Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

« Older Entries

Let’s Talk…Atheism

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

Ivy is a guest writer for State of Protest.

Just for a moment. While taking a break from some work, I — rather unfortunately — came across a few of the most ridiculous talking points for atheism that I’ve ever seen. Matt Slick, the Christian apologist, has a website which led me to CARM, and I happened to notice a “cut and paste” section in which visitors to the site are encouraged to copy and paste the arguments neatly listed for them. Please don’t take my word for it. Click the link and see with your own eyes. Now, this strikes me as incredibly humorous because, to me, most forums that have discussions of religious nature exist for the sole purpose of exchanging ideas and partaking in critical thinking (ideally). It seems to me that encouraging people to copy and paste arguments rather than figuring out arguments for themselves is detrimental to the poster.

In any case, with great interest I clicked on the Atheism topic. I was immediately dismayed. It’s fair to note that Slick says, “Please understand that these are not ’stoppers.’” They certainly aren’t. In fact, it is my belief that Slick is doing a huge disservice to his visitors by listing these points because they’re so common that any atheist in any debate forum will get pissed just for having to deal with the same old nonsense.

Here are just a few points from this site that gave me the most *headdesk* moments.

Slick begins:

Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do. They don’t have any evidence for their atheism and they can’t logically prove there is no God.

Now hold on there, Slick. We’re already starting off on a very huge misunderstanding. First, I think it’s helpful to define terms (it’s going to be important a little further down). So what is atheism? Atheism, at its barest, is a lack of belief in a deity. A — without, theism — God. Please note: this does not automatically equate to “There is no God.” That is a variation of atheism (sometimes called “strong atheism”). Atheism comes in shades, and the only thing each shade has in common is a lack of a deity. Some go all the way to denial (“There is no God”), but denial is not required.

Thus, atheism is not, in itself, a claim. If I am an atheist, I have absolutely nothing I need to prove (unless I am a strong atheist and my claim is, “There is certainly no God”). If I am not making a claim, I do not require evidence. Let me put it another way: assume that someone states, “There is a pink, magical monkey that lives in my room, often flying around at night while I sleep. It is invisible, so you cannot see it. However, I believe that it is there.” Now before this individual told you this, you held no belief of this pink monkey. You were an a-pinkmonkeyist. And after this person made the claim, your natural reaction is to say, “I have never heard of such a thing. Before I believe your claim, I would like you to prove it to me. Until then, I cannot believe you.”

Is it then logical for the individual to retort, “You have no evidence that my monkey doesn’t exist and you cannot logically prove that it does not exist, therefore, your position is illogical”? Certainly not. This is exactly why you cannot tell an atheist, “You have no evidence for your atheism” and “You cannot prove God does not exist.” The burden of proof falls upon the person who is making the claim. Unless coming from the position of strong atheism, the atheist has absolutely no claim to make and no burden of proof to meet. Right off the bat, Slick is mischaracterizing the atheist position (or at least failing to clarify that he is describing strong atheism).

Slick continues…

Please understand that these are not “stoppers.” But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions.

No, they are not stoppers. Nor are they particularly challenging to most atheists who hang out on debate forums or spend a great deal of time having these discussions.

Unfortunately, many atheists do become condescending, but I have a few points to make on that. First, the condescending attitude is not exclusive to the atheist community. There are plenty of theists who are just as condescending, in some cases even more so. It’s a problem for both sides, so I find it irritating that it is brought up here in such a…well, ironically, the way it’s mentioned here is quite condescending. Yes, just you see how long it takes for those heathens to become condescending. Right. Secondly, the condescending attitude, I think, often stems from frustration more than anything else (for both sides). When you repeat a point over and over and over while the person from the opposition does the same, both sides are likely to become frustrated and emotional. It’s almost inevitable, and happens to even the most level-headed of people who started the conversation with only the best of intentions. Sorry, Slick, this isn’t a problem of the atheist. It’s the problem of the human being.

So let’s move on to some of the points.

Ways to Attack Atheism

  1. By asking questions
    1. Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

1

I am an atheist for several reasons. The biggest reason is because I simply have yet to see any evidence for a deity, and all logical “proofs” for any sort of deity have been circular or otherwise logically flawed. I believe that people are basically influenced by their culture and the predominant religion found within their culture, and they come to the “truth” of their religion because that is the only religion they know. A devout Christian here would likely be a devout Muslim had he or she been born in the Middle East. I could go on and on, but I don’t want to make this all about the problems with theism and belief.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn’t that simply faith?

I have no idea how Slick comes to his conclusion here. My atheism needs no evidence because it makes no claim, so I do not see how I am taking anything on faith. It’s important to note that I would never claim with certainty, “There is no God” because I don’t know and I cannot know. I do not believe in a god of any type because I have yet to be shown that there is, but I do not claim that no god exists. I would assume many other atheists feel the same. There is no faith involved in that.

  1. If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.

As for Number 3, I do agree that my atheism comes, in part, from a lack of evidence for God, but I make no claim that there is no evidence for God. I claim that I have yet to see evidence for God. This does not hurt my position any because, again, I do not claim that a god does not exist.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence…like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?

