Posts Tagged ‘theory’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Oath, Shmoath. Obama was President at Noon

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Yes, so some idiots are asserting that Obama is not President until he swears the correct oath. (And some not so idiots are still asserting that Chief Justice Roberts had no authority to modify the language of the oath with “so help me God,” and that could invalidate at least the oath, although there’s no prohibition against Obama adding his own bit at the end). Indeed, the Constitution states rather clearly in Article II, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘‘I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’’

That’s either modified or made obsolete by Section 1 of the 20th Amendment, which states:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Some experts and historians claim that as of noon, power automatically switches from outgoing to incoming presidents. To me, that makes the most sense. Better to have a president in office than have a hiatus where the question arises regarding whether the Vice President is temporarily the President, whether during the hiatus, the outgoing President is president, or whether there is no president.

I think, though, that this issue has already been considered and fairly determined by the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution: Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States: Supplements to the 2002 Edition, found on the GPO Access website.

The annotations for the Oath:

What is the time relationship between a President’s assumption of office and his taking the oath? Apparently, the former comes first, this answer appearing to be the assumption of the language of the clause. The Second Congress assumed that President Washington took office on March 4, 1789, (107) although he did not take the oath until the following April 30.

That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions based on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. (108) The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. (109) And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory, but only in passing. (110) Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.

107: Act of March 1, 1792, 1 Stat. 239, § 12.
108: 2 J. Richardson, supra at 576. Chief Justice Taney, who as a member of
Jackson’s Cabinet had drafted the message, later repudiated this possible reading
of the message. 2 C. WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 223-
224 (1926).
109: 6 J. Richardson, supra at 25.
110: 2 TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON 200, 293, 296 (1868).

If that’s not clear enough, I think we would need a very strong reason not to assume Obama is and was President of the United States the moment the clock struck noon. Something stronger than a slip of the tongue.

Of course, if I were he, I’d probably recite it again for good measure. Can’t be too careful.

UPDATE: Obama retook the oath. With NO BIBLE! Doesn’t that invalidate it in the eyes of all Christians? An abundance of caution, indeed.

UPDATE: MSNBC interviews Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who indicates that the do-over was unnecessary, and that under the 20th Amendment, the successors take over immediately at noon. He also reminds us that Taft took an incorrect oath, and never retook it. Again, the reference to an “abundance of caution.” Professor Tribe humorously recalls that Chief Justice Roberts was a student of his, and shouldn’t be prone to making such a mistake. (Obama was also a student of his.)

President Barack Obama

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

How to Disprove the Existence of “God”

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

At the end of a long debate about where lies the burden of proof with regard to proving the existence of a divine being, a frustrated believer might concede a certain level of defeat about lacking the ability to prove the existence of God with evidence outside the bible, but will undoubtedly make what is often considered the final unchallengeable thrust against atheism — that God cannot be disproven.

I beg to differ.

Get your invisible teapot detection kit ready, and let’s disprove God!

To gain an understanding of the concepts involved, and to set the stage for the argument that you can successfully disprove God, start not with what it takes to disprove God, but rather what it takes to prove God. In other words, you’ll need to take the position of the believer who has the burden of proof. To make it easy, ask yourself what it would take for you to believe in God? Notice that it’s very important here that we’re not asking what it would take for you to believe in “a” god. The distinction is critical. For, “a” god is one of the most widely interpreted concepts; proving or disproving such ambiguity is pointless for both sides, since what would follow from the proof wouldn’t support the tenets of whatever scripture the believer wants to claim as true.

What would it take for you to believe in God? For me, it’s the following.
When:
1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics;
2. Sufficient evidence of each and every one of those characteristics is presented to me in such a way that I believed those characteristics to exist, or very likely to exist; and
3. None of the evidence can be attributed to anything other than the “god” as defined.

