Category Archives: Blog

An appeal to reason

Posted on by
Reply

A comment appeared in one of my stories which deserves some attention, and I would like to take the opportunity not only to clarify my position on the matter, but also to address many of the points brought up in his arguments. I thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss what my opinions are concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, lest my audience assume I am one sided on the issue.

We’ll begin with the letter itself, which reads:

One side of the story isn’t it [referring to the comment I wrote on the video featuring ‘Mickey Mouse’ enticing children to violence]? The Israelis have their own programs that put out propaganda against the Arabs, Muslim or non [sic]. In areas of Palestine, where the Jews have illegally claimed possession of land, Jewish children are to go to school before Palestinian kids, and when the Palestinian kids head off to school, they and their families get ridiculed and have rocks thrown at them by the Jews living there.

They live through this every day, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY! The UN has put out many resolutions and many documents that ask for the removal of the Israelis from Palestinian territory, but it hasn’t happened in decades! DECADES! From 1955 to 1991 alone, there have been more than 60 UN resolutions against Israel due to it’s [sic] treatment of Palestinians and their territory. So much violence! Even the small things that Israel does, is unimaginable! The Palestinians get stuck in traffic for hours if Israelis want to move and use the roads. The Palestinians have to pay fees and fines to use their own roads and streets and this right to use part of their own infrastructure is determined by ISRAELI soldiers! They have to have papers and permits to travel, live, worship and shop in their OWN COUNTRY!

People need to realize who owns the news and what restrictions are on the news that is being fed to the mainstream public. The diplomats that go into Palestine come out shocked and once they try to shed light on what is really going on, they are declared anti-Semitic, and have to work hard to remove that association from themselves and just quietly back down from the issue. When Israel invaded Lebanon, just some months ago, and bombed innocent civilians and residential areas and UN buildings with their PRECISION MISSILES, what in the world were you people watching?! They precisely hit the right targets. There was a documentary on PBS not too long ago that claimed that the propaganda, Jews against Arabs and Arabs against Jews, was being taught to kids and there were shows out there trying to reduce this. When are people going to realize that when people in that country live in so much poverty and chaos and daily violence and disruption, why would these citizens have attacks and more violence on their minds, rather than keeping their kids and families safe and trying to live out each day at a time?

If everything was peachy keen in their own lives, why would anyone go against a peaceful neighbor? Why would they risk retaliations on themselves, from a much, much more powerful, organized and well equipped Israeli military force, if everything was fine? Palestine doesn’t have an army. Who would go mess with someone much more advanced and powerful and definitely economically richer, when they have families to think of? Some people, whose families have been lost and died in this chaotic, nonsensical violence, get really angry. They want to retaliate, because they have nothing to lose anymore. That’s a hard thing to understand. These children’s programs against one group or the other are everywhere in that region; in Israel, as well as Palestine.

Don’t just believe that there is only one side to the news you hear about the middle east. Most of it people don’t get to hear. Surely, everyone who thinks critically can understand and respect that. You hear of one Israeli death and it’s publicized with as much sympathy as possible. Name the person or soldiers and their family members. Showing their family members on national news. Showing their grief. When several Palestinians die, each day due to conflict with Israeli soldiers – these are just civilians I am talking about – they are mention briefly and told in a way that no one remembers or cares. In fact, more often than not, it leaves the viewer with the message that somehow, it was the fault of the civilians, everytime, everyday?

Obviously, Ash here is very passionate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He brings up a few points I would like to address, particularly in regards to the propaganda he was referring to. First, I would like to indicate that Ash did not condemn the video itself, and jumped straight to the fact that Israel has its own children’s program to indoctrinate them against Muslims. Even if that were true, it does not diminish the sheer horror and vileness of the program itself. The children’s show was designed not only to create anti-Semitism, but to entice the very young to violence. I feel sympathy to anyone who has such restrictions placed upon them. No doubt Palestinians must feel like second class citizens within their own home. But their struggle does not justify the brainwashing of little children, nor should anyone believe for an instant that the violent assaults made on Israeli citizens is somehow justified as a consequence. Violence is never the answer, and the impoverished and desperate conditions of the Palestinian people will never be advanced by such actions.

This brings me to the second point. Ash asked why anyone would attack a stronger, richer, and more organized country. As the video demonstrated, so long as you begin to indoctrinate people at an early age, you can hope for an endless supply of radical followers who are motivated not by self interest, but by blind hatred and martyrdom. Are there any secular suicide bombers? No. The reason is even people hurt and angry at the loss of their family members are hard-pressed to take their revenge out on the innocent. They may hurl stones, insults, or far worse at the military, but few would strap bombs to themselves and attack a group of teenagers at a roller disco. For this to occur, a powerful mix of religious indoctrination, xenophobia, and complete surrender to people of authority is required. Anger and resentment is not enough; their enemies must be perpetually dehumanized, while simultaneously convincing young recruits that they will be given a special place for themselves and their families in heaven.

