Who else but Fox and Friends would be willing to report on this “non-story”. It turns out that a 1998 biology textbook entitled “Asking About Life” has some pretty honest words concerning creationism and it’s religious roots. Unsurprisingly, some Christians are feeling singled out. While it’s true that they aren’t the only morons who think that something complex can’t possibly be the result of natural forces, there’s no denying where the dogma is originating from.

Taking a page out of the Catholic Church and its long history of censorship, some idiot parent is attempting to have the book banned (if you can’t beat em, ban em’). Here’s a pretty basic question: What else is a science book supposed to write on creationism? Maybe the dictionary can be of some help:

a traditional or legendary story…with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Uh oh, you better ban the dictionary too; I think it has a bias against those who make shit up too…

Spread the outrage

I do like the effort by this priest to ridicule creationism in the light of modern science. But while he ridicules these beliefs, he seems completely oblivious to the stupidity of his own dogma. Hey pal, there are some people who believe that a 2000 year old failed Jewish carpenter is actually a God too, and the rest of us think that’s just stupid. We’re glad that you exposed the utter inanity of creationism, but I can see by that collar on your neck that you still have a lot to learn about objective reality (not to mention the fun stuff you haven’t done yet, like shagging).

Spread the outrage

If you don’t remember Kent Hovind, it might be because you’ve come into the atheism scene a little late. He’s currently in jail for failing to pay taxes on a number of his enterprises, including a religiously themed amusement park called “Dinosaur Adventure Playland“. This bastion to ignorance features not only depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing, but also a replica of the Loch Ness Monster. It’s to be expected when your “scientific” claim is that these animals lived during the dawn of man some 6 millennia ago, and that a few are still alive today.

Kent’s “education” includes a doctorate from a diploma farm that fancies itself a University. His hilariously unoriginal, grammatical nightmare dissertation has been the subject of some scrutiny. When Wikileaks obtained a copy of it from Patriot Bible University, they denied it was the completed version, and since then neither Patriot or Hovind have responded to critics demanding to see his thesis. I suspect some of this zeal may have partially to do with the fact that he insist on being listed as “Dr. Hovind” in the phone book. I imagine it’s pretty insulting to anyone who actually bothered to get the real deal.

If you’re wondering about his conviction, it was a result of his fringe beliefs that taxes are Unconstitutional and therefore wrong. It didn’t even seem to matter to him that all he needed to do was “play ball” and actually bother to register as a church, thereby avoiding this pesky tax nonsense. Nope, he chose instead to declare total autonomy from the United States, and when the government came knocking on the door asking where their cut of the bread was, Hovind claimed the various enterprises were the property of God, and therefore exempt. This novel defense would later secure the guy 10 years in jail.

What I find hilarious about the whole thing is that even in creationism circles, Hovind is considered a total hack. Answers in Genesis -the same brilliant minds that brought you the Creation Museum- thinks his arguments are so bad that they’re actually harmful to “the cause”. It’s a nice reminder that creationism nonsense -mainly fueled by religious evangelicals- still comes loaded with all the divisive trappings of theology. There’s no unity there. Even Ken Ham, who started AIG in the US, was forced out the parent organization in Australia. These Young-Earth Creationists are similarly vilified by Old-Earth Creationists who feel “the cause” is disserviced by such literal interpretations of scripture. See the trend here?

Spread the outrage

A fan of the site sent me this Buddhist exchange that I had to say something about:

Curious Buddhist:

I have an odd question which was raised by a friend, who was asking me questions about Buddhism. They wanted to know how Buddhism deals with the concept of evolution? Are Buddhists creationists? Our teachings don’t seem to deal with such matters and I was rather at a loss as to how to answer them.

Lama Shenpen:

I suppose one would have to say Buddhists are evolutionists in the sense that they do not think God created everything in seven days.

That’s not really a good start. Creationists don’t all believe in that exact nonsense. Some are far more sophisticated in their stupidity.

The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusion-like, never really coming into existence but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time.

Wow, the bullshit train is riding hard right now. Am I to believe that the Universe is an expanse of Sensitivity? I would argue that stars exploding in massive gamma ray bursts might not be entirely too sensitive to the feelings of nearby planets.

Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse – so it’s all very mysterious. From the Buddhist perspective there is no problem with life on earth having evolved somehow – but evolution is not in itself a full story or full account of life on earth – it leaves quite basic questions left unanswered.

Yes, evolution leaves tons of unanswered questions for Buddhists, such as “how did the first human exist if we’re all reincarnated”, and “how can human beings be so fucking gullible”?

In a way one might want to argue Buddhism is closer to creationism because our world is created by awareness – the awareness of the beings that inhabit it – evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds.

They love their whole “illusion” angle, don’t they. It’s a great way to avoid having to explain anything concrete about your stupid belief system. Hey, how do protons and electrons work? It’s all an elaborate illusion, so don’t bother trying to find out!

