Tennessee- The Origin of the Specious Argument

Tennessee recently has allowed the teaching of creation science in their classrooms. That's nice. As written here before, you cannot legislate truth. There is no basis for creation science. There are several points that show that it is a flawed theory with many holes in it. That is is simply wrong. Why teach a wrong thing?

For example, back in Newton's day he had a contemporary, Robert Hooke, who discovered the simple math rule of how springs behave. So enamored with this rule he tried to apply it to the planets. He tried to show that the motion of the planets was caused by a force from the sun that was bigger when the planet was farther away just like a spring exerts a bigger force the farther you stretch it. This is a nice idea but it's wrong. It won't wash. You can't get the proper motion of the planets under the influence of such a force. So the idea just went away as bad ideas will do in the face of the data. You could have all the votes you wanted about that and you could even have a winning vote for Hooke's spring theory. You could even force teachers to teach it in school but the planets would still behave according to Newton's inverse square rule. And, if you voted money to send a probe to the moon or Mars based on a Hooke rule it would miss by a kabillion miles.

Now then. . . Trying to explain the variety of species, extinct species, and why we have a LOT in common with fish with intelligent design is hopeless. Intelligent design is just a pandering to what a bunch of religious zealots WANT to be true and because they are zealots it's not good enough for them to think it is true they want EVERYBODY to think it is true because somehow that will make it truer.

It won't. Why does this flawed theory of intelligent design keep getting resuscitated while Hooke's theory died peacefully in it's sleep? Because, Hooke's theory doesn't challenge anything in the bible.

I won't delineate the arguments here. I'm tired of that. The more you argue back and forth the more you give the zealots a platform. Let me just paint these broad strokes.

No university teaches Intelligent Design except for these. Notice there is no Big Ten school, no ivy league school, no school with a football team. If this is such a hot theory why aren't major research universities teaching it? You'll notice that all the schools have the word bible, baptist, seminary, etc in them. Not surprising and yet where is Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Georgetown, Loyola, St. Johns, DePaul, Duke, SMU, or Baylor?

When you read intelligent design crap the recurring theme is the old (and tiresome!) argument of 'incredulity'. Arguments that begin, "I just can't imagine. . . ", "Isn't it impossible. . . ", "How could it be . . . ", etc. These statements usually then go into some feature of the biological world that they find impossible to exist without a creator. The common example is the human eye.

The only problem with all of these arguments is that they've all been answered with a cogent, complete and simple theory of evolution. This is a common ploy. To CREATE controversy where none existed before they came along. To me THAT'S creation science - to create controversy by playing to the press as opposed to publishing peer reviewed scientific papers. But they don't do that. There is no journal or scientific organization that will accept any paper on intelligent design because . . . wait for it. . . IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

Then, see. . . it's all a conspiracy!!

And, if you're going to make incredulity a test of a theory let's pick anything from the quantum world or relativity. Why aren't those being attacked? For example, I can't 'imagine' an electron that has mass and yet no size. I can't imagine a photon of light and have light also be a wave. Why are teachers being allowed to teach crazy stuff like electron science or wave-particle duality to our youngsters? Why? Because the bible skipped over electrons and light (and the big bang by the way) so the faithful don't care. Oh, and that stuff about electrons and photons stands up to experiments. What experiment would you do to test intelligent design? There is none because the theory always ends up with . . . And then magic happened. You can't test for that. And maybe that's really the crux. The faithful are a group of people who somehow NEED there to be things that "just can't be explained". Somehow that is important to their world view so it is important that there is no experiment. This is better for them than an experiment that would come out in their favor. Unexplainable is somehow better.

Please read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It's clear. It's interesting. In it he not only explains how evolution works but shows how intelligent design fails miserably in explaining anything and ends up being self contradictory. For example, according to intelligent design everything is perfectly designed for its environment. Shubin shows many examples of species that plod along while NOT being so perfectly designed due to getting separated from where they first evolved. Why would a creator do this? Another obvious example is our own appendix.