We can easily make an analogy here to any other proof of the existence of something. Let’s say you claimed to have a Ming vase in a locked cabinet, and you ask me what it would take for me to believe it exists, and to buy it from you for what you claim it’s worth. Well, I’d have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt (reasonable for the situation) that it’s a Ming vase, so I first ask you to open the cabinet — eyesight is sensory input which would give me at least some starting data. You tell me that you cannot open the cabinet until the vase is purchased — say that it’s some obscure inheritance rule. As a skeptic, what should I do next? Say, “Well, if you can’t show me, then it cannot be true?” I could, certainly, but then what would be the fun of that? I would say, for it to be a Ming vase, it must have some defining characteristics. Can you prove or disprove any of those characteristics without opening the cabinet? I expect so.

There are scanning tools that should give an indication of the contents of the cabinet. You might be able to determine the shape of the vase (if it’s even in there), and with even more fine-tuning, perhaps “see” engravings with sonics. You could also show me documentation, authentications, affidavits, photographs, samples, etc. There are myriad bits of evidence you could toss my way to help convince me that you really do have a Ming vase, and do you know what the kicker is? It might actually work. I might be convinced, with enough proof, and I might pay you for whatever it really is. When we open the cabinet, we’ll have more evidence one way or the other, and at the end of the day, it still might not be a Ming vase, and if I found evidence that it wasn’t, then I should adjust my view on the matter accordingly.

That’s the way we should handle proof of God. A believer isn’t saying there’s “some sort of god” in the cabinet. The believer is saying “my God” is in the cabinet. That’s the important distinction I mentioned. The believer’s god better have some characteristics. What are they? It varies from believer to believer. What should the skeptic do? Ask: What are the characteristics of your god?

The response could be:
1. Omniscience
2. Omnipotence
3. All-loving
4. Able to produce miracles
5. Trinity
6. Created everything
7. Answers prayers
8. Wrote (directly or indirectly) scripture

Any, all, or a selection of those, or other characteristics may be chosen.

The next step is for the believer to gather and present what evidence is available for each characteristic, and then for me to determine whether I feel each characteristic has been sufficiently proven by the evidence. The key here, as it was with the vase, is that these are defining characteristics – necessary characteristics. Take any one of them away, and it’s not the same god that was originally proffered. If you take one away, the believer must either give up or redefine. This continues until that happens, or I am satisfied with the evidence.

I’m not actually going to challenge any of the characteristics or evidence in this article, as all of them have been discussed repeatedly elsewhere. However, I will say that, for me, and for the vast majority of scientists and skeptics of the world, the evidence isn’t sufficient to prove the existence of God.

And that’s where the believer jumps in with, “Well, you can’t disprove God!”

Yes, I can. The same way the believer failed to prove God. By definition.

God is fully and wholly disproved when:
1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics; and
2. Sufficient proof is provided that at least one of those characteristics is not true.

Let’s test this. The believer decides to define God as omniscient, creator of everything, answers prayers. The believer offers up various arguments trying to prove each characteristic. When we test each one, we realize that prayer has repeatedly not worked as advertised. Reply to the believer: prayer is not answered, therefore your god does not exist. Why can I say that with such authority? It’s simple math (math/logic).

God (G) is the set of characteristics with the elements: omniscience (O), creator of everything (C), prayer-answerer (P).

So,

G ≡ (G = {O,C,P}) & (O & C & P)
~P
∴ ~G

Translation:

God exists if and only if the set of God’s characteristics is omniscience, creator of everything, and prayer-answerer AND each of those characteristics is True. (for each rehash of the “definition” of God, the set of characteristics is changed to match — there’s no cheating!)
Prayer-answering is not True.
Therefore God does not exist.

(sorry if my notation is rusty — I’m using a mix of math and logic)

So, even if we stipulate O and C, the god as defined (G) does not exist, because we’ve determined that a necessary element of G (P) is not true. At this point, the believer might reply that it’s fine to just drop the prayer part, but God exists otherwise. As a skeptic, you might want to respond, “Okay, assuming God as defined by omniscience and creator exists, what then?” The believer (and these are responses I’ve received from this argument!) might go on to say that it follows that if God exists, then the bible is true, or that the quran is true, or that God loves you, or that if you don’t believe in God, you’re going to hell, or that all morality derives from God and therefore religion. Something like that. Proper retort? None of those were characteristics of God as defined (i.e., they weren’t elements of the set of G). If the believer would like to start over again, adding to the set of elements, then we can analyze the revised definition of God. Merely because one characteristic might be plausible or even true does not make another characteristic true by its scriptural or alleged intuitive relationship with that characteristic. In other words, even if everyone in the room agreed that an omniscient being exists, it does not follow that the omniscient being, by nature of it being omniscient, created the universe, answers prayers, or sends people to heaven or hell.

So, you can definitively say that God does not exist.

One factor not to be overlooked is alternative natural explanations. If a believer attributes lightning to God, but it’s shown that lightning is a product of nature, God cannot have the characteristic that it is the only thing that can produce lightning. If the believer claims that everything is God, including nature, that potentially resets the characteristics, which need to be defined further if we’re not meant to just shrug our shoulders at the declaration that “God” exists (and that non-believers merely call it nature). In short, if a believer wants others to do something based on interpretation of scripture, or a subjective interpretation of what “God” is telling the believer, then the believer must provide more specific and thorough characteristics, and they must not be able to be explained by way of natural phenomena. If something is a characteristic that is not evident (i.e., something that cannot be currently proven or disproven (string theory, for example) ), it is not logical to attribute it to anything definitively — so, god of the gaps arguments are insufficient. Until then, everything that exists is nature, natural, and not God, and therefore God does not exist.

If desired, the model above can be modified to reflect the “if not explained by natural phenomenon” restriction:

T ≡ ( (T = {Th,L}) & (Th & L) ) & ( (Th OR L) ≠ N)
Th = N
L = N
(Th OR L) = N
∴ ~T

Thor exists if and only if the set of characteristics of Thor is Thunder and Lightning, AND Thunder and Lightning are true (exist), AND Thunder OR Lightning aren’t explained by natural phenomenon.
Thunder is Natural, Lightning is Natural, so one of the characteristics is Natural.
Therefore, Thor does not exist.

If it works for Thor, and you really think Thor doesn’t exist (you don’t, do you?), then why can’t it work for something called “God” with characteristics that either don’t exist, or can be easily explained by nature, just like Thor’s lightning and thunder?

If a believer makes one last shot in the dark by saying that with all these logical restrictions, it’s impossible to prove that anything exists, let alone God (and therefore, we can’t disprove God, either), then the proper response is that if God is such that God’s characteristics lack the sufficient presence to be tested, such that we cannot prove or disprove God, then if God did exist, God has absolutely no influence on anything in the world — for if God did, then we’d be able to detect it, test it, and prove or disprove its relationship to God. If the believer says we wouldn’t be able to detect it, then that proves the lack of influence, and therefore effective lack of existence. In other words, if God lacks detectable influence, God is irrelevant.

Faults in my logic? Hit me!

-Procrustes

State of Protest

Endnote: If you haven’t figured it out, this analysis is really just about rejection of religion, not necessarily the rejection of the potential for there existing some greater being. There’s no reason not to believe there is something greater out there, but there is a better reason not to believe. Where the above analysis comes in handy is discussions with people who intend to use their proof of God to link back to the alleged truth of scripture or other divine intervention claimed to exist by the religious. When that is the case, there is always some link back to text, and that will always include some reference to an act the god allegedly committed, which helps define that god, at least subjectively with regard to that specific text or the specific religion being touted. When I say I can disprove God, I’m not saying I can disprove the existence of every potential incarnation of everything anyone can possibly call “God” or a greater being. I’m saying that if someone proffers a god with specific characteristics, and those characteristics don’t pass muster, that god does not exist. It’s interesting how our society has been coerced to believe that it is the duty of the unbeliever to continue to battle this pointless fight while the believer “fights” by way of smug stagnation.

Endnote2: Much of the feedback I’ve received from this analysis regards an argument that “answers prayers” is not necessary characteristic of God, nor is it even uniform among believers. My general response to that criticism is that the system of disproof I’ve proffered doesn’t require that God have that characteristic. It merely uses that characteristic as one of many potential example characteristics that can and have been used by believers to define what they call “God.” The sets of characteristics vary from belief to belief, but that has no bearing on whether this disproof works, because this concept is based on identifying whatever characteristics for “God” are proffered at the moment of analysis, not, however, on potential characteristics. In other words, whoever is advocating in the existence of something must define it in a substantial way, and if any bit of that definition is false in such a way that negates the possibility of that thing existing, then it doesn’t exist. So, to answer the criticism with regard to “answers prayers,” I merely say, then how do [i]you[/i] define what you call “God”?

Sometimes I get the rebuttal of “Well, lots of people claim that God answers prayers, and you can’t disprove them, so your disproof is wrong.” Merely because a lot of people claim something doesn’t make it true. More importantly, if we performed extensive studies that showed with reasonable accuracy that those prayers are, in fact, being answered, then that would be evidence in favor of “God,” as defined, but it would not make my disproof equation incorrect. My disproof equation doesn’t say “God does not exist.” The equation is merely a tool. Insert data, and it’ll spit out “God does not exist” or “/shrug.” If you look at the equation without entering data, it says nothing. Therefore, even if God really exists, my equation is not incorrect.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Logic, Religion | 48 Comments »

Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate But Equal”

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a favorite phrase among many a Christian in today’s society. When Governor Sarah Palin told Katie Couric in her now infamous interview that her gay friend “happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made,”1 the obvious implication is that she thinks being a homosexual is the equivalent of making a poor decision, “sinning,” if you will. And you know what? She has every right to feel that way. Many people would argue that she is wrong, but it is not illegal to hold that view. What should be illegal, however, is the attempt of anyone to use that belief as an excuse to give homosexuals less rights than heterosexuals. And whether or not it is a “choice” has absolutely nothing to do with it. Did Gov. Palin “choose” to be a fundamentalist Christian and a Republican? She might argue that she was born that way, or she might agree that it is a choice, but her rights remain the same regardless, simply because she is a human and an American. I am probably using Palin in my example, admittedly, because she is such an easy target, but Democrats fare no better in this issue. I am appalled that both the red and blue presidential and vice-presidential candidates are unable, or unwilling, to see the inherent dishonesty in claiming “tolerance” on the one hand and denying homosexuals basic human rights on the other. I am even further appalled that the tolerant and progressive step forward that has been taken in California is now threatened by the passage of Proposition 8.

One cannot help but draw a parallel between other past civil rights issues, such as the now embarrassing ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that blacks would receive “separate but equal” treatment under the law.2 This is not the first time in our nation’s history, nor do I expect it to be the last, that religious groups have rallied together to fight against moral progress. If today’s typical Christian woman were alive in 1923, she might have argued that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would force her into the workplace. And in a way, the women and men who did believe this were right. The U.S. economy has changed drastically since the Civil Rights Act was passed (40 years after the ERA was defeated due to Christian opposition), and it is likely harder now for single-income families to make a living. But would any sane person argue that it wasn’t worth it? Sometimes, in fact most times, doing what is right costs something. There is no question for most people now that women and minorities should have equal rights, in the workplace and elsewhere. There is no question among many of the same organizations that fought against these exact issues.

So, what exactly is the cost of giving homosexuals the right to marry? From what I’ve seen, the only cost would be the swallowing of pride among those fighting against it. We have all heard the arguments that by preventing homosexuals from marrying, Christian groups are protecting the “sacred bond” of marriage and “traditional family values.” They say their own marriages will somehow be affected if homosexuals are permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. Surely they must realize that thousands of same sex marriages have already been performed in California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Has this had a negative effect on Christian marriages? Is it measurable? Is it quantifiable? If so, I’d like to see the evidence. If not, then I’d say they need a new argument. Additionally, there are plenty of heterosexual unions performed which Christian groups, in theory, ought to be vehemently opposed to, such as a marriage between two sadomasochists, a marriage in which the bride used to be a man, or a drunken Las Vegas marriage that is annulled within 24 hours. Christian groups might not like these situations, but they recognize that they do not have the right to take away these freedoms from these people. This creates a stunning double standard.

What about the belief that Christian groups hold that they will be forced to perform same sex marriages? As has been shown again and again, this claim is patently ridiculous. Religious organizations are currently permitted to discriminate as they see fit. As a non-Mormon, I am not permitted to even attend, much less participate in, a Mormon marriage ceremony. Our country allows this, because it gives private organizations and individuals the freedom to practice their beliefs. It should be this way… and it already is.

Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.3 A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.4 The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.5 (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.

One of the biggest problems I see here is that Christian groups are behaving as if marriage is a specifically religious contract, one they hold a monopoly on. Certainly religious ceremonies can be performed and beliefs held surrounding a marital contract, but the contract itself is secular in nature. The contract itself is from the U.S Government, which has an obligation to ensure equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Not just Christian, white, male, or heterosexual citizens. All citizens.

I believe that in the years to come, future generations of Christians will look upon the issue of equal rights for homosexuals much the same way they view equal rights for blacks and women today. Let’s not wait another 40 years to treat everyone as equals. The most wonderful thing about the U.S. is people can believe whatever they want without persecution; our country was conceived on this principle. If you enjoy these rights and freedoms, it is your moral responsibility to apply them to all people, and that includes people who don’t believe the same things you do. Please, if you live in California, vote NO on Proposition 8. Let’s together set a precedent for basic human decency. VOTE NO ON PROP 8. 

UPDATE 1:

On Friday, October 17th, a group of Mormons who support gay marriage delivered protest letters, bundles of carnations, and a petition with over 400 signatures, to church headquarters in Salt Lake City. A church spokeswoman accepted the package as the more than 40 people making the delivery sang church hymns.6 The group, called Sign for Something, believes that “each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities.”7 They also write that “The Constitution of the United States of America assures us that no person or group’s religious views are allowed to be binding on the public… We are dismayed at the dilemma of choosing between the voice of our conscience and the advice of our church’s leadership on this issue.” This group of brave members should be applauded for standing up for the Constitution, and for what they believe is right, in the face of so much adversity.

UPDATE 2:

This past Sunday, October 26th, a large group of people came out to protest Prop 8 in front of the Mormon temple in Oakland, CA.  You can read more about the event and see some great photos of protest signs here.  In other news, I’m thrilled to report that Prop 8 opponents have now taken the lead in fundraising!  As of late September, things were looking bleak for the anti-Prop 8 campaign, but the month of October has seen a ton of money pouring in, giving opponents of Prop 8 a strong advantage.  Hopefully it will see us through to the finish line!

UPDATE 3: (Cross-posted here)

According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.”  The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:

This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!

-Laura 

—–

Related StOP articles:

Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”

Mormonism Unearthed:
Part I
Part II
Part III

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002993.html [<]
  2. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm [<]
  3. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage [<]
  4. http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=108 [<]
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement [<]
  6. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7Ee9lkE23iWetMMU1Vy5nxReXCgD93SKREG0 [<]
  7. http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=2 [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Morality, Religion | 56 Comments »

Real Anti-Rationalism That Should be Parody

Thursday, September 11th, 2008

My last post analyzed a parody website that realistically criticized the new Spore game. Think what you will regarding my apparent knowledge of whether it was a parody, but I wanted to show (in this post) how realistic that parody site really is, and how that fact, and the reaction to the blog in question, should send chills up the spine of any rational human being. Why? Because there are people out there who actually believe in that hogwash! Not only do they believe in it, but they also go way out of their way to promote it, and to stop rational people from keeping irrational practices out of government and public schools.

And now the punch line. I’m going to show you, in a nutshell, how frightening this all really is, with examples of anti-evolutionism and anti-rationalism. Here are some examples of what should be parodies, but, in fact, are frighteningly real:

Expelled — Ben Stein’s attempt to promote Intelligent Design. By the way, it’s not a parody, although it should have been.

The (Rick) Santorum Amendment — You think someone1 being critical of a game on evolution is bad, try a (former) U.S. Senator’s take on how we should be “educating” our children:

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.2

Michael Behe — A professor of biochemistry. This must be a parody, right? From the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:

Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.3

Phillip E. Johnson — The popular author of Darwin on Trial. Again from Kitzmiller v. Dover:

Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID’s “Wedge Strategy,” which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . .” (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80- 81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the “Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose.”4

David Berlinski — mathematician critic of evolution.

Steve Fuller — “social epistemologist.”

The Wedge Strategy — Anyone involved is guilty of self-inflicted delusion and the desire to inflict that delusion upon others en masse. The goal of this campaign? “[T]o “defeat [scientific] materialism” represented by evolution, “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” and to “affirm the reality of God.”5

William Dembski — Total nutjob. Should have been a parody.

My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program. To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm. 6

Young Earth Creationism — My head is really starting to hurt now. Did you know that there are people who assert that the Earth and the universe are only about 6000 years old? I bet you knew that.

And my current favorite: Ken Hamm! We should give him an award. Seriously. (Too bad we can’t give him a Darwin Award, eh?)

AiG has a whole range of books and DVDs dealing with dinosaurs. As I have often stated, dinosaurs are used by evolutionists more than many things to convince young children (and adults) of evolution and millions of years. That is why AiG has produced some beautiful dinosaur books for children, as well as special DVD programs like the one Buddy Davis and I produced for kids.

I find that the secular media and evolutionists attack us vehemently for teaching that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time. They state that this is ridiculous and anti-science. They scoff and mock that we would even suggest dinosaurs lived together. This is despite the fact that there are numerous animals and plants living today alongside of people that evolutionists teach lived with or even before dinosaurs in their millions-of-years timescale (for instance: Wollemi pine tree, crocodiles, coelacanth fish, etc)—which shows clearly from even this perspective that it is not outlandish to believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

However, evolutionists can come up with absolutely outrageous statements about dinosaurs and ideas for kids—and consider this perfectly legitimate.7

Why don’t we read that, and think to ourselves, “Hey, this must be parody”? Because these idiots are real, they’re often well-funded, popular, and have an incredible amount of political and social support. Honestly, why aren’t we rounding these people up and putting them into institutions? Isn’t that what we do to the mentally ill? These people are mentally ill. If you saw someone on the side of the street, yelling to the sky in a wild and crazy proffering to something you cannot see, and claiming to have a direct connection and communication with the Almighty, you’d have that person checked out by a professional, and it’s quite likely the person will be diagnosed with a real mental disorder. These idiots I linked above do the exact same thing, but they do it in suits and ties, in mega-churches, on television, in books, in blogs, on Fox News, in debates, in schools, on witness stands — everywhere.

I say again, why are we treating them with any modicum of respect? They certainly don’t treat the idea that God doesn’t exist with respect. We’re all going to Hell, remember? Go confront that Christian or Muslim “friend” of yours. You know, the one who claims to be “okay” with your disbelief. Ask your friend, “If I don’t accept your belief, what will happen to me when I die?” Keep pushing, if necessary, for an honest answer. What’s it going to be?

Why are we living shoulder-to-shoulder with people who individually and collectively claim to have a personal god, a full understanding of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and the desire to force that same personal god and that same understanding of the origin of everything upon the children of this nation, of the planet, and upon everyone else, in the form of blue laws, of censorship, book banning, national mottoes, favoring the international religious agendas of our own and other nations (and backing our own warmongering by claiming it’s divinely ordained)?

We’re all guilty of not doing enough, quickly enough, efficiently and powerfully enough to stop and reverse the pro-religious trend in the U.S. and the world. I’m guilty of falling into the trap of treating people who insist on pushing their beliefs on others with the respect I would give a fellow rational person. I’ve watched a hundred videos of debates between rational and irrational people, and I don’t see the benefit in solely continuing to engage in mere dialogue when the opposition to rational thinking is not backing down, but, instead, growing ever-stronger.

The dialogue should continue, but it shouldn’t be the end. It’s just the beginning, and, as rational people constantly on the verge of being oppressed by the religious irrationals of the world (and teetering on the edge of a worldwide holy war), we need to stand up and demand rationality in government, in schools, in all aspects of our public lives.

What? Did I forget someone who holds herself out as serious, but has an agenda and world view that any rational person would think justifies placing her permanently in a padded room? Instead, we accept the fact that she might very well one day become the vice president of the United States (and one heart palpitation away from the full presidency). Accepting Sarah Palin, in any way, is somewhat like telling your children that because some people (or maybe a lot of people) are racist, we should tolerate that point of view, and not criticize those who are racist (and, heck, you can even win the vice presidency if you’re racist!). You think there’s a difference? I think there’s no difference. A racist has a prejudice against people who do not share a similar physical characteristic. A religious fundamentalist has a prejudice against people who aren’t religious fundamentalists. We should not accept people, or give them any modicum of credit as being someone who could hold a political office, who are religious fundamentalists, with a twisted world view and oppressive agenda.

StOP

  1. Edit: My original comment here included an offhand reference to the alleged author of Anti Spore, a site that originally held itself out to be opposed to the game Spore because of its evolutionary theme. The site claimed to have been run by a woman with a son. Regardless of the fact that the site drew much attention, and that it mimicked other hate-filled fundamentalist sites and authors, the site has been deemed by many now to have been a hoax or parody, evident by a “Rick-Rolling” having been entered not-so-subtly at the end of the latest post. Because my reference wasn’t entirely obvious without having some knowledge of that website, I’ve removed it. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Thanks, dryice! [<]
  2. Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. [<]
  3. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_28_of_139 [<]
  4. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_27_of_139 [<]
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy [<]
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski [<]
  7. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/26/careful-where-you-buy-dinosaur-books/ [<]

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

The Laughable Anti-Spore Pro-Creationist Campaign

Thursday, September 11th, 2008

Note: This is one of the places that I learned the lesson I am trying to share with other self-proclaimed skeptics today. So, if your kids are fearing sculptures of DNA, now’s your chance to learn well the lesson of Poe.

I can’t help but indirectly promote the Anti Spore blog by offering up some analysis and criticism of it here. It’s a wonderful example of how deluded religious people are.

The blog is Anti Spore, where the blogger, known only as “Admin,” claims that the newly released computer game “Spore” is “converting children to believe in evolution.”1 Anti Spore’s beliefs are, of course, derived from the bible, and the argument goes something like this:

The book of Genesis says that God, not science, created Earth and all its creatures, including humans.
The book of Genesis (and the bible) don’t talk about anything evolving.
Therefore, there is no evolution.
A game that allows its players to make something evolve goes against God, because it implies that it is how sentient and other life was formed on Earth.2

and

The game Spore allows frontal nudity.
God hates frontal nudity.

The first argument is supported by some quoted and paraphrased text from some unknown version of the bible.3 The latter doesn’t seem to have any support, other than the implication that since the author hates nudity (which is odd, since nudity is merely a result of God’s ultimate creation, right?), then God must also hate nudity (for why would God not agree with the author?). Multiple examples of player-rendered creature nudity (some that comes arguably close to the bipedal humanoid image we sometimes accidentally see in the bathroom mirror after emerging from the shower) are displayed on the Anti Spore blog as proof that the game corrupts, and attacks on its designer, Will Wright, are rampant.

At first, I thought this website was a farce (à la Landover Baptist Church), but after reading the various posts, I am convinced it’s the real thing. My favorite twisted “argument” so far: (emphasis mine)

I think it is entirely possible that God created civilizations on other planets. But because Will Wright has brainwashed Frank Drake into thinking that life in the universe gave rise to “super humans” on other planets that are better than us.

God would never create something better than himself, it is not possible as God is perfect in every way. And once again, I reiterate that man was created in His image.4

Let me parse this “argument”:

1. God would not create something more powerful than God.
2. God created humans.
3. God created humans in the “image” of God.
4. God would not (can not?) create something more powerful than humans, because that would mean God would be creating something more powerful than God.

The implication from that argument is that God is not more powerful than humans. Actually, it’s less implication, and more that the author directly stated it, since the author is using the argument that because humans were made in God’s image, if God were to make something super-human, that would be the equivalent of making something super-God, and that’s not possible. So, thanks, Admin! What you’re really saying there is that humans are just as powerful as God. I’m guessing you probably didn’t mean that.

Some more insightful quotes from the blog: (emphasis mine)

The object of the game is to evolve from a “spore” into demon-like intelligent space creatures that violently take over the galaxy.5

Just to contrast, here’s the object of the game as presented by the Spore creators: “the Spore Creature Creator is a stand-alone product and creativity toy box where players create their own unique creatures, bring them to life with entertaining animations, and share them online with friends around the world.” 6

Whatever happened to the days when National Geographic simply showed us footage of all of Gods beautiful creation all around the world?

Tomorrow night they are featuring a show called “How to build a better being“. They will attempt to give credibility to the flawed theory of evolution through … A VIDEO GAME. Yes, they are crediting the creator of Spore, Will Wright, with the discovery of the secrets of life.

I can tell you right away there is no way to build a better being. We were created in Gods image. You can’t get any better than that.7

You mean when National Geographic used to show frontal nudity?

Today EA’s stock is down almost a dollar.

I hope that the information about Spore I am making available helped in some small way.8

It seems at least on a positive note from all this hatred directed at me, we have at least had the power to have some effect; the video showing the frontal nudity I talked about yesterday in this post http://antispore.com/2008/09/10/and-full-frontal-nudity-in-spore/ is no more. It’s been removed and while I have lost an example of what children can be subjected to in this game, it reenergizes me with the proof that I am having a positive effect. Thank you all that continue to believe in me and bless you.9

Don’t you just hate the fact that God gave you nudity in the first place?

I can tell you right away there is no way to build a better being. We were created in Gods image. You can’t get any better than that.10

Oh, yeah, that’s right. You think we’re perfect, and made in God’s image. And, I guess what you’re saying is that the only people who should be allowed to see God’s image are adults? But when an adult looks at a nude person, you call it pornography. God is pornographic! I feel sorry for this lady’s kid. “Nudity is bad! We were made perfect by God, in His image! But you can’t look at our image. Because nudity is bad!” So, apparently “perfection” is also bad. These people are so confusing.

I think part of the problem that is going on here is that the bulk of you are ignorant as to the word of God.

I think the problem that is going on here is that creationists and believers are ignorant as to reality, and until we, the rational people of Earth, purge it of such delusion, it’s only going to get worse.

StOP

  1. http://antispore.com/2008/09/10/proof-ea-is-converting-children-to-beleive-in-evolution/ [<]
  2. I’m filling in some gaps in logic, because the Anti Spore Admin is obviously no logician, and probably hasn’t taken any classes in logic or reasoning, let alone allow herself the privilege (or sin?) to attend college (since, of course, God hates knowledge). In general, her argument is “if the bible doesn’t say it, it ain’t so.” And that’s about it. [<]
  3. http://antispore.com/2008/09/11/understand-my-beliefs-please/ [<]
  4. http://antispore.com/2008/09/10/will-wright-brainwashes-founder-of-seti-frank-drake/ [<]
  5. http://antispore.com/2008/09/08/spore/ [<]
  6. The official Spore website is http://www.spore.com/ [<]
  7. http://antispore.com/2008/09/08/dont-bother-watching-national-geographic-tomorrow/ [<]
  8. http://antispore.com/2008/09/09/ea-stock-is-down/ [<]
  9. http://antispore.com/2008/09/10/on-a-positive-note/ [<]
  10. http://antispore.com/2008/09/08/dont-bother-watching-national-geographic-tomorrow/ [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Logic, Morality, Religion, Science | 10 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »