tingilinde

perhaps science isn't being taught in your local school

Even though there are courses that claim to be science ... from PLoS Biology: Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait

not terribly surprising though

teach the controversy

a great response to the Intelligent Design lunacy

(a tip of the hat to Bjarne!)

expelled from expelled

Ben Stein's Expelled is a movie that pushes the silly idea of "intelligent design" ... something curious happened

(here is the link to the video on the Harvard site mentioned in the film)

mccain's charms and belief in magic

McCain seems to be more than a little superstitious.

If it was called idol-worship, the religious right would abandon him, but I imagine many of them do the same thing.

You have to love the comment about superstition firewalls.

religion in the us

Greg notes a recent Pew study on the subject,

Many fascinating little bits. The atheist/agnostic percentage (I would argue that these are in a different dimension than religion, but the piece of the population where the concept of a god is just not an issue) runs about four percent ... roughly the percentage of people who buy stick shift cars in the US -- or the percentage of Europeans who buy automatics...

wrong!

really wrong...

Someone sent this piece that makes the standard creationist claim that science is based on faith. The full article is weird with its mention of two kinds of science, but the core is here:

Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).

sigh ... so wrong!

Science assumes the universe follows a set of rules and that those rules can be deduced by studying how the universe operates.

And it works. I think many creationists think of science as some big book (I wonder where they come up with that idea) of bits of knowledge. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a method. You observe, create a hypothesis, predict, and observe again. It always refines and it checks itself.

Science is fundamentally based on what you can observe - on hard evidence. Evolution, general relativity quantum electrodynamics, continental drift ... these are not religions, but products of the scientific method.

Science makes wonderful predictions and these are harnessed by sports like engineering. The products of our modern society are, for the most part, ultimately based on science.

on teaching stories

It is fine to teach stories and storytelling in schools, but not in science class.

A frightening piece on Florida citizens

republican theocracies

I continue to be drawn to Dylan's With God on our Side.

It came up on random play as I walked by the VA Hospital today. There are many good version, but I'm partial to the spartan version by Judy Collins (a purist might go for the Bob Dylan/Joan Baez performance from Newport)

rather like being jewish, but taller

out of context, an amazingly strange line.

From a NY Times article on Mormonism

actually in context it is pretty strange too...

I can't agree with the opening statement that the US is in a post denominational age. The country is laced with religious distrust. Unfairly so against the Mormons and even more so against non-Christians and non-believers.

well - at least they can consume

This chart has been around for some time - while it isn't a direct measure, it gives a sense of the scientific literacy of the nation.

There is still a huge amount of excellent science done in the country, but an illiterate citizenry is likely to be a huge negative given the challenges that face us.

It could be worse - we beat Turkey. I also thought the education systems in the Nordic countries were a bit better than indicated here - it would be interesting to see a sampling of high school students.

It would be frightening to put the candidates for President of the US on this chart .. either party.

____

while not science ....

a war on science

From the BBC -- good stuff

Mostly on "intelligent" design. It gives a good background of the emergence of ID, but lacks the level of science to show what piffle and quackery it is. The people involved aren't even third string thinkers. It is sad they got as far as they did, but people need to believe I guess and marketing is a powerful thing.

It is remarkable that faery tales still exert so much power. We very well may be wired for storytelling (and believing) - probably the next battleground along with fundamental physics.

early grand unification

In Our Time on BBC4 focuses on Nicene Creed this week. Highly recommended and available as a podcast.

In high school I took a one quarter History of Religion course - a brief, but fairly open (at least for a high school student in Montana) look at religion. Christianity was given two weeks -- one was devoted to the Nicene Creed and the other to 19th century American religions. He was nearly fired for not supporting the dominant belief in the town, but that is another story,

In college I bumped into the creed again as a freshman as the tension trying to link the concept of the logos to the more passionate concepts of the Jews.

lots of interesting history and ideas here.

It is interesting to watch the interplay between Mormons and Southern Baptists - especially Romney's ahistorical and exclusionary speech a few weeks ago. Mormons, by the definition of the creed, are certainly not Christians. Until a few years ago they would be very comfortable with that and, I suspect, are in private. The church holds that it is the only true church and the rest aren't real Christians. Romney is echoing a marketing approach to make the faith seem less foreign.