The other excellent book is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. Read it. Similar to the above it is clear, concise and cuts to the heart of the intelligent design flaws.

Also, Darwin's own Origin of Species is surprisingly readable if a little lengthy. Oh, and it's free on Kindle.

Better yet, if you run into an intelligent design person you might ask them if they've read any of these or what they have read about evolution. Be prepared for a 'no' and a bunch of arguments of incredulity. Remember, just because due to someone's lack of education, they can't 'imagine' something doesn't make it impossible. In fact, if you want an argument using incredulity? Due to my having made it through a couple of college degrees and being a skeptic I can't imagine a deity that somehow builds creatures using magic. Which is more 'incredulous'?

I swear to Newton, if I had a kid in school in Tennessee I would move and move NORTH. In true Atlas Shrugged style, what if all the smart people (there must be some) left Tennessee?

Another Miracle

A navy jet recently crashed into an apartment building. It being mid day no one was home and no one was killed. The pilots ejected as per their training. Then this quote from the governor:

“I think it’s an act of divine providence,” Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell told the Virginian-Pilot newspaper.

Really? That's the first explanation that you can come up with? As if an explanation is even required. God saw to it to drive a plane into an apartment building but did so so that no one was killed. And his message was . . . . ? Or God was asleep at the helm and a plane was headed for the ground and at the last second God picked an apartment building with on one in it. This is the 'sorta-omnipotent' God.

Of course the obvious question by anyone with a brain is, if God is present for things like this why have the plane crash at all? Or why not have the plane just miss the apartment building and crash in the parking lot?

Why doesn't anyone come back on a statement like the governor's with a follow question or two? I'll tell you. Because we tip toe around statements of faith like that as if they are worth some extra respect and that is one of the small ways that myths continue to have life.

If the governor had said, " I think a giant squid stuck up a tentacle and pulled the jet down" he'd be driven from office within the month even though squids actually exist! We wouldn't respect or give the squid explanation ANY credence at all but we nod our heads and mumble something when someone says something equally stupid about 'divine providence'.

Voting Ain't Gonna Do It

If you vote for Mitt (are my eyes too close together?) Romney, Rick (Is that a rubber in your pocket young man?), or looks like any other Republican, that wont make evolution, global warming, the moon landings, nor gravity false. You can't vote/legislate truth. Only rationalism, logic and science reveal the truth. Let's have someone at the helm who understands how to solve problems regardless of their faith not someone who things faith will somehow magically solve problems.

The Scientific Method

I had the good fortune today to sit in on a couple of presentations at Fermi National Laboratory. There are two large research groups there representing the two giant detectors they have in the Tevatron. Each group has data and analysis that may be suggestive of the existence of the elusive Higgs particle which would be very large news.















Understand that I understood NONE of the physics per se but here’s what I observed:

• Calm and logical presentations
• Polite and attentive audience
• An almost crushing critical eye on their own data (more on this)
• Respectively presenting results from the other detector and from the big machine at CERN without any high fiving or end zone dances (but that would have been kind of awesome).
• Questions being asked and answered without any shouting or interrupting.

So, yes, all of this in direct opposition to what passes for public debate and intercourse these days (Republican “debates” or any asshole on FOX). I watched as each group looked very hard for ways their data could be WRONG. That’s right. That’s the real scientific method. You have a hypothesis, you collect data, it may be suggestive of the hypothesis but before you go there you check the 999 ways you could be wrong. They do a thing were they think they have a signal and then ask, “What are the odds that the background noise could have produced this signal”? They even have a thing called LEE which is the 'Look Elsewhere Effect'. I can only assume that that includes behind the sofa cushions. Stuff like that. They might not like the answer to those questions all the time but so it goes.

You’ll never find this among the creationists because they don’t understand the first thing about science or the scientific method. They have a preconceived idea about how the world works (not a testable hypothesis) then they put together ideas and things that may be suggestive of that preconceived idea, ignore all things that contradict, and call that science. What they are missing is the critical eye that would ask, what else might cover these observations? Is that more or less plausible than where we started? But no. They cannot accept any explanation that contradicts the initial world view because the whole point is to have another way to preach the world-view. . . science be damned!

