have the legal prowess of Ed Brayton. However, I do have a grasp on thermodynamics, but the Second Law "problem" has been addressed a billion times by scientists with more vigor than me.
But then I stumbled upon Mark Chu-Carroll's comments on a recent paper concerning homeopathic medicine, particularly the "science" of homeopathic dilutions. My strength and passion is in chemical physics. I have been a chemist in a loose sense since I can remember (who hasn't attempted to make gun powder or various polymers at home?), and the physics I know is related mostly to the fraction of a fraction of moles of molecules (sets of at most 500 molecules). That knowledge doesn't apply very well to arguments concerning genetics, population dynamics, and cosmology like most SciCre screeds attempt (and fail, obviously) to address.
So, from MarkCC's blog I found a disturbing peer-reviewed journal from a respectable publisher. Of course, with my knowledge and dealing with non-scientific institutions like AiG or the anti-science of the DI, this comes as a no surprise that people publish idiocy. However, it seems only a few bloggers enter into this new domain of stupidity. Though homeopathy deals with a number of non-chemistry topics, some of thenotions utter bullshit espoused by homeopathic healers peddlers do relate to topics within my scope of discussion and direct knowledge.
So, I have created a new label for my posts, and a new scope of this blog. No, I will not stop commenting on religious fanatics and the antics of the IDiots. I will still advocate sound science and comment on bad science. I will also continue interjecting my personal philosophy and political theory throughout. Simply put, expect more details on homeopathic theories from me in the future.
Right now, I have some papers to print and digest.
I really wanted this blog to be my forum against Creationism and other evolutionist positions. However, I am not strong in biology as the contributors to Panda's Thumb or Antievolution. Nor am I strong in cosmology like Phil Plait. And I can only dream to have the legal prowess of Ed Brayton. However, I do have a grasp on thermodynamics, but the Second Law "problem" has been addressed a billion times by scientists with more vigor than me.
But then I stumbled upon Mark Chu-Carroll's comments on a recent paper concerning homeopathic medicine, particularly the "science" of homeopathic dilutions. My strength and passion is in chemical physics. I have been a chemist in a loose sense since I can remember (who hasn't attempted to make gun powder or various polymers at home?), and the physics I know is related mostly to the fraction of a fraction of moles of molecules (sets of at most 500 molecules). That knowledge doesn't apply very well to arguments concerning genetics, population dynamics, and cosmology like most SciCre screeds attempt (and fail, obviously) to address.
So, from MarkCC's blog I found a disturbing peer-reviewed journal from a respectable publisher. Of course, with my knowledge and dealing with non-scientific institutions like AiG or the anti-science of the DI, this comes as a no surprise that people publish idiocy. However, it seems only a few bloggers enter into this new domain of stupidity. Though homeopathy deals with a number of non-chemistry topics, some of the
So, I have created a new label for my posts, and a new scope of this blog. No, I will not stop commenting on religious fanatics and the antics of the IDiots. I will still advocate sound science and comment on bad science. I will also continue interjecting my personal philosophy and political theory throughout. Simply put, expect more details on homeopathic theories from me in the future.
Right now, I have some papers to print and digest.
Spengel's Confusion and Whig Whag Over 1934
I can't help myself. I'm such a masochist that I actually read the writings of idiots for my own self-pleasure. Perhaps its a reflection of my arrogance, or perhaps I have some deep doubt of my own self-confidence and need reassurance that I'm more intelligent compared to the average Joe.
There are three topics that I am knowledgeable in that my masochistic side comes out: historical criticism, global climate studies, and the theory of evolution. These three topics come up with various frequency on my favorite baboon's web log, Mark Sprengel.
Recently, he commented on the recent hub-bub surrounding the 1998 temperature readings. For the full scoop beyond Sprengel's comprehension, read RealClimate's comment.
And don't worry. I expect fully well that everything will continue to fly over Sprengel's head.
There are three topics that I am knowledgeable in that my masochistic side comes out: historical criticism, global climate studies, and the theory of evolution. These three topics come up with various frequency on my favorite baboon's web log, Mark Sprengel.
Recently, he commented on the recent hub-bub surrounding the 1998 temperature readings. For the full scoop beyond Sprengel's comprehension, read RealClimate's comment.
And don't worry. I expect fully well that everything will continue to fly over Sprengel's head.