But listen to the BBC show - this was an extremely interesting time. A point of consolidation, power and a theocratic link to empire. Wealth, war and power became good things, but a unification was required first.

creation degrees in texas

The mind wobbles that it is even being considered....

Perhaps they should look at Florida where the FSM made an appearance.

science and the presidential debates

Several people have been pointing to an effort to have the Presidential Candidates debate on science policy.

As you watched the scores of U.S. Presidential debates, did you ever wonder why there has been no debate devoted to policy surrounding what may be the most important social issue of our time: Science and Technology?

We did and we want to make sure it happens.

Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots initiative spearheaded by a growing number of scientists and other concerned citizens. The signatories to our "Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology" include Nobel laureates and other leading scientists, presidents of universities, congresspersons of both major political parties, business leaders, religious leaders, former presidential science advisors, the editors of America's major science journals, writers, and the current and several past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among many others.

We have noticed that science and technology lie at the center of a very large number of the policy issues facing our nation and the world - issues that profoundly affect our national and economic security as science and technology continue to transform our lives. No matter one's political stripe, these issues pose important pragmatic policy challenges.

We believe these scientific and technological policy challenges can bring out the best in the entrepreneurial American spirit. America can be a leader in finding cures for our worst diseases, inventing the best alternative energy sources, and graduating the most scientifically literate children in the world - or we can concede these economic and humanitarian benefits to other countries.

We believe a debate on these issues would be the ideal opportunity for America and the candidates to explore our national priorities on the issues, and it is hard to imagine any candidate not wishing to be involved in such an occasion.

It won't happen

• the idea is too good

• the candidates don't know very much and tutoring them to the point where they wouldn't appear foolish would take too long

• the idea is too good

• much of the public is scientifically illiterate and doesn't care

• the idea is too good

a sane and reasoned conversation

Rather than the blather we are getting from politicians and the press lately...

A two hour unmoderated chat among Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches. Great stuff if you are taken with intellectual conversations among rational people.

part 1

part 2

I think many people consider these guys "shrill" because they talk about a social taboo ... it is somehow improper to have a logical discussion about the dominant religion.

a salute to mr huckabee

... on his marriage philosophy

noted by Lynda

The Top 16 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

16. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.

14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.

13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry.

12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why our society has no single parents.

11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because “separate but equal” institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.

5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

1. METEORS and VOLCANOES.

mitt's quotas

So Mitt implied a quota, but his people semi-denied it... very hard when you are sucking up to the christian right, but he is no stranger to flip flops, so he'll be fine.

But this brings up an interesting point. From wikipedia

percent of America - selected denominations and other groups (eg. agnostic/atheist)

26.8% Roman Catholic
17.2% Baptist
7.2% Methodist
1.4% Jewish
1.4% LDS
0.6% Muslim
...
15.0% Atheist/Agnostic

It is amazing that intolerance is so high in this country that an atheist is basically dead as a candidate -- you must subscribe to some religious story to be electable.

If Mitt does believe in excluding Muslims, clearly Jews and LDS are also questionable.

nova's judgement day now online

Watch it here if you missed the TV broadcast. It is broken into twelve segments. Segments six through nine get into what science really is and what pseudoscience isn't.

One of my high school teachers was reprimanded and nearly fired for teaching a comparative religion class. The school board was furious that he did not offer christianity as the true religion.

fsm-ism news

Greg notes a piece on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster..

as good as anything else .. It was started as a joke, but offers perspective and perhaps a starting point for critical thinking in some groups.

ah religion

extremely sick, but nothing new

judgement day - on nova tonight...

Nova will focus on the Dover, PA "intelligent design" trial...

probably something to watch...