We’re swimming in relativism where everyone with an idea thinks his is just as good as anyone else’s because he tweeted it. Luckily, real research doesn’t work that way. It’s god awful hard work but step by step our understanding of this universe increases. Any opinion you have about some piece of research better be well formed and based on the relevant and accepted theories around. You don't get to have an opinion just because it suits you. You don't get to have an opinion just because somehow you got it into your head that all opinions are equal. They're not.

Basic research may not lead to a world view that is exactly what we had in mind but that doesn’t matter. Keeping an open mind is critical if you expect to find anything new. Wherever pure research leads we all get to share in our increased understanding of this (one and only?) beautiful universe.

If we keep an open mind . . . and quit shouting!

What does the bible say about the bible . . and then I ramble.

I had this thought today. . . Does the bible itself actually claim to be 'the word of God' or written by God? If not then the 'good book' was handed down and at some point people started putting a magic cloak on it.

My research continues but I did find this nugget:

Christians believe that the Bible is from God, not because someone told them, but because the Bible claims it.

I'm guessing this won't be my last encounter with a circular argument. But then I guess I asked for it by asking if the bible referred to itself. Self reference, like time travel, always leads to difficulties.

The barber cuts the hair of all the people who don't cut their own. Who barbers the barber?
There are two indices in the library. One lists all the books that do not refer to themselves in any way and the other lists all the books that do. Which index is in which index?

Stuff like that.

Anyway, my bigger wondering was about the nature of the world and civilization at the time that we think the books of the old testament were assembled by Abraham and then maybe later by Charlton Heston.

From Wikepedia:
In historical archaeology, the ancient literature of the Iron Age includes the earliest texts preserved in manuscript tradition. Sanskrit literature and Chinese literature flourished in the Age. Other text includes the Avestan Gathas, the Indian Vedas and the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible. The principal feature that distinguishes the Iron Age from the preceding ages is the introduction of alphabetic characters, and the consequent development of written language which enabled literature and historic record.^[1]

(jeez they sure underline a lot!)

Wow, Looks like the Hebrew Bible (old testament) wasn't the only writing laying around. Were any of these other pieces of literature given the magic cloak?

Here's the thing. I'm a rotten history student. I like it. It interests me but there is just so MUCH of it! Suffice it to say that the ancient books of the bible were written a LONG time ago. Now it is said that they were 'inspired' so that they are actually the word of God. OK.

However, would you allow that perhaps there were some misunderstandings? Would you allow that due to the temper of the times and the vagaries of passing things down that things like slavery, role of women, etc maybe got a less than heavenly treatment? If so, how hard is it to get re-inspired and do a new edition? I'm half serious (the other half is all smart-ass). The religious get so much grief (and rightly so) about the atrocities that are promoted in the bible that I can't see a down side for them for a re-write.

They won't have to prove that the re-write was actually written by God since they can't prove that model 1 was either. It's a faith thing. Some modern 'inspired' writers could really have at it! They could get the age of the universe correct. They could have the modern bible jibe with evolution! You could teach the new bible in Bio class and all are happy! You could keep the old stories about Noah etc. but perhaps the flood was not world wide but local and he took some cats and dogs. You could put in some fancy language about the big bang and you get some traction there because to date nobody knows what CAUSED the Big Bang. You could have some newer stories that include such modern characters as Archimedes and Galileo, Martin Luther and Muhammad Ali perhaps. You could fill in things about dinosaurs, the Chinese, the Aztecs, and the Whig Party. Stuff like that. Why in the end you'd have a wonderful book that would be. . .


Maybe a very nice set of science/history texts! Praise the Newton and pass the ammunition!

Hand of God

Theists are fond of seeing the hand of God in such things as devastating tornadoes. The two obvious questions are:

1. How does it work? Really, how does it work? What is the mechanism by which an entity controls the weather. I'll give you that he has the power to do it. What is the mechanism by which it works?