This brings me to my third point; that the peace process is impossible, so long as both sides believe the conflict is religious in nature. Over the years, many secular countries have attempted to resolve the conflict by proposing a number of measures to establish an official Palestinian state, all of which failed, not because of the lack of interest on the part of the Palestinian or Israeli people, but because their leaders refused to make the necessary concession needed for peace. Palestinian leaders, heavily influenced by various mullahs, felt that allowing Jews to live on their holy lands was completely unacceptable, while extreme Zionists argued that their holy text gave them historical rights to control all of Palestine. Israel’s claim to Palestine, based primarily on the Bible, and on little or no archeological evidence, is erroneous. We cannot, however, turn the clock back, and forcing millions of Jews to leave the area would be disastrous. Religion created the problem, which is why it must be eliminated from the discussion.

The level of indoctrination of Jews in Israel is light compared to the religious hatred inculcated upon the Palestinians by extremist religious organizations, such as Hamas. Still, Israeli politicians use fear to control their population into adopting measures that are far more conservative than they would otherwise hope for; a majority of Israelis want peace with Palestine, and support the idea of it becoming its own country. However, they simultaneously fear that such a move would create a totalitarian theocracy bent on their destruction, a fear that is not altogether unjustified.

So long as religious zealots on either side continue to use the conflict to further their own political and religious goals, Palestine will continue to be a miserable place to live. A strong secular movement must be put in place to eliminate the fear mongering and extremism each respective religion ensconces. It is my belief that such a move would drastically improve the situation for both Palestinians and Israelis, and would be a historical achievement in the peace process in the Middle East

Church reinstates Islamic department

Posted on by
Reply

Tensions are running high between the Islamic world and the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI. In order to avoid further alienation, and to improve relations between the two faiths, the Pope has re-instated the Vatican’s Islam department, according to BBCNEWS.com. The move means everyone can breathe a sigh of relief, since he will now have a little more perspective as to the sensibilities and grievances of the fragile and easily offended Islamic faith.

Although I do applaud the move for its sheer strategic purposes, I can’t help but feel the department itself is a testament to the need to placate a faith that has become dangerously reactive. It seems these days that everyone is walking on eggshells, lest we invoke the ire and anger of the Muslim world. The realities of such actions are clear and obvious; many fundamentalists are not afraid to resort to extreme violence at any provocation, and as such the Vatican has re-instated the one department that has the power to directly advise the Pope on the matter (probably reminding him that the two faiths have been at each others throats for a long time, and quoting any manuscripts from past eras is bound to contain anti-Muslim rhetoric).

Why can religions make the privileged claim that their philosophies and beliefs are beyond questioning and reproach? Why are we all muzzled or browbeaten when any word of protest is uttered? Are religions really that frightened of opposition? You would think their own aspirations to being the ultimate and universal truth would make them immune from the cries of others. Why should they care what we think if they alone hold a privileged place in heaven?

On the other hand, the Pope should be the last person to throw rocks, considering he lives in the world’s biggest glass house. Perhaps he has recognized that the last thing the fractured and continually waning power of his institution needs is a long drawn out religious fight. In either case, let us hope the department can keep Ratzinger from putting his holy foot in his saintly mouth.

And the title of “Second Worst Museum” goes to…

Posted on by
Reply

Last week I wrote an article featuring the completion of the Creation Museum in Petersberg, Kentucky, which is opening today. However, there is another museum, in Roswell, New Mexico that ranks perhaps as the second most credulous institution in America, and a recent article on CBC.ca prompted me to write a bit about it.

As far as mythology is concerned, it’s hard to beat the Roswell story. In 1947, a farmer claimed to have discovered a crash site containing ‘odd looking metal fragments’. The government announced the craft was indeed an unidentified flying object, but soon retracted their statement, explaining instead that the craft had been a weather balloon. Adding to the conspiracy, 8 years later the US military established an airbase nearby, fueling claims that some sort of cover-up was occurring.

Roswell has since become a huge tourist attraction, centered almost entirely on the mythology of an alien crash-landing. In 1992, the rather silly ‘International UFO Museum and Research Center’ opened to the general public. The museum, soft on facts and heavy on theory, features a messy array of ‘artist rendered’ paintings, drawings, and testimonials of UFO sightings. Anyone who has not bought the conspiracy theory is therefore instantly bored, as they are introduced to sketches of pale gray humanoids with almond shaped eyes; a vision so paltry and tired one wonders how much imagination went into such a creation.

The fact that a museum of a non-events exists in the first place is a sad testament to our credulity, and shows that it is not only religion that can hold sway to our irrational impulses. Even if an alien craft had landed, what sort of proof can the museum offer that is of any scientific merit? Their only research is into testimonials of abductees, all of which recount a cookie-cutter story of alien incompetence and obsession with sexual probing.

With the future opening of a theme park, Roswell’s tourist industry will no doubt boom, attracting more droves to the silly and laughably unscientific museum. Although admittedly it may cause no real harm to visit such a place, I shudder at the fact human beings allow themselves to be fooled so easily. Even if an alien vessel had landed there, how much information on the event could this place really report? What lessons can it hope to inculcate? Anyone interested in the least educational tour possible, once they are finished visiting the museum of lies, should make a stop here. Otherwise, stay clear.

