I know, it’s not much of a headline. I mean, how surprising is it when a supposedly infallible guy in the ceremonial dress claims that his magical sky-man created humans, rather than our existence being the product of natural forces:

Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying it was wrong to think at some point “in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it.”

It’s wrong to think the truth? It is for Christians!

“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,” he said. “But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.”

Does something need to have been the product of a supernatural entity in order for life to “make sense”? This is what annoys me about religious people: they think it’s far more amazing to be the product of an anthropomorphic god rather than cosmic evolution. Your body is literally made out of dead stars, and meanwhile we’re all supposed to be impressed by the murder and crucifixion of a long dead Palestinian Jew? What the fuck are you talking about, moron?

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

In case some of you forgot, today Carisa and I will be attending a lecture at the University of Calgary entitled “The Evolution – Creation Controversy” by David Eberth, of the Royal Tyrrell Museum. It should be good fun, and anyone who wants to come out for drinks after is welcome! See you soon Calgary peeps!

Spread the outrage

Today’s creationist idiot is different from his forebearers. For starters, he’s are far more congicant of science, and often appropriates very select information that confirms his crackpot theories. He desperately want the legitamicy of science without actually having to do any.

The latest loon is the author of a “book” entitled “The Evolution Handbook“,written by a young-earth creationist by the name of Vance Ferrell. The majority of it is availible online, and you can get an idea from the introduction what he intends to “prove”:

The scientific facts presented here will help insulate you from the desolating effects of evolutionary theory.

Yes, please insulate me from knowledge!

Life evolution is founded on the twin theories of spontaneous generation and Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics);—yet, although they remain the basis of biological evolution, both were debunked by scientists over a century ago.

Lamarkism? Is this guy stuck in the 19th century or something? For those of you unfamiliar with this long ago debunked evolutionary idea, it proposed that species would pass on traits that it had adapted to during its lifetime. In other words, if an animal lived somewhere cold, it would “evolve” a fur coat and pass on this trait to the following generation.*

As for spontaneous generation, I think this fool may have confused it with ambiogenesis. Regardless, despite some few hundred pages of absolute drivel, Vance can’t get over the fact that the origins of the Universe are still very mysterious. He seems entirely focused on the fact that the Cosmos may have originated from nothing, and then becomes incensed that this must somehow mean that the Big Bang is impossible. His solution is, of course, far more ludicrous: a bearded entity created everything the way it is less than 10,000 years ago. The proof? Science is wrong, that’s why!

He offers a brief overview of every creationist scientist who agrees with him, and as you might have guessed, most of them perished before your grandparents were even born! That’s when all the good science got done, right?

The most telling chapter of all is one entitled “Evolution, Morality, and Violence” which claims that evolutionary science is ruining modern civilization:

Evolution is nihilistic in regard to morals. First, the clear implication is that people are just animals, so there is no right or wrong. Second, it teaches that all evolutionary progress has been made by some at the expense of others.

Ah yes, I can still remember the good old days before people started to study evolution. Black people lived freely and without fear of lynching. Women were treated with respect and dignity. Minorities were celebrated for their diverity and unique contributions to society. Yes, in my deluded mind all of these wonderful things happened until the wickedness of science destroyed our peaceful utopia.

Enjoy yourself while this complete fuckwad tries to convince you that all the best science in the world points to a 10,000 year old earth!

Spread the outrage

When you hear the words “disturbing trend”, do you think of society’s growing acceptance of same sex unions? If you do, then odds are you’re being ostracized by friends and family members who feel embarrassed by your outdated views. A number of us have moved beyond the Bronze Age and recognize homosexuality as a development of evolution, the same way your eyeballs and your fingernails are. A gay person can no more suppress their sexual attraction than a straight one. In any case, the distinction is archaic: we’re all fucking human.

Not according to the Vatican though. These assholes believe that homosexuality is a sin because a bunch of stone age sheep fuckers decided a few THOUSAND years ago that such unions were against the will of their imaginary friend. And while they’ve abandoned an unbelievable amount of archaic beliefs that make it impossible to live in modern society (like stoning their children to death for swearing), they’re sticking with this one. Gays, as far as they are concerned, are an abomination, and they want the right to tell you so without feeling persecuted.

“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex,” he told the current session of the Human Rights Council[of the UN].
“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature … they are stigmatised, and worse — they are vilified, and prosecuted.”

The irony here would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic. A group of outright homophobes are upset that society is telling them to “shut the fuck up” with all this bigoted nonsense. They don’t like to hear that their opinions aren’t welcomed at the grown up table, and now they are crying to mommy.

We’ve seen the writing on the wall, written in the blood of young gay teens who took their lives because of feelings of shamed and self hatred. This shame – a direct result of the campaign of hatred and intolerance from the Catholic Church- has fueled more than it’s fair share of fires that have ravage the lives of millions of people. You’ll forgive us if we think you should stop being the bad guys for once. We’ve put up with your child raping and baby thefts, but I’m not sure why that is exactly.

Spread the outrage

Makes you think, doesn’t it? I think one of the advantages of atheism is that we share so many different values. There really is a huge diversity of political beliefs, and it’s my hope that we can continue to maintain an open mind.Of course, I disagree with him strongly on the Dalai Lama’s moral humility, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Spread the outrage

So let me get this straight: you have your kids singing to “My humps” to profess their faith? You do know what this song is about, right?

Favorite line from their shitty song: “you don’t need evolution, it’s just not the solution”. So true! I mean, when you’re trying to save someone’s life who has a life threatning infection, it’s way better to pray to a dead Jewish guy for mercy. I don’t even go to the hospital thanks to my friend Jesus. Sure, I have a bunch of growths on my back, but those are faith bumps that remind me how much God loves me.

Spread the outrage

Man, I never realized just how alien a giraffe neck looks like when you slice it up. It’s positively Giger-esque. It’s also another fine example of evolution in all its glory!

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