Science is Cool: Darwin Fish, for Real

This fish, a transitionary form between an ordinary fish and a land animal, was actually discovered several years ago, and is in the news because of new book. But I missed it, and so it's new to me! And it's cool. Ugly, but cool. A fish with a neck? And armlike fins? It also shows a minor advantage to climate change: the Arctic was melted enough for them to find the thing.

Image from source, Mother Jones

[Excerpt]

This Fish Crawled Out of the Water…and Into Creationists' Nightmares

We all know the Darwin fish, the car-bumper send-up of the Christian "ichthys" symbol, or Jesus fish. Unlike the Christian symbol, the Darwin fish has, you know, legs. Har har. But the Darwin fish isn't merely a clever joke; in effect, it contains a testable scientific prediction. If evolution is true, and if life on Earth originated in water, then there must have once been fish species possessing primitive limbs, which enabled them to spend some part of their lives on land. And these species, in turn, must be the ancestors of four-limbed, land-living vertebrates like us. . .

Read more at: Mother Jones

Creationist Response to "Cosmos": Fire Bad Smash Rock (A Rocky Mountain Mike Parody)

Religious Right groups are up in arms over the Seth MacFarlane reboot of Cosmos. Not understanding that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, they are thus upset that they aren't getting a shout out by host Neil deGrasse Tyson. It's idiotic. Which is just where comic genius Rocky Mountain Mike went with, "Fire Bad Smash Rock." Enjoy.

 

Even Pat Robertson Calls Young Earth Creationism "Nonsense"

Methuselah Pat Robertson, image from source, Raw Story

As an atheist, it is unlikely I'm ever going to reach complete understanding with the devoutly religious. But it is interesting that there are levels of devoutness. See, I would have pegged Pat Robertson as a "Young Earth Creationist." But he isn't, and that's kind of interesting.

Young Earth Creationists believe in the literal creation story told in the Bible, complete with all of Genesis and all of the begets. Counting each day of creation as a literal day, believing that man was created in the first literal week of existence, and adding up all of the generations listed, YECs have calculated that the Earth (and also the universe) is only 6,000-or-so years old. This--to most rational people--is preposterous. There are things on earth (beer, trees) that are older than that. There are stars whose light couldn't possibly have reached us in that short a time. There are geological formations that couldn't possibly have formed so quickly. And on and on, and that's not even picking apart the very pick-apartable Genesis.

Well, ol' Pat surely does believe in talking snakes, the firmament and Noah's Ark. But he's having none of this young Earth nonsense. Even a nutcase like Robertson gets one right once in a while!

[Excerpt]
 
Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves’

Pat Robertson responded to the recent debate between Young Earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye, a.k.a. “The Science Guy,” by reiterating his disagreement with Ham’s form of creationism.

“Let’s face it,” Robertson said, “there was a Bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story 

Messin' With Texas: Idiot Texan Argues for Creationism in Science Books

You're a genius. Image from Raw Story.

It's hard out here for a non-believer. Especially if you're the argumentative type like me, who just can't seem to avoid commenting in Facebook, Twitter or message boards. Because I'm a gay atheist (gaytheist!) and a liberal, I very often find myself arguing with religious types about all sorts of things. And the biggest problems stem from the religious person's insistence that their faith is on par with facts. No, worse than that: if facts seem to dispute their faith, it is faith that wins the argument, from their perspective!

Here's a fact: creationism isn't science. It isn't anything like science. So, ipso facto, it doesn't belong in science books. Period. What the hell is the matter with Texas and religious nutjobs? Is that redundant?

[Excerpt]

Former Texas Board of Education chair argues for ‘final blow’ to evolution studies

The former chair of the Texas State Board of Education appeared at a board meeting this week to argue in favor of a new science textbooks he hoped would strike “the final blow” to studying evolution. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

God Smites "Creation Museum" Employee with Lightning

Kidding. Sort of. I'm actually an atheist, but a Creation Museum employee getting struck by lighting on the grounds? Erhm. . .that's just too funny, sorry. I mean, I'm sure it hurts like hell. I wouldn't wish it on anybody. But hey, this is literally what people mean when they say, "act of God," is it not? Oh, and for the record, the Creation Museum is ludicrous in virtually every way. Maybe God's a critic?