Buddhist do indeed share much in common with creationists: for starters, they have no desire to discover the natural world, and rely on tradition and superstition to tell them about the Universe. While they smugly assert that all the Cosmos is Maya (or illusion),this impossible to disprove condition is just another example of the nonsense of religion. If they had their way, scientific progress would end as we know it, in favor of mumbling some shitty prayers and believing that justice is handed out by an invisible force.

Isn’t religion great?

Spread the outrage

Is this guy for real? You think Albert Einstein would be a creationist? You think this Spinozan would consider your quaint little religion the only true one? What kind of ballooned existence to you experience to say such idiocies. You are either a liar, having fabricated your fictitious idea with the intent on making it stick, or a farcical imbecile who has never bothered to read anything that contradicted his limited world view. I suppose both are probable, but for the sake of humanity, I hope it’s the latter. I really do.

Spread the outrage

Since arriving in Calgary, I made a simple promise to myself that I would further my involvement in the local atheist community. It was therefore fortuitous that after only of few days of adjusting to my new surroundings, an opportunity to meet up with other fellow atheists presented itself in the form of a lecture. Held at the University of Calgary last night, it was entitled “The Evolution-Creation Controversy“. Dr. David Eberth presented a stimulating discussion on the framework of Creationism, and argued that the real ‘debate” is a political and cultural rather than a scientific struggle.

Dr. Eberth was coming into his approach from an admittedly accommodationist angle. You’re all probably terribly familiar with my thoughts on the matter by now, and can venture to guess that I had a few things to say about it. Specifically I focused on one of his metaphors: that of a pendulum illustrating the tendencies for movements to shift from one side to another. My argument was that perhaps it would be in our favor to put as much emphasis on “our end of the spectrum” rather than concentrate on those who’s opinions were not yet formulated (the overly solicited “middle ground”).

While I admit that it may seem strange that one becomes more popular the more you alienate others (to a certain degree, of course), this paradox is undeniably true. Perhaps it’s because the unconvinced masses are impossible to sway, and so they require a “flash-point” in order to be compelled to chose (the safest thing, after all, is not to do anything). The “proles”, Winston observed in George Orwell’s dystopic masterpiece, were simply incapable of grasping the idea that they were being oppressed. The experience was so pervasive, it was essentially invisible to them.

Delusion functions similarly. And while Eberth expressed no real interest in what people believed – since in his view it didn’t influence the process of science- it nevertheless interferes with the perception of science. This may be cultural, but it is the systematic irrationality on the part of everyone involved (from the highest to the lowest levels) that creates fertile grounds for the controversy. Like any other poisonous concept such as racism, bigotry and sexism, there are no institutions that vanguard these antiquated and dangerous ideas; they are merely the subtle manifestation of a broader set of shared beliefs.

In other words, what you believe really does matter. The importance of belief leaves me unmoved by the limited reproach we give to bad ideas. Even worse, if we try to seduce people to see reality, the truth is that we do provide a far less tempting offer. Religions entices followers with a host of promises we couldn’t begin to match. Instead we offer the bitter reality that, like all offers that are too good to be true, it really was that and more. What our species accepted in the bargain of religion was the formation of an idea whose very existence created culturally dominant forces which withheld at bay our growing curiosity. Only in the light of reason, a glacially slow process many have perished to preserve, have we wrestled away control from these institutions.

Soft pats on the back and a Scooby-Snack will not be enough to entice people to reason. We must instead appeal to the need that all humans share: to wrestle against the absurd. It is in our nature to fight the confusion of enigmatic forces acting upon one another. That struggle creates the order to the world we experience. If you doubt this, a simple test can be arranged: simply try and manage that monster struggle after a only few days of sleeplessness. Our capacity for reason is the ultimate triumph of this struggle, but it is a delicate thing, difficult to maintain, and often contrary to our more potent instincts.

We must dissuade them as strongly as we can not to surrender this fragile capacity for reason simply for wishful fantasy. At the end of the day, I believe it is our desire to win the struggle for reason that will make us triumphant, and it is not one we should mask in an effort to be polite.

NOTE: I intend to try and coax Dr. Eberth to a long discussion of these topics for a future radio show. I believe these kinds of discussions are vital in understanding the appropriate response to the growing irrationality of our society.

Spread the outrage

Alabama continues its campaign of stupidity by declaring March 25th a “Day of Prayer of Students Across Alabama”. You might recall that the governor of the state, a man named Robert Bentley, was the man who declared that:

“…anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother”

This is the same state that has introduced, on a number of occasions, a bit of legislation called the “Academic Freedom Bill“, right around the time when this day was officially dedicated to talking to one’s invisible friend. This impressive sounding bill (all terrible bills have great names) was designed to try and introduce creationism in schools, but luckily, the last time they tried in 2009, it died in committee.

“We are very encouraged by the Governor’s proclamation. While we know that many adults will want to have corporate prayer opportunities we know that this is not the real success of this emphasis. The real success of this special day will be in the home. Our hope is that people will start a new habit in their home, community or church of consistently lifting up the needs of today’s students,” said First Priority Greater Birmingham president Greg Davis.