The site has quite a bit of supporting material.

dan dennet on belief

terrific (thanks for the link Bjarne)

Part 1 -- the talk starts about 17 minutes into the movie

Part 2

eugenie scott on intelligent design and young earth creationism

also excellent!

religion can be very bizarre

part1

part 2

ayaan hirsi ali speech

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam faith and reason. An amazingly brave person. Some will be deeply offended

part1

part2

right wing christians and republicans

A fascinating piece in the NY Times Magazine

choices choices

Sam Harris on the problem with atheism

or, for true believers, a kit

mccain jumps the shark and proves he is not fit to lead

John McCain on America as a "Christian nation" (thanks for the link Greg) - showing he is a amazingly narrow minded and doesn't know much about history.

pander pander pander

sigh...

review of "the stillfborn god"

Laura Miller has some interesting comments of Mark Lilla's new book on the history of the separation of church and state. Clearly a topic of critical importance and it looks like something that will provoke discussion (I've been mostly an observer in a discussion on morality, ethics and religion that has consumed a good deal of bandwidth considering that only a half dozen people are involved)

snip

Small wonder, then, that we also have a hard time remembering the religious fanaticism in our own history. Westerners now talk blithely about the need for a "reformation" in Islam, apparently oblivious to how bloody and traumatic the Christian Reformation actually was. Lilla finds this situation perilous. As long as we refuse to acknowledge the madness of the religious wars and persecutions of the 16th century, he argues, we remain in danger of loosening our grip on "the Great Separation" (of church and state) that resulted from it. By not understanding how easily any politics infused with any religion can drift in the direction of fanaticism and terror, we put ourselves at risk of drifting that way ourselves.

If we think the West is way beyond lapsing into that kind of insanity, Lilla (a professor of the humanities at Columbia University and frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books) begs to differ. "Intellectual complacency," he writes, "nursed by an implicit faith in the inevitability of secularization, has blinded us to the persistence of political theology and its manifest power to shape human life at any moment." Political theology, what Lilla defines as "discourse about political authority based on a revealed divine nexus," takes its beliefs about how society should be run and how power should be distributed from what it considers to be the word of God -- the divine truth revealed to man through scripture.

This way of thinking about politics isn't merely a holdover from our evolutionary past, destined to dwindle away like the appendix. It is "a primordial form of human thought and for millennia has provided a deep well of ideas and symbols for organizing society and inspiring action, for good and ill."

least religious countries

Much of Northern Europe

from the note:

The survey concluded that "high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe , atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world – particularly nations with high birth rates – atheism is barely discernable."

hmmm - trust in your fellow person rather than worship of a god or gods...

onward christian soldiers - crusade 2.0

Spreading bile and hate from America ... this is bizarre if true

snip

Actor Stephen Baldwin, the youngest member of the famous Baldwin brothers, is no longer playing Pauly Shore's sidekick in comedy masterpieces like Biodome. He has a much more serious calling these days.

Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

"We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region," OSU declares on its website about its planned trip to Iraq. "We'll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq."

The Defense Department's Chaplain's Office, which oversees OSU's activities, has not responded to calls seeking comment.

it gets worse...

(and a tip of the hat to Bjarne for noting the article)

___

It is remarkable that the paranoia and hate from the Khristian right hasn't translated into their young showing their patriotism and volunteering for active duty. Perhaps there is hope and their young see through this garbage.

comments by christopher hitchens

In Vanity Fair

A fun little read for those of you who are following the emergence of non-belief.

(and a tip of the hat to Bjarne for spotting it)

ed brayton on running for your local school board

From the science session at yearlykos ... good stuff.

on reading harry potter

Bjarne notes an excellent reason to read the series.

It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger

islamic science

Two words that don't belong together...

a nice piece in Salon

(for the record *any* religion coupled with science is an oxymoron .. )

weinberg on a designer universe

Bjarne notes a nice piece by physicist Steven Weinberg

a choice kernel

The prevalence of evil and misery has always bothered those who believe in a benevolent and omnipotent God. Sometimes God is excused by pointing to the need for free will. Milton gives God this argument in Paradise Lost:

I formed them free, and free they must remain Till they enthral themselves: I else must change Their nature, and revoke the high decree Unchangeable, eternal, which ordained Their freedom; they themselves ordained their fall.

It seems a bit unfair to my relatives to be murdered in order to provide an opportunity for free will for Germans, but even putting that aside, how does free will account for cancer? Is it an opportunity of free will for tumors?

Steven Weinberg is really interesting btw -- much more interesting than Hawking.

wow

as Bjarne says ...

PZ Meyers comments on an interview with Alister McGrath

lots of fun reading...

(the preferred version of the Nicene creed is priceless)

another look at the creation museum

... by Stephen Asma - who studies museums.

I'm worried that the evangelicals are cutting themselves off from the real world -- perhaps fine for the adults, but the children will become increasingly backwards, which isn't healthy for the democracy or the economy.

Perhaps we need a theme song for the young earth creationist mentality.

potential for bad education in texas

Bd Astronomy on Texas governor Rick Perry's appointment of a creationist to the head of the state's board of education.

This potentially impacts more states than just Texas as textbooks targeted to that state's market are used by other states. (a few big markets define science texts in the country)

landover baptist on harry potter

always amusing:-)

The frightening thing is sometimes this parody site seems to bit to real

$6 million short

So there is a $660 million settlement between the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and victims of a sexual abuse scandal...

It is curious to see this from a church that considers itself the only true church (it isn't alone in this however)... not to mention amusing that ethics and morality are frequently ascribed to religion.

___

on the religion and politics front...

I'm sure god will make some sort of special forgiveness for Senator David Vitter:-) Sex with prostitutes in several states, sometimes more than one at a time and with a diaper fetish is very curious. Imagine the uproar if it had been a godless Democrat rather than a Christian Republican...

a brief history of disbelief

Greg notes that Jonathan Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief is airing again.

I mentioned it in April before tracking it down on the web ... it was not shown on all PBS stations. (a link is provided to the pieces of the show)

excellent work!

A very nice history of the emergence of disbelief. Miller clearly makes the point that disbelief is not a religion of its own - a centrally important point.

sam harris at aspen

Sam Harris at Aspen last week..

worth watching - his part of the immorality of the bible is great (nothing new, but well put ... he effectively counters the argument that "those were different times"). And he also repeats his best line that the term atheism isn't necessary ... just like you don't have to call someone a non-astrologer.

dan dennett on "design" at ted

On cows and the reverse engineering of religion

Dan makes a strong case for the deep study of religion

(thanks for the link Sara)

When I was a senior in high school I took a history of religion class. The teacher (one of the best I had) was reprimanded and nearly fired for not pushing Christianity as the true religion. Parents and administrators bristled at equal treatment.

on important questions...

What are the core questions in a serious study of relgion?

an interview with Daniel Dennett - three pieces and worth watching

part 1

part 2

part 3

rocks of ages

The creationist museum is located in a rich fossil area ... neat video.

Of course creationists operate outside of logic.

boo hoo for behe?

I don't expect to read Michael Behe's new book. I've read many of his arguments and find them to be intellectually corrupt - he fundamentally doesn't get what science is and has poor computational abilities that are equaled by just plain screwball analysis that would receive a failing grade in undergrad classes at any real school.

Many have taken apart the new book (Jerry Coyne does a fine job!) - Bjarne points to a piece by Richard Dawkins ... the conclusion is excellent:

If correct, Behe’s calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation. Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants. Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right. You think?

The best way to find out is for Behe to submit a mathematical paper to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, say, or The American Naturalist, whose editors would send it to qualified referees. They might liken Behe’s error to the belief that you can’t win a game of cards unless you have a perfect hand. But, not to second-guess the referees, my point is that Behe, as is normal at the grotesquely ill-named Discovery Institute (a tax-free charity, would you believe?), where he is a senior fellow, has bypassed the peer-review procedure altogether, gone over the heads of the scientists he once aspired to number among his peers, and appealed directly to a public that — as he and his publisher know — is not qualified to rumble him.

Unlike Dawkins I can't feel sorry for Behe. He is masterful fund raiser serving a large group of scientifically illiterate people who believe he is fighting their fight. And this is a fight where illogic is a potent weapon in this strange and backward country where faery tales and belief often trump sound science in public policy.

defending witchcraft

Bjarne and Sara both pointed out this amusing piece by Sam Harris...

excerpt:

...