[Excerpt]

Creationism museum employee injured by lightning strike while on the job

A bit of the idiocy at the Creation Museum

An employee of Petersburg, Kentucky’s Creation Museum was struck by lightning Wednesday while clearing guests from a zip line attraction at the museum during a thunderstorm. According to Kentucky’s WLWT.com, the man was helping guests down from the wires as thunderstorms rolled into the area. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Crazy Creationists: Dinosaurs Fled the Flood!

Last night I posted a piece about Mitt Romney' literal belief in his wacky religion. And, I noted that as an atheist, I find 'em all wacky, so I'm not so much singling Mormonism out, as I am saying it's just extra special goofy. But Mitt's not alone in his belief in unbelievable things.

Somehow, I got on the Creation Ministries International mailing list. And these folks are literal believers in the book of Genesis. Just FYI, that's the book that set me on the road to atheism, because it was taught to me at the same time as freshman Earth science. Guess which book won? Anyway, Genesis is chock full of ridiculous things that only the deeply deluded could believe are literal. From the "firmament" to the items set into it, from the cleanliness rules to the list of sacrificial requirements, from the conflicting dual creation stories to there being light before there was a light source? All of it is frankly unbelievable.


























But nothing is more ridiculous than the flood story. Forget that there are (again) two conflicting Noah's Ark stories, and different numbers of animals in each. There are problems with the size of the boat. There are problems with the technology of building such a boat. There's the problem of how every kind of animal got to the middle east, and then re-dispersed themselves back to from whence they came. There are the uncomfortable facts about feeding and housing these animals for such an extended period, and what they would do about the waste. How did they keep the animals from eating each other, or the humans? How did they transport the bacteria, viruses, insects, arachnids and amoeba? How did the sealife and freshwater animals survive in the stirred up, seawater/rainwater/sediment-filled water? How did plantlife and fungi survive submerged for 100 days? And we're not even talking about where the water came from, and where it went! Why would an "all-loving" god murder his "children," no matter how disobedient they were?

Creation Museum folly. Image from Bay-of-Fundie.com

On top of this is the question of dinosaurs. Why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs? Well, some try to parlay allusions of "dragons" and whatnot into dinosaurs, but it's a stretch. It actually makes the bible sound more like a bunch of fables to me. So, the question is, if man coexisted with dinosaurs, why do they get such scant coverage in the Bible? Why weren't they on the Ark? Did Noah take dinosaur eggs, rather than full-grown T-Rexes and Stegosauri? Why isn't it mentioned?

Obviously, it isn't mentioned, because the writer(s) of Genesis never heard of dinosaurs, and thus couldn't write about them. They didn't realize that the sun is the source of our light, so they could say it was created after light. They didn't know how clouds, the atmosphere, the orbits of the moon and planets, or stars in the universe worked, so they made crap up about the celestial bodies being placed in a bowl that separated the waters of heaven and earth. There are so many, countless, obvious problems with Genesis, an irreligious person like me just stands with my mouth agape. How can any adult take these fairy tales seriously?

And then I get my latest installment of further attempts at devising a narative that makes sense out of a book that really doesn't.  You know what I liken groups like Christian Ministries International to? I liken them to Rankin-Bass. You know, the studio that made such holiday classics as, Santa Claus is Comin' to Town, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and The Year Without a Santa Claus. In those holiday specials, they took all of the implausibilities in the Santa Claus story, and explained them in such a way as to keep kids believing it just a little while longer. And as kids, we wanted to believe. That's all this foolishness is.

If you are interested (and I hope it's only for amusement value), you can find this group here: Christian Ministries International.

What's Wrong With Tennessee? Creationism In Schools Allowed

Pssst. . .creationists: Darwin didn't claim to know the origin of
the universe! Image from source.

Insanity. I don't care how fervently you believe that God created the universe, the idea doesn't belong in science class. As hard as they've tried to separate "creationism" from "intelligent design," there is no difference, other than taking the "Christianity" brand off of it. It's still taking the idea of an all-powerful magical being, and inserting it into science class. There isn't a scintilla of science in that. Not to mention that evolution makes no claim to the origins of the universe.