I think Number 4 is silly because it appears that Slick is trying to mock, when it’s actually the closest he has gotten to what atheism is. I do not believe in screaming blue ants, and if we were to speak in a casual, practical sense, I would tell you they do not exist.

However, I could not claim with absolute certainty that screaming blue ants do not exist.

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren’t absolute). So, how do you account for them?

1) Why is a god required?
2) How are they conceptual by nature?
3) How do you know they are not properties of the universe?

There are a lot of problems with TAG, and the best rundown I’ve seen on the argument recently is the argument found here.

Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to “now” you’d have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can’t that be God?

Sure, why can’t it? Nobody said it couldn’t be. Now I ask Slick, why does it have to be God? How did Slick make that jump? Could a god have brought about the universe? Yes! But so could have any other phenomena that we have yet to discover. How do we know our universe was not created as a byproduct of a previous, dying universe? Why not aliens? Or if it’s a god, why must it be your God? Why must “God” be the very first answer?

The Universe exists

  1. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
  2. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
  3. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
  4. Uncaused Cause
    1. Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
    2. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

This goes back to what I was saying to the point above. The universe had a beginning. Yes. But to Number 2 I say, “Atheism does not NEED to account for our existence!” Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity. It does not seek to answer any questions or offer any ideas. Slick is criticizing atheism for not doing something it was never supposed to do in the first place! I repeat myself for the last few points: yes, something caused the universe. But there’s no way of saying that it must have been God. To immediately jump to a god as a cause is highly illogical.

Responding to Atheist Statements about God

  1. “I Lack of belief in a God”
    1. If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
    2. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not…or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of “lack of belief.”
    3. If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don’t you go around attacking that idea?

For Slick’s first point I say, yes, your cat is also an atheist! That’s why it’s silly to even have a word for a concept like atheism because you don’t have words for people who don’t believe in unicorns. I’m sorry if he finds the definition “insufficient” but that’s really what the word means.

As for the second point: Lacking belief is not necessarily a non-statement. And here is where Slick gets confused with terms like “atheist” and “agnostic.” Atheism and agnosticism deal with two separate things: atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge (a — without; gnostic — knowledge). Technically, all of us — theists or nontheists — are agnostics, and for anyone — religious or non — to claim otherwise is simply ignorant or dishonest. So back to myself — I am what is considered an agnostic atheist; I do not know whether there is a god because I cannot know, but I do not believe there is a god. If you are a Christian, you are an agnostic theist, meaning you do not know for certain that God exists, but you certainly believe that God does.

Lastly, the third point. Why do atheists not attack ideas like the pink unicorn? It’s very simple: I’ve never had a believer in the Pink Unicorn interfere with my schooling, my science, my sexuality, my life. No Pink Unicorn believer has ever flown planes into buildings; no Pink Unicorn believer has hated me without knowing me just because his or her Sacred Unicorn told him or her to.

  1. “I believe there is no God.”
    1. On what basis do you believe there is no God?
  2. “I don’t believe there is a God.”
    1. Why don’t you believe there is no God?

1) An apparent lack of evidence.
2) Looks like you’ve got a typo, Slick. “Why don’t you believe there is no God?” Well, I do believe there is no God. ;)

“There is no proof that God exists”

  1. To say “there is no proof for God’s existence,” is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn’t yet seen.

Again, we’re getting into agnosticism and atheism. I freely admit that there is perhaps evidence that I’ve never seen. However, at this point I would consider that unlikely because if there were such compelling evidence, it would be all over the place. I have frequented many forums, watched many videos, and listened to many people. I can say that after a while the arguments are all the same — just as the reasons for atheism are all the same. I would be delighted to hear anything I have not already heard.

“All of Science has never found any evidence for God”

  1. That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God’s existence through science.
  2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
  3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.

I would have to say that Number 1 is an exaggeration. There are many scientists who believe in a god, however, to say they “affirm evidence” is to say that there is scientific evidence, and scientific evidence would go through the process of peer review. If that were the case, the evidence would be confirmed as scientific truth (it would have to — science does not go by opinion), and there would be no debate over whether there is scientific evidence for a god. But if it has not gone through peer review, or has and failed to pass, then it is not scientific evidence, but rather a matter of subjectivity. So no, there has yet to be “scientific” evidence, so that covers Slick’s second point regarding opinion. Scientific evidence is scientific. It would be well documented and testable.

Slick’s third point is just a cop-out. So you declare God outside of the universe. Well isn’t that just too easy, as Dawkins once commented. Declaring God outside of the universe thus removing all responsibility of having to prove him? How convenient!

What is God? or Define God.

  1. God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.

First, I ask how anyone would know this about any god. You cannot cite a Bible or a holy text because for all we know the description of God is false. If you claim that the Bible says God doesn’t lie because God cannot lie because God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God cannot lie…see the circular argument? You do not know the nature of God. You cannot know the nature of God. Therefore, I cannot accept that definition.

  1. Prove your God is real.
    1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don’t love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
    2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgment of many types of evidence…because your presuppositions don’t allow it.
    3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
      1. When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count.

Right off the bat, if you cannot prove your claim, you cannot be upset if someone dismisses it. And in that case, you probably shouldn’t even get into these conversations. “Believe in God or you will burn!” Well, prove God. “I can’t prove God anymore than I can prove that I love my family, silly!” Well…okay? Then I don’t believe. Have a nice life.