What sort of criticism would these misguided authors likely encounter? In the following essay, I present excerpts from actual reviews of recent atheist bestsellers, replacing terms like "religion," "God," and "atheist" with terms like "witchcraft," "the Devil," and "skeptic." Observe how much intellectual progress we have made in the last five hundred years:

"

"If [magic], by definition, exceeds human measure, the demand that the existence of [the Great Horned One] be proven makes no sense because the machinery of proof, whatever it was, could not extend itself far enough to apprehend him. Proving the existence of [the Devil] would be possible only if [he]... were the kind of object that could be brought into view by a very large telescope or an incredibly powerful microscope. [The Devil], however--again if there is a [Devil]--is not in the world; the world is in him; and therefore there is no perspective, however technologically sophisticated, from which he could be spied. As that which encompasses everything, he cannot be discerned by anything or anyone because there is no possibility of achieving the requisite distance from his presence that discerning him would require. The criticism made by [skeptics] that the existence of [Satan] cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all; for a [Devil] whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn't be a [Devil]; he would just be another object in the field of human vision. This does not mean that my arguments constitute a proof of the truth of [witchcraft]; for if I were to claim that I would be making the [skeptics'] mistake from the other direction. Nor are they arguments in which I have a personal investment. Their purpose and function is simply to show how the [skeptics'] arguments miss their mark and, indeed, could not possibly hit it."
--Stanley Fish, The New York Times

the larry and richard discussion and beyond

Scientific American has posted an extended version of the Larry Krauss/Richard Dawkins discussion... highly recommended.

Also recommended for anyone following Science and Religion is an article in American Scientist by Graffin and Provine. The numbers are similar to other studies, but the interesting bit is the majority of those interviewed view religion as a product of human evolution while only three percent bought Stephen Jay Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria"... An interesting analogy:

Eminent evolutionists are now caught in a bind that reminds us of Darwin in 1859. They worry that the public association of evolution with atheism or at least nonreligion will hurt evolutionary biology, perhaps impeding its funding or acceptance. Asa Gray's gloss and that of the evolutionists in this poll, however, differ fundamentally. Gray offered a theological synthesis with natural selection that Darwin carefully used for a few years before extracting himself from it. Seeing religion as a sociobiological feature of human evolution, while a plausible hypothesis, denies all worth to religious truths. A recent informal poll of our religious acquaintances suggests that they are not pleased by the thought that their religions originated in sociobiology.

but is it science?

I've been disturbed by the two side shows going on about evolution.

The first is the science v creationism/id "debate" The creation/id side is intellectually bankrupt and the whole thing is boring and rather depressing. It only takes place because powerful and scientifically clueless cultural and political forces feel compelled to prop up a folk tale. Sadly, competent scientists are forced into the argument to protect science education and funding in this rather backward country.

The second side show is the atheism v religion debate by Richard Dawkins and others. It does alert the public to viewpoints other than the dominant cultural tale and encourages philosophical discussions on what it means to be good (among other things), but it isn't science. Dawkins maintains that religion is a something of a cultural parasite with mostly negative consequences... perhaps, but he is making philosophical rather than scientific arguments.

I think the important debate (and we're talking science rather than public square where I think Dawkins belongs) is the emerging science that looks at religion and other cultural artifacts from an evolutionary point of view. One can make a number of interesting hypotheses - the Dawkins parasite view, a view that religion is a way of creating community, and many others. We are getting to the point where some of these ideas can be tested - and that is how you approach truth. But it is enormously entertaining and is, perhaps, making people think.

So while I think it is straightforward to throw out creationism and ID as unscientific, that should have happened some time ago and we should have moved on (but Campbell taught us how powerful myth is). The debate isn't science. I applaud Dawkins and others for their points and the thought they are inspiring, but it also isn't science...

Perhaps the next decade will see some fascinating results on the interesting questions - like why is there religion...

dumb and dumber...

Behe's new ID book is getting amusing reviews ... Sean's was great ...

excerpt

The continuing futile attacks by evolution's opponents reminds me of another legendary confrontation, that between Arthur and the Black Knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The Black Knight, like evolution's challengers, continues to fight even as each of his limbs is hacked off, one by one. The "no transitional fossils" argument and the "designed genes" model have been cut clean off, the courts have debunked the "ID is science" claim, and the nonsense here about the edge of evolution is quickly sliced to pieces by well-established biochemistry. The knights of ID may profess these blows are "but a scratch" or "just a flesh wound," but the argument for design has no scientific leg to stand on.

here are a few more ... Coyne is particularly good...

It is remarkable that such pseudoscience claptrap is being pushed... One would have hoped the world would have gotten over Alfred Russell Wallace 100 years ago...

more on the creation museum

a video on youtube ... a tip of the hat to Thom

and a BBC piece (thanks for mentioning this Steve)

mark twain v. "intelligent design"

In 1903 Mark Twain went after the proponents of "intelligent design" (more or less what Alfred Russell Wallace was proposing) with this piece (from Project Gutenberg) ...

Twain clearly has some fun here

"WAS THE WORLD MADE FOR MAN?" [1903]

"Alfred Russell Wallace's revival of the theory that this earth is at the center of the stellar universe, and is the only habitable globe, has aroused great interest in the world." -- Literary Digest

"For ourselves we do thoroughly believe that man, as he lives just here on this tiny earth, is in essence and possibilities the most sublime existence in all the range of non-divine being -- the chief love and delight of God." -- Chicago "Interior" (Presb.)

I seem to be the only scientist and theologian still remaining to be heard from on this important matter of whether the world was made for man or not. I feel that it is time for me to speak.

I stand almost with the others. They believe the world was made for man, I believe it likely that it was made for man; they think there is proof, astronomical mainly, that it was made for man, I think there is evidence only, not proof, that it was made for him. It is too early, yet, to arrange the verdict, the returns are not all in. When they are all in, I think they will show that the world was made for man; but we must not hurry, we must patiently wait till they are all in.

Now as far as we have got, astronomy is on our side. Mr. Wallace has clearly shown this. He has clearly shown two things: that the world was made for man, and that the universe was made for the world -- to steady it, you know. The astronomy part is settled, and cannot be challenged.

We come now to the geological part. This is the one where the evidence is not all in, yet. It is coming in, hourly, daily, coming in all the time, but naturally it comes with geological carefulness and deliberation, and we must not be impatient, we must not get excited, we must be calm, and wait. To lose our tranquillity will not hurry geology; nothing hurries geology.

It takes a long time to prepare a world for man, such a thing is not done in a day. Some of the great scientists, carefully deciphering the evidences furnished by geology, have arrived at the conviction that our world is prodigiously old, and they may be right, but Lord Kelvin is not of their opinion. He takes a cautious, conservative view, in order to be on the safe side, and feels sure it is not so old as they think. As Lord Kelvin is the highest authority in science now living, I think we must yield to him and accept his view. He does not concede that the world is more than a hundred million years old. He believes it is that old, but not older. Lyell believed that our race was introduced into the world 31,000 years ago, Herbert Spencer makes it 32,000. Lord Kelvin agrees with Spencer.

Very well. According to Kelvin's figures it took 99,968,000 years to prepare the world for man, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see him and admire him. But a large enterprise like this has to be conducted warily, painstakingly, logically. It was foreseen that man would have to have the oyster. Therefore the first preparation was made for the oyster. Very well, you cannot make an oyster out of whole cloth, you must make the oyster's ancestor first. This is not done in a day. You must make a vast variety of invertebrates, to start with -- belemnites, trilobites, jebusites, amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them to soak in a primary sea, and wait and see what will happen. Some will be a disappointments - the belemnites, the ammonites and such; they will be failures, they will die out and become extinct, in the course of the 19,000,000 years covered by the experiment, but all is not lost, for the amalekites will fetch the home-stake; they will develop gradually into encrinites, and stalactites, and blatherskites, and one thing and another as the mighty ages creep on and the Archaean and the Cambrian Periods pile their lofty crags in the primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the world for man stands completed, the Oyster is done. An oyster has hardly any more reasoning power than a scientist has; and so it is reason ably certain that this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen-million years was a preparation for him; but that would be just like an oyster, which is the most conceited animal there is, except man. And anyway, this one could not know, at that early date, that he was only an incident in a scheme, and that there was some more to the scheme, yet.

The oyster being achieved, the next thing to be arranged for in the preparation of the world for man, was fish. Fish, and coal to fry it with. So the Old Silurian seas were opened up to breed the fish in, and at the same time the great work of building Old Red Sandstone mountains 80,000 feet high to cold-storage their fossils in was begun. This latter was quite indispensable, for there would be no end of failures again, no end of extinctions -- millions of them -- and it would be cheaper and less trouble to can them in the rocks than keep tally of them in a book. One does not build the coal beds and 80,000 feet of perpendicular Old Red Sandstone in a brief time -- no, it took twenty million years. In the first place, a coal bed is a slow and troublesome and tiresome thing to construct. You have to grow prodigious forests of tree-ferns and reeds and calamites and such things in a marshy region; then you have, to sink them under out of sight and let them rot; then you have to turn the streams on them, so as to bury them under several feet of sediment, and the sediment must have time to harden and turn to rock; next you must grow another forest on top, then sink it and put on another layer of sediment and harden it; then more forest and more rock, layer upon layer, three miles deep -- ah, indeed it is a sickening slow job to build a coal-measure and do it right!

So the millions of years drag on; and meantime the fish-culture is lazying along and frazzling out in a way to make a person tired. You have developed ten thousand kinds of fishes from the oyster; and come to look, you have raised nothing but fossils, nothing but extinctions. There is nothing left alive and progressive but a ganoid or two and perhaps half a dozen asteroids. Even the cat wouldn't eat such. Still, it is no great matter; there is plenty of time, yet, and they will develop into something tasty before man is ready for them. Even a ganoid can be depended on for that, when he is not going to be called on for sixty million years.

The Palaeozoic time-limit having now been reached, it was necessary to begin the next stage in the preparation of the world for man, by opening up the Mesozoic Age and instituting some reptiles. For man would need reptiles. Not to eat, but to develop himself from. This being the most important detail of the scheme, a spacious liberality of time was set apart for it -- thirty million years. What wonders followed! From the remaining ganoids and asteroids and alkaloids were developed by slow and steady and pains-taking culture those stupendous saurians that used to prowl about the steamy world in those remote ages, with their snaky heads reared forty feet in the air and sixty feet of body and tail racing and thrashing after. All gone, now, alas -- all extinct, except the little handful of Arkansawrians left stranded and lonely with us here upon this far-flung verge and fringe of time.

Yes, it took thirty million years and twenty million reptiles to get one that would stick long enough to develop into something else and let the scheme proceed to the next step.

Then the Pterodactyl burst upon the world in all his impressive solemnity and grandeur, and all Nature recognized that the Cainozoic threshold was crossed and a new Period open for business, a new stage begun in the preparation of the globe for man. It may be that the Pterodactyl thought the thirty million years had been intended as a preparation for himself, for there was nothing too foolish for a Pterodactyl to imagine, but he was in error, the preparation was for man, Without doubt the Pterodactyl attracted great attention, for even the least observant could see that there was the making of a bird in him. And so it turned out. Also the makings of a mammal, in time. One thing we have to say to his credit, that in the matter of picturesqueness he was the triumph of his Period; he wore wings and had teeth, and was a starchy and wonderful mixture altogether, a kind of long-distance premonitory symptom of Kipling's marine:

'E isn't one O'the reg'lar Line,
nor 'e isn't one of the crew,
'E's a kind of a giddy harumfrodite [hermaphrodite] --
soldier an' sailor too!

From this time onward for nearly another thirty million years the preparation moved briskly. From the Pterodactyl was developed the bird; from the bird the kangaroo, from the kangaroo the other marsupials; from these the mastodon, the megatherium, the giant sloth, the Irish elk, and all that crowd that you make useful and instructive fossils out of -- then came the first great Ice Sheet, and they all retreated before it and crossed over the bridge at Behring's strait and wandered around over Europe and Asia and died. All except a few, to carry on the preparation with. Six Glacial Periods with two million years between Periods chased these poor orphans up and down and about the earth, from weather to weather -- from tropic swelter at the poles to Arctic frost at the equator and back again and to and fro, they never knowing what kind of weather was going to turn up next; and if ever they settled down anywhere the whole continent suddenly sank under them without the least notice and they had to trade places with the fishes and scramble off to where the seas had been, and scarcely a dry rag on them; and when there was nothing else doing a volcano would let go and fire them out from wherever they had located. They led this unsettled and irritating life for twenty-five million years, half the time afloat, half the time aground, and always wondering what it was all for, they never suspecting, of course, that it was a preparation for man and had to be done just so or it wouldn't be any proper and harmonious place for him when he arrived.

And at last came the monkey, and anybody could see that man wasn't far off, now. And in truth that was so. The monkey went on developing for close upon 5,000,000 years, and then turned into a man - to all appearances.

Such is the history of it. Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would, I dunno.

a different take on creationism..

Many of us have been in hysterical laughter about the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I don't have a problem with it as long as it only absorbs the resources of the creationists and keeps them minimally educated in a world where education is the key for advancement. When it crosses the line and disturbs real education - then there is a problem.

But it has been providing a great deal of unintended humor - mostly scientific lack of clue.

But now this...

excerpt

The man who plays Adam in a video aired at a Bible-based creationist museum has led a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a clothing line that promotes free love.

After learning about his activities Thursday, the Creation Museum in Kentucky pulled the 40-second video in which he appears.

"We are currently investigating the veracity of these serious claims of his participation in projects that don't align with the biblical standards and moral code upon which the ministry was founded," Answers for Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said in a written statement.

The actor, Eric Linden, owns a graphic Web site called Bedroom Acrobat, where he has been pictured, smiling alongside a drag queen, in a T-shirt brandishing the site's sexually suggestive logo. The Web site, which has a network of members, allows users to post explicit stories and photos.
He also sells clothing for SFX International, whose initials appear on clothing to spell "SEX" from afar. It promotes "free love,""pleasure" and "thrillz."

who would jesus deport?

Roger points this out...

but most of the Republicans who are into the pure and clean America aren't really Christians anyway ... at least not by their actions. The right-wing mix of government and christianity (Geoff calls it Kristianity) is neither.

We know a very solid Christian couple who live their religion and, among other things, have been offering sanctuary in their home and supporting the sanctuary movement for years. Of course some of the most morally consistent people I know are atheists - but a different story.

properly reviewed in the arts section

Religion is more appropriate, but the arts section is a reasonable choice

A new creation museum in Petersburg, KY

sad, unimaginative fiction

branding christianity

Around this day in 325 the First Council of Nicaea was convened and a consensus of Christianity was ultimately emerged.... probably the realistic birth of the religion (there were many very different forms and canons before that point). One of the most successful brands the world has seen.

(in remembrance of my 10^th grade world history teacher - Mr Wolff)

a perfected christian

Some highlights from Ann Coulter's column on Jerry Falwell:

Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN...

Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9/11 that "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians -- who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle -- the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and "the Reverend" Barry Lynn.

Second, Falwell later stressed that he blamed the terrorists most of all, but I think that clarification was unnecessary. The necessary clarification was to note that God was at least protecting America enough not to allow the terrorists to strike when a Democrat was in the White House.

(If you still think it isn't Christ whom liberals hate, remember: They hate Falwell even more than they hate me.)

sigh ...

(a tip of the hat to Sara)

christopher hitchens sends jerry falwell off

good stuff. I'm not a big Christopher Hitchens fan, but he nails it.

(noted on Cosmic Variance)

also Falwell's sermon on climate change ... sick ... amazingly sick

____
update

slate has a written variation of the "eulogy" really excellent stuff. There is also some supporting commentary from Andrew Sullivan. (and a tip of the hat to Bjarne)

It is not wrong to celebrate the departure of an evil being.

falwell's funeral

I wonder if W will go ... seeing that he hasn't been to any funeral of the now more than 3400 soldiers who have died in Iraq..

Falwell was a strange figure... offering a very vindictive and nasty religion with an insecure and vain god. But it was a good source of power and money... I won't go on and on .. but this guy was nasty and unamerican ... this piece sums it up in a few paragraphs.

All I can offer is Steve Paulson's essay on Lewis Wolpert and belief in today's Salon...

moyers on regent and moving away from democracy

There are people who really really hate the separate of church and state... and a law school whose graduates have been put to work in W-world (spreading their incompetence)

from Bill Moyers (video and transcript)

back to the 13^th century

a history of disbelief..

I haven't watched Jonathan Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief yet, but a few friends in the UK give it great reviews. Three core pieces and two related are linked.

some regular readers are likely to love this, others to hate it... probably reason for all to have a look