The Skeptic's Guide to The Universe

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Josh Brecheen hits the big time.

Looks like newly elected Oklahoma State Senator is getting a real education in foot in mouth disease. Since his editorial has been posted in The Durant Daily Democrat on December 22, 2010 there has been national reaction in the forums blogs and other places as well. Sadly it looks like we [none creation people] are going to be the losers in this battle. If you have been keeping up with my blogs you know that I have mentioned the idea that those that are faced with facts tend to hold tighter to their faith. SO while in the court of public opinion we may have some momentum, in the end Sen. Brecheen is going to be in the Statehouse and we will be going about our lives.
I normally do not send people to other websites. But this one is so good you just have to take a look at it. Josh Brecheen is a perfect picture of what is the radical republican right in America. I would challenge any of you all to look at this and not laugh at his honest to goodness website. p.s. be sure to read about his wife. 

But with that in mind when looking up this ignorant, about evolution, man we find that his fame is growing faster than a 40 day rain. Here are a few of the websites he is mentioned on Atheist Nexus, Friendly Atheist, Science Blogs[Greg Laden], The Sensuous Curmudgeon, Newsodrone and many more.

PZ Myers even wrote a reply, point by point, on his Pharyngula website to the crazy talk that Brecheen was spewing. Needless to say I hope this will shine the light of knowledge in that part of the country. But I have been to and lived in that part of the country and I do not hold out much hope for the triumph of logic and reason.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Another update on Josh Brecheen.

It has been good to see the mostly positive reaction to the ill-conceived comments of Oklahoma State SEN Josh Brecheen. If this man is looking to make a name for himself, he certainly is. He put an editorial in the local paper from his senate district, The Durant Daily Democrat. In addition to the uproar over several things wrong with attempting to try to have creation taught in public schools, the comments in the newspapers website have been lambasting him for his outrageous views in other subjects as well.
Being a native son of Oklahoma, it pains me when I see this sort of pubic display of foolishness. But even more so when it is done by our government officials.
Here are a couple a links to learn more about this issue and this man. 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/when_did_oklahoma_start_electi.php
http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10775841/article-Reader-says-Breechen-badly-misunderstands-evolution-and-science-?

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10776295/article-Brecheen-says-the-religion-of-evolution-is-plagued-with-falsehoods?

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Response to Senator Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma

One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by “intellectuals” so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it’s merits. [You put intellectuals in quotes so we do not know exactly what or who he is referring to here. “it's” means, “it is.” This makes no sense grammatically.]

It doesn’t address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. [This clearly is a stated opinion.]

It is an attempt to bring parity to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology. I’m talking about the religion of evolution. Yes, it is a religion. [No. Evolution is a study of science. Evolution has no dogma. It has no group meetings, It has nothing such as a tax-exempt status. It is simply an area of study such as aerodynamics.]

The religion of evolution requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God, [This again is a stated opinion and is clearly an un-American statement as faith in a deity is not required in this country. Plus he makes an empirical statement comparing faith or two different items yet fails to show the relationship between these two items. This is a logical fallacy. ] when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors).

Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! [Again this is a logical fallacy, It is an ad Hominem attack.] “It’s not a religion as it’s agreed upon by the entire scientific community,” some are saying at this very moment. Are you sure? Let’s explore the facts. [This is another logical fallacy called a straw man.]

As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory. [This is a reasonable expectation as one wouldn't expect to learn about religion in a science class.]

I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write almost every paper over the “facts” of evolution. [Two issues here, One, while your English professor may indeed a great English teacher, he is not a teaching biology and may be much more interested in the ability you have to make a persuasive argument. Two, I am sure you were not forced to write anything for any class. As more than likely you were a voluntary student and could end your time in school anytime you wished. Please, try to refrain from dramatics.]

That professor had a deep appreciation for me by semester end due to our many respectful debates as I chose to not be blindly led. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit). [Again, in an English course, the standards are different than in a biology class. This example really has no relevance and is a personal experience as well. Your biography states that you are a motivational speaker so it comes as no surprise that you are able to excel in an formal English class. But The example you need is one from your biology professor.]

Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the “fact” of evolution, approximately 100 physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, “failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution”. [Another logical fallacy. This is a false dichotomy . Failure of the evolution model is not confirmation of the creation model.]

These weren’t narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist in the world and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School. [Again, another logical fallacy. This is an appeal to authority.]

Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth. [Stated opinion.] Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. That’s where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue. [Another logical fallacy. non-sequitur . You make a statement however the purpose of science is to continually search for weakness in there accepted views plus also challenge the conventional wisdom. There is nothing wrong with science concepts being challenged. Unlike with ideas that result from dogma.]

Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable. [Stated opinion.]

For years liberals [false generalizations] have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves, however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change.

Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology. [These statements include several logical fallacies. One is the special pleading of “the rules changing” when they are not demonstrated to do so and the logical fallacy of ad hoc reasoning or Special pleading when you exert that a ideology is changed to suit the actions of the liberals. Plus you use the term liberals as if it is a disparagement which is also an opinion and it is a gross generalization that all of these people are liberal without proof to support your statement.]

We [Who are we? Those that understand and accept the conclusions of evolution surely cannot be included in the “we” you speak of.] must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion [Again, a stated opinion.].

Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories, depicts gue [Not sure what “gue” means.] transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit. [Not sure where you get your information but that is not only an logical fallacy it is also an irrational statement. Never has a money been shown to turn into a business suit. That would be a total non-sequitur.]

[“On The Origins of Species” which was the first published work of Charles Darwin on the subject dealing with evolution never deals with the subject of human or ape evolution. If you had read the work you would have realized that. Plus this work was publish in 1859 and as in any area of study much more work has been done on it. Do we still use the same means of transportation we did when the locomotive and automobile were invented? Are we still using the same type of phone that were shown to the public in 1876? Are we still using the same telegram and telephone and radio devices that Marconi and Tesla came up with at the turn of the last century? Senator Josh Brecheen, your explanation on this subject is far from knowledgeable.]

Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined “divisions” (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time.[It shouldn't be any surprise that factual data is believed.]

The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a “weenie” dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution, its adaption. [Natural selection is the process that is used to achieve adaption over time in nature. The process of change over time is that the adaptation leads to more and more divergent speciesazation. This was predicted in Darwin's work and has been found to be true in many examples. You clearly understand the common and divergent process that can happen in a short time. It is the same divergent process that happens over 100.000 to millions of years.]

Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla. Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates). Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin’s common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate. [Thanks to the genetic record, this has happened. This is why there is no doubt as to the relations between species any longer among scientists that understand these processes. Plus a general example is shown with animals such as seals, walruses, manatees, sea lions and other animals that live on both sea and land that are mammals. Since the process of natural selection takes place over many thousands of years the offspring of one seal will never produce an animal that isn't related to the parents but given the period of time the ancestors will not be the same species as their prodigy. Of course the process requires much more explanation than I can do here easily. To find out more please contact graduate researcher Abby Smith in the Endogenous Retro virus field in The University of Oklahoma. She is well known statewide and nationally for her work in genetics]

The rapid appearance of today’s known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario. This biological big bang of fully developed animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion’s phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in the same. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed, not in a transitional form. [You need to learn what a transitional species is. You do not seem to be using the terminology correct. A TS is any species that is between any other two. All plants animals and all life when they are a live are actual and transitional species. Homo sapiens are transitional species.]

In fact we don’t have a transitional form fossil crossing phyla classification after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any. As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years. Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin’s hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries. Darwin’s cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate’s transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking and so is Darwin’s “theory”. [Again you show you lack of understanding of the topic as there is clear understanding of the transitions and you also show you lack of understanding of the scientific use of “theory.' Theory means a set of data in a discipline that supports a most likely concept. This theory is also able to predict and be used as a model for understanding new information and can be used to predict how the process operates. This applies for cell theory, theory of gravity, theory of relativity and so on. Many of the theories in science that we rely upon everyday are accepted as fact just as evolution is.]

I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts. [Please make sure you have the facts first.]

This discussion is to be continued in next week’s column..

Josh Brecheen

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Letter from Oklahoma Senator Josh Brecheen concerning evolution and creation.

One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by “intellectuals” so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it’s merits. It doesn’t address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. It is an attempt to bring parity to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology. I’m talking about the religion of evolution. Yes, it is a religion. The religion of evolution requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God, when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors). Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! “It’s not a religion as it’s agreed upon by the entire scientific community,” some are saying at this very moment. Are you sure? Let’s explore the facts.

As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory. I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write almost every paper over the “facts” of evolution. That professor had a deep appreciation for me by semester end due to our many respectful debates as I chose to not be blindly led. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit).

Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the “fact” of evolution, approximately 100 physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, “failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution”. These weren’t narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist in the world and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.

Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth. Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. That’s where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue. Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable. For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves, however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change. Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology.

We must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion. Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories, depicts gue transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit.

Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined “divisions” (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time. The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a “weenie” dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution, its adaption. Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla. Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates). Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin’s common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate.

The rapid appearance of today’s known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario. This biological big bang of fully developed animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion’s phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in the same. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed, not in a transitional form. In fact we don’t have a transitional form fossil crossing phyla classification after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any. As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years. Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin’s hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries. Darwin’s cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate’s transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking and so is Darwin’s “theory”.

I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts.

This discussion is to be continued in next week’s column..

Josh Brecheen

I have not changed any of the spelling or grammar from the source article.

http://durantdemocrat.com/pages/full_story/push?content_instance=10717736&need_to_add=true&id=10717736#cb_post_comment_10717736

Thursday, December 16, 2010

When History goes wrong.

Over the past few months the History channel has totally gone ape-shit crazy. [To use the technical term.] I am not sure of the reason or the source of the change but in the past couple of years about the time the name changed from “The History Channel” to History. Shows such as MonsterQuest, MysteryQuest, Ancient Aliens, Decoded, Ice Road Trucker, IRT: Deadliest Roads, Swamp People and many more of the psychobabble of programming that they have on the channel now that have nothing to do with history other than there are idiots that think these events are somehow real or entertaining.
Granted I did get tired of the constant World War II stuff that they used to have on here but now it is more like they really could careless about facts, reliable dates, the work of actual and respected historians and presenting competent programs that help to increase human knowledge instead of programming that uses phrases like; “Someday science is going to have to accept that these claims may be true” and “what if” and “It is possible” and “may well be and “could of.”
Respectable science has looked at these claims many many times and they all fail short of facts and proof. Is it possible? Well I guess in absents of actual information then yes it is possible. But is it likely? HELL NO! To be honest, I do not find the ancient stories of stone age person to have any relevance in Today's world.
The worse part is there is absolutely not attempt by the producers of these show to present balance or to show other opposing views. The whole flipping program ONLY presents a side that shows that these lame brain ignorant ideas “may be” true.
At least with the ones of religion I am not expecting them to present a equal view. But these lame ass shows and especially the Ancient Aliens one particular have no business being on a channel that is suppose to be primarily for educational purposes.

It just drives me nuts to hear these fools on TV without no one to counter their outlandish claims.

Atheists and sexuality

Often when religious adherents encounter an atheist for the first time a common comment they say is that they don't think pornography is right. I have heard this several times from different religious adherents in various places and times around the country. Of course this represents a very gross misunderstanding of what an atheist is. As I have stated before it has little to do with what one does but with what one fails to believe. Usually this is due to the lack of evidence to conclusively show that there is a supernatural nature to, well, anything. This being the very defining characteristic of an atheist. If you notice there is nothing in it that relates to or is dependent on anything sexually.

So why is there such a misconception among the religious adherents about the sexual mores of atheists? There are several paths that we can take to lead us to the answers. One is due to the belief that adherents see their morality as being derived from a supernatural source they make the mistaken assumption that the absence of this moral code would result in the practice of what that code set up as prohibitive. This is, of course, nothing but a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. The facts of the issue are much less enticing.

While it is true that as a generalized group, atheist are more likely to be accommodating or practicing in some sort of sexual behavior that is otherwise prohibited in most religious dogma. The reality is much less fatuous and frivolous. As we are “fortunate” to learn that the promoters of such sexual moral codes are often the ones that are the ones that are often most entangled in the same behavior that the try so hard to restrict. It has been said before that the more one protest or wishes to restrict a behavior are the ones most likely to be the ones involved of most willing to accommodate it's practice in their own lives. From this, I personally view that the more a person or group promotes restrictive sexual behavior the more likely it is that somewhere in the group these taboos are practiced. Is there a sexual restriction that seems unusual from an ethical point of view? I would say that this is either used as a cover for some other sexual behavior or for the particular sexual behavior that they are against in their dogma. This is my opinion but it is based upon the reports and experiences that are reported in the news from time to time.

To this end, I find that atheist are fortunate in that these dogmatic hang-ups that so many religious adherents are forced to suffer through. The prohibition of natural behavior is something the religion is quite good at. When it comes to food, sex and clothing, religion has something to say almost every time on these subjects. So it should come as no surprise that normal sexual behavior is one of the most restrictive areas that the adherents of religion focus on. Things such as homosexual partners, sexual actions, number of sexual partners, time for sexual behavior, age of sexual actions and so on have “answers” in the dogma of religious adherents. Theses answers, of course, are already part of the moral and ethical codes of human behavior. There are reasons for and against certain sexual behavior and the reason for practicing them. Atheist are more likely to be less restrictive of sexual actions that are committed by mutual consent by adults.

Biologically there is no reason for most of the restrictions that religious adherents push including the right or a woman to control her own body and the time and place she wishes to have children, if she even wants to have any at all. It is a real problem for the male dominated religions to accept the idea that woman are able to exercise the freedom that men have been able to enjoy for so long. This is really a none issue with atheists other than wishing that a person makes the best decision for their particular situation.

So under the banner of atheist, there is plenty of room for persons of atypical yet totally acceptable sexual behavior to find acceptance. It is not uncommon to find a person at an atheist meeting that is homosexual or a couple that by choice desires to not have children or even a relationship that involves more than two persons. The only level of acceptance is that the people are pleased in the conditions and are not trying to force or otherwise promote illegal activity. Rape is still viewed as a violent action and is generally viewed as a action that requires the perpetrator to be punished. Sadly, even this has exception with in the range of religious dogma.

To surmise, atheists are not the sexual perverts that the religious adherents may believe that they are. That would more likely be the actual religious adherents themselves. Atheist are generally more accepting of a wider range of sexual behavior than the religious adherents. This acceptance is borne out of the idea that it really doesn't matter after all. As long as one can function and productively contribute then that should be the moral standard for acceptance of a person. Not the person they have sexual relations with.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Why atheist will lose the war against religion.

I have been what I call a devoted and or a committed atheist for about 10 years now. After getting free from the repression of the “Steve Abrams” family of Kansas. Yes, the Steve Abrams that was on the Kansas State Board of Education that thought evolution wasn't such a good thing to teach in science classes in public school. So I have seen a few things change in the past few years in my life and in the current cultural discussion. I may go into that later but this deals with were I see us now as the new atheist movement.

There is a discussion of those that are leading the charge that we are to be either accommodationists or confrontationalists. I saw a panel discussion on this very subject at the Skepticon III in Springfield, MO a few weeks ago. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me that there is no difference in thought between the two camps as to how they view the supernatural or that divine. The issue comes down to the way to deal with the religious adherents. This is the area that I want to talk about.