I know that I'll never convince a true believer that there is no God. But there is no denying that positing a "creator" into evolution or the big bang just makes the whole thing more complicated, not less. If you disbelieve the idea of the universe having always existed in one form or another, how is it so easy to believe that an omnipotent, invisible, intangible, omnipresent, omniscient, all-loving, vengeful, jealous God has always existed? You've just inserted a doozy of a claim into the story! And we won't even get into how this mega-creature, creator of the vastness of all that is, cares what we individual humans on this little speck called Earth, do with our private parts.

[Excerpt]

TN science bill protects teachers who allow debate over evolution

Senators voted 24-8 to pass a bill that says schoolteachers cannot be punished for "helping students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories" taught in public schools. . .


Read more at: WBIR.com

Another Creationist Bill in Missouri

C'mon, are they serious? When I was growing up (and I'm aware that was a while ago), there were certain things that were understood to be true. Like, child labor was bad. Unregulated, laissez faire  capitalism was bad. Combining church and state was bad. These weren't radical things, they were simply "social studies." And in science, we learned about evolution. Nobody made a big deal about it. Religious people manage to square it on Sunday with their Bibles. I, on the other hand, gravitated into the "non-believer" category.

But evolution wasn't denied by people openly, or at least not that I remember. Inherit the Wind, which chronicled the Scopes "Monkey" Trial was seen as a lesson from a less enlightened time. It was shown to us in school! Somewhere along the way, all of these "accepted" things have been seemingly coming undone. Newt Gingrich advocates forced child labor, at least for poor kids. Unregulated capitalism is championed by every single Republican candidate for president. And they're all in favor of combining church and state, going so far as to say they were never supposed to be separate in the first place! Evolution though, has been under attack going back a little longer.

As a heathen myself, I find the creationist and "intelligent design" stories to be greatly lacking as any kind of "theories." They are certainly not science. And they don't even answer the question! If a religionist is going to say that the universe is too complicated to have "just happened," how do they figure that inserting an all-powerful super-being into the story simplifies things? They've just inserted hugely complicated new step.

[Excerpt]


Missouri GOP Introduces Second Creationism Bill In State Legislature


As if one creationism bill wasn’t enough already, Missouri Republicans have introduced a second one in an attempt to force Christianity on schools one way or another. . . 

Read more at: Addicting Info

The British Have it Right: Creationism is NOT Science

Image from source, Telegraph UK

Creationism--sometimes euphemistically (and ironically)  called "intelligent design"--has long been one of those heated topics that interests me. From the waning days of the Prodigy online service, I've gotten into arguments with supporters of teaching creationism in science classrooms (and of course all the other religion vs. science arguments). Whatever you think about the topic, there is a central, inarguable truth: creationism isn't  science. It's theology.

As such, I'd have no problem with the subject being taught in a comparative religion class, or a "Bible Lit." class, or a philosophy class. But it can't be presented as the literal truth, and it can't be presented as science. At least in England, they understand this. Our country, on the other hand, is more likely to let public opinion have a say over facts.

[Excerpt]

Creationism 'banned from free schools'

Creationism, intelligent design and other theories that contradict evolution are to be banned from being taught as science in free schools. . .

Read more at: The Telegraph UK

Bill O'Reilly: That Man is an Idiot

Bill O'Reilly recently made a fool of himself. This is not particularly unusual. But this time he's making himself more a fool than he was originally by digging deeper. Previously, he claimed he could prove the existence of God by the regularity of the tides. Nothing else could prove tides. When people pointed out the gravity pull of the moon, Bill-O came up with this video response:



To which I say: Bill! Venus and Mars do have the sun! The same sun as us! Venus doesn't have a moon, but Mars has two! More than the strangeness of his questions is the strangeness of his speech while doing so, where he sounds like Rain Man.

The argument between atheism/agnosticism and religion will be waged for a long, long time. But O'Reilly will not win it with his smug--but oddly childlike--reasoning.  But he's right in one respect: it takes more effort to be a non-believer. You have to think, reason, study and deliberate. That is harder than just accepting a religion on faith alone. "They said it, it must be true. End of discussion." is very easy.

It Isn't Just Conservatives Who Don't Believe in Evolution

There are certain things that are either known to be real, or so nearly so that dismissing them, disbelief in them, or disagreement with them seems ridiculous. I think this whenever I hear someone say they "disagree" with homosexuality. Gay people exist whether you "agree" with them or not. Ridiculous. It is much the same with evolution. Evolution--if Darwin hadn't spelled it out--would likely have been "discovered" by someone else shortly after. It's logical. It makes a ton of sense. And lots of other science hinges upon it.

On Friday Night's Real Time with Bill Maher, Georgia Republican Jack Kingston (who is good looking, but kind of douchey, creating conflict for me) flatly stated that he doesn't believe in evolution. That didn't surprise me. D.L. Hughley, the liberal actor/comedian stated the same. That surprised me. Basically, it looks to me like it is a strong belief in religion--something with far less evidence than evolution--that creates this disbelief. It's curious. They can accept the whoppers in the bible, but can't swallow The Origin of Species.

[Excerpt]


Jack Kingston wants to see man-fish-newt





On Real Time with Bill Maher, Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) apparently wants to see some kind of manfishnewt before he will accept evolution (For Southpark fans, that would be half-man, half-fish, and half-newt). Which, if ever found, would utterly destroy our understanding of human evolution along with a giant chunk of vertebrate biology. . .


Read more at: DailyKOS

And if you want a site that refutes Kinston's and Hughley's opinion, check this out for some quick debunking: Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Evolution Taking Hold Over Creationism?

Image from source, Raw Story

It's easy to get down about America, to think that overt religiosity, superstition, ignorance and outright stupidity is taking hold. But every once in a while, I'm heartened by a story like the one excerpted below. I'm not arrogant enough to say that I'm 100% right about my (nearly atheistic) agnosticism. As an agnostic, I don't have to claim that I know 100%, it's kind of the point. But it is easy to say that Genesis cannot be taken literally, or squared with what we know about science.

[Excerpt]

Poll: More Americans believe humans evolved without God



More Americans today believe that human beings developed without any involvement of a higher power, according to a new poll.


Gallup reported that since 1982, the number of Americans believing that humans evolved over millions of years increased by seven percentage points. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Stuck on Stupid: Texans Believe The Flintstones a Documentary

Image from source, The Texas Tribune

OK, that's an oversimplification. But not by much. Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

[Excerpt]

Meet the Flintstones

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

The differences in beliefs about evolution and the length of time that living things have existed on earth are reflected in the political and religious preference of our respondents, who were asked four questions about biological history and God. . .

Read more at: The Texas Tribune

The Origin of Stupidity: Darwin, Cameron and Comfort

Oddly enough, I don't often delve into my own religious beliefs, or rather lack thereof, on the blog. I'm an agnostic, but not--usually--radically so. But every once in a while, a story or video clip comes along that just screams blogworthy!

The subject of this video is a free giveaway of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin on the 150th anniversary of its publication. The catch is, a creationist named Ray Comfort has shoehorned in a 50-page "introduction" to the book. It is an attempt to debunk Darwin with "creation science" In addition to this secular blasphemy (heh!), actor Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains, Left Behind) is helping him promote the special giveaway as earnestly as his acting ability allows. Kirk, whose most famous role was as a amoral, Lothario teenager (scrubbed squeaky-clean, 80s-style) has become one of the most outspoken actors-for-Jesus in the industry.

Needless to say, the sales pitch is sort of goofy. But, the girl in the video below, Christina, offers an outstanding and entertaining critique of the whole idea. Her Romanian accent is rather thick, but no harder to understand than Arianna Huffington, and she's surely saner than Orly Taitz. Thanks to The Ex-Roommate, Rich for the link. This girl is a hoot!

Genesis Explained Scientifically, At Last

A lot of people ask me, when I tell them that I'm agnostic, what led me down the road to that non-specific belief system. Or words to that effect. And the one thing I can point to is that I was taking Sunday School lessons to be "confirmed" in the Lutheran Church at precisely the same time that I was taking Freshman Earth Science. As it happens, my textbook made a whole lot more sense than Genesis. Presto, change-o, agnostic. Well, it wasn't that fast, but you get the idea.

Now, I'm not out to change anybody's religion. And by the way, it would be very nice if the religious folks would afford me the same respect, and stop knocking on my door. Oh, and trying to take my rights away based on their specific religious beliefs. But, I digress. . .

Here is a great video that makes the attempt to squeeze actual science into the Genesis story of creation, without being too snarky about it. Enjoy.

Texas Board of Education Voting on Evolution

I realize that some people have a hard time squaring Darwin's theory of evolution with their religious beliefs. I understand that they can't reconcile it, and so will do anything they can to deny that evolution is a sound theory. But they're going too far when their personal religious beliefs are codified in public school curriculum.

If a person wants to deny that evolution is a workable scientific theory, fine. They can declare the Earth flat, and the sun the center of the universe too, if that makes them happy. But they shouldn't be able to take science out of science classes, or to add completely unscientific religion to science class. Conservatives often decry the "dumbing down of America," and yet they seem to often contribute to it.

[Excerpt]

Texas Board of Education voting on Evolution

This week, a debate over evolution versus creationism or intelligent design as some now call it, is brewing before the Texas Board of Education.It's considering a change in the State's science standards. At issue whether or not teachers should explain the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution which would raise doubts that all living things have a common ancestor. . .

Read more at: the33tv.com

Rachel Maddow, Darwin Day, & the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Yeah, her again. But can I help it if Rachel Maddow was talking about Charles Darwin Day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the silliness of "Intelligent Design?" All big faves here at Greenlee Gazette.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bobby Jindal Signs Creationist Law?

Image from source, Raw Story

I've commented on Louisiana's young Governor, Bobby Jindal before. He's been touted as the saviour of the Republican brand, a "future president," and "the next Ronald Reagan." And as I pointed out before, he's prone to stirring a heaping dollop of religion into his governance.

Here is evidence of that, and it is so incredibly wrong-headed, at least we can be pretty sure that he won't be John McCain's vice presidential pick. Or, hey, maybe he will be, and we can thank our lucky stars for how easy it will be to pick him apart. Hmm?

[Excerpt]

Louisiana gov. signs controversial education bill

Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed into law a bill that critics say could allow for the teaching of "creationism" alongside evolution in public schools. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Bobby Jindal on Face the Nation on Intelligent Design

I commented earlier that Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, Governor of Louisiana was featured Sunday morning on CBS' Face the Nation. Jindal is seen as the future of the Republican Party. I've read several swooning references, from "future President" to "another Ronald Regan."

But there is an issue for those of us who have less than reverent feelings about St. Ronnie, and for those of us who think religion and state should be separate. Jindal is rolling in religion, and it goes so far that he's for teaching "Intelligent Design" in biology classes. Intelligent Design is a "theory" (in the loosest sense of the word) that the origins of life had to have been created by an intelligent designer. In short, it is creationist dogma scrubbed free of the specifics, in order to make it harder to brand as a religious idea. But whatever it is, it isn't science, and belongs there about as much as verb conjugation belongs in math class. Here's what Jindal has to say about it.

Science is Cool: More Evidence for Evolution

I'm in the middle of a great book, by Richard Dawkins, called The God Delusion. In it, the author proclaims that his goal is for each reader to finish the book an avowed atheist. I've gone into the book agnostic to begin with--and I'm only half-way through it--but I'd venture to say he'll have won me over by then, at least in the religious sense. Atheists tend to discount all religion, as well as all things supernatural, and I'm not ready to drop the latter (more on that in a future review).

My reason for bringing this up, is that Dawkins approaches religion from a Darwinian point of view. It turns out, most arguments for God can be relatively easily debunked using Darwin's science, or logical extensions of it. That is why this article caught my eye, because it would seem that recent discoveries in genetics further bolster Darwin.

As interesting as all that is to me, I'm further intrigued by the response to this story on the arch-right-wing website, Free Republic. A normally lock-steppy, cohesive bunch, Freepers start to come undone when the subject of Evolution vs. Creationism pops up. After the excerpt below, check out their little slapfest. It's highly entertaining.

[Excerpt]

Scientists find a fingerprint of evolution across the human genome

The Human Genome Project revealed that only a small fraction of the 3 billion “letter” DNA code actually instructs cells to manufacture proteins, the workhorses of most life processes. This has raised the question of what the remaining part of the human genome does. How much of the rest performs other biological functions, and how much is merely residue of prior genetic events? . . .

Read more at: PsyOrg

And the Freepers' reaction: Free Republic