For the second point, I need not prove that the universe is all that exists. I don’t know if the universe is all that exists. The only thing I claim is that I don’t hold a belief in a deity.

For the Number 3 — okay, Slick asserts that God brought the universe into existence. Great, but didn’t he also say, “Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count”? Oh, irony! For the umpteenth time, yes, the universe had a beginning. However, that does not automatically mean that the beginning was a god, and even if it was a god, it doesn’t necessarily have to be Slick’s God. How did the universe come about? I don’t know. But “I don’t know” is not a problem. “I don’t know” is an honest answer. Saying it’s a god is an opinion that could be right or could be wrong, but is no better than “I don’t know.” Atheism does not set out to explain where the universe came from. It is a lack of belief in a deity.

And lastly…

  1. Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism
    1. “Evolution is a fact”
      1. That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
      2. Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
    2. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
      1. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

This is, admittedly, very frustrating. These are very common points that people bring up regarding evolution, and I think it’s a shame that the subject of evolution isn’t better covered in schools. Slick’s questions show a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. So let’s wrap up this post with a brief lesson on evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

It is also a scientific theory.

Contrary to popular belief, a scientific theory is not “just a theory.” In the context of science, a theory is something backed up with evidence; it’s not like the colloquial use of theory that means a guess. Science considers gravity, the idea that germs cause disease, and that your body is made of cells all theories. All of those are scientific theories. And they are facts. Evolution is scientifically documented and hugely supported by evidence. I promise.

Now let’s get into this micro/macro nonsense. When I first saw Slick make that distinction, I knew I was dealing with someone who hasn’t kept up with his evolution research. Science makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution in terms of processes. Both are evolution. The only difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is time. Macro evolution comes from micro evolution. To say that macro evolution cannot happen while micro evolution can is akin to me saying that I can walk to my kitchen but I cannot walk to the state of Washington. I can, and it will take many more steps, but it is the same process. We get macro evolution from a lot of micro evolution. Slick is being dishonest if he tries to tell anyone that there is a difference.

Also, this “gap in the fossil” record is disingenuous at best. We have a very thorough fossil record. Let me demonstrate how opponents of evolution make the gap argument.

I have fossil A and fossil B. Someone says, “Well what’s the fossil between those?” I produce a fossil between A and B. Well look what I just did! Now I’ve opened the door for my questioner to say, “Well where are the two fossils that link it to A and B?” And so on. The more fossils I produce, the more “gaps” I have. It’s an infinite process. Are there gaps in the record? Surely. You cannot possibly have every single fossil that ever existed. You can, however, have so many that the picture is clear, and that’s exactly what evolution has.

As for Question 2, no, I have not read any books. I have discussed evolution with people on forums and in blogs, though, on many occasions and I have read several arguments against evolution. None of them have held water. Honestly, the majority of people (majority, not all) who don’t believe in evolution simply don’t understand what it is or how it works. Evolution does not say that everything came from nothing. Evolution does not say that life came from non-life. Evolution does not say that God cannot exist if evolution is true. Evolution doesn’t “fail to explain things like the eye.” In fact, evolution is probably one of the most important discoveries of science. Evolution ties together so many disciplines of science and biology that it has been said that none of these would make sense without evolution. Evolution is so important to science. And yet it is one of the most controversial topics. What’s worse, people seem to believe that there is still actually a debate over whether evolution is true. I assure you — science has moved on from that debate ages ago. Science does not question whether evolution is true. There is no debate. The only question now regarding evolution (in science) involves the specifics (“Does evolution work through punctuated equilibrium?”).

I would urge Slick to reconsider posting these copy and paste points for theists. All he is accomplishing is a gross misinformation campaign for his readers, along with depriving them of the chance to use their own reasoning when engaging in debate with those who don’t share their viewpoints.

  1. Editor’s note: The original website used multiple instances of lists of ones; not all of the quotes in this article reflect the exact numerical positions of the subparagraphs. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 8 Comments »

Carnival of the Godless #112 – Daylight Saving Time Edition

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

cotgbadgeState of Protest is honored to host the Carnival of the Godless #112. We first hosted COTG in May of 2008, Carnival of the Godless #91. That was rather successful, as I received comments like this, from Sean the Blogonaut:
“I really like the way that you have formatted the post with short excerpts from each of the articles.”

And from Christine, “This is one of the easiest-to-navigate, most-inviting Carnivals I’ve seen. Very nicely done!”

I hope to be able to create such a satisfactory COTG again. (Fortunately, this time I didn’t get repeated submissions about how “The Secret” is real, but I did get some pro-God submissions, yay.)

Not only is today a day that we are, once again, robbed of a precious hour, but it is also International Women’s Day. Please, in some way, celebrate the fact that none of us would be here were it not for women, and mourn the fact that women are still treated like second-class citizens (or much worse) all over the world today.

And now, without further French, Carnival of the Godless #112!

Oz Atheist suggests that you should Never put your cashews to the side. I know that whenever I buy cashews, I can’t stop eating them! However, Oz Atheist tells the sad story of someone who did put her cashews to the side, and how that’s an analogy for how religious people live their lives.

