From a Pharyngula comment thread on endeavours by well-wishers to free Kent Hovind (sung to the tune of “Free Nelson Mandela”):
Dr. Kent Hovind’s oppressors have to decide whether they want to live in fear or learn to live in love. If you don’t agree with this I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Gold.
Jerry Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, reviews two books by theistic evolutionists in The New Republic:
It would appear, then, that one cannot be coherently religious and scientific at the same time. That alleged synthesis requires that with one part of your brain you accept only those things that are tested and supported by agreed-upon evidence, logic, and reason, while with the other part of your brain you accept things that are unsupportable or even falsified. In other words, the price of philosophical harmony is cognitive dissonance. Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard: rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births. Without good cause, Giberson and Miller pick and choose what they believe. At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board. With his usual flair, the physicist Richard Feynman characterized this difference: “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” With religion, there is just no way to know if you are fooling yourself. Read the rest of this entry »
(Source: Fred the Spot)
[UPDATE: BTW, Fred the Spot “evolves” into a crucifix, complete with Biblical texts so grovelling and self-abasing that they would make a BDSM sub blush. This guy should be writing Chick Tracts.]
Garret’s name links to the aforementioned website, so it is reasonable to conclude that it is his. Here are a few tasty morsels, both from his own Forever Christian blog and from pages linked to Fred the Spot. Read the rest of this entry »
Just quickly–Rae at Subversive Muse has written a series of posts “from a critical left-wing perspective” on atheism, science and religion. I’ve expressed my objections to Rae’s arguments–I think they basically misrepresent science (it is taken as axiomatic in this series of posts that science is “an ideology,” whereas I think this needs to be argued for/demonstrated) and critique a strawman definition of atheism–and I know Bruce (who is more well-versed on this topic than I am) is preparing a response at his blog. Brian at Primordial Blog has written a thoughtful response as well.
Just to make it worth your while (and Rae, I’m not lumping you in with these guys!), here are some Youtube dispatches from the war on science:
“The Evangelical War on Science”
The week in fundie . . .
Secular Believers:
Man discovered dead in girlfriend’s cat door
Wednesday Nov 14 10:00 AEDTA US man has been discovered dead in his girlfriend’s cat door, leaving authorities confused about his exact manner of death.
The man, Charles Tucker Junior, was using the animal entry to gain access to his girlfriend’s home on Sunday morning when he became stuck, News4Jax reported.
Officials said his girlfriend made the bizarre discovery only hours after she ordered him out of her house.
Speaking of Darwin, the PBS Nova special about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial,” will be available for viewing online from November 16.
Worth listening to is a collection of audio clips from a range of scientists and philosophers explaining what does and does not count as science.
I can’t promise anything, but docos like these “accidentally” happen to find their way onto Google Video from time to time, and you can often find out about them at onegoodmove.
The Discovery Institute has already produced a video response, labelling PBS the “Propaganda Broadcasting System” and claiming that the documentary will not be “fair and balanced.” The DI’s video-whine also juxtaposes black-and-white images of “anti-ID propagandist Barbara Forrest” and “Darwinian Activist Eugenie Scott” with what I can only assume is supposed to be Third Reich-era German folk music. (Because supporters of science and reason are Nazis who just want to persecute Christian Fundamentalists ID advocates.)
Ah, the Discovery Institute. Long on ad hominems and plaintive whiny rhetoric. Short on research and evidence.
BTW: I found this 2003 transcript of a Science Show interview with Eugenie Scott discussing ID/creationism and “Project Steve.”
The Discovery Institute has issued a press release challenging the constitutionality of the “Educator’s Briefing Packet” for the PBS NOVA doco Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.
“The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” says Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.
“The teaching guide is riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory,” adds West.
The Institute has sent the PBS teaching guide out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality.
I don’t like their chances. Have a look at the packet in question: it talks about
what science is, why biological evolution counts as science and why creationism/ID does not. It also discusses why teaching creationism/ID in the science classroom has been ruled unconstitutional time and time again. And–I suspect this is the real sticking point for the fundies who are the most vocal supporters of ID–it discusses how one can accept evolution without jettisoning one’s religious beliefs.
None of this constitutes an injection of religion into the science classroom. Sorry.
BTW: How long will it be until this is blamed on us evilutionist atheists?
“The centre needs to be reaffirmed,” says Alister McGrath. “I want to make it clear, I have no doubt there are some very weird religious people who might well be dangerous, but those of us who believe in God, know that, and we’re doing all we can to try and minimise their influence.” I seriously doubt it. All I seem to hear from religious moderates nowadays is bitching and moaning about how the mean and nasty atheists–sorry–“new atheists”–don’t understand religion and how wonderful it is. (There are exceptions, of course). Even McGrath is “doing all he can” to minimise the influence of the religious nutjobs: he’s in Australia “helping evangelicals brush up on their arguments against The God Delusion” (emphasis added).