Just whose God are we debating anyway?

Posted on by
Reply

Debating God is tough work. For starters, in most circumstances, the audience is not on your side. Agnostics and atheists are the minority in a country where the population describes itself as either religious or very religious. Secondly, anyone debating against the existence of God seems to have the difficult task of trying to disprove the idea, rather than rightly asking any of the claimants for proof. Finally, the last difficulty is the fact that as a general concept, ‘God’ is so loosely defined that any theist can easily wiggle out of tough theological questions.

The Audience is Not on Your Side

Any sports team will tell you how helpful it is to have home field advantage. There’s a palpable feeling in the air, a raw energy that can be drawn. So, undoubtedly, having the audience on your side is a great help. Sadly, support for the views of atheism is placid at best, hostile at worst. Though most Americans are taught that religious tolerance is a hallmark of good citizenry, it seems the same attitude does not apply when having no religious feelings whatsoever. In fact, when asked who they would least likely vote for as electoral candidates, atheists finished dead last in terms of minorities. Clearly, we aren’t wanted.

Although I won’t try and make any excuses for poor debaters having been unable to defend their points accurately, there is nevertheless a sense of hostility in the air as one tries to debate against the existence of a higher power. One gets the feeling such ideas are not very welcome, and such a debater is not likely to win any popularity contest. As a result, although there may be many individuals capable of defending the views of atheism, the reality is the expression of such views often make one terribly unpopular; even despised.

The Difficulties in Proving a Negative

Anyone with a scientific background will tell you any attempt to disprove a negative is a futile effort, not only because of the infinite amount of things that would need disproving, but also because the claim does not first offer the possibility of falsifiability. If I make a claim that an invisible, weightless dragon is in my garage (a favorite example from the late Carl Sagan), any attempts to disprove its existence will be met not only with resistance on my part, but also by the implacable and insoluble nature of my claim. Any claim made without evidence is baseless, and should be disproved without evidence. Unfortunately, with ideas as old and entrenched as gods, the weight of evidence is not physical, but rather historical; we’ve believed in gods for a long time, therefore, the argument follows, surely we couldn’t have been wrong for so long, could we?

Yes, surely we have been wrong about a lot of things throughout our comparatively short stint here on Earth. Historical claims, at best, demonstrate there is an odd tendency for humans to be religious, and at worst demonstrate, like old theories on what ‘stuff’ was made of, or how the Cosmos operated, they almost always start out by being terribly wrong.

Theologians Use Ever Varying Concepts of God

Luckily, in most circumstances, most of the time, debates remain fairly civil, and unless dealing with a radical, can be very constructive. But in general the three problems outlined above make debating God an often futile effort; in particular, the broad and all-encompassing definition of ‘God’ make the act of debate seem pointless. If I am engaging in an argument over the existence of God with a Christian, just whose god are we debating anyway? Am I debating about God the all loving Creator, the God turned Man, or a ‘Prime Mover’? Is it possible perhaps my opponent is himself unsure?

Let us suppose for instance a debate was going on. I would begin by making a case that the illusion of design is primarily responsible for our idea of God. We are easily fooled by the apparent intricacies of the human eye, or the vastness of the Cosmos, and attribute these to be the work of some divine planner. We’ve been doing this for some time; long before we had any real way of understanding complex forces without the use of an outside influence. If nature can satisfactorily be explained without a designer, then there is no need to include one in our hypothesis about how the universe operates. Even if we do run into problems, or gaps in our information (such as the origin of life or the universe itself), we cannot infer it is appropriate to interject a ‘God in the gaps’ to satisfy our incomplete view. The notion the universe could have begun (and this is a tricky word, since time itself is not a constant, and as such, the idea of a beginning is not the adequate picture) without an outside cause works based on the information we already have at hand. Even if it did not, our inability to comprehend why there should be a universe instead of nothing does not imply a creator.

My opponent might at this point argue that although it may not prove the existence of a creator, it is certainly is not completely negated either. Fair enough. I would be on shaky ground if I tried to argue that the universe functioning without the need for interference from a God instantaneously disproves the hypothesis. The ‘God’ that atheists will always be incapable of disproving is isolable, immune to any testing or verification specifically because the concept demands ‘he’ is. Such a deity is outside of reality and the universe, and as such, is not a relevant player in it. Although the theologians, apologetics, and other religious defenders argue in favor of such a concept, they do so out of the necessity to first possess a concept of God that is irrefutable to their own selective concepts upon. However, theologians are not interested in a God that is completely outside the universe; they require a deity who interferes with human affairs, who takes sides, who offers rewards, who can produce a son, or offer divine revelation to the few who can hear them. This God is not insoluble, since we can at least measure the impact ‘he’ supposedly has in human affairs.

Regardless of his tactic to prove the universe could contain a God of some kind, why would my opponent think the concept he has outlined in any way resembles the God he believes in? Why is it that apologetics engage in heated discussions about the existence of God fail to argue properly in the God as they so effortlessly define him as being Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent? Of course I cannot prove the non-existance of God as an entity who exists completely outside our realm of experience, but so what? That definition in no way resembles God as he is described in the Bible, or the Qur’an, or any other ‘holy’ book for that matter.

The recent debate of Sharpton vs Hitchens is a good example of this; Reverand Sharpton argued that Hitchens did not disprove God in his book, God is not Great, but rather mentioned only the evil and wrong-doings of organized religion. What does Al Sharpton believe? Well, his comment about Mitt Romney (tongue in cheek of course), who is a Mormon, not believing in the right God obviously demonstrates that he has a solid idea of what this God is, and certainly this God is the one contained within the texts that Hitchens so venomously attacks.

Sharpton, like all religious people, relies on the insoluble God to debate with atheists, even though, when the debate is broken down, the real argument is rather about an anthropomorphized and active God than the improvable one. We can measure such a God, and we can certainly refute it. The simple fact is prayer, for instance, has been shown to do absolutely nothing in double blind studies (in fact, people who were sick and knew they were being prayed for did worse). However, so long as any debater falls back on the insoluble concept of God (related more to deism than to theism), then the atheist is effectively wasting his time. He will never be able to disprove this idea, anymore than he can disprove fairies or goblins.

The miracle sex changing bird

Posted on by
Reply

I was both amused and stunned at the news this morning of a hen spontaneously changing gender into a rooster in Calcutta, India. The owner claims the chicken had been laying eggs but for a few days ago, when it suddenly stopped and began displaying male characteristics. The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science wrote a report in 2000 about how such changes can sometimes occur in nature, albeit rarely.

What makes this story all the more funny is that the owner, one Haziruddin Mohammad, has refused to hand the bird over for study, claiming the change is a miracle. Well, anyone who owns a piece of a supposed miracle is not about to part with such a prize, especially in India, where a man can do quite well for himself in terms of finances and respect for owning such a unique animal. Still, you have to be somewhat unimpressed if this feat was somehow meant as a display of God’s ‘awesome’ powers; if he’s so omnipotent, couldn’t he make a mountain turn into a giant pencil or something equally outrageous? Instead, we get a rooster that used to be a hen. All that means is that the poor owner now has to look elsewhere for a good breakfast!

Creation Museum set to open

Posted on by
Reply

If you’re unfamiliar with Ken Ham, the relatively famous (or is it infamous) creationist, you will know him soon enough. Ham is part creator and director of a new Mecca for young earth creationists, a 27 million dollar facility designed by Patrick Marsh, whose visual flair helped engineer the Jaws and King Kong attractions at Universal theme park. The museum hopes to attract a quarter million visitors each year, and the sophistication and glitz of the place promises to attract droves of the faithful to witness the serene and strange sights of animatronic humans gleefully living side by side with lumbering, fresh faced dinosaurs. The site is a testament to the unyielding efforts of creationists to spread the notion that the Bible is THE authoritative book on everything, including ancient history, cosmology, and (as this museum tries to show) pre-history. But the museum does more than simply assert the age of the earth as a paltry 6000 years; as visitors take a tour of the history of mankind, from its fall from Eden, to Noah’s flood, they finally come upon the modern age, displayed as a decadent secular world that has abandoned the values of God and church. The final image is of a young man leering over his computer, supposedly looking at pornography (the ultimate decadence it seems if one is Christian).

What strikes one as odd is the dichotomous nature of the museum, which seems to be both disdainful of science and progress while simultaneously passing itself off as scientific. Alternative explanations to evolution are everywhere: the chameleon does not change color as a function of natural selection; instead, it does so to apparently communicate with others, and to show off its mood. The museum even endorses its own highly specific version of evolution, arguing that animals are evolutionary offshoots of the animals rescued in Noah’s flood.

But the museum’s sometimes dazzling displays and sophistication gloss over the shallow and highly misleading interpretation of historical events by creationists. Gone are the rigors of scientific inquiry in favor of biblical pandering. Unlike a real museum, which houses researchers espoused to uncovering the truths about the natural world, this new Biblical literalist ‘Mecca’ ensconces religious propagandists intent on dismantling history and science as we know it.

There has been a great deal of protest in the US over the opening of the museum, which has somewhat delayed the previous scheduled opening. Alas, the effort is both in vain and counter-productive; regardless of the protestations of scientists and secularists, creationists simply refuse to accept any theory that undermines their religious convictions. Strong opposition only enforces the idea that they are being unfairly prosecuted by intellectual ‘fascism’. The museum is not the cause of scientific ignorance in America; rather it is a symptom of it. Attempting to shut it down is tantamount to putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

As creationists further remove themselves from the inconveniences of reality, they will continue to build whatever institutions they can to house their antiquated beliefs. A museum is perhaps only the start for them. Their ambitions extend far further. But the intellectual havoc they create is not impossible to combat, nor is it necessarily permanent. The will of the general American public has to push strongly for scientific education. Sadly, the average citizen is interested less in the pursuit of truth and more in the pursuit of happiness, which the museum undoubtedly fulfills for some. The way to fight this museum will therefore come not from protest, or even boycott, but from a campaign on the part of secularists of equal and greater vigor to ensure we do not become complacent and uncaring about the importance of science and reason, lest it become hijacked by those concerned less with the truth of the natural world, but rather by Bronze Age myths.

Death before naptime

Posted on by
Reply

I’m no fan of tyrannical dictators, particularly men like Saddam Hussein, even so, I can’t help but feel a certain regret that Iraq is now far worse in his absence. A scary story appeared on CNN.com today concerning the growing trend of violent rhetoric being expressed by kindergartners in Iraqi schools. One child was quoted as saying “I’m going to bomb, bomb, bomb the school with everybody in it,” while another claimed her father had given her a machine gun and had inducted her in the liberation army.
The problem is not merely that the Bush Administration horribly mismanaged the war; the very fact the conflict started in the first place only demonstrates how obviously distorted the perception of war in America is compared to its gruesome reality. For many Americans, they see conflict as the act of renewal; their very nation was founded on the principle of dissent and revolution. But the war that lead to their independence was nothing like modern wars, fought not on battlefields but in streets, libraries, and playgrounds. The children born and raised in this turbulent and violent environment become corrupted by it.

The victims of war, when they grow up, become the perpetrators of the same violence inflicted upon them. The option of peaceful coexistence is a concept lost amongst the sound of gunfire and smoke. Although it isn’t too late to turn the tide in this conflict, it seems as Americans increasingly demand to pull out of the mess they created, the opportunity to rectify their error becomes completely lost. What matters now is not whether the war was justified or not; the children of Iraq do not need vitriolic polemics. Instead, what they need now more then ever is the support of the very nation who launched them down this dark path. The question remains: will Americans own up to their mistake and fix it, or retreat, leaving these poor children to face the prospect of death before naptime?

Standoff in mosque

Posted on by
Reply

More trouble in Pakistan, as Islamic fundamentalists kidnapped two police officers and are holding them hostage in a mosque in Islamabad, asking that the government impose ‘Islamic rule’ in the country. The standoff continues, as the military is hesitant to take any action for fear of creating a volatile situation in a country that seems poised to become another fundamentalist state.

The rhetoric that spews out of the poorly educated mouths of these so-called students is an obvious sign that negotiations are not going well; they claim no responsibility for the crime of kidnapping, and instead accuse the government of being kidnappers themselves. How they see the logic in this is beyond me. It only illustrates negotiation is a useless endeavor with fundamentalists; they are interested only in the Islamification of Pakistan (and eventually the world), and any successful negotiation is simply a tactic on their part to allow more time for them to consolidate their power and plan their next move.

Pakistan is in a bad situation. On one side, if they intervene with the military, it may create even more attention and support to the cause of Islamic fundamentalists (which is highly undesirable for a nation with the atom bomb), on the other they cannot hope to meet any demand on the part of the kidnappers. It’s next to impossible to negotiate with individuals so deluded that they believe the kidnapping and (most likely eventual) murder of two innocent men is but a few broken eggshells on the way to heaven.

Religious statue damaged by lightning

Posted on by
1

It seems a little ironic that a statue in Golden Colorado, recently damaged by a bolt of lightning, may not be covered by the church’s insurance due to it being considered an ‘act of God’. The fact, however, that it hit and destroyed a holy symbol and doesn’t appear to unnerve any of the nuns there seems pretty weird to me. Bleeding statues and you have a miracle; a lightning bolt severs the hand of a beloved symbol, and everyone keeps mysteriously silent on the issue. Are they a bit scared they might have done something wrong to anger their god?

Personally, I’ve always found that phrase ‘act of God’ to be the magical words that keeps the insurance companies in business. I mean, isn’t God supposed to be the divine hand behind everything? Doesn’t he work in mysterious ways? Who are they to refuse to pay simply because they have a theological interpretation of a natural disaster?

In any case, I’m sure this won’t be talked about as a great work of miracle prowess. Just seems like what you would expect to happen if lightning bolts obeyed the laws of physics rather than the command of some andro-centric deity, unless of course, those nuns were up to some evil shenanigans.

The Persistence of Creationism

Posted on by
Reply

Why does Creationism and its cousin, Intelligent Design continue to persist in American culture despite the fact both have been exposed as entirely motivated by religion? Even though no serious scientists anywhere accept the baseless theories of ID, the general public in the United States is convinced a serious debate over evolution is being fought. Just what is going on here? As I will demonstrate in this article, there are three main reasons why Intelligent Design continues to persist, despite the valiant effort of scientists and other highly educated professionals. They are, namely, the fact  (1) people have a poor understanding of science, and evolution in particular; (2) Intelligent Design appeals to our intuition: the universe appears, at first glance, to be designed; and (3) there is a highly organized movement designed to systematically misinform the public, and replace biological science with creationist dogma.

What’s a Theory in Science, and why is Evolution right?

Despite the fact the findings of science are so pervasive in today’s society, influencing the way we view the world around us, and driving the technology that manages our complex and sophisticated society, most individuals have a poor understanding of the fundamental discoveries of modern science. So uninformed are we that we can easily dismiss a theory so thoroughly tested as evolution based only on the fact the word theory accompanies it. A theory is a guess, right? It means it isn’t proven, and like every discovery we’ve made in science, it will inevitably be invalidated, to be replaced by some other theory eventually, right? Well, no, not really. A theory in science is not a guess (that’s actually called a hypothesis), and although there have been times when a new discovery has displaced an old one, science more often than not builds on the foundation of other theories and models, constantly refining itself. If a theory is shown to be false, it is not generally discarded, since it may still work well to describe the natural world. Newton’s theory of Gravitation was shown to be inconsistent with the some of the findings of Relativity, but it is still used today because of its reliability in describing the movements of planets, stars, and even galaxies (incidentally, it was Newton who once said, in a letter to his friend Robert Hook, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”).

It is our poor understanding that makes someone unable to defend the theory from the sophisticated methods Creationists use to try and invalidate it. For starters, most of us would agree a ‘theory’ is a loosely based idea, a conjecture which has yet to be proven. It certainly sounds as though if something is only a theory, then it can essentially be disproven. But in science, the word theory means something completely different. It isn’t simply an educated guess, or some armchair philosophizing. A theory is a thoroughly tested model that describes a process of nature. Notable theories include the Theory of Gravitation, or General Relativity. No one would believe for an instant gravity was an incomplete model of how bodies attract one another, this despite the fact the theory has undergone certain changes since its inception. Of course, gravity is always being felt, and as such is a phenomenon we can directly observe. To deny the reality of gravity would be foolish. So why then is it so easy for people to dismiss the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact it is one of the most rigorously tested and proven theories in the history of science?

Evolution is a lot like geology; it involves enormous lapses of time. As such, in our lifetimes, we don’t really get to experience first hand the process of evolution, any more than we experience the drifting of the continental shelves. Human beings are pragmatic creatures; we tend to want to believe our senses are the best tools to understand the natural world. The mind, however, is not a laboratory, and sometimes plays tricks on us. Our intuition would have us believe the world as we see it today is unchanging, immutable. Of course, we know the earth did not always exist as it does today because of science, and not our intuition. For instance, geologists know, 250 million years ago, the continents were all fused together, in a super continent called ‘Pangaea’. The continents are actually still moving a few centimeters each year. The simple fact we don’t notice it does not mean it doesn’t happen. It takes rigorous science to uncover the truth about ancient earth.

Why does Creationism Exist?

If the scientific community is entirely convinced evolution is real, why do so many people object to it? The answer, unsurprisingly, is the Theory of Evolution is very troubling to many deeply religious individuals who feel the general randomness and lack of design in evolution contradict their notion of God as Creator. For most people who believe in God, the incompatibility of both evolution theory and the Bible seems to be a non-issue, but to religious fundamentalists, who demand their religious text be taken as literally true, the idea of a mechanism that contradicts the notion of the immutability of species threatens their core beliefs. It is in their interests, therefore, that they take an active role in trying to undermine the legitimacy of evolution in order to preserve their teachings. Obviously such activism is not to our advantage; undermining science is already having disastrous effects. The lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, for example, is drastically slowing down our ability to fight off viruses and other pathogens, which become resistant to treatment as time goes on.

There is a tendency, mostly among young people, to assume the teaching of evolution has been a staple of academic life for a long time. Alas, despite the fact the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection will soon turn 150 years old in two years (marking the commemoration of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species), the truth is for most of that time, the idea was not largely accepted by the public. In fact, in most parts of the United States, the teaching of evolution was banned. This changed almost immediately when in October 4, 1957, the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik, the world’s first man made object to orbit the Earth. This initiated a massive reform of various schools’ curricula around the country, focusing much more heavily on science education, which had previously been seriously lacking. It was believed at the time without such reform, America would be overwhelmed by a more scientifically advanced Soviet Union.

Although Creationism tried valiantly to make its way back into classrooms, vigilant groups like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) continually fought to keep it out, and to keep the institutions of religion and government separate. More recently, a group of very clever Evangelicals, funded primarily by a conservative religious think tank called the Discovery Institute, has revamped Creationism into the more scientifically sounding ‘Intelligent Design’ argument.

Why Is Intelligent Design Wrong?

The clever thing about Intelligent Design is, to any reasonable person with very little understanding of evolutionary science, it actually sounds plausible. For instance, ID’ers argue life is so complex, the odds of any one organism existing is astronomically huge. For all the components to come together simultaneously, the equivalent would be to throw a bunch of metal scraps into a tornado and expect a Boeing 747 to come out. It takes a clever person to realize just how flawed this reasoning is. Trying to measure the odds of something happening after the fact makes no sense. Life did not spontaneously come together. Instead, life evolved in a series of lengthy and gradual steps, from very simple organic molecules to increasingly complex and specialized species. Another Intelligent Design argument, one conjured by the ID ‘superstar’ Michel Behe, called Irreducible Complexity, states some organisms appear to have organelles which only work if all the parts work in conjunction with one another. His most famous example is the Bacterial Flagellum, a propeller like tail containing some 20 parts that act very much like a motor. Remove any one component, Behe argues, and the whole structure becomes useless. To the lay person, this would certainly seem compelling. But again, this argument simply fails to prove anything other than the lack of understanding of evolutionary biology on the part of Behe. Although he may be a biologist, he failed to realize his argument had already been discussed by evolutionary biologists, and dismissed. It was shown some species of bacteria contain intermediate parts of the motor which serve different purposes. Evolution operates this way; often adapting existing systems, and slowly converting them to serve other functions.

Behe’s argument is based on the idea intermediate improvements would somehow be inadequate to the survival of a species. What would be the point of half a wing, or 5% of our present vision. We will ignore for the moment the fact species currently exist that have intermediate stages of development in both vision and flight. The point is the very question ignores the evidence of evolution that shows any slight advantage over rivals, both as a result of an arms race from selective pressures from predators or from other individuals of the same species (competing for food), increase the chances of that individual to survive and thus procreate. What is the good of half, or even the quarter of a wing? Anything that can get you to get out of range of any potential predator is reward in itself.

All of these questions, even if they were valid, fail to even make a real case for Intelligent Design. Because ID is unable to create a model to replace evolution by means of natural selection, it has no predictive powers, and instead presents itself as a false alternative to evolution. In other words, ID tries to prove evolution simply to say ‘oh well, if they are wrong, surely we must be right’. Anyone familiar with the rules of logic knows this is a poor argument. The equivalent would be ‘You are not from Nebraska, therefore you must be from New York’. Even if the first premise was proven true, it does not follow that the second one is. You could be from any other state, or you could be from a different country, or even a different planet. The simple act of disproving one thing does not prove another in a case where a multitude of options exist. This is why science never tries to prove something with a negative.

Why Creationism Persists.

At the heart of creationism is the need for certain individuals to believe the accounts of the Bible are factually true. Though many of us would consider this to be only a small minority of the population, in the United States, Evangelicals are the fastest growing religion. Their growing numbers allow them to exert a great deal of political pressure. Since many of them vote for the same people, the ‘Evangelical Vote’ is often sought after by politicians eager to be elected. In exchange, however, these religious groups seek to gain an ever larger foothold in political decisions, and this includes trying to introduce Creationism in schools.

But the news is not all bad. In 2005, in Dover Pennsylvania, a landmark case shattered the hopes of ID’ers that  their pet theory might be accepted as a legitimate form of science. The judge, a Republican appointee, concluded Intelligent Design had serious religious underpinnings, and it failed to make its case as a type of science. The defeat has obviously not deterred those who wish to displace the Theory of Evolution as the supreme scientific explanation on the origin of life, but for now, the victory has begun to galvanize the efforts of those who fight to keep religion out of the classrooms. A growing number of scientists, who previously had refused to even humor the attempts of creationists to spread their faith based mythology in schools, have grown more vocal. They correctly see the usurpation of science threatens not just the future of scientific endeavors, but even the future of mankind. It is interesting to contemplate Creationism may in fact create the opposite effect ID’ers intended; mainly of bringing scientists together to fight against the purveyors of ignorance.

The making of a true movement…

Posted on by
Reply

Most atheists will tell you that the fact of holding a cosmological view that the universe operates without a designer is a statement about nature, and is not connected in any way, shape or form, to a movement. In fact, a number of atheists are disbelievers specifically because of the tendency for religions to exert their grasp in all aspects of life.

It’s important, however, to note that theories and ideas on the processes of the universe are not readily accepted by most. When Darwin published his book, On the Origins of Species, the majority of scientists at the time rejected the idea outright. It took the valiant efforts of his friends and contemporaries to pioneer this idea. It is because of their work that today we enjoy such an elegant explanation of how species evolve.

As such, we can never forget that ideas must not only be defended, but must fight with others that compete directly against it. The principles of atheism, although simple, are not readily accepted by more than 90% of the population. We cannot hope, as atheists, that others will come to accept that the universe functions without design, and without the assistance of a divine hand. Instead, we must all work in conjunction to help our fellow man see that instead of creating dread and fear, atheism and humanism create a sense of wonder and awe. The realization that we are animals, like all others, makes us realize we do not hold a special place on earth, anymore than an armadillo or orangutan.

What is at risk is our continued survival. Sectarian violence and fundamentalism are a natural phenomenon in religion, and as such cannot be dealt with through current religious institutions. We have a duty to combat the rise of religious intolerance through a campaign of education, open debate, and by making our voices heard.

At the same time, we should avoid the temptation to belittle and ridicule the faithful. They are human beings as we are, as fallible and corruptible as any one of us. For most, religion provides them with comfort and support, things they may not be privy to without their religious institution. Therein lies the problem and dilemma of modern atheism; the fact that many atheists are insular creatures, preferring to remain hidden and singular in their philosophies. What incentive is there for someone who belongs to a religious denomination to leave his community and support network simply to accept the truth about the nature of the universe?