One evening she was having Chinese chicken and cashews for dinner at a relatives. As she found a cashew she would put it aside on her plate so she could enjoy all the cashews at the end of her meal.

Oz Atheist follows up his Cashew article with The Helicopter, or “somewhere someone is having a worse day than you.”

Recently whilst on a short jog (and thinking how my life had turned to shit) the rescue chopper flew overhead. I looked up and thought, “if you need the rescue chopper then you must be in serious trouble.”

Guest poster Mathurine at Tree Dreamer answers a collection of Questions for Ex-Muslims:

I don’t have an agenda against Islam, I’m not doing this because I suffered some trauma at the hands of Islam. Rather, I would like people to know some of the other aspects of the religion – the questions and answers you’re not going to get from your local mosque or Muslim Students Association.

A few articles dealt with the questions for atheists that Lee Strobel submitted to Friendly Atheist:
Hank at Dangerous Intersection follows up on those questions with some questions of his own for theologists and apologists in I ask; will the apologists answer?

How do you discount other religions, many with an equal or greater number of followers, which make similar claims to divine inspiration? How do their various claims of divine inspiration, miraculous occurrences and absolute moral authority fail to meet your standards of evidence?

and Friar Zero at Apple of Doubt joins the gang of atheist responders with his own answers to Strobel’s questions in An Atheist Snipe Hunt.

[Strobel's] questions are not the silver bullets that some seem to believe. They are not the best arguments against atheism or the questions most likely to plant the seeds of conversion in the godless.

finally, Conversational Atheist challenges Strobel in Response to: Who Would Die for a Lie?

Then Ask: Is a supernatural explanation allowed in order to explain the claims of Jesus’ disciples that they witnessed him resurrected and the 500 people that Paul talked to?

If no: then the person you are talking to isn’t a Christian. Simply explain that one cannot embrace the supernatural in his/her version and forbid others from using it in their explanations.

If yes: Propose the following situation:

The disciples were possessed by spirits who claimed that Jesus was resurrected.

Anthroslug thinks about morality in Thinking About Morality.
(Morality is a theme I’ve been assaulted with a lot in the past few weeks)

That religion is not the bulwark of morality against a rising tide of social ills is further illustrated by the fact that the non-religious make up a smaller portion of the prison population than of the general population. Independent of the question of whether or not religion causes social ills (a very complex question outside the scope of what I am writing here), it should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that if religious belief was in fact the source of morality, then belief in gods would correlate with higher rates of moral behavior, but this proposition is demonstrably false.

Cereal at Separate Spectrum (Your daily dose of bible thumping fun-time) addresses Systems of Right and Wrong.

I think it’s time for a new outlook on how we treat the guilty of our “people’s democratic justice system.”

From the Best Blog Names file, Wenchypoo at Wisdom From Wenchypoo’s Mental Wastebasket compares the relationship between followers and the church to the relationship between citizens and the government, with regard to belief and expectations, in A Faith-Based Nation.

For decades, certain segments of our society have put blind faith in government in the same way that some put blind faith in a god. Like the so-called “miracles” of loaves and fishes, parting the Red Sea, walking on water, and so forth, our own government is expected to do similar things…

Ila, trying to find a place in the world, asks What is atheism? Rather than settling with a mere (stereotypical) definition, Ila, instead, encourages atheists to reach beyond disbelief, but in a positive way.

I cross referenced these two terms in the dictionary and came with “The doctrine or belief that there is no God. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” and “Someone who denies the existence of god.” But i would like to see atheism in a different perspective.

Mark Koester at The Mystic Atheist (Understanding what it means to be “the still point of the turning world”) compares the Word of God (a story already told) to The Word of Science: A Story Still to Tell

Atheists often find blatant error in religious people’s claim at truth and meaning in such sources. But such a judgment ignores that people generally don’t look at these stories and communities through the lenses of scientific reasoning but through the lenses of a broader, more primordial human phenomenon: narrative truth and storytelling.

Cubik’s Rube disassembles Pascal’s Wager, explaining why the gambit isn’t convincing to non-believers.

His most famous argument for believing in God, based on his analysis of the odds and outcomes of belief versus disbelief, is repeated more often than any twelve episodes of Friends on late-night satellite TV channels, and judging by the way it’s often used, has shown as little progress or development in the three centuries or so since it was first proposed, as Ross did over ten seasons.

Greta Christina addresses the origin of the “Shut up, that’s why” arguments against atheists and atheism in Curiosity and the “Shut Up, That’s Why” Argument. Greta’s summary:

Why are conversations between atheists and believers often so frustrating for both sides? And is there anything we can do to make those conversations go better? The thesis of this piece: In atheist/ theist debates, atheists assume that believers are insatiably curious and looking for a consistent and plausible worldview… and believers assume that atheists are looking for an appealing worldview and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We need to recognize these differing, cross-purpose goals if we want these conversations to be productive.

Sound byte:

I think that, when we argue with theists, atheists tend to assume that of course theists want to know the truth. Of course they want to follow the God question to its logical conclusion. Don’t they?

and then Greta Christina, in Atheism and the Argument from Comfort, counters the argument that religion offers comfort while asserting that atheists should stop arguing against it. Greta points out flaws in the argument and offers strategic suggestions on how to deal with the believers who make it.