I find it deeply ironic that the government who is working so diligently to make their own children completely ignorant of real science have devoted a day of prayer for them. Why don’t you quit wasting your time with nonsense and actually NOT try and sabotage their education for a change?

Spread the outrage

Are you an idiot who wants desperately to continue to believe in a supernatural entity despite no evidence to do so? Are you intimidated by the sciences, and how it conflicts with your supernatural understanding of the world? Are you concerned that evolution makes your Cosmogony seem infantile and basic by comparison? Then head on over to Creationtips.com, where you can learn a whole slew of idiotic talking points, such as.

1. How did the Universe come about?
There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.[Jake's Note: You'll read this whole "there is no scientific law" rhetoric all the time on the site. Evidently these clowns have no real understanding of what scientific laws are all about.]

Translation: Something can’t come from nothing, therefore my creator god who willed himself into existence did it.

In any case, this question is supposed to confuse non-believers who aren’t super familiar with astrophysics. How can a Universe come from nothing? Well, Laurence Krauss has some good answers to this question, but it’s still an argument I find quickly paints religionists into a corner. If it’s true that you can’t get something from nothing, then why does this rule not apply to their creator God?

2. How could living creatures come from Non-Life?
There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.

Translation: There are no provable mechanisms for life, therefore my improvable diety did it!

Creationists are always a little confused as to how non-living materials create living entities. While we cannot yet fully explain how the necessary proteins arranged themselves to create DNA, it’s important to remember that this molecule is not “alive” in the same sense that we are. It’s simply a biological mechanism for replication, and there are other non-organic examples of this as well.

Any creationists using the word “DNA” is a fool; if they believe that humans are seperate from animals, they should choose a different molecule: this one suggests that humans share a common ancestor with all animals. It’s a far cry from their Adam and Eve bullshit.

3. How could new genetic information arise?
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

Translation: I’m confused about evolution, therefore god did it.

Creationists are always confused about how evolution works. They half to be, otherwise it kills their little delusion that Earth was spawned by an invisible deity. They always claim that you can’t see evolution in action, even though you can with something as mundane as using anti-bacterial soap. It’s even clearly spelled out for you on the label: if they kill 99.9% of all bacteria, the 0.1% that survived have developed a greater resiliency to this particular soap. Over time, these traits make their way into the population and your soap becomes increasingly ineffectual as we slowly train bacterium to resist us through our germaphobic habits. Tada!

More sophisticated creationists (Intelligent Design) admit that this kind of evolution exists, but that somehow these types of changes can’t possibly lead to different traits leading to separate species over long periods of time. Even if evolution were wrong, it would not make their magical-spontaneous-sky-man hypothesis any more correct.

…mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.

There’s a wonderful video explaining how a kind of “loss of information” was responsible for humans branching off into a separate species, and you need to check it out.

4. Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don’t show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Translation: I don’t even understand the notion that human beings ARE apes!

This one makes me the saddest, because it reminds me that we’re still a long ways away as a species from admitting what we are. You’d think the fabric of society would collapse like a balloon as soon as we all realized that we are animals like any other. The fact that we are offended by the notion of being apes goes to show that we have little appreciation for the truth, and even less appreciation for how extraordinarily fortunate we are to be alive.

As for debunking this claim that the “fossil record keeps changing”, keep in mind that the chance of actually finding human fossils is already a rarity (land species always leave less evidence of their existence, and we haven’t been around for that long). Our entire collection of ancient hominid bones could fit in the back of a pickup truck, for god’s sake! But to say that there’ no evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes is simply a pious lie. The evidence is overwhelming (one of the proofs is in the video I mentioned before), and keep in mind that so far, the best alternative explanation these creationists offer is the equivalent of magic. How are they so endlessly impressed with themselves?

Spread the outrage

Illinois’s 95th District school board has just joined a distinguished group of ignoramuses who continue to undermine the educational futures of their progeny. The members of the board are all up for re-election, and all 4 candidates have said that they support creationism being taught alongside evolution in science classrooms.

One even claimed that it was evolution, and not his stupid Judeo-Christian based belief, that was “just a theory”.

Pietro [one of the candidates] believes creationism should be taught in science class to give students “as much information as possible” about the origins of life.

“I think we can say this is a theory,” he said Thursday. “None of us were here when man was created.”

I guess we can assume from his highly scientific “roundup” that he’s the best person to dictate what students should be learning about biology here..

Creationism isn’t a theory. It makes no predictions, has no way of being tested, and is believed DESPITE the evidence. It’s a faith-based belief, and nothing more, and it deserves to be in science class as much as Holocaust denial deserves to be in a history class. Teach the controversy, people!

Think I’m being overly dramatic? If you lower the criteria of “theory” to the point where anyone with a bullshit crackpot idea is allowed to “teach the controversy”, how can we hope the education of our children to have any fucking integrity?

Spread the outrage