We as atheists must also offer the same support and care that makes religion so appealing, but without any dogma, without the poisonous idea of faith, and without exclusiveness. Can we put aside our prejudices about the positive aspects of religion, and adopt the very best aspects for ourselves, or will we continue to be a fringe group of society, patiently waiting for others to see the light of reason? This is a foolish hope; without the appeal of direct compassion, community, and acceptance, atheism will always be fringe.

Let us show organized religion what we are all about. Let them know they do not hold a monopoly on compassion, acceptance, and morality. Let us move away from the safe insular bubble of self righteousness that we claim and create a truly great movement, based on principles of democracy, self-determination, clarity, and even humor. Let us not go quietly into the night, but rage against the dying of the light. Let the truth of atheism be the candle in the dark.

Ripping People off in the name of God

Posted on by
Reply

Many readers on this site may be too young to remember televangelist Peter Popoff. The only reason I know of him is due in no small part due to magician and skeptic James Randi. Popoff was a faith healer who achieved fame by making startling predictions about people’s ailments during his church services. He was even able to recite their address, as though God had given him a cosmic phone.

Obviously skeptical of this supposed supernatural ability, Randi decided to investigate. He was able to isolate a radio frequency transmitted by his wife to Popoff via a small earpiece, and Randi recorded it. He then played the tape on an episode of Johnny Carson (who was himself a magician and avid skeptic).Exposed as an obvious fraud, Popoff filed for bankruptcy, and disappeared.

Then, beginning in 2003, he started making a comeback, and opened up a church and employed his usual bag of tricks. A few years ago, Peter got creative; he began offering ‘miracle spring water’ on infomercials for free, claiming that if the participants followed the instructions to the letter, they would be blessed with a miracle. Although the tiny plastic reservoir of water was itself free, the instructions demanded that the water be slept with overnight, drank, and a check for 17 dollars be sent to his church. It also unleashed a flurry of mail, often demanding the recipients pay up to 200 dollars as part of their expected contributions.

To most people, such demands would seem outright ludicrous, but Popoff nevertheless was able to secure 23 million dollars in revenue for 2005 alone, thanks in large part to his clever schemes. Some people, desperate for a miracle, continued to blindly follow Popoff’s instructions; one couple spent over 5000 dollars, and had to stop when they ran out of money to buy food. Why would anyone allow themselves to be manipulated by such obvious schemes? The answer can be found in the way in which the supposed virtue of faith operates: in blindly following the words and advice of people in positions of so-called ‘divine authority’.

The imagery of God as a shepherd is no coincidence; we are deemed, by the 3 great monotheistic religions, to be unable to dictate for ourselves how to live ethical and meaningful lives. As such, we require the tutelage of God’s interpreters, who generally command a far greater understanding of scripture than we do; or so we’re told. If a priest says during mass, wine is literally transubstantiated into Christ’s blood, we are to take him at his word, despite the fact that our natural curiosity and observational powers would seek to refute it. Although the priest may himself be a well meaning human being who attempts to interpret his holy manuscript in the best possible way, the truth is his constituents are quite literally trained to trust whatever he says, and as such are unable to tell the difference between good and fraudulent advice. They must simply take him at his word.

So if a man has similar constituents to our hypothetical priest, and claims a plastic tube of water will cause its imbiber to witness a miracle, how are they to discern his true intentions? Is he merely trying to make money from these poor desperate folks, or is he genuinely offering a sacred libation? Well, therein lies the dilemma; we cannot criticize the victims of this spiritual hoax, because they were systematically trained to be unable to make that distinction. The fact that many of them do is not because of their respective faith’s doctrine; it is in spite of it.

Incidentally, it is this same reason that prevents any major religious organization from speaking out on the issue of fraudulent faith healers; any attempt to discredit them also places them in danger of being discredited. A fresh supply of faithful must always be maintained, even if such inculcation inextricably creates a highly gullible and vulnerable populace.

Popoff’s ministrations continue to defraud many thousands of people out of their hard earned money every year, all of them hoping for a miracle. We cannot blame the victims, and think them foolish for their credulity. We can only continue to harangue those who continually seek to bamboozle and defraud their fellow man, and try to clarify to the faithful why believing what they are told is a villainous trap.

Forced conversion fears in Pakistan

Posted on by
Reply

A recent article on BBCNEWS reports a tiny Christian minority in Pakistan is facing dire threats to convert to Islam or face annihilation. The group has asked the government to provide protection, though it feels not enough is being done to keep them safe. I just feel the need to ask: just what exactly is the point of converting these people? Evidently you cannot force someone to believe what you do, particularly with the use of force. It always surprises me how fundamentalists believe that their religion will eventually reign supreme, but somehow are too insecure to allow others to practice their own traditions. Surely, if God is on their side, all of this posturing is unnecessary.

I deplore violence, particularly on tiny defenseless minorities. Although I do not believe what they do, I would certainly never consider the use of force to try and make them share the same cosmological beliefs. My sad prediction is that the government will choose to turn the other cheek and allow tragedy to befall this poor group. I can only hope those in power see reason and recognize why such a minority needs the protection they so desperately seek.