It’s an argument that tends to drive atheists batty… since it’s not, in fact, an argument. It’s an emotional defense for hanging onto an argument that’s already been lost.

Romeo Vitelli at Providentia tells the tale of an almost forgotten tragedy from history, in Fallen Women.

Long before Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code, the legend of Mary Magdalene was a strong part of early Church doctrine. Despite the lack of any scriptural basis, the tradition of Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute who found salvation through repentance made her the natural patron saint for convents in which “problem” women could be redeemed.

Luke Muehlhauser at Common Sense Atheism analyzes The Explosion of Early Christianity, (Explained), asserting that it’s simple math, not a miracle, and it’s much less impressive than the growth of Mormonism or atheism in the 20th century.

Exponential growth explains the explosion of Christianity perfectly. In fact, it also explains why Christianity seemed insignificant until about 300, when it suddenly became a huge force in the Roman Empire.

SocraticGadfly shares some poetic reflections on religious outcasts, starting with the literal ones in India, in Outcasts in the name of gOd.

In the American South, in the land of cotton,
Old bible passages were not forgotten
But were twisted, to look away from the evil
Of black slavery in Dixie land.

Eric Michael Johnson at The Primate Diaries (Notes on science, politics and culture from a primate in the human zoo) discusses a new study about the origins of moral disgust in The Bad Taste of Moral Turpitude.

The greed and avarice responsible for the current economic meltdown has resulted in a growing distaste for business as usual. As it turns out, evolution may explain just why this is.

Angus Stocking at Belief Systems and Other BS asks a profoundly simple but ignored question about the nature of the Christian god in relation to that deity’s alleged son, in Oh Jesus.

In fact, Jesus appears to be stating in the plainest language possible the core message of all mysticism: that even though humans live in separation, union is possible – that we poor, pitiful, separate and alienated humans can, by grace, directly experience unity with the divine.

As Crowley said of Jesus, “I don’t blame the man for the religion foisted upon him after his death.”

Seth at Whiskey Before Breakfast tells us the story of the skinny gay kid.

Kids, if your parents are a hypocritical, child beating, cable stealing, environmentally moronic creationist fuckwad Methodist Deacon and his cowering sycophant of a wife, do not bring your crazed, hard drinking, drug taking, sexually liberal debate veteran friend home to stay for Easter Weekend.

(Nominating that for the quote of the year)

Matt Pritchard at Christian 2.0 (not an atheist blog, but the article does relate to atheism, and I felt it was fair to post it here) posts a compilation of conversations between himself and atheists from the atheist blog site Uniform Velocity, and asks (apparently Christians) whether their aim is to mend or to destroy when conversing with atheists, in Atheism: Mend or Destroy? Of course, the author could have been asking atheists. Perhaps both.

To the Christian reader: I want to show that it is possible to have a real conversation with someone who holds different beliefs, about their beliefs (or non-belief), without being hostile.

Danny Boy at Verbal Razors writes about The god of the gaps.

We have much to be thankful to our current state of knowledge. But just as we are marching forth into the future, people still stuck in the past are planting their feet in the ground and demarcating areas where our inquisitive spirits must not go.

Ron Britton at Bay of Fundie (Keeping the Radical Right at Bay) hammers Creationist Kevin Wirth’s article promoting the teaching of intelligent design in schools, in This Dork Couldn’t ID Farce if it Were Designed by God.

The ridicule and the insults are for our amusement! Watching you creationists is like going to the old circus freakshow and laughing and pointing at the freaks, but without the guilt!

PhillyChief at You Made Me Say It… explores the need to indulge the inner child and imagination, and what happens when you don’t, in Inside-Out Jammies.

The past two days were fun escapes from reality, indulgences in the unrestrained fun, excitement and imagination of childhood. I don’t see any serious harm in such escapes, and certainly I don’t see why one’s imagination must be shelved along with other toys and trinkets of childhood.

Chris Hallquist at The Uncredible Hallq examines The Plantinga-Dennett debate.

On the “low” half of the argument, Plantinga has some ideas about how maybe false beliefs could work out to be adaptive, somehow, but none of it amounts to a real argument that the odds actually are against us.

Samson Blinded (a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict) suggests that Christian friends might not be ours.

A Christian state of America rather than Muslim Egypt forced Israel to give away the Sinai. Christian powers finance the Arab wars with Israel by oil purchases, and enable those wars by selling Arabs advanced weapons.

Z at It’s the Thought that Counts shares a thought experiment to illustrate how it’s possible to have moral principles regardless of your belief in God, or in the absence of a god’s commandments, in Choosing between God and Satan.

So let’s imagine that two beings manifest themselves to you, both claiming to be God, and both demonstrating extreme power, far beyond your comprehension. How do you tell them apart?

Last, but not least, Andrew at Evaluating Christianity explains Why The “Minimal Facts” Model is Unpersuasive.

The underlying problem is one of selection bias: if an intelligent and informed person thinks the Bible is probably true and therefore significant, he or she is more likely to pursue a career in biblical study and then publish his or her findings (confirming that the Bible is true). If, however, an identically-qualified person thinks the Bible is probably false and therefore not significant, he or she is dramatically less likely to trundle off to seminary regardless, and is exponentially less likely to publish his or her findings confirming that the Bible is false.

