All we are is dust in the wind January 15, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Atheism, Morality, Religion, wingnuts.20 comments
Wingnut Christian radio is the gift which keeps on giving. This afternoon, I got my weekly dose of stupid, dishonest religious nonsense. This time the subject turned once again to the old “humanists think life is worthless” canard, which would be hilariously ridiculous on its face, if it was not such a commonly accepted idea among Fundies. But this time they made refutation even easier than usual, as the commentator’s example of the humanist/atheist (they conflate the terms, natch) worldview was to equate them with the song lyrics from Kansas’ “Dust in the Wind.” You know, the song who’s lyrics based on the book of Ecclesiastes?
Ecclesiastes, by the way, is the book which suggests we don’t know if people are any different from animals, or if we truly live after death. It’s grand conclusion is to fear God and keep his commandments, but it does not offer much in the way of comfort of hope.*
And yet the Kansas song is used as an example of the despair of a Humanist worldview.
*I expect I’m going to get people complaining that I’ve not been fair here. But my point isn’t that the Bible teaches despair, but rather that the supposed humanist worldview strawman Fundies like to use is more identifiable with a book of the Bible than with anything actual humanists believe.
I’d also like to note that Ecclesiastes is among the greatest poetry ever written in any language; that doesn’t mean it’s cheery.
What percentage of the Republican party would vote for a Dominionist? January 15, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Religion, constiutional issues, wingnuts.2 comments
It’s not clear yet, but from the polls it looks like the percentage is pretty high. It seems Mike Huckabee’s agenda for America is to re-write the Constitution to mirror his interpretation of the Bible:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
I wonder if anyone covering Huckabee’s campaign will ask him what “God’s standards” are. Maybe they’ll ask if God’s standard include killing disrespectful children, witches, adulterers, and homosexuals. Do they include genocide? What about a ban on eating pork? Exactly what parts of the Bible does Huckabee think should be written into the Constitution?
These aren’t idle questions. I’m completely serious. Now that Huckabee has admitted he wants to make our laws conform to his religious beliefs, he’d better be asked which beliefs those are, so we know exactly what he’ll try to do if elected President. My guess? He’d like to start with banning abortion and rounding up gay people AIDS victims.
DaveScot: aren’t the ID folks ashamed of him yet? January 10, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Origins, Religion, Science, wingnuts.27 comments
Of course they’re not. They don’t care about quality of argument or the integrity of those who make the arguments. They want to fool the credulous to do an end-run around doing any actual science. But if DaveScot’s blathering on his own blog wasn’t enough, now he’s gift-wrapped a gift to us Evilutionists:
We often hear that ID is an argument from incredulity. At this point I would tend to agree. That said, arguments from incredulity aren’t necessarily wrong but in fact are rather reliable and employed constantly and consistently by everyone every day.
That’s right, folks: he’s just admitted that ID’s argument is “I don’t believe this could happen, therefore it could not happen.” Of course, he then tries to bury this admission by cloaking it. And of course he wants to do it with big numbers.
Let’s take the example that Granville Sewell offered in his most recent post here. He described Schrodinger’s equation and showed us that it’s theoretically possible for a pitched baseball to stop and hover in mid-air. A commenter who appeared to have a reasonable understanding of Schrodinger’s equation at first protested then ended up agreeing that it’s possible but the odds against it are long and for all practical purposes incalculable. They went on to agree that the quantum uncertainty is tractible in the analysis of a single electron orbiting a single proton (a hydrogen atom) but that the math is intractible for a pitched baseball because such a large number of particles are involved.
Is DaveScot actually this bad at math, or is he just a lying scumbag? Can’t it be both? Seriously, he’s now claiming the argument from incredulity is a probabilistic argument? Sorry, DS, it doesn’t work that way–the argument from incredulity is flawed not because of big numbers, but because it doesn’t have anything useful to contribute. When Behe ignores research in order to continue to make bogus claims about the immune system, it isn’t that he’s figured out the math–doing bad math is a hallmark of ID, but not what the argument from incredulity truly involves–but that he’s decided that something can’t be true, so no amount of evidence could persuade him otherwise.
DaveScot goes on to blather about how–get this–cows don’t give birth to chimps, and explains that just as we don’t expect them to, we know evolution can’t work. That’s right, folks–he’s made the “my grandpa wasn’t a monkey” argument.
In principle it is possible for two cows to mate and give birth to a chimpanzee. The reason we don’t ever expect to see such a thing is we know (now) that the genetic differences between a cow and a chimp are so complex and specified that the odds against it actually happening in a single generation are nearly impossible. We can’t calculate the odds precisely but we know it is incredibly improbable. The argument that two cows won’t mate and produce a chimpanzee is an argument from incredulity. Likewise, is it possible that a bacteria can, through RM+NS, change into a baboon over a billion years and trillions of generations? Sure it’s possible but when you actually get down to assessing the sequence of changes that must have occurred, analyzing the probability in a finite number of years and a finite number of generations, using everything we know about the mutation and selection mechanism, it quickly becomes an incredible proposition.
So we know evolutionary theory is wrong because something evolutionary theory predicts would never happen (a cow giving birth to a chimp) is basically the same thing as the combination of selection and chance enacted over eons. DaveScot’s intellectual rigor is amazing, no? DaveScot’s case, then–his entire case, mind you–is that evolution seems really improbable, and therefore is. And he’s proud of this fact. He freely admits it.
To return to the title: if these people were serious about science, they’d never align themselves with embarrassing idiots like DaveScot. Seriously, the man just admitted that ID is a science stopper–that it says, “we don’t know how this works, therefore a Magic Man done it,”–and yet somehow he continues to be taken seriously by ID supporters, at least in public.
It would all be terribly embarrassing, if these people had any sense of shame.
[Endnote: No, I'm not going to dignify his recent personal attacks on scientists' family members by pretending it's worth responding to. I'm perfectly content to mock his ideas, such as they are.]
Phelps clan: abhorrent as ever, and now with added confusion about what “doomed” means January 9, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Religion, bigotry, wingnuts.4 comments
It seems the Phelps cult have their carefully-hidden Hello Kitty panties in a twist about losing that huge lawsuit recently, and they’ve decided to take out their anger on whoever happens to have lost loved ones recently.
The memorial service Tuesday for five members of a Maryland family killed by a wrong-way truck in a Toledo highway accident included some uninvited guests.
Three members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, known for protests at military funerals, demonstrated about a block from St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, the site of the service.
The demonstrators said the deaths are God’s retribution against the community for a recent $11 million jury award against the Kansas group. A federal jury in Baltimore made the award in October to Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., who sued after the group protested his son’s military funeral in Maryland.
The community is going to “pay the price” for persecuting his group for preaching the word of God, said demonstrator Fred Phelps.
I thought Phelps has already decided that America is DOOMED for turning it’s back on his hate-filled, small-minded God. You know, the God who punishes people for others’ supposed offenses. So if God has already abandoned an entire country, why is He going out of His way to kill motorists? If we’re already doomed, what more is God going to do? Doom us twice?
I’ll give Phelps this, though: killing children for the sins of adults does seem to be in line with the vengeful Old Testament sky god that Phelps uses as an excuse for his warped, hate-filled message. What really worries me is not that most Christians are like Phelps–they’re not–but that Phelps’ interpretation of the Bible does not seem any less consistent than mainstream Christian teachings on the subject. Most religious people don’t behave like the Phelps scumbags do, of course, but this is exactly why religious literalism is such a dangerous thing. The Bible does say Gos punishes children for the offenses of their parents, and that God frequently hates people. It says to kill gay people and disrespectful children and witches and most everyone else. I know Jesus never taught such things, and no decent person would. But a literalist reading of the Bible can certainly teach the above. We’re just fortunate that most believers–even fundamentalists–don’t accept the Phelps’ message. But they certainly could, and that’s a terrifying thought.
[h/t to Shakesville]
Taylor County school board displays ignorance, makes lawsuit far more likely January 9, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Religion, Science, wingnuts.4 comments
The Taylor County, Florida school board has expressed their irritation with students actually learning in their classrooms, and of course the complaint reveals strong scientific illiteracy:
Whereas, the new Sunshine State Standards for Science no longer present evolution as theory but as “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence,” we are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed.
So many errors! We have the standard “misunderstanding the concept of theory,” the always popular idea that evolution explains the formation of the universe, and the nefarious and misguided idea that there are truly any other scientific theories on either the formation of the universe or the diversity of life.
Why didn’t they just publish a letter stating “we believe ignorance is better than knowledge”? It would have been so much more efficient.
Since when is Hitchens the standard for thoughtful Atheism? January 8, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Religion, race, wingnuts.add a comment
Christopher Hitchens is most famous as an atheist–unfortunately. If it were up to me, he’d be most famous as an Imperialist, sloppy thinker who is incapable of understanding nuance. It’s a constant irritation to me that he gets mentioned in the same sentence as Richard Dawkins, who–even when I disagree with him–is capable of a level of discussion and reasoned understanding that Hitchens consistently lacks. So, like PZ, I was confused by this description of Dawkins:
Far from the vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens’s work is both appropriately respectful and right.
Seriously, in what parallel universe is Hitchens “respectful and right” and Dawkins constantly making “vitriolic diatribes”? I’m honestly confused–how is it even possible to get something that wrong?
What makes this particularly ironically timed is Hitchens’ recent screed against Obama.
Wingnuts as fiction writers: why, God, why? January 6, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in language and lit, wingnuts.2 comments
I’ve previously noted that wingnuts don’t do well as writers. I knew it, you knew it, we all knew it. So why did Jeff Fecke have to go and cause my eyes to bleed?
I won’t spoil it for you, but he’s excerpted a William F. Buckley sex scene featuring Ayn Rand. It’s the sort of thing they should read at abstinence only events–if anything could keep teens from having sex, it would be that passage.
The worst part, though, is that the suffering is passed on. I had to get the Lizard Queen to read it, so that I did not suffer alone. Someday she may even forgive me. Then again, I wouldn’t.
Real winners in Iowa: Democrats January 4, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Politics, Progressives, wingnuts.5 comments
Check out these numbers from Iowa:
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
That’s right, folks. Among those who caucused, the third place Democratic candidate solidly beat out the best-finishing Republican. Democrat caucuse-goers’ third choice got more interest than the best member of the Republican clowncar. What’s better:
In 2000, the last time there was a caucus in both parties, Republicans turned out 87,000 voters, while Democrats produced 59,000. There are around 600,000 registered Democrats in Iowa, and about 550,000 Republicans, but when you consider that on caucus nights, Republicans just need to show up and point to a name, while Democrats are committing to two hours of public wrangling, it’s not a surprise that more Republicans show up to be “first in the nation.”
[...]
Last night, the Republicans produced around 115,000 voters — an impressive 30% increase.But the Democrats turned out 236,000. That’s an increase of roughly one whole helluva lot.
Oh, the ways the Iowa Dems sets up their caucus does inflate the numbers a little bit–there’s n0 doubt about that. But with a super-long caucus, Democrats still found themselves bringing in two caucus-goers for every one the Republicans managed.
People are ready for a change, and they’re ready for a Democratic candidate to lead them.
Let’s hope the Democratic contenders see the writing on the wall and understand that now is a time to embrace progressives, embrace change. There’s no reason to cower before the Republicans: independents already like what Democrats are offering, and voters are already on board with popular policies like ending the Iraq war, providing health care and a social safety net, keeping abortion legal, and stopping welfare for the rich and corporations. Let’s hope the eventual Democratic nominee–whoever he or she is–sees that the mandate from the people is not to run to a “center” that is increasingly right-wing.
The news is good: let’s make sure our candidates understand why.
Conservatism: best defended by shouting “I Can’t Hear You” and pressing your hands to your ears January 2, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Right-wingers, wingnuts.add a comment
Chet Scoville found the best thing ever. As you read, keep in mind that the argument here is that “stupid conservatism” is better than the supposedly rational kind:
The stupid conservative, on the other hand, does not look for a higher authority than tradition itself. He is prepared to rest his case simply on traditional authority alone, without seeking to appeal to logic, or reason, or empirical data. For what reason gives, reason can take away. If hygienic rationality becomes the basis of our adherence to the traditional dietary laws, then scientific progress can easily provide us with a good reason to ignore these same traditional laws when they are found to conflict with the latest scientific findings.
See, if we decide what we eat based on things like reason and evidence, we’re liable to change our minds, and conservatism can’t have us doing that. Somehow, though, it gets better.
The same principle applies not just to eating pork, but to any of the traditional imperatives passed down from generation to generation. If traditional marriage needs to be defended by good arguments, then it stands or falls on the validity of these arguments, and where good arguments can be put forward to justify alternative “experiments in living,” then the authority of tradition as tradition is overthrown, and whoever comes up with the best argument carries the day.
We’re about to get to it, folks: the fantastic admission by a wingnut that reasoned debate is bad. You know, that the principle of the marketplace of ideas, unlike their worshiped Marketplace, is a problem. It’s like a late Christmas present of crazy!
The end result of this process is that intellectuals, trained to be good at arguing, inevitably gain an undue influence in the shaping of public opinion, while those who adhere to traditions simply because they are their tradition are left vulnerable to attack and ridicule because they have difficulty defending positions they have never found cause to question.
How many times have those of us on the left said that wingnuts are afraid of cognitive dissonance, that they have to hide from actual evidence and argument to maintain their positions? But I never thought I’d live to see the day where they would admit it, where a conservative would claim it’s essential to avoid arguments lest you hear points which might cause you to rethink your ideas. Yet here it is, and I couldn’t be happier.
In such a case, the traditionalist must either abandon his sacred ground, and learn to argue, or else he must be prepared to accept the derogatory label fixed upon him by the intelligentsia. In short, he must not mind too much being called stupid.
The conservative must get better ideas, or must accept his ideas are bad. Guess which one is being advocated? After all, when conservatism has been defined to mean slavish devotion to a mythical past, what else can one do? “Ideas” and “slavish devotion” don’t go real well together.
In a world that absurdly overrates the advantage of sheer brain power, no one wants to be seen as a member in good standing of the stupid party. Yet stupidity has been and will always remain the best defense mechanism against the ordinary conman and the intellectual dreamer, just as Odysseus found that stuffing cotton in his ears was his best defense against beguiling but fatal song of the sirens.
Chet points out that (of course) he’s mixed up his traditional metaphor. But even better, he’s just laid out something I can point back to each of the dozens of times a year I hear conservatives try to wriggle out of facts by “common sense,” who say that evolution or quantum mechanics or explanations of the large-scale structure of the universe must be all wrong because common sense says otherwise, or who argue that common sense says Iran is a threat, or that common sense says the market works, or whatever–I can pull out this essay and remind them that what they’re really arguing for is unthinking devotion to unexamined assumptions.
I’m a little let down now: I could go all year and not get this kind of gift from a wingnut. At least, theoretically–in practice, I know they’re the gift that keeps on giving, and they’ll surprise me again.
Now, back to chuckling about “stupid conservatives” and watching the car chase in Death Proof.
Atheists denied adoption on the grounds that parent’s belief might influence the child January 2, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Religion, bigotry.6 comments
[EDIT: This article is way out of date. My apologies. I'm hoping we now live in slightly more enlightened times, but given the hostility directed toward atheists, people of different religions, people of variants on the same religion, and people who have different points of view within the same religion, I'm afraid it might not be so out of date after all.]
PZ brought my attention to this exceptionally depressing piece in Time Magazine:
In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” Despite Eleanor Katherine’s tender years, he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”
The Burkes are now living in Carterville, Ill., near Southern Illinois University, where John Burke has worked for the past year as a speech pathologist. Nevertheless, Judge Camarata ordered the parents to send David’s sister back to the New Jersey adoption agency. Two weeks ago, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Burkes appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. If they fail in their appeal, Eleanor Katherine may have to leave the only family she has ever known and await adoption by another couple whose religious convictions satisfy the State of New Jersey.
PZ wonders if all those who claim Christians are under attack by Dawkins would stand up and complain about this, given that the exact same legal “reasoning” applied here could take a child from any parents. After all, aren’t Christian parents denying their children the right to worship Allah? Aren’t Mormom beliefs inherently biased against, say, Jewish beliefs?
But we’ll never see the reasoning applied that way, of course, because religion is the presumed standard. But it could be.
On a more personal level, this is just horrific. The idea that taking a child from her parents because of what they religion they practice–or which ones they don’t practice, as in this case–is antithetical to everything that we’re supposed to value: family, freedom, helping those in need.
This is truly heartbreaking. Fortunately, it seems highly likely that the decision will be overturned. I sincerely hope so. And I hope someone who shares Judge Camarata’s religious convictions–whatever those might be–will sit down with him and ask him just what sort of deity thinks the proper religious education for a child is to take her away from her parents. Then again, it was good enough for the Inquisition hundereds of years ago; why wouldn’t it be good enough for a supposed democracy?
Absolutely disgusting.