Meanwhile, the loudest and most influential voices in Australian Christendom belong to the Religious Right. You don’t believe me? Back in August the Australian Christian Lobby was able to organise a National Press Club event, broadcast live across the country, in which both John Howard and Kevin Rudd addressed 200 church figures. That’s influence.
Whither the religious moderates when this was taking place?
Want more evidence? Try this one on: it is actually possible, in a secular liberal democracy such as Australia, for someone who advocates the teaching of faith-based pseudoscience in the science classrooms of public schools, and who considers homosexuality to be a “perversion,” to gain preselection as a candidate in a major political party. Instead of laughing and mocking him all the way back to his megachurch, enough party members consider him a suitable representative of their political organisation.
Whither the religious moderates in the Liberal Party, and why aren’t they doing all they can to minimise the influence of this breed of nutjob, not to mention his supporters?
Now the Australian Christian Lobby has set its sights on Labor. Kevin Rudd wears his love for Baby Jesus on his sleeve, so the ACL is seeking to wedge him on the issues that should be closest to the heart of any Christian. No, not poverty. No, not the environment. I mean the really important stuff, like “family values”–which basically translates as gay marriage, abortion, porn on the intertubes and gay marriage. The Religious Right was able to wedge Labor on the gay marriage issue back in 2004, and Labor of course dropped its pants, bent over, stuffed the ball gag into its mouth and willingly submitted. Will it happen again? Probably.
Whither the religious moderates in the Labor Party? Kevin Rudd marked his ascendancy to the leadership of the Labor Party with a Monthly essay that, with its emphasis on the social-gospel element of Christianity, threatened to pull out the rug from beneath the Religious Right. He had the cojones to stick it to the fundies back then; does he still possess them now, or will he be reduced to shameless pandering? The ACL certainly hopes so.
Meanwhile, Australia’s foremost member of the Spanish Inquisition has offered an apologia for the continued legal discrimination against gays. “Same-sex marriage and adoption changes the meaning of marriage, family, parenting and childhood for everyone, not just for homosexual couples,” says Cardinal Pell, without offering any supporting evidence. His comments have the support, naturally, of the ACL’s Jim Wallace, who says:
[Discrimination] is not something that is necessarily a bad concept, [. . .] I think what we’re talking about here is making sure that while we remove unfair discrimination, that we do not allow a very small part of the population to force their model for relationships to be adopted as the community norm, when it isn’t.
OH NOES!!! Ending discrimination against gays = MANDATORY BUGGERY!!!
[Wallace] says the problem is that equal rights for gay families complicate the definition of family.
“It confuses children and it’s suggested that this is a normal and healthy alternative,” he said.
OH NOES!! Ending discrimination against gay familes = LITTLE CHILDREN BEING SEDUCED INTO A LIFETIME OF BUGGERY!!!
Whither the religious moderates on this issue? Why aren’t they doing all they can to minimise the influence of this Bronze-Age model of morality?
No, I guess it’s easier to whine about the mean and nasty atheists not understanding religion and how wonderful it can be. Meanwhile, the Religious Right’s two-pronged (Protestant-fundie, and Catholic-fundie) assault on secular liberal democracy continues unabated. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now: we need people in Australian politics who are willing to speak up for the Enlightenment constituency (and religious moderates, frankly, can’t be trusted to do it). We think, and we vote.
P.S. I wasn’t the only one unimpressed with the recent Religion Report interview with Alister McGrath. It is being roundly panned on the ABC Guestbook.
The week in fundie:
About time there was some scrutiny of “Family” First (Mr Lefty)
Family First home movies (Grods)
Family First stifles free speech (Grods)
Absolutely no connection between Family First and the church at all (Grods)
“Right-Wing” Christian Australia’s War on Liberal Democracy (Thinker’s Podium)
More over the fold . . .
Evaluation: Students will be monitored by teacher observation during the classroom discussion, group work and answering the appropriate questions. Reflection paragraphs will be collected. The teacher will try to determine the students’ new courage and ability to defend their belief in the Creator.
How’s that for academic freedom? (via Pharyngula)
They shook their fists at God and said, “We don’t care what the Bible says, We want the California school children indoctrinated into homosexuality!” And then Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the heinous SB777 which bans the use of “mom” and “dad” in the text books and promotes homosexuality to all school children in California.
And then the wildfires of Southern California engulfed the land like a raging judgment against the radicalized anti-christian California rebels.
(via Pharyngula)
My StumbleUpon Page
Recent Comments