2. I like to ask, ok, they how would it have looked different if it were just random weather and not the hand of God? Look about the same I'm thinking. A family huddled in their house praying their asses off got carted off to heaven. Hmmm...maybe that's what they were praying for and it DOES work!

In short you only see the hand of God if you already believe in the hand of God. There is no objective proof of the work of a deity. As my boss at the museum used to say, "If I hadn't believed it with my own mind I never would have seen it".

Hoping and Knowing

There’s hoping and then there’s knowing. Religion is devoted to hoping and science and rationalism are devoted to knowing. When you pray you are hoping a LOT of things. You’re hoping that the lines are up, you’re hoping that the message will be answered. When you go to church and express your faith you hope that you are going to heaven. Even the faithful will agree that they don’t know any of those things but that they have faith. They’re hoping.

People are fond of saying that they know something “in their hearts”. This is put up as an unassailable position when in fact it's just a metaphor. Moreover, by saying you ONLY know something in your heart means that you’re hoping. Flowery language cannot be used against cold hard facts. You’re basing your premise on what you want to be true based on no information or research and probably via ignoring information that contradicts that which you are hoping.

When you know something (no matter how much you may wish it weren’t true) you know it based on research, facts, known theories, and testable and re-testable experiments. Your knowledge is firmly attached to reality. There is nothing between you and your knowledge that has to be accepted to move on. Nothing is based on hoping. Everything is open to examination and tests. That’s real knowledge. And if someone says to me, "Yes, but what about other realities or the supernatural", I say, well just show me an example and we'll take it from there. Experiments will continue and would frankly be fascinating!

I get the hoping part. It’s a scary world out there. Our lives are so short. We wish things were different perhaps. But hoping they were different doesn’t make it so. Every parent teaches their kids this pretty early on, right? You may wish your child didn’t have to go through the pain of a dying pet but making up a doggie heaven doesn’t change the facts. As kids grow they have a pretend world that meshes with the real world and that's great but we all know the difference, right?

None of this would be worth writing about nor would it be a problem except for the fact that hoping and reason are hoisted up on the dance floor as if they were on equal terms (because the former might actually be worth more votes). When it comes to the death of Bowser I could give a rats ass really what you tell your kid. But when it comes to how we operate something as complicated as the US of A I get a little nervous. Why should I care what invisible deity what candidate sends his hopes to. Why do we still say that someone is a “man of faith” as if that makes him qualified to lead the nation. If that were all it took we’d draft Tim Tebow and be done with it.

Examples abound. When the religious right tries to pretend that there is controversy regarding evolution they are putting their hope that the bible is true and accurate and that man is special up against tons of reality based research that says we are no more special than any other of our fellow creatures and that clearly there has been a plodding progression from simple organisms to more complicated. We’re part of that progression. How could we not be without being aliens from another planet? That these two positions are put up as if they were worthy debate contestants is ludicrous.

When people listen to congressmen instead of scientists when it comes to global warming it’s because they HOPE that it just isn’t true and that it’s really still 1957, gas is 29 cents a gallon, and Wally and the Beaver are on their way home from school. Sorry, the planet is definitely warming up and anyone who can read and think a little will agree with the thousands of SCIENTISTS who also agree that the planet is warming up and that it is industrialization that caused it. It’s a tough reality so just deal with it and let’s start working on solutions. There is nothing in the way of solving problems except denying that they exist!

anti evolution

There’s still a anti-evolution bill pending in New Hampshire.

Do these people have the remotest idea of how science works? You don't get a bug up your ass about your pretend friends and then try to get a fucking bill passed in support of it. No. You do real scientific research and publish your results in a peer reviewed journal.

Why no anti-gravity bill? or anti-neutrino bill? Or why not just come out and write an anti-science bill because you just can't handle all that logic and want to live about 5000 years ago.

Enjoy the cholera?

Why do we insist on remaining so stupid?