William Dembski: Spinning Faster than a Whirling Dervish
William Dembski seems to be all in a huff over Kevin Padian's recent book review in Nature (Nature 448, 253-254). In short summary, Dembski begins with a false assessment and faulty aspiration, enters into a non sequitur discussion, and ends with a discussion of the back-slapping from his cronies and fellow misfits.
I especially enjoy Dembski's flaunting of his degrees and denouncing of others. Aside from his digression from Christian humility, his pandering to academic titles and associations as opposed to the arguments at hand is nothing new. Evasion is the key tactic of the intelligent design advocate, and the better rhetorical fluff surrounding your words the better.
Aside from that observation, I have been doodling in the margins of some of Dembski's original works. I doubt I can make as such a strong mathematical argument as Richard Wein (whom Dembski dismisses solely for his degree and not the arguments) or Wesley Elsberry and Jeffery Shallit. Or maybe I can and actually press a quantitative answer from Dembski, else he would be made a fool by an undergraduate.
I can only dream concerning his history of evasion.
I especially enjoy Dembski's flaunting of his degrees and denouncing of others. Aside from his digression from Christian humility, his pandering to academic titles and associations as opposed to the arguments at hand is nothing new. Evasion is the key tactic of the intelligent design advocate, and the better rhetorical fluff surrounding your words the better.
Aside from that observation, I have been doodling in the margins of some of Dembski's original works. I doubt I can make as such a strong mathematical argument as Richard Wein (whom Dembski dismisses solely for his degree and not the arguments) or Wesley Elsberry and Jeffery Shallit. Or maybe I can and actually press a quantitative answer from Dembski, else he would be made a fool by an undergraduate.
I can only dream concerning his history of evasion.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Chuck Norris Tomfoolery
Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars wrote about the National Council on Biblical Curriculum in Public School's (NCBCPS) front page on August 12, 2007. On the front page was a column by Chuck Norris, an advisory board member of the NCBCPS, concerning the steps to get the Bible offered as a textbook in school curriculum. Brayton noticed a pernicious phrase in Norris' column which appeared on the front page of the NCBCPS: "Your first step to get God back into your public school".
A commentor by the name of "M" on Brayton's post mentioned the phrase was missing on the front page. August 13, 2007, Brayton informed his viewers that the phrase was still located in the original column. However, this is not true anymore. An August 8, 2007, Google cache shows the original column text, but the present column now reads: "Your first step to get the Bible back into your public school" (emphasis mine).
Though perhaps Norris can get away with the editing representing the scope of the article moreso than his internal desire to spread Christianity to the masses, anyone of sound mind and judgement can clearly see Norris' and the NCBCPS's real agenda to bring Bible curriculum to public schools. Below are screenshots I made of the current column and the Google cache.
Googel cache, located here.
A commentor by the name of "M" on Brayton's post mentioned the phrase was missing on the front page. August 13, 2007, Brayton informed his viewers that the phrase was still located in the original column. However, this is not true anymore. An August 8, 2007, Google cache shows the original column text, but the present column now reads: "Your first step to get the Bible back into your public school" (emphasis mine).
Though perhaps Norris can get away with the editing representing the scope of the article moreso than his internal desire to spread Christianity to the masses, anyone of sound mind and judgement can clearly see Norris' and the NCBCPS's real agenda to bring Bible curriculum to public schools. Below are screenshots I made of the current column and the Google cache.
Googel cache, located here.Monday, August 13, 2007
Chick Tracts on Film?
A group of industrious people have made short films out of the infamous Jack T. Chick tracts. They have some short tidbits on their site. Below is their trailer.
Behe's Edge Misplaced
In the spirit of a new blog I stumbled upon, I decided to help out my local bookstore some. I was absolutely appalled at what I saw at my local Barnes & Noble. I am sorry that the pictures are fuzzy; I must learn to take steady photos with my cellphone.
First, I hit my college bookstore. It was atrocious, nay horrendous, to see Behe's diatribe, Edge of Evolution, parked right next to the collected works of Charles Darwin! (But admittedly funny to see a good book against ID, Intelligent Thought, not far from it) I was so traumatized by the site that I had to sit down in the comfy chairs that are only a few steps away from the science section (thank goodness...I wouldn't be so well-read in science and mathematics if the chairs were further away from that section). When I returned, I was resolute to move Behe to his rightful place: the religion aisle. But there were no openings in that section. So I decided on Plan B and placed the two Behe books in fiction. Sadly, the fiction picture did not come out very well.
When I returned to the science section, I saw the most hilarious book title ever: The Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design. Perhaps the book isn't news because it was published eight months ago, but I can't help to chuckle at the irony in the title: only an idiot would attach themselves to the intelligent design movement. So I flipped through it. The expected arguments were presented in their expected formats. Perhaps if I have enough time, I'll return to that bookstore and review the book in total (I refuse to buy it; I'll just jot down notes as I read). That is, if it didn't get accidentally thrown away. I decided to place this book where it truly belonged; on top of the garbage can.
Next stop, the big Barnes and Noble in my city. I was more frustrated here, however. For one, it is a two story bookstore with all the fiction, philosophy, and religion books on the second floor and the science section on the first. Being secretive would be a difficult task. Secondly, their science section sucked. Dawkins' God Delusion, though a good beach read for a freethinker, was improperly placed in the evolutionary biology section. Perhaps it was just easier to shelf his book next to his other works, but really the book belongs in general science, along with his Devil's Chaplain (which, I would argue, is specifically philosophy of science, but that's too specific for most bookstores). Not far from Dawkins, however, is Of Pandas and People. This book was, without haste, placed on top of the nearest garbage can.
Now, there were four Behe texts advertised in the New Science section and three more stuck in the evolution section. Notice how a big text called Evolution is right next to it. I forget whose work that is, but I recall flipping through the pages and chuckling. That author would be upset if he found out he was only centimeters away from a demagogue. So, I eased his pain. I moved Behe's Darwin Black Box to the Religious Fiction section (picture too fuzzy), and I took all of Behe's books to the most proper section I could think of at the time: New Science Fiction.
What's hilarious it took me two trips to complete that task (I guess Behe isn't that popular in my home town). In between those trips, one of the copies of Edge was taken. I finished my evilness and saw the person who was flipping through the pages setting on that stores' set of comfy chairs. He was your average Sci-Fi nerd stereotype with the fogged glasses and nasal wheeze. I heard him mutter to his friend: "This is the best science fiction book ever". Very fitting, if I dare say so myself. I also found one of William Dembski's books (see below) in the science section, so I placed his in fiction. If you alphabetized Dembski in the Fiction section at my store, he ended up between two teen-girl novel series. Touching.
Lastly, I stumbled upon the Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design by Jonathon Wells. I knew exactly where this book belonged: in the bargain bin. I even removed the red dot that represent "cheap book" from one of the flimsy books in the bin and placed it on the cover. I wonder if any commotion occurred due to that act of pure vandalism? Surely not; I can't think of any person who would even pay $1 for inanity.
I apologize again for the fuzzy pictures. I'll try better to take clearer shots next time with the camera on my phone.
When I returned to the science section, I saw the most hilarious book title ever: The Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design. Perhaps the book isn't news because it was published eight months ago, but I can't help to chuckle at the irony in the title: only an idiot would attach themselves to the intelligent design movement. So I flipped through it. The expected arguments were presented in their expected formats. Perhaps if I have enough time, I'll return to that bookstore and review the book in total (I refuse to buy it; I'll just jot down notes as I read). That is, if it didn't get accidentally thrown away. I decided to place this book where it truly belonged; on top of the garbage can.
Next stop, the big Barnes and Noble in my city. I was more frustrated here, however. For one, it is a two story bookstore with all the fiction, philosophy, and religion books on the second floor and the science section on the first. Being secretive would be a difficult task. Secondly, their science section sucked. Dawkins' God Delusion, though a good beach read for a freethinker, was improperly placed in the evolutionary biology section. Perhaps it was just easier to shelf his book next to his other works, but really the book belongs in general science, along with his Devil's Chaplain (which, I would argue, is specifically philosophy of science, but that's too specific for most bookstores). Not far from Dawkins, however, is Of Pandas and People. This book was, without haste, placed on top of the nearest garbage can.Now, there were four Behe texts advertised in the New Science section and three more stuck in the evolution section. Notice how a big text called Evolution is right next to it. I forget whose work that is, but I recall flipping through the pages and chuckling. That author would be upset if he found out he was only centimeters away from a demagogue. So, I eased his pain. I moved Behe's Darwin Black Box to the Religious Fiction section (picture too fuzzy), and I took all of Behe's books to the most proper section I could think of at the time: New Science Fiction.What's hilarious it took me two trips to complete that task (I guess Behe isn't that popular in my home town). In between those trips, one of the copies of Edge was taken. I finished my evilness and saw the person who was flipping through the pages setting on that stores' set of comfy chairs. He was your average Sci-Fi nerd stereotype with the fogged glasses and nasal wheeze. I heard him mutter to his friend: "This is the best science fiction book ever". Very fitting, if I dare say so myself. I also found one of William Dembski's books (see below) in the science section, so I placed his in fiction. If you alphabetized Dembski in the Fiction section at my store, he ended up between two teen-girl novel series. Touching.Lastly, I stumbled upon the Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design by Jonathon Wells. I knew exactly where this book belonged: in the bargain bin. I even removed the red dot that represent "cheap book" from one of the flimsy books in the bin and placed it on the cover. I wonder if any commotion occurred due to that act of pure vandalism? Surely not; I can't think of any person who would even pay $1 for inanity.I apologize again for the fuzzy pictures. I'll try better to take clearer shots next time with the camera on my phone.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Mathematical Biology Joke
I found this rather entertaining mathematical biology joke. You can read the context at The Loom.
A shepherd is tending his sheep, and a man comes by and says, "If I guess the correct number of your sheep, can I have one?"The shepherd says, "Please try."
The man looks at the flock and says "Eighty-three."
The shepherd is completely amazed that he got the right number. The man picks up a sheep and starts to walk away.
The shepherd says, "Wait! If I guess your profession, can I have my sheep back?"
The man says, "Sure."
The shepherd says, "You must be a mathematical biologist."
The man says, "How did you know?"
"Because you picked up my dog."
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Dembskian Intelligent Design: A Front for Religion
(Note: This was my first post at my first web log. However, that web log has since been deleted, and I cannot even remember its title. I thought I had posted this when I moved to this blogging service, but I guess I did not. The following was my first attempt to expose the ID movement as religiously-centered organization moreso than a truely scientific enterprise. Go easy since it was my first rant against William Dembski)
From The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design':
The claim for intelligence is that there is specified complexity in life. The argument in Dembski's essay essentially relies upon the observation of complex systems, such as the bacterium flaggelum or the existence of DNA and RNA transcription and translation processes, in order to be evidence of intelligent design. He argues that Darwinism takes natural explanations a prior, a position which is not objectively verifiable. He calls such a technique "armchair philosophy"; ironic, since it is not justifiable to see a complex system and sum it up as stemming from a purely intelligent source. As previously mentioned, this proposes that complex systems cannot be established without an intelligence behind the formation. This is a dubious statement; snowflakes form complex patterns without the aid of an intelligence. As well, natural chrystals show signs of complexity; these structure came about via natural processes.
Dembski concludes with a quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, Dembski's position and the totality of Intelligent Design movement has a problem; namely, the problem is that it is not science but arm chair philosophy. The "facts" are based on dubious and weak propositions. His position is against the observation of natural known processes and predicting the combination or recombination of these naturally known process, as as well as concievable and evident ancient processes to give rise to new processes in a biological system. He argues that using unknown variables is simply unscientific. His position is simply summed up as since we have evidence of intelligent beings creating specified complexity, for example humans manufacturing machinery, and we extend this observation into the search of intelligent life, for example the SETI project scans deep space for electromagnetic activity that could be translated into possible communication, then why can not that extension be made into an intelligence which is not dictated by natural laws? The intelligence, by default, is transcendent of natural laws ; as such, it is not affected by these laws which would leave a verifiable path of existence. Being organisms with a perspective subjected to such natural laws, we are limited to percieving only that which exists in the realm we live in, namely one of natural processes and natural observances.
Science is then forced into the realm of naturalism as adding the variable of a transcendent intelligence becomes excedingly complicated and speculative. Science cannot justify the position with the subjective claim of the existence of truthful specific complexity, especially considering the examples given in papers pushing specific complexitiy have been shown to not be complex nor specific. Science cannot justify positing an unobservable as the general causation. Science is limited to positing causation on observables such as Newton's gravity or Maxwell's heat and electromagnetism. It is "armchair philosophy" to sit back and posit an intelligent designer without valid justification.
Dembski, combined with his previous quote from the article, is simply attempting to inject Intelligent Design into the education system. By first positing the logical possibility of an intelligence and by describing the intelligence as a being that transcends natural laws, he has essentially created the essence of God natural theologians had developed a millenia ago. This is a tactic that is clear, and one can only hope that our education system can maintain its protection from this unscientific, religiously motivated movement.
From The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design':
Two years ago, at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's [William] Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.Willaim Dembski's remarks in this meeting and a trend in his writing gives evidence that his version of Intelligent Design is simply a ploy to teach religion, specifically Christianity, in the school system. Intelligent Design is simply a front to religion. As demonstrated by the previous quote by Dembski, one of the leading components of the movement, as well as what he wrote in his paper titled "The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design" (published in Debating Design by Dembski and Michael Ruse, Cambridge Press 2004):
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
Inteligent Design...teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms (323).Or in other words, the agent of intelligence is above natural mechanisms or essentially is God. Dembski has thus rehashed the First Cause argument of Aquinas to include an intelligent entity which is seperate from the universe but still mintains interactions within it. Though plausible, this statement is not back with empirical evidence or even deduced nor induced by observable datum but asserted. Dembski continues on in the conclusion:
Science is supposed to give the full range of possible explanations a fair chance to succeed...[S]cience may not, by a priori fiat, rule out logical possibilities. Evolutionary biology, by limiting itself exclusively to material mechanisms, has settled in advance the question of which biological explanations are true, apart from any consideration of empirical evidence (329).Utilizing natural mechanisms as the sole explanation is not an arbitrary assignment from authority, or a fiat. It is from the lack of supporting evidence of a transcendent intelligence. Namely, by the definition of the term itself we would be unable to observe nor comprehend such a specimen, and as such it would simply be speculation as opposed to evidentiary synthesis concerning the pathway of origins. What is worse is this speculation is based entirely off of propositional logic, the form of logic which some scientists would argue is the antithesis of the scientific method or just simply bad science.
The claim for intelligence is that there is specified complexity in life. The argument in Dembski's essay essentially relies upon the observation of complex systems, such as the bacterium flaggelum or the existence of DNA and RNA transcription and translation processes, in order to be evidence of intelligent design. He argues that Darwinism takes natural explanations a prior, a position which is not objectively verifiable. He calls such a technique "armchair philosophy"; ironic, since it is not justifiable to see a complex system and sum it up as stemming from a purely intelligent source. As previously mentioned, this proposes that complex systems cannot be established without an intelligence behind the formation. This is a dubious statement; snowflakes form complex patterns without the aid of an intelligence. As well, natural chrystals show signs of complexity; these structure came about via natural processes.
Dembski concludes with a quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, Dembski's position and the totality of Intelligent Design movement has a problem; namely, the problem is that it is not science but arm chair philosophy. The "facts" are based on dubious and weak propositions. His position is against the observation of natural known processes and predicting the combination or recombination of these naturally known process, as as well as concievable and evident ancient processes to give rise to new processes in a biological system. He argues that using unknown variables is simply unscientific. His position is simply summed up as since we have evidence of intelligent beings creating specified complexity, for example humans manufacturing machinery, and we extend this observation into the search of intelligent life, for example the SETI project scans deep space for electromagnetic activity that could be translated into possible communication, then why can not that extension be made into an intelligence which is not dictated by natural laws? The intelligence, by default, is transcendent of natural laws ; as such, it is not affected by these laws which would leave a verifiable path of existence. Being organisms with a perspective subjected to such natural laws, we are limited to percieving only that which exists in the realm we live in, namely one of natural processes and natural observances.
Science is then forced into the realm of naturalism as adding the variable of a transcendent intelligence becomes excedingly complicated and speculative. Science cannot justify the position with the subjective claim of the existence of truthful specific complexity, especially considering the examples given in papers pushing specific complexitiy have been shown to not be complex nor specific. Science cannot justify positing an unobservable as the general causation. Science is limited to positing causation on observables such as Newton's gravity or Maxwell's heat and electromagnetism. It is "armchair philosophy" to sit back and posit an intelligent designer without valid justification.
