Not that far fetched December 11, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in Humor, Origins, Religion, wingnuts.1 comment so far
The Onion ways in on the ID “Controversy” and does a wonderful job of articulating exactly why the anti-evolutionists are so off base:
And there’s a a classic story as well:
Christian Right Lobbies to Overturn Second Law of Thermodynamics
What all the anti-reason folks have in common December 10, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in Religion, wingnuts.2 comments
PZ Links to a really amazingly bizarre conspiracy theory site that contains, well, a huge amount of crap.Before reading further, it’s worth a look. Geocentric universe, Young Earth Creationism, anti-Catholic screeds, weird worship of Martin Luther, Nikola Tesla, and others, and a general feeling that the Darwinists and the Jesuits are behind, well, everything–it’s a real treasure-house of stupid.
But what strikes me is that it isn’t any more stupid than anyone else who is absolutely convinced that their interpretation of a holy book is the interpretation of it.
Below the fold, we’ll look at the fundamental reason all these people go wrong
Not that there was any real doubt… December 10, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging.2 comments
Now all those people who make snide remarks about this blog’s title can finally back it up with something:
Demonstrating how easy it is to dispatch creationist “arguments” December 8, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Origins, Religion, Science.1 comment so far
Michael “Irreducible Complexity” Behe gave a talk at the University of Kansas today, and while I do not have the text of the speech, the fine folks at “Reasonable Kansans” have a Creationist recap of his main points. I’m going to do two things in this post: 1) Charitably assume that they’ve done a reasonable job of recaping Behe’s position and that, since they like him so much, they’ve portrayed him in as generous a light as is “reasonable,” and 2) demonstrate that it does not take a scientist to dispatch the claims of ID’s poster-child. It’s exceptionally easy. So easy, in fact, that even a Humanities type like me can handle it. Watch little old me take Behe apart below the fold.
Seriously, they’re not even trying anymore December 1, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Religion, wingnuts.6 comments
The radical right-wing has it rough these days. America rejected the politics of hatred, the lies of the administration, and their deeply flawed direction for the country, and now they’re being reminded that, because America isn’t a theocracy, they have to put up with–wait for it–people who believe different things than they do (gasp)!
And they’re not even trying anymore. Sure, they make silly little arguments about “American culture” and “American history”–distorting both beyond recognition, of course–but really their argument comes down to this: people should swear the oath of office on the Bible because our religion is better than theirs.
They don’t have an answer, of course, for those who point out that they’d be infuriated if this was the other way around. Imagine the reaction if Americans were demanding a Christian take the oath on a Koran. They’d say it was unconstitutional and ridiculous, and they’d be right. But as is always the case with the extreme right, consistency isn’t something they’re big on. Take Dennis Prager’s “analysis” of the issue:
The tone might have been a mistake, but the dispute is healthy December 1, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging, Religion, Science.7 comments
Since I have so little time to post to this blog, I’ve been remiss in getting to some fascinating stuff, but I don’t want to let this particular firestorm go by without comment. The quick recap is this: there was a rather heated discussion on Sandwalk, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Pharyngula, and Red State Rabble–among other places–on the role of the science versus religion debate when it comes to fighting those dang creationists.
I have a great deal of respect for those bloggers involved, and have mentioned most of them glowingly in this very blog, and I don’t want to step on any toes (not that this little blog is even worthy of their attention). But I have two thoughts about this debate that I feel are important:
1. The disagreement was honest, but the tone wasn’t always well chosen. One of the dangers of internet communication is how easily what might otherwise have been a civil discussion can turn ugly, due to the nature of the medium. I think this discussion would have been better served if those involved had generally chosen a tone more appropriate for those with whom you have common cause. The ideas are important and fascinating, and frankly would have been better served with a little less anger. Which brings me to
2. My issues with the tone aside, this discussion is a good thing. Anyone who ventures over to the right-wing blogs knows how often they are nothing but an echo chamber, with the same ill-conceived ideas presented as fact over and over again. If you don’t believe that, check out the love fest going on between Marshwiggle, Deep Thought, and josephnadir on this very blog.
For those of us who are more or less left-of-center, though, it’s quite the opposite. We’re quite willing to turn on those who are supposedly on our side (though I hate the whole “sides” frame, as it seems dangerously simplistic) when we disagree with them. And that, more than anything, is what makes me proud to be on the same side as these men, even when they vehemently disagree. Our strength is our ideas, and even when they create hostility, ideas are strengthened and minds enriched by debate, and I would never wish to see such disputes silenced in the name of unity. Quite obviously they will not be. And, all my issues with this debate aside, that is the best news I could hope for.