10 reasons to not vote for Santorum

I read today an article at CNN (why do I keep going to their site?) entitled: 10 Reasons Religious Conservatives Love Rick Santorum.

My comments are inserted in RED. (I used to grade a LOT of papers.)

1. Santorum’s a family man. “He’s got this big, vibrant family and he left the campaign trail last week to go back and be with his daughter in the hospital,” says Eli Bremer, chairman of Colorado's El Paso County Republican Party, centered around evangelical-heavy Colorado Springs. Santorum recently returned to Pennsylvania to respond to a health scare involving daughter Isabella – the youngest of his seven children – who suffers from a genetic disease. “I spent time with him last year, and he’s constantly thinking about his family,” Bremer says of Santorum. “It’s not just a political stunt.”

We've only had one president who was a bachelor - Franklin Pierce (the 15th . . . president, not the 15th Franklin Pierce). So, yeah, you're not going to get elected these days and not be a 'family man'. But what does that mean? Josh Powell was a family man. So were Robert Lynch, Bruce Sweazy, and Anthony Paul...they all killed their families. You elect a guy . . . not a family. Would it be possible for a single guy to be a good president? Of course so this item is a wash. There are good family guys and bad family guys and either way it's not a qualification for the presidency.

2. He’s not averse to getting politically incorrect when donning culture warrior chain mail. “So if the baby’s toe is in you can’t kill the baby – how about if the baby’s foot is in?” he famously asked U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, in a 1999 debate over a rare, later term abortion procedure that anti-abortion groups call a "partial birth" abortion.

I'll step back a little on this one. I'm actually for being politically incorrect (you BITCH!) but I will say that whether a stranger has an abortion (and I might be against abortion in philosophy) will affect my world not one whit. The president of the United States frankly cannot rule on abortion. It's the law of the land and will take 2/3 of the states to change that. The president of the United States should focus on what really affects the working people of this country and unborn (or partially unborn) children do not. That's just a cold hard fact. This is an emotional issue and one where you obviously take the stand that is required by the votes you are trying to get. I get that.

3. Santorum’s a homeschooling dad. His wife, Karen, is homeschooling or has homeschooled their seven children, making them a poster family for a movement populated largely by evangelical Christians and other serious believers. “It matters because it shows he’s a real part of our movement rather than simply someone who is politically sympathetic,” says Michael Farris, an evangelical conservative who leads the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Home schooling is a way to keep your kids ignorant. It's stupid. It's a way to hide them from scary things like evolution (150 years old), global warming (it's real), and negros. You're raising defective children who cannot work with anyone who thinks or looks different from them. Shame on you.

4. He’s a devout cradle Catholic. As a kid in Pennsylvania, Santorum the altar boy would spend Sunday mornings pushing hospital patients in wheelchairs to Mass. As a U.S. senator, Santorum attended Mass at St. Joseph’s on Capitol Hill each day before work. That piety gets respect with religious voters, regardless of affiliation. “Evangelicals have made him an honorary evangelical,” said Richard Land, public policy chief for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Well now. . . ok. He believes in invisible spirits. Luckily we live in a land where you're free as free can be to believe whatever. But we're talking about running the country. How does this belief in magical beings help one run the country?

5. Santorum’s not Mitt Romney. Millions of socially conservative voters still distrust the former Massachusetts governor on the hot button issues – abortion and same-sex marriage. Some, though not all, are put off by Romney’s Mormonism.

The US is mired in debt. We are still hated by a great number of countries. China is building EVERYTHING we invent. The planet is heating up. THESE are issues. How in the fuck is abortion and same-sex marriage a button at all let alone a hot one?

6. Santorum’s not Newt Gingrich. Many social conservatives, particularly those of the female persuasion, continue to be turned off by Gingrich’s two failed marriages and his admissions of past marital infidelity.

Adolf Hitler, Adam Sandler, and the Queen of England are also not Newt Gingrich. Next!

7. Santorum doesn’t just talk about opposing abortion, he’s legislated on it. As a senator, he was an architect of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