Dembski, combined with his previous quote from the article, is simply attempting to inject Intelligent Design into the education system. By first positing the logical possibility of an intelligence and by describing the intelligence as a being that transcends natural laws, he has essentially created the essence of God natural theologians had developed a millenia ago. This is a tactic that is clear, and one can only hope that our education system can maintain its protection from this unscientific, religiously motivated movement.
Jesus and Cruise Missles Go Hand in Hand
Ah, my favorite Christian organization (Campus Crusade for Christ International) seems to be back in the news causing commotion. However, this time it's with the Pentagon.
The Pentagon's Inspector General recently released a 45-page report concerning the alleged misconduct of several DOD officials concerning the making of a religious video by Christian Embassy. Christian Embassy, according to its website, is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement." Clicking around on their site reveals they are associated with the CCCI, a known fundamentalist evangelical organization with a statement of faith as ridiculous as that movie Good Burger (except not as comical because the followers actually believe in it).
You can watch the movie in question here for self-amusement. It makes me a bit uneasy to see several top military leaders in a seemingly official capacity (eg rank and uniform) proclaiming their unyielding faith. My uneasiness isn't only because I feel their belief in the make-believe to be abhorrent (let bygones be bygones), but when proclaiming such nonsense in an official capacity makes it seem like the entire lot of our military are fanatical fundamentalists bent on spreading the gospel by rifle and missle. It's bad enough our government is ran by a man who is "born-again"; it would be nice to have some reassurance that there are some sane people left in the higher ranks of the organization whose mission is to protect our Constitution.
But who am I kidding? The American government (and now our military) seems to be a gathering place of kooks and woos. This video is just more of a wake-up call then anything else. It also contains a bit of irony. Pentagon chaplain Ralph Benson states his solution to the "war on terror":"What more do we need than Christian people leading us?" Ironic, because it seems like it was our President who under the moral compass and guidance of (his brand of) Christianity got us in this mess.
Piety is one thing, but I think we need more than just people who are pious to get out of this mess. Something tells me someone with good common sense and a strong head concerning foreign affairs would be more beneficial than someone who believes that God speaks to him or that modern morality should reflect the ancient writings of ignorant goat and sheep herders. This country's leaders make me sick at times.
(Hat tip: Pharyngula)
The Pentagon's Inspector General recently released a 45-page report concerning the alleged misconduct of several DOD officials concerning the making of a religious video by Christian Embassy. Christian Embassy, according to its website, is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement." Clicking around on their site reveals they are associated with the CCCI, a known fundamentalist evangelical organization with a statement of faith as ridiculous as that movie Good Burger (except not as comical because the followers actually believe in it).
You can watch the movie in question here for self-amusement. It makes me a bit uneasy to see several top military leaders in a seemingly official capacity (eg rank and uniform) proclaiming their unyielding faith. My uneasiness isn't only because I feel their belief in the make-believe to be abhorrent (let bygones be bygones), but when proclaiming such nonsense in an official capacity makes it seem like the entire lot of our military are fanatical fundamentalists bent on spreading the gospel by rifle and missle. It's bad enough our government is ran by a man who is "born-again"; it would be nice to have some reassurance that there are some sane people left in the higher ranks of the organization whose mission is to protect our Constitution.
But who am I kidding? The American government (and now our military) seems to be a gathering place of kooks and woos. This video is just more of a wake-up call then anything else. It also contains a bit of irony. Pentagon chaplain Ralph Benson states his solution to the "war on terror":"What more do we need than Christian people leading us?" Ironic, because it seems like it was our President who under the moral compass and guidance of (his brand of) Christianity got us in this mess.
Piety is one thing, but I think we need more than just people who are pious to get out of this mess. Something tells me someone with good common sense and a strong head concerning foreign affairs would be more beneficial than someone who believes that God speaks to him or that modern morality should reflect the ancient writings of ignorant goat and sheep herders. This country's leaders make me sick at times.
(Hat tip: Pharyngula)
Monday, August 6, 2007
Random Amusement from the Library
My university library uses the LCCO. I decided to look at my school's Bible collection out of boredom today when I discovered that the Bibles are humorously classified in the BS section. That is, every call number begins with the letters BS.
Bible BS (from CollegeHumor)
Perhaps it's a cheap laugh, but I needed one today.
Bible BS (from CollegeHumor)
Perhaps it's a cheap laugh, but I needed one today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