With the ones that think we really have no need to deal with the adherents in a way that would cause confrontation, let me remind you that the fundamentalist adherents are a large and vocal group that have no reservation whatsoever to push their dogma onto use wholesale even to the place of discrimination, persecution and arrest if they could do so. I am sure many of you, like me, have withdrawn from the evangelical or fundamentalist background. Those of you that have surely realize the fervor and the emotional appeal that the dynamic religious leader has upon the group of adherents in the congregation.

I recall with clarity the way I would yell and jump and “praise” god when I was in a worship service. I wanted us to out to the places of “sin” and bring the word go god to them and see the power of god in action. To see it fulfilled. I knew that when the word of god was spoken that it wouldn't return void. [what ever that means.] I was one to confront the atheist and the morally lax to their face. I was one to prayer around the abortion clinic and boycott those things that I was told were back, such as movies and so on. But I was not unique in this point of view there were many others that had the same vigor and held the same view. In a way that was a very comfortable thing because as long as I was acting in the light of the Lord. So I knew that I was doing what was god's will. No one could convince me otherwise.

But as I have been involved in the atheist or skeptical or freethinker realm, it seems that there is none that take up the fervor that the dogmatic adherents banner. It is more of the intellectual and mental aspect of the cause that is the driving force of this movement. I have seen Richard Dawkins speak twice live and have heard and read much that Christopher Hitchens has said and wrote and many of the other movers and shakers in the new atheist. But this doesn't meet the level of one of the evangelical churches that is in your city and your neighborhood.

What do these men get for their barely provocative views? They get criticized by the so called old atheists. The ones that have been going along to get along for so long that they do not even realize that they are part of the reason that the radical adherents have been able to make such inroads in our public and private lives. I am even skeptical o f the alliance between the gay and the atheist community. I have notice that homosexuals are much more accepted by straight atheist than atheist are by religious homosexuals. TO WIT: At least I believe in God.

My goal is to help create and mobilize discussion and action to show the public that we are here and we are a force to deal with in our country. Our numbers indicate the hidden strength we have. We have just now have to have the courage of our convictions to stand up for what we believe. After all, if it was easy, anyone could do it.

What do I mean? It can be different for each person. Anything from keeping a marker and wiping out “In God We Trust” on our currency to attending and debating adherents in their religious places that are “open to all” and “welcome all.” Keep in mind that we, as taxpaying, atheist pay for them to have a special position in the country so we have every right to attend and discuss the things they are doing with the privilege they have within our country. The more they try to control our government, the more we should try to destroy and demolish their beliefs. They only believe in a fiction anyway so why not make them face the facts. Make them stand and prove what they believe in. My only weapon to use against these radical adherents is my mind and my voice. I see no reason to let the radical right overtake the moderates and liberal believers. As Hitchens and others have said, I am an anti-theist.

But the accommodationialist want to look at the least offensive religious persons and use them as a reason as to why we must work with them. That is bullshit. In every way if they want to join us then fine but we should by no means accommodate the moderate or liberal versions of a delusion just because they seem to agree with us on some issues. The point of view when they agree is, “You should agree with us.”
But until we see the adherents as an attack upon our species and our progress as humans then we will continue to flounder and fail to make this world a batter place for all who occupy it.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Goodbye Sweden



This is related to Chapter Eight; part thirty, HUMANIST POINT OF VIEW from my blog.
Here is that link: http://trueleftvision.blogspot.com/2010/11/chapter-eight-humanist-point-of-view.html

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Chapter Eleven; MORALITY AND MANKIND part forty-one



While it it's not as big issue using some of the moral teachings of the Bible to guide your life, it is nothing but a delusion to believe the stories of the Old and New Testament are based upon reality and science. I may not be able to convince the devout followers to abandon their faith in the fairy stories of the ancients and become and atheist as I am but I may be able to convince some moderate followers to see the wonders of nature and live their life for what we know and maybe get them to learn more about the wonderful Universe we live in.



From the Clovis civilizations museum near Portales, NM operated by the Eastern New Mexico University shows some actual artifacts from the items discovered of the Paleo-American civilizations and also has models of the dug out housing used by the people at that time. The ancient Clovis civilization is said to have roamed the Eastern plains in North America in search of Mammoth and Bison for food and other societal uses from 13,500 years ago. The artifacts found in the museum have been studied and sent to experts all over the country and world to help in the accurate understanding of the prehistoric Americans.

In a recent trip to New Mexico I was fortunate enough to visit the Eastern New Mexico University exhibit of the Blackwater Draw National Archaeological Site documenting the Clovis and Folsom civilizations. Near Portales, New Mexico there is an excavation site that was discovered in 1929 by Ridgely Whiteman of Clovis, New Mexico. At this site many bones and artifacts of ancient Paleo-American people and animals were found. These include discoveries of such extinct animals as the dire wolf, mammoths, giant ground sloths, American camels and horses, giant armadillos, American lion as well as the remnants of items left behind by the people living in this area for more than 13,000 years ago. It is hard not to see things like this as inspiring to myself and anyone else who may view the skills of our ancient ancestors. Knowing that my ancestors were able to adapt and use their environment to suit their need to survive so many thousands of years ago. The evidence is so overwhelming and pervasive, yet this small museum seems to have very little traffic through it. It is inconspicuously placed at the far end of a highway rest stop. Just waiting for the knowledge of its amazing artifacts to get seen by people. And those visitors learn about the people that lived in America before the time of the ancient Greeks, Phoenicians , Egyptians and many other ancient civilizations. We have many artifacts of these early Americans. It would lead one to wonder what keys to social and technical development did these people take or skip to not have grown into a more prominent civilization?

At that time, 13,000 years ago the findings of the Blackwater Draw indicate that the climate was much more humid and wetter with greater vegetation and rain than the climate is now in Eastern New Mexico. Maybe with the plentiful food and water their motivation to make a more advance civilization was not high on the priority list of these people. As the saying goes, “necessity is the mother of invention.” If there is not much to look for to survive then there is not need to advance the civilization. The Middle Eastern Civilizations had scarcity of food and water so they had to create a hierarchy of who would rule and how. So this is just my hypothesis of why the civilizations didn't advance as fast as the Middle Eastern ones. I use the word “advance” selectively as we really have no idea of the cultural advancements of this race and what knowledge they may have possessed. There is not a written record of their society.
This archaeological site and museum is well worth visiting if you ever find yourself out in the area. It is not just my recommendation but, “The Carnegie Institute, Smithsonian Institution, Academy of Natural Sciences, National Science Foundation, United States National Museum, National Geographic Society and more than a dozen major universities either have funded or participated in research at Blackwater Draw National Archaeological Site.”



This hole is a 11,000 year old hand dug well near Portales, New Mexico dug by the Clovis people of ancient America. At this time there were many megafauna that lived in America including the Mammoth. This well is older than what most of the young Earth supporters believe that the age of the entire Universe is younger than this whole in eastern New Mexico. This well is at the Blackwater Draw National Archaeological Site.


I would conclude that the people that believe in a creator and a young Earth either have to discount the evidence of these findings or somehow believe that they are less than 6000 years old. It is true that the same physical evidence can reveal different ideas of what it is and what it means. But even if I accepted their young Earth age, the evidence of these amazing animals is proof for substantial change in just a few thousand years. The tools of Paleo-American man are found in many of the bones of the animals discovered in the Blackwater Draw Nationals Archaeological Site including Mammoths. Most ID followers will “accept” what they call micro-evolution, and this is clear evidence of it happening on a large scale. The next step is to have them let loose of that ancient time line so they can see how the steps of evolution are in place to fill the steps from 3.5 Billion years back to Today.

I recently read some of the points made by Intelligent Design supporters and have found that most of the points they try to use to express their ideas of “natural implausibility” are usually based upon either ignorance of the material or blatant misrepresentation of written material. One may wish to research into the Dunning-Kruger Effect to help explain the issue of how ignorance helps a person feel smarter then they actually are. One such example is from the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. In chapter nine he does a section on DNA which for the most part is really informative and I learned something from it. For one he points out that the ratio of DNA matched pairs are always equal in a gene. So adenine and guanine pair up so the ratio of these two molecules will always be equal and the thymine and cytosine pair up so these molecules will always be in the same ratio. This helps to explain how the DNA will always “seek” out the proper molecule to fill the right spot on the DNA sequence. That was some good basic information that would help a person to understand a little about DNA. Then in the chapter he throws in a quote from Microsoft founder Bill Gates about how DNA is like a computer code but more complex. Again, this point I will gladly concede. Like the sea shell I talked about before the DNA structure has had 3.5 to 4 billion year head start to get the pattern “right or wrong.” With this as a bridge from the basic DNA information he presented, he says references two source that the minimum numbers of genes to make a living cell is 250 genes. Oddly enough when I check the second of his source the it says only ~80 of the 250 genes were viable for life. The gene set was made up of 250 gene pairs but there are ~80 that are represented in all life. I will not try to interpret this any further since I am not a scientist but it is clear to me that Wells is being intellectually dishonest in his presentation of other people's work in his book. His thesis is that if a single cell needs at least 250 genes for the life process to happen that there is not enough time in the known Universe for this sequence to develop. And the conclusion is that the “information in DNA sequence is extremely complex.”

Wells fails to point out the cause and effect relationship for this conclusion. He also fails to use what time scale he is referring to. Wells also seems to impart some special pleading for the idea of information. Since we live in the Information Age, Wells may be using the popular meaning of that word. This is surely the terminology the Gates was referring to earlier. But in nature, information is any bit of data. It doesn't mean that the information is something created. It just means it exists. The distance from Earth to the Moon is information. The air temperature is another bit of information. How far your holding this book from your eyes is another piece of information. The way DNA matches up with its matched pair is information. But that is information in the sense that we are humans and use information to understand the world. A dog or pig or tree uses information about the world it is living in as well. The science of biology is basically a combination of chemistry and physics and that is the type of information a person must have at least a layman's understanding to understand the natural processes that will support the science that is used to explain the process of natural selection and evolution. The need for water and water itself is universally needed for life, as far as we know, so all life forms on Earth tend to have a mechanism for them to find the things that make them live. Water, some sort of gas for respiration, and for most forms of life, sexual reproduction. The biology of life is simply a matter of chemical and physical ideas coming together to produce life as we know it.

A simple way to look at how a biological process happens is the same as a chemical process. Let's take for instance a portion of gunpowder and we place that power on a table in a circle with enough room that it doesn't burn the powder next to it and we light the end point. When a certain chemical reaction is present, activity occurs. The heat from the flame makes the chemicals in the gunpowder begin an exothermic reaction releasing heat and light. This reaction continues unabated until something acts upon it. Say for instance water. The reaction would stop and would not start back up until the powder was dried or a high temperature was able to restart it.

This reaction is one of a more simple examples of the many many hundreds to thousands to millions that have happen over the period of time to produce the person reading this book today. I am sure you can think of at least a half dozen ways that the thought experiment I described could be different to produce a different result.

FROM: GOD IS NOT GREAT: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

“What believers will do, now that their faith is optional and private and irrelevant, is a matter for them. We should not care as long as they make no further attempt to inculcate religion by any form of coercion.”

Finally, faith answers all questions...with nothing.

Chapter Eleven; CONGRATULATIONS CHARLES DARWIN part forty



2009 was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin birth and also the 150th anniversary of the publishing of On The Origins of Species In 1859. In The United Kingdom the Royal Mint has issued a commemorative two pound coin with the struck pose of Darwin on the right facing across from a portrayal of chimpanzee. On the front of the coin is, of course, the portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The coin is issued in a limited edition and you may be able to order on from the website listed below. xxxvii

I also have a Darwin 2009 t-shirt that I wore the last time I saw Richard Dawkins at Queens College in Charlotte, North Carolina on October 14, 2009. I got the t-shirt when I first saw Dawkins at The University of Oklahoma in Norman, OK on March 6, 2009. It has been good to see so many positive commemorations of the publication of Darwin's pivotal work. I have yet to get the £2 coin from the UK or the £10 pound note. I would like to get them both and have them mounted in a display case. But I digress.

However, when I last saw Dawkins, he mentioned something about the commemoration of the 150th year of On the Origins of Species that intelligent design or creationist Ray Comfort was publishing. This seemed rather odd to me. Ray Comfort has printed the keystone work of Darwin. A person that in almost every thing I have seem him produce is in polar opposition to this work of Darwin and evolution. Not to mention the scientific method as well.

The book has a nice cover on it and has a beautiful picture of Darwin on it. It says it is a 150th anniversary issue of the book and at the bottom it says with a special introduction by Ray Comfort. I find this odd but I have not yet read Mr. Comfort's text so I will not comment on that. But what I will say is that Comfort has took ever opportunity he possible can to try to make evolution seem less than factual. The ID advocate has failed in every example he has tried. I am not sure if Comfort is actually convince by these stories he is telling or that he doesn't understand the basic concepts of the science involved in the continual support of the Theory of Evolution or if he really is mentally sick and needs medication, what ever the reason it has clouded his ability to reason and process factual information. It is strange that the person that is one of the most opposed to the ideas and concepts of Darwin's natural selection would spend the money and time to publish the book, according to his website, word for word with only an addition to the beginning of the book.

Adding his comment to the beginning of the book may be to keep Comfort from actually reading the work Darwin put out 150 years ago. I have a feeling there are not going to be many reference such as “refer to page such and such for an example”. But I may be wrong about that. It seems a diluted mind never goes to waste. When the launch date for the book was set on April 22, 2010, I went to Washington University to try to get my hands on the free book. I figured I should be able to have one just as much as the other people around there. But after several contacts in the biological sciences I found out that the book had been distributed the day before, ahead of the announced date for the distribution to occur. Seems that Ray Comfort was willing to add his words to Darwin’s work but was not willing to keep his word to the public as to when the books would be passed out.
xxxvii http://www.royalmint.com/store/BritishBase/D09E.aspx

Coming Next Time;


MORALITY AND MANKIND part forty-one

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Chapter Nine; THE INTELEGENT DESIGN VIEW OF EVOLUTION part thirty-eight



When addressing some of the issues of the fundamentalist view of evolution it is important to identify some key words that they use to try to vilify reasonable scientists and educated people that understand the concepts of evolution and natural selection. From the way the word is used by the intelligent design side it seems that the word “Darwinism” is meant to describe the “believers” in the Theory of Evolution to make it seem more like a radical belief such as astrology or paganism. It is clearly viewed as a philosophical belief instead of an area of fact such as electric theory and thermodynamics. To the Intelligent Design camp, believing in Darwinism is presented as a de facto religious belief. However they would not, for the most part, say that people that believe in the ideas and principles of plumbing to be “Plumbists.”
Words such as Darwinism, Darwinist, Evolutionism, and Evolutionists are used as hot button words to vilify the above groups. Not so much to the groups they are trying to attack but to their base supporters. Such as, These are not scientists, they are Darwinists. The truth of the matter is these are the types of general and specific attacks that the Intelligent design people use in order to motivate their base.
I will be the first to say that many of these people are indeed well educated and speak well about what they present. But unlike myself another reasonable people they are not prepared to have the basis of their views challenged. I have attended and watched several of the debates between Evolution and Intelligent Design. The strength of their attacks is usually in areas where science is not complete or the rehashing of previously discredited models and theories. Just as in any area of discipline there are those that either through poor methods or personal glory will use their position to advance their career. This is the same with those that have been involved in evolutionary research. Rightly so these persons should be exposed for the results they produce. By the same turn the methods of the Intelligent Design camp must be equally willing to lay behind the failed ideas of their ideas when a more sound set of scientific data comes around. The ID adherents will fight tooth and nail to keep their core ideas when the credible scientific facts are placed in front of the ID points. When this happens in the scientific community the result is not a failure of the model just a failure of procedure or ethics. Evolutionary researchers are often the most vocal and first ones to point out faulty research.
This is one reason that ID supporters are able to use the names of prominent evolutionary biologist in trying to support their ID case. They will take the quotes of scientists in the field and use them to show why sample or example XY or Z is not right. The reasonable point of this is to show weakness in the scientific processes and highlighting other discredited scientific mistakes then move on to other models that follow the predictive nature of the existing data. But by failing to offer reasonable models for the existing datum ID supporters only hope to show that the scientific community is trying to use fraud and subterfuge to support otherwise sound scientific methods. Also, many of the attacks on Evolution are not on the science itself but how supporters of ID and creationism have been treated by the legal and scientific community. Failure to offer both “sides” in the public classroom, referring to polls that show many Americans think that a “balanced” presentation of the two sides is fair. But I am sure if you asked the same Americans if Astrology should be given equal time as Astronomy or Alchemy should be given equal time in Chemistry class they would say it has no place in a classroom of science. Do you teach the “Flintstone” method of auto mechanics or the Icarus method of flight design in aerodynamics classes? Of course not and you don't teach the six day creation of Earth in the Biology class.
To the Intelligent Design supporters the debate between the two areas of thought is a chess game. The one that has the points wins. They will site public opinion polls and statements from scientist taken out of context and quotes from prominent persons that are not scientists. Other is trying to use “common sense” allegories to support their ideas such as the “irreducibly complex eye” and the bacterium flagellum, the “irreducibly complex wing and so on and so forth. Just a few highlights on the points I brought up are the eye at 95% productivity is much better then an eye at 50% productivity but both are useful to the animal that has them. Because both are better then 0% productivity of an eye. Concerning the wing. There are many aves that are flightless. I think that is all that needs to be said about that. Their argument implies a purpose of the wing. Humans are the ones that assign purpose not natural selection.
But science doesn't operate that way. Public opinion polls do not produce scientific results and should never be used to determine scientific procedures or results. If all the people on Earth still believed that the Sun rotated around the Earth it still wouldn't make it so. If every scientist was to support the ideas of ID, as some do, it still wouldn't change the facts of evolution. These are truly two different playing fields. Surely they wouldn't have the same views for the efficacy of immunizations and advancements in treatments for disease and and other accepted medical areas. Nor would they question the concepts of computing and electronics that make their life what it is Today. Surely they wouldn't argue against the use of engines and motors for transportation. For the most part these things do not conflict with their world view through their belief system. But when it comes to the evidence of Evolutionary Biology they feel threatened because their view of what life means and why we are here is called into question. They look at it this way, “if the Theory of Evolution is true then my belief system is flawed or even none existence.” But the same scientific principles that the ID supporters accept lead to the answers that Biology and Astronomy, Geology, and other areas of science use to come up with the answers that the ID people use to attack in their challenges.
For the most part the ID supporters do not want answers to these questions. There really is no need for them. They find their answers in their scared book. To the ID supporters, the Bible is a book of science as well as a book of religion. While ID supporters will work hard to find areas of weakness of Evolution they will exercise no effort show how a supernatural action is possible. The will use public opinion and try to use the political process to get their points of view in place in the public schools. Then when scientific discoveries are found that have a vague reference to support their religious view they will use these to shore up their sinking claims of a supernatural creation. Scientific ideas such as Quantum Physics and “the god gene” are a few of the areas that ID supporters will try to twist into their world view.
ID supporters will freely set aside the laws of Physics and other natural laws in which all nature have been shown to follow and conclude that the answers that fall outside the area of acceptable answers, such as the Earth being more than 6000+ years old are not in violation of the laws of nature since a creator is free to operate in any way it sees fit. So what they are saying is that if there is a creator or intelligence behind The Universe that this creator is free to deceive the entire Universe for his own purpose, however they offer no sound natural evidence of this ever happening or how it could happen. Basically they will examine the light from a star or galaxy and the spectrum will show a predictable redshift which the distance can be calculated using a standard formula. When the answer is 7000 light years or greater the ID believer must say from that point and older that the creator is just messing with us but everything up to that point is alright. This is a principle I would love to apply to my financial situation. “I am sorry, Sir you don't have anymore money left.” “No I am not broke I actually have millions of dollars but you just can't see them. But I sure do have them. I just imagine them like I do and they are there ready to spend.”
Recently I saw a set of questions that are suppose to support a creator. It dealt with DNA and the coded sequence. The point asserts that a DNA sequence is a “code” and that a code must be created for it to be a code. This is a misnomer as a definition. It is indeed a code as defined but a code is also the sequence that a snow flake is formed and crystals are formed. Other areas in Physics and chemistry follow similar patterns and codes.
Just because the DNA sequence is an advance molecule and behaves according to an predetermined pattern doesn't mean that the code is anything but a naturally occurring phenomenon. ID supporters look at a naturally occurring pattern and say this must have been created just like a computer code or music written for a song. But they misunderstand the idea of patterns and repetition in nature. One of the most clear examples is that of gravity. In nature, gravity works to hold matter together as it accumulate more matter together. One of the results of this is that celestial bodies gain and spherical form as they gain mass. That is why as a planet or start gains mass we see it as round. Of course even with gravity it takes a certain amount of mass to produce the spherical appearance that we are most familiar with. Objects such as asteroids may not have sufficient mass to have gravity form them into a sphere or other forces may have been at work on them such as collisions with other bodies. This is just one area where natural forces act according to a predictive set of laws discovered by man. The predictive nature of science is the key to which science subscribe and is a bedrock of the experimentation and discoveries that scientists from all over the world depend to make their work possible.
If we lived in a dynamic universe that the rules of Chemistry and Physics were ever changing it would be impossible to operate any equipment or depend on the purpose of medication with any known reliability. But we are able to make predictions of how things work and with this we can work to figure out how things operate in the natural world.
ID supporters will look at the way the universe is and say this is why things are this way because God made them like that. Douglas Adams addressed this many years ago with the water puddle story.i This puddle looks at its world and see how well this hole fits it. It says to itself, Wow, this is a really perfect world look how well this how fits me. It is almost as if the hole was made just for me. As a matter of fact it fits me so well the only way I could fit in it is if it was made for me. As the day goes on the Sun looms higher in the sky and the water evaporates and the holes shrinks. But even as this happens the puddle thinks I know I am special because I have been designed and this hole was made just for me. Surely my creator will save me.
But surely as the day continues, with the Sun shining brightly, the puddle dries up and the puddles last “thought” was, “Oops.”
What I am getting to with this is that the ID people look at how the balance of the orbit of the planet and the ratio of biological chemistry makes this the “perfect” place for life to be on.
To this I have little to say but, “No shit Sherlock.”
You know you go out to the mountains you will see up on the hillside homes made of logs with stilts and other material around the area that makes it work. If you go to the desert you will see building made of concrete, rocks or even adobe bricks. Guess what? These materials are abundant there. Same goes for the Caribbean Sea you will see homes made of palm trees and palm leaves. If life was not possible on Earth I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading it. We know that life is possible on Earth because we are proof of it. Not because we are a special creation of a supernatural carpenter. We happen to fit in the right spot at the right time. What this means is, as rare as life may or may not be, Earth was in the right spot at the right time.
If someone wins the lottery it isn't because of all the other times they played that they won it was the time they played that their numbers came up. Though some winners might disagree. Random chance, physical and chemical forces are the “creator” of life on Earth. In a very real sense, Being alive is one of the Universes greatest payoffs. Without us to see the magnificent Universe around us how would we know about the wonders of the world or the amazing worlds in out solar system. We are the only ones to know about the black holes, nebula clouds, quasars and the cosmic dust of the stellar nurseries.
To me this is an amazing thing to know. Of course, it would be nice to live forever and have peace and harmony among all peoples but if you can't get that at least the real world is pretty wonderful to the point of far overshadowing the make believe worlds of man. When it comes to the promises of God and the promise of tomorrow in the Universe, I take the Universe anytime. Yet as much as 45% or Americans still believe in the literal story from the Bible of how life began in the Universe. When you consider the other portion that feel a supernatural entity had some bearing on the way things are in the Universe the numbers that hold to a totally natural method of universal existence are anywhere from eight to fourteen percent. The concept of a outside influence seems to strong yet is so lacking in fact that anyone that would take the time to look at the cause and effects reason for evolutionary biologist to reach their conclusions would be force to abandon all or at least most ideas of anything supernatural influence on the natural universe.
A point of order I would like to bring to the front now. It is not that the people that understand biological evolution have all the answers, just as the studies of cosmological astronomy have found areas of correction over the decades. Things can change and discoveries can be made. Remember, Pluto is no longer a planet anymore, its a dwarf planet. But the most reasonable conclusions are not found in a ancient book of epic stories and drama, but in the halls of science. It can and has been said that it is much more easy to follow an unchallenged and simplistic dogma where one can feel a part of a bigger picture AND feel to possess a unique knowledge that others lack than to bother with the laborious idea of learning. This leads to the view that, “Everyone is wrong but us.” perspective. I have seen people say this over and over again. When I talk to adherents and they bring up a certain point of view special to their faith I will question them with, “You know the Baptists believe this,” or “The Methodists think this,” or the Anglicans believe this.”
The answer is always the same, “Yes, but were are right and they are wrong.” The person may have a Bible verse quote to add, maybe not. They may add a allegoric story. It may just be they feel “we are right” and “they are wrong” and that is it. Even after pointing out a clear example of how their “exception” to the rule is no different that the other adherents “exception” they hold to their unique special knowledge.
Of my more favorite examples of this is concerning baptism. When it comes to Christianity, this is one issue that seems to run through almost all the different denominations. But how it is done is greatly varied. For instance, some of the “older” Christian faiths such as Catholic and Episcopalian, Lutheran and several others say that a baby or child may be baptized even if they are too young to know what is happening to them and what is means. Other Christian faiths say that a person must make a decision to accept Jesus and that getting baptized is something they do after they decide to become a adherent. These are clearly two different perspectives of the same supposed issue. Yet they are still both very different from each other. One a person is not aware of what is happening to them, or really needs to know, the other the person decides when the event will happen to them with their full knowledge of the event.
This is just one part of this crazy act. The second part is how much water is to be used. Again, some feel just getting a persons head wet is enough to make it right and other adherents say you must be submerged totally underwater to be baptized. Again, both quite different actions about an event of the same name coming from the same religion and basically from the same book.
It is not as if, with scientists a person can come to a church that has a certain dogma and say, hey wait a minute we are suppose to be eating whole wheat bread for communion not unleavened bread, or what ever may be served. And show why and then everyone learns that is the correct way. Not at all, many times in history one that would say a thing such as that would end up being arrested, beaten, tortured or murdered. If one was lucky enough to escape such reception to resistance established dogma, they may find themselves founding a denomination of the same religion.
Today, for the most part there is are a few Christian religions that are generally viewed as cults. The best I have been able to find the only two things that makes a cult a cult is a strong central figure to gather around and the number of people that believe in the ideas of the said cult. One exception could be a command from the despotic ruler such as Constantine. Prior to that, Christians were considered a cult by the Romans and Jewish people. Organizations such as Campus Crusade and The Navigators have behavior that can be called cult like. But since they usually adhere to a somewhat generic dogma, it is not viewed with the eyes of suspicion like Jehovah's Witness is or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and other smaller and less well known factions of Christianity. A person never thinks they are in a cult but that tag is usually placed upon them by outside groups. I would guess that a person in a cult for the most part thinks they are doing something really special. With that they might either feel that everyone needs to k now or they have to learn more to become more “spiritual” in their adherence.
Here is an example, Let's say that I have a feeling that the property that others have is not theirs but either mine or “ours” and need a way to convince the others to accept your 'inspired' idea. With the current “respect” or “hands off” treatment religious beliefs have, it would be easy to convince a person that the giving of their property to the group is one good way to show how much God loves you and you love God. Throw in a few Bible verses or even better yet make up a few new ones of your own and soon your be laying in the lap of luxury with hundred or thousands of faithful followers.
Imagine if any one a several prominent atheists or agnostic persons of the recent years were to have a supernatural conversion and leave reason behind. Take Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Denett, Rebecca Watson, Penn Jillette, Matthew Dillahunty, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Bill Mayer, P. Z. Meyers and so on. There is many more to name but here is a short list of persons that if they were to allow ill intent to be there motivation they could make more than likely a much better living spouting religious dogma after having a “conversion” experience of some sort that they could tell people about over and over again punctuated with a call for a move of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the people listening to them.
However, I feel rather confident that none of the for mentioned persons or the many persons I have met like them would be able to, in good conscience, to undertake such an endeavor. But believe me, I am sure there are famous person out in the realm of Christian fundamentalism that know the words they speak have no meaning whatsoever other than how often and how loudly they speak them. But their secrets are so closely guarded that even their spouse or friends may not know. It may be a secret that they are unable to share. Even when the reasonable adherents put out books or other media it is almost impossible to overcome the build in bias toward bullshit in the bookstores.
When I purchased Richard Dawkins' book “The Greatest Show on Earth” on September 23, I had to have the person from Hastings bookstore help me locate it. However, if one wanted to find the idiotic books from Glen Beck, Joyce Meyer, Bill O'Reiley or Joel Olsten they were easy to find. They were proudly and prominently displayed in the front of the store or on there own special bookshelf.
As is well documented, James Randi exposed the malicious actions of Peter Popoff in his ministry back in the 1970s and with the help of his friend, Johnny Carson, exposed the charlatan psychic spoon bender Uri Geller. A short search for either one of these persons should reveal the disgraceful way they use people to their own personal benefit, These are just two of the more successful examples of how when a persons actions are held up in the public they loose face and go away forever. But sadly that was not the result of either of those two or ones such as Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye, Robert Tilton, Terry Hornbuckle and countless others that have been disgraced in their ministries only to come back with the same show to get the faithful to hand over their time and money. I look forward to what new ministry Ted Haggard gets into eventually, now that he is cured of homosexuality. But even after these failure of personal conduct that must of their followers and non-believers will never approach the supporters of men and woman like these will say,
Of course, there are those who see all of this upheaval as the work of the enemy. According to Bishop Larry D. McGriff of the Church of the Living God, Pillard Ground and Truth in Dallas, 'The devil doesn't want to see God's work done, so of course he's going to attack the head.'”
It just makes me hit my head when I see comments like that. Which got me to think about why are people so resistant to facts about the failure of people in their religion and the failure of the religion itself. The only answer I could come up with is, education, or the lack there of.
If you ask the typical person what is the value of an education they will say it is priceless or the value cannot be measured. I would disagree with this idea. I would say that education should be free or as cheap as possible. What I mean by this is that a person shouldn't be restricted by the economic factors to educate them since this is one of the most important factors that determine a active civil population. It is a true statement that the basis of understanding of all disciplines have had a erosion of what makes up them different and what applies to which discipline.
The concepts of accounting, language, history, mathematics, grammar, art and science all have reasons that they have certain rules, concepts and procedures based upon facts of logic and reason. Maybe not grammar and art so much but the other disciplines, for the most part you have standard concepts that help the typical student understand what is happening in the subject. The issue with educating the average student is the students think that l earning is hard. The fact is learning is difficult for most students. So the teacher, principal, administrators, school boards continue to make the subjects more easy to pass instead of more east to learn. If one was to take an eight grade math book from the 1930 and compare it to a math book of 2010 it would have many more mathematical concepts with fewer drawings and pictures. Mathematics needs no pictures except for the actual concepts of what is being talked about. It is the place of the book author to give the examples of mathematics or it is it the purpose of the teacher.
I feel the teacher has the primary responsibility for this. But the teachers are a product of a failed system as well. They have been diverted from creative and student based education to having to cram in so much testing material because of “Leave no Child Behind.” From almost every teacher I have talked to about this the LNCB pressure makes the curriculum so rigid that they cannot use the creative models like used to be used only a few years ago. So students are pressured to produce the right answers instead of understanding the disciplines concepts. While getting answers are good, if one understand concepts they can gain the knowledge with continued work.
So we are getting a generation that just wants the answer. Getting things done in a day or hour or half-hour is the time table that most of us are becoming accustomed to. So why should a student spend anything to learn the process of how language and grammar can affect meaning and context of stories. Without knowing that there is a reliable process of determining the distance of an object in the sky by the light that is reflected from it, how can they understand that processes on Earth can occur within that same time frame. Of course, education cannot be done for free and the job that teachers do is important for us all. It is when outside agents such as government and union pressures try to gain control of the students and teachers it is only a lose-lose situation.
The result is higher costs and lower knowledge gained. To be honest I would rather have a student that understands the concepts and principles of a subjects but has trouble with the details over someone that is able to determine the right answers without knowing why the answers are what they are. Without this understanding, the students are graduated to the population reading and willing to accept answers that the “authorities” or “professionals” provide them. Another generation ready to be consumers and accept the cause de jour.

xxxvi http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Coming Next Time;


ALL NATURAL INGREDIENTS part thirty-nine

Friday, November 12, 2010

Chapter Nine; FUNDAMENTALISTS, THE BIBLE IS NOT INEHERENT part thirty-seven



First, ask if they believe if the Old Testament still applies to a Christian Today. This will guide the rest of the discussion. As stated earlier, many fundamentalist state that they think the Bible is free of errors and contradictions. For my purpose and definition I would call “free of errors” as meaning that internally or externally is there anything inconsistent with the or contradictory in the text of the Bible or reflected in reality.
The good thing about this is with the Internet one can research the topics through the quickly. The idea that a person would hold to the view that these Bible stories are perfect and without error can only be defended in the arena of apologetics. This of course it the discipline of making 1+1=3. There is a whole area of religious study with in theological universities where the carefully contrived explanations of the biblical contradictions and errors are explained carefully to allow the faithful the foolish notion that what is clearly in error is actually correct.
One commonly known story from the New Testament is that of the death of Judas. As the story goes Judas, a follower of Jesus, was the Disciple that turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities for him to be judged and face his eventual death. He was asked by the Jewish authorities to reveal which one of the group was the Jesus and Judas worked out a signal that he would kiss Jesus when he greeted him and when the sign was given Jesus found himself arrested and so the story goes on that Jesus was taken before the Romans and then the Jews and then he was taken outside the city of Jerusalem.
Regardless of what the theology or point of view is of the story it is clear that there are two very different things going on in the Bible in Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19. In the story in Matthew, Judas filled with guilt or regret returns the 30 pieces of silver to the Jewish priests and he hung himself. Then the priests bought a potter's field cemetery for foreigners. They didn't find the idea of putting the “blood money” in with the “not so much blood money” treasury.
In the Acts story the death of Judas says Judas himself bought a field and died after falling head long on his stomach and his guts all busted outside.
It is clear that these are not the same story. In one the field was bought by the priests, and other by Judas. In one the money was returned first and the other the money directly bought the field. In one Judas hung himself and in the other he died by falling head long and his bowels gushed out. [I am not sure what medical condition could cause this by the way. But this is another point of contention with the Bible.] What is similar is that Judas was the one that betrayed Jesus and he felt bad later about it then he died and there was a place called the Blood Field.
This one example is enough to show that the Bible is not totally free of errors. But this is only one of many through the Bible. There are factual errors, internal genealogical errors, misquotes and out and out lies. Another one example is the words above Jesus on his cross. This is suppose the sign for the charges against the criminal so others in the population would not make the mistake of doing the same crime and thus find themselves on the cross as well. In Mark it said to read, “King of the Jews.” Luke says the signs reads, “This is the King of the Jews.” In Matthew it quotes the sign as reading, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” Finally in John, he says the sign had the words, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Now I have been to many concerts and other events where the place you are sitting or standing can determine what you can see. So maybe the sign was so big that the guys reading it wouldn't have been able to read it all. But it is more likely that the sign is a construct of writers later on that felt that it was important to have a sign on the cross. The only thing that is consistent through out the four quotes is “King of the Jews.” Maybe it was Jesus, maybe the guy was from Nazareth, maybe it was the King of the Jews. We can't really be sure.
There are many of these inconsistencies through out the Bible and I will touch on another one from Genesis. So what came first? Adam or Armadillos? Well if we look at the words of the Bible from Genesis 1:24-27 it looks like God thought that making cattle and creepy animals and all the other animals first then God got around to making man. Seems to me that if man is made in his own image that that particular design would have been the most easy to make. I know that mankind has a long history of making images and contraptions looking like a man or woman. However, God may have been trying to save the best for last. Then again he might have been on a bit of a bender since he was talking to himself. But not to disrespect God for that, I have been known to have discussions with myself. I do realize that I am actually just talking to myself though and not another person with me. But I digress.
The other story of God makin' stuff “in the beginning” is found in Genesis 2:5-7. It seems this time God was in such a hurry to make man he didn't even have time for it to rain yet, but he did make the oceans fill up from a spring coming out of the Earth. Then God scraped up some dust and made man. I guess this is alright since we are all made from star stuff in reality but the spring thing watering all the Earth...Well let's just say, God you have some 'splanin' to do. But to continue, After God made man from the dust of the Earth, God notice that there wasn't anything else on the planet and figured that it would be good for man to have a helper. Well God rolled up his sleeves and got making all types of animals for man for his helper. I can just see it God making all types of animals like a supernatural clown making balloon animals. Then God asks, Hey you, you want an aardvark for your helper? Then God goes all the way through the alphabet getting to the Zebra and still a “no go” with man. It seemed like man was not really thrilled with God's selection of helpers being animals. Then God is just sitting there thinking to himself laying on his stomach and blows on the dust on the ground in front of him and up pops a female. Adam looks and says WHOA MAN! That is how females got the name woman. Not really, but it fits the story. Actually it says that God made woman from Adam's rib. I wonder if that would be smoked or with bar-b-que sauce. Both of the scenarios are equally ridiculous.
Of course, this is the only time that a man gave birth to a person. That just goes to underline some of the basic sexist point of views that this and most religions have toward woman. In order to make woman subjected to man this stupid story of woman being birth from a man's rib had to be concocted. That took a divine surgery for it to happen. It must have been a result of stem cell research. But as it happens again these two methods are very different from one another.
In one man was made first, then all the animals. In the other, man was made after all the animals were made. In one animals were made from the dust of the Earth and on the other version it must have slipped the writer's mind about what the animals were made of. In one version man and woman were made at the same time and in the other woman was second and came out of man. Again these are not small areas of discrepancies but fully contradictory stories of an event. To be totally honest they are so divergent that with one you can promote the equality of woman and with the other the subservience of woman. These are more than mere grammatical errors and have far reaching influence for those that may be an adherent to them. Plus both are equally ridiculous.
If you wish to find more of these many areas in the Bible there are several website that can provide many additional examples and discussions can take place with those that think the Bible is still consistent. One is the website errancy.com. This website has apologists comments, so you can read for yourself the way they try to twist and turn the written words of the Bible to fit into the adherents supernatural World view of nature.
The reason why showing that the Bible isn't the the handwritten, direct, inspired word of God is because there are so many people that try to use it to support their views on so many issues. These range from homosexuality, stem cell research, separation of church and state, gender equality, education curriculum, evolution, foreign policy, race relations, health and welfare issues and many more. If a person can turn from seeing the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God to a moral book of ancient stories it will save lives and help people gain respect for their fellow man and woman. Do we really need a God to teach us how to do good? No. But it seems damn certain that you need a God to make people to gather to do wrong to their fellow man. It has been said before and will be said again that religion makes it adherents that would normally not do harm to their fellow man but do it willingly and encourage others to follow suit.

Coming Next Time;

INTELLIGENT DESIGN VIEW OF EVOLUTION part thirty-eight

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Chapter Nine; MY TEAM COMES TO PLAY part thirty-six



Of course I would insist that any course on world religion or religion in general have a section on atheists. It is clear that the atheist community has something to say about a great many number of subjects. Everything from climate change to fair housing, political corruption, good business policies, how the wars are being conducted, public funding of religious based organizations, equal rights for all Americans and so forth.
Keep in mind that while many atheists may actually take interest and have views on these and a great many more subjects the views held can be quite diverse. In Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, he makes great points about good reasons to minimize the influence of religion and why it should be minimized as much as possible. He spends a great deal of time dealing directly with Christianity, Islam and touching on Judaism and other faiths. But near the end of the book where he is trying to make his case for ending faith he slips out of the garden and begins trying really hard to justify a form of mysticism that separates the Conscience and objective awareness and the duality nature of our conscience existence.
I feel that Harris is either trying to hard to tie in a eastern philosophical view or exert his belief in some sort of a mystic world. While Harris went to some great lengths to try to make the connection to human happiness at the end of the book but he fails to make the step by step link cited in his book that, “spiritual experience, ethical behavior and strong communities are essential for human happiness.”
I would say that to a degree I found this distressing as he seemed to be endorsing a version of a spiritual nature possibility a forum of Buddhism. This however seemed to be the point of his book since he ends the main section of the book with his title. I would have to conclude that the end of faith would lead to a spiritual nature.
This is an example for me that atheists can agree with one another most of the time but have serious disagreements about other subjects. I thank Harris greatly for his book as it has done much for promoting a positive and a more concise view to the general public of what many atheist see as what is wrong with religion and why religious adherents can be use to hid more radical beliefs within the same general belief system. While the typical Methodist may disagree with abortion, it was that religious protection afford to the more radical Christian groups such and Operation Rescue and others that led a person like Scott Roeder to shoot and kill Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas while Tiller served as an usher at his Lutheran church. Roeder's radical views found a home in the radicalism of such organizations though I understand that he was almost universally condemned by even the abortion opponents. At least at the time. If some fellow Christian was to come against the views of Roeder, Roeder's defense could be something as simple as, “You don't understand what god wants to happen to Tiller.”
Statements like this in a religious context cannot be disputed. Yet I continue to be amazed by the religious adherents who will over and over again say that “they” are the only ones that has the “truth.” I would not expect to hear this if I was to speak about my objections to Harris' conclusion as I mentioned earlier. I feel as reasonable people Harris would at least attempt to listen to my reasons for disagreeing with him until he either determined I had no knowledge or comprehension of what he was talking about or he was able to see my perspective or some other alternative. Many believers also feel that if they were to loose their faith that they would have been a fool for all their life in which they based their actions upon their religion. I can see this but it brings to mind a story I heard where a researcher into some concept made a discovery breakthrough and when he did the presentation of the concept one professor that had been looking into an alternative view for several decades stood up in the audience and told him that he was thankful to him for reveling the errors of his ways. Then the professor led the applause for the presenter. I use this example to show that having accurate information is the goal of the rational thinker. While to the adherent, faith is the goal. So to destroy the faith is to destroy their world.
That is one great advantage to being a skeptic vis-a-vis an atheist. Disagreeing with each other and vigorous debate is a keystone of education and knowledge. But the acquisition of new reality based knowledge in religions either causes them to split, have war, or modify into a new belief system to accommodate the new reality. Believers that are convinced by themselves or by others that the actions they take in the name of their religion are right in spite of how they cause harm to their fellow man will stop at nothing to reach their goals. The actions that require one to have faith, rule out reason as faith rules out science. After all, “God” cannot have his followers second guess their actions or purposes with reason, logic, facts and science.
According the the book Atheists, Atheists are much more likely to support causes that have nothing to do with their belief system when it indicates an injustice. An atheist is also a more honest person than a person which holds dogmatic beliefs or are of a right wing mentality. There were other somewhat surprising but somewhat confirming results in the book that show atheists not only to be more honest and more self aware of the state of their behavior and mental state but are also more critical of people that both share and do not share their opinions. I would have to contend that this is in of itself a good definition of being a skeptic. If only the adherents in the religions were able to or encouraged to question those that provide the answers openly instead of having the same dogmatic message yelled into their brains or chanted week after week until they are mind numbed, we might have a much more peaceful and advance planet to live on. To wrap up this section I would like to just add;
GO ATHEISTS! YOU'RE NUMBER 1!

Coming Next Time;
Chapter Nine; FUNDAMENTALISTS, THE BIBLE IS NOT INEERENT part thirty-seven

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Chapter Eight; WHO IS ON YOUR TEAM? part thirty-five



So the top four areas of faith or lack there of, cover about 5 billion people. These are the best teams humanity has to offer for our posterity. To bad we cannot have head to head contest and the winners get the other adherents followers. A sort of “World Series of Belief”. Not so much to count numbers but to be educated in the others religion and judge it on its own merits.
Stephen Prothero in his book Religious Literacy makes the case for religion to be taught in the public schools. I agree fully with Prothero about this point and the benefit would be great to the civil mindedness of the common student. Imagine a person not getting upset because a person wears different clothes or dresses in a particular way because they realize that they may have a different but socially important belief system.
To me, the most important class on religion and World religions would be one on the effectiveness of prayer and miracles. Education in these two ares could help reduce the violence and prejudice between two groups from the beginning. Not only would this take the mystery and distrust out of religions that a person may not be familiar with but it would also give them equal footing in the discussion of relevance. This curriculum would have to be well made as to present it from a secular point of view. That is the only secular purpose that the government could have in this education. My hope would be to educate the religion out of someone.
The big mega-churches in the community would have their dogma reduced down to educational packets the same as the smaller groups of adherents. And at least while in the secular school, all things would be equal. And to me this would mean a diminishing of all of them because what would then be the most important is the education and knowledge of such things not the adherence to the beliefs themselves.
But Prothero makes several other good points for the teaching of a religious class in public school. There is much from our culture and literature that is based upon the stories and teachings in the Bible. Questions such as:
Who wrote the writing on the wall?
Who was Noah's wife?
Where does the phrase “go the extra mile come from?
What does, “From Dan to Bathsheba” mean?
What are the 10 Commandments?
What is the Golden Rule?

These are just a few from the numerous references of the literary aspect of the Bible. There are also from other religions and tribal beliefs that an education in religion would be helpful for.
The whole idea of learning about other religions is like learning the rules of the game. In order to be a fan or to play a sport you first must know the rules and goals of the sports. I see a good secular education in world religions to be similar to that. You are not learning just about your favorite team. You learn about them on your own effect but your learning about the other teams they may play against. It would be foolish to not have some clue about the team your favorite is getting ready to play. After all, before every game the commentators take time to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the match up and then let the two teams play it out on the field of play where the rules govern how the winner is decided.

Coming Next Time;


MY TEAM COMES TO PLAY part thirty-six