—

Thank you for your submissions and your support!

Please keep submitting on the rolling Carnival of the Godless submission site. The next COTG host will be at Daylight Atheism.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in COTG | 8 Comments »

Darwin and the Journey of Evolutionary Theory

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

I recently had the pleasure of attending a lecture by historian of science Dr. Michael Shermer, paleontologist and geologist Dr. Donald Prothero, and biologist Dr. Joel Smith. These men provided insights into the life of Darwin and how evolutionary theory, and the methods by which we study it, have changed since Darwin’s time. I would like to share a bit of my experience and what I learned at this event, but since I am far from a scientist, I must implore the reader to consider any errors herein to be my own misunderstanding (or poor note-taking) and not the errors of these great minds.

Dr. Prothero can speak about as quickly as he can think, and he managed to fit an enormous amount of information into his brief allotted time. Dr. Shermer later quipped that Prothero is the only man he knows “who can fit a three hour lecture into thirty minutes!” Dr. Prothero took us on a frenzied tour of the entire history of evolutionary theory, from Darwin to today. During Darwin’s life and the following years, evolution was widely accepted as fact in the scientific community, but acceptance of Darwin’s method by which it occurred, natural selection, was hard-won. Even after the importance of Mendel’s findings in the field of genetics was realized in the early 20th century, the majority of scientists still did not view natural selection as plausible. George Gaylord Simpson’s book, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, began to change this view by demonstrating a consistency between the facts of paleontology and those of natural selection and genetics. However, Simpson believed that genetics alone was sufficient to explain what was observed by paleontologists.

By the late 1950s, there was little controversy or dissent about the methods by which evolution occurred, but in science this is not a good thing; science gets better through being challenged. This challenge came in the 1970s, when the theory of punctuated equilibrium was brought to fruition, demonstrating the inaccuracy of the “Galapagos finch” idea that organisms are infinitely flexible in their ability to adapt, evolving in one gradual, smooth line. Rather, long periods of stability are observed, even during extreme environmental changes. In fact, there was close to no observable response to the largest climate change in the last 65 million years, the Oligocene cooling event. Darwin’s friend, Hugh Falconer, actually warned Darwin that stability of Ice Age Mammoths through glacial cycles was common. The majority of Pleistocene mammals display stasis. Yet, this does not mean that the concept of phyletic gradualism is entirely incorrect. Punctuated equilibrium is actually a form of gradualism, and when huge geological time scales are taken into consideration, the tiny incremental changes from one generation to the next become apparent.

According to Prothero, Neo-Darwinism, and the idea inferred by George Gaylord Simpson that genetics has made paleontology somewhat obsolete, still dominate in classrooms. To paraphrase the late Stephen Jay Gould, ‘A revolution has occurred, but the textbooks don’t show it!’ Neo-Darwinists don’t distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, and geneticists working with fruit flies simply can’t take into account the massive time scales that paleontologists and geologists work with. When “species sorting” is considered to be on a different hierarchical level than individual natural selection, a much more accurate picture can be drawn.

Next up was Dr. Joel Smith, who gave us a peek into systems biology and some of the work he has been doing with genome sequencing, gene expression profiling, and perturbation assays. Systems biologists are able to graph the genes of an organism, knock out or “perturb” one individual gene, and observe the effect. In working with sea urchin embryos, they have been able to synthetically recreate evolutionary change. Sea urchins and sea stars share a common ancestor and at some point, sea stars ceased to develop larval skeletons, while sea urchins did not. By transplanting the regulatory sequences of a sea urchin’s genes into a sea star embryo, they have been able to cause the sea star to develop a larval skeleton. Dr. Smith believes that this method of experimentation may help us draw more general rules for how evolution takes place and help us make predictions about how evolution will occur in the future.

The delightful Dr. Shermer finished up the event, beginning by showing photos from his recent trips to Darwin’s stomping grounds in the Galapagos Islands and England, and the Creation Museum in Kentucky. He shared some of the “wisdom” he acquired at the Creation Museum, such as the real age of the earth (4004 B.C. – about the same time the Mesopotamians invented beer), the real reason we have viruses and diseases (The Fall), and the real reason T-Rex had such fearsome and sharp teeth (so that it could crack coconuts!)

In Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, Dr. Shermer visited Darwin’s home and school, and he shared some of Darwin’s life story with us. Darwin’s mother died when he was eight years old and, since his father was very aloof, he was essentially raised by his sisters. Although his father wanted him to follow in his own profession, medicine, Darwin was distressed by the fact that, at that time, surgery was a bloody, screaming affair, without benefit of anesthesia. Darwin had a fairly liberal religious upbringing, and while studying at Christ’s College, Cambridge, he became engrossed with many of the then popular works of natural theology, which sought to unite nature with religion. Later in life, Darwin lamented on the “cruel works of nature,” and this observation of cruelty, in addition to the death of his young daughter, led him to disbelief. He adopted the label of “agnostic,” which was a term coined by his friend, Thomas Henry Huxley.

Although it is commonly believed that Darwin discovered the theory of evolution while he was in the Galapagos, he did not begin to put together these ideas until much later, in the years following his five year voyage on the HMS Beagle. In fact, rather than noting the differences in the various tortoises while there, Darwin ate these tortoises on his journey! At that time, it was commonly believed that all truth could be derived from merely thinking about it. Testing and observation were not the norm.

Darwin was a gentleman scholar, but he was also competitive. He had planned to postpone the release of On the Origin of Species until after his death, in part to protect the sensibilities of his evangelical Christian wife, but after he became aware that Alfred Russel Wallace had reached similar conclusions about natural selection, he decided to proceed with the announcement of his findings. His theory was given its first public exposure at the Linnean Society meeting of 1858, and its legacy has endured.

As many of you know, Darwin would have been 200 years old this month, and I can only imagine how awestruck he would be to see the journey his theory has taken. Happy Birthday, Darwin!

-Laura

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Science | 2 Comments »

Sharing the Epiphany of Disbelief

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Steve-Doug is a guest writer at State of Protest.

As atheists, we feel compelled to share the epiphany of disbelief. Unfortunately, finding a mode to convey our rationality often undermines the powerful sensations which accompany the reduction of myth-based doctrine. Certain stereotypes of activism need to be addressed; there are, in fact, more opportunities for activism than the average heathen may be aware of. While operating prestigious science blogs, writing numerous best-selling diatribes on faith, and donating hefty sums to atheist networks and coalitions certainly advance the cause of godlessness significantly, these are not the standards of activism we as laypeople must set for ourselves; it is just not feasible for us all to utilize these vehicles of activism. Rather, we can observe openings in our daily interactions which can facilitate the dissemination of rationality and scientific literacy.

My own conversion to atheism occurred almost a year after I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a type of cancer which infects the body’s lymph nodes. Despite being only fifteen and very religious, I was still very unwilling to preserve this belief system when prayers went unanswered and skeptic inquiry into Christianity yielded no intelligent answers. Chemotherapy being just as debilitating as it is known to be, my social interactions were greatly limited and I depended on the internet to express and develop my deviations. The online game Star Wars: Jedi Outcast grew to be a virtual outlet for my social needs. The game catered to tight-knit virtual communities, and it wasn’t long before I had established very strong friendships with a group of players of varying religious stances. Of these players, I found myself steadily growing to regard the fundamentalists with much reproach, while the pantheist, agnostic, and atheist members encouraged my skepticism. Before long, my beliefs had no common ground with the fundamentalists.

While I was exploring the concepts of atheism, I became transfixed by the mechanics of evolution, a subject almost invariably linked to disbelief. The poetic antithesis of complexity and simplicity characteristic of natural selection occupied my mind at great intervals. Naturally I was very distraught when, after discussing evolution in general terms, my fundamentalist friends professed rejection of the theory. In their dismissals classifying the theory as luck-based, entropy-violating, and largely speculative, it also became clear that they had no understanding of the actual theory; rather, they had crafted an insincere amalgamation of absurd statements which could only be said to resemble extreme misinterpretations of evolution. Noting their inability to be swayed by well-structured argumentation, I decided that I must take it upon myself to illustrate the true mechanics of this process in terms that would register with them. I set out to design a modification for Jedi Outcast which showed how the theory worked in accurate terms.

The modification consisted primarily of a custom built level designed in an urban setting. Throughout the level, pop-up text informed players of key concepts they were observing. Pictured below is the “starting point” of the level.

Once inside, players witnessed robots with design codes. The robots were analogous to organisms, while the design codes represented the genotype. The codes, or genotypes, explained the physical attributes of the robots; i.e. shape, resistance to fire, ability to travel across water, etc. In the following rooms, robots with different codes attempted to traverse difficult landscapes. If the robot made it across, it was stated that its traits were suited to survival and would get to be continued in the next generation of robots. Consecutive rooms provided different challenges, establishing the theme that what is effective in one generation and environment is not always effective in another; thus variability is needed. Pictured, different robots traverse a harsh environment.

Pic 2

The final area of the level was constructed to resemble Richard Dawkins’ image of Mount Improbable: a large gap separated two ledges, at one a large and rather complex machine and at another a small and not-so-complex machine. Players were encouraged to attempt to jump from ledge to ledge, but this was impossible. Instead, a gradual slope ran along the mountain with “transition” machines spaced at intervals along the slope until the player had gradually arrived at the complex machine. This illustrated how organisms do not “jump” from species to species, but rather move in slow alterations. Players were greeted with two pop-up footnotes: the first denounced the phrase “transition organism” as purely for use of explanation, as all organisms (or in this case, machines) are transitory; the second stated that evolution is in no way a goal-oriented force. Evolution does not seek to craft complex machines, heat-resistant robots, or human brains. Evolution simply sees to it that designs which suit their environments succeed in replication. In this case, the environment has rewarded generator-like designs. Pictured is Mount Improbable, with the machines highlighted in the attempt of allowing them to be seen more clearly.

Pic 3

At the close of the level, players were told that the representations in the level were very much generalized and reduced for the sake of illustration, which is perhaps an understatement. Although my graphic representation was not as detailed or analytical as a published treatise on evolution, it provided an effective illustration as an introduction to evolution, especially for people who dismissed evolution based solely on handy catch-phrases developed and promoted by religious-based opposition.

In the end, this endeavor proved to be bittersweet. On the one hand, my fundamentalist friends were greatly informed by the representation. Several openly professed that they had a complete non-understanding of the theory beforehand, and now had some understanding, simplified as this understanding may be. However, none were able to accept the theory. Holding an understanding of how evolution works, they could no longer assault the theory under false pretenses. They were thus resigned to utilize only unclear pseudo-philosophic arguments stating that faith was absolute and what we observe could be satanic trickery. It is my belief, though, that their confinement to such ridiculous arguments devoid of empirical backing emphasizes the denialism of creationism to such an extent that rejecting its pseudoscience becomes substantially easier to the layman who might believe that there might be some legitimacy in creationism. I have come to believe that even if our non-scientific opponents fail to find themselves swayed by the scientific method, removing any doubt of rationality from their arguments is the only effective way to control their propagation. Even though we may not always hold the burden of proof and evolution has certainly secured itself beyond significant scrutiny, I should gladly take the opportunity to explain the rationality of science to the ignorant in the effort to reduce any perceived eloquence of pseudoscience.

As I hope my example has showed, there are extraordinarily varied options for spreading the cause of rationality. It is up to the individual to identify and take advantage of opportunities for such activism. It must be remembered that rational inquiry seldom sways those utilizing the reality-limiting perspective of faith, and we must try not to be discouraged. The frustration accompanying an opponent’s refusal to acknowledge scientific principles can make debates almost unbearable. The practice of “keeping quiet” instead is on par with aiding the spread of pseudoscience, and as such, I will gladly explain the principles of reality to the staunchest of fundamentalists in lieu of silence; I know I’m not the only one.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism | 2 Comments »

46% of Oklahoman Education Committee Members are Idiots

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Good news: The Oklahoma Senate’s Education Committee has defeated legislation that would have allowed classroom discussion of alternative theories of evolution. Like Creationism. And Creationism. And, of course, we can’t forget Creationism. Even if in the guise of “Intelligent Design.”

Bad news: The vote was 7-6 against.

The bill: Senator Randy Brogdon’s Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.

The crime: Assuming there should be freedom to fuck up the minds of schoolchildren with bullshit that is completely rejected by the academic community.

Check out a petition in favor of a similar bill from 2007 that I found, and the accompanying sample bill, apparently promoted by Discovery.org, which is the website of the Discovery Institute. According to Wikipedia, “In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”, and the institute’s manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”:

Do you want to defend the academic freedom of teachers and students to study all of the relevant scientific information relating to evolution?

In many states teachers, students, and even college professors have faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempt to discuss scientific criticisms pertaining to evolution. This assault on academic freedom is antithetical to our traditions as a free society and to the progress of science itself, which depends on robust debate and critical inquiry. It is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to freely discuss the scientific debates over evolution in an appropriate manner.

Here is a sample academic freedom bill that would protect the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution.

If you have questions please e-mail Casey Luskin, cluskin@discovery.org, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute.

MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION
[version: 9/7/2007]

SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution. The Legislature further finds that the topic of evolution has generated intense controversy, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, where some lower courts such as Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, have created confusion about the rights of teachers and students to hold differing views about scientific controversies and express those views without fear of adverse employment or academic consequences. Finally, the Legislature finds that school districts and school administrators should not bear the primary burden of defending the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the topics of biological or chemical evolution. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ______________, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ___________, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the [insert official title of state’s science standards] has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when the subject of biological or chemical origins is part of the curriculum. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Section 8. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

This appears to be the actual bill presented:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

SENATE BILL 320 By: Brogdon

AS INTRODUCED

An Act relating to schools; creating the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act; providing short title; stating Legislative findings; directing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators to create certain environment within schools; permitting teachers to help students understand certain information about scientific theories; disallowing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators from prohibiting teachers from helping students understand certain information about scientific theories; providing for evaluation of students based on understanding of course materials; prohibiting penalizing of students for holding certain position on scientific theories; prohibiting certain construction; directing State Department of Education to provide certain notification; directing superintendents to disseminate certain information; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 27-101 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act”.

B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

C. The State Board of Education, district boards of education, district superintendents and administrators, and public school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

D. Neither the State Board of Education, nor any district board of education, district superintendent or administrator, or public school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

E. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.

F. This act only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this act shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. On the contrary, the intent is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie their interpretation.

G. By no later than the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the State Department Education shall notify all district superintendents of the provisions of this act. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within the district a copy of the provisions of this act.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective July 1, 2009.

SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

Let’s celebrate the success of reason, but mourn the fact that it came so close, and you know someone will try to pass another of these laws every year in this and other states.

UPDATE via TUIBGuy:

State Representative Thomsen has introduced this bill:…

A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of certain scientific theories; and directing distribution…..

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma;…

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

TUIBGuy’s responds, in part,

What the legislator fails to understand that a fair discussion of the alternative theories of evolution would be something he doesn’t like at all. I hope that he is proud, though, in his quixotic quest to keep the likes of Dawkins out of Oklahoma, to show how much he values Academic Freedom.

Head on over there for the full text of the bill and the rest of the response.

State of Unintelligent Design

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Logic, Religion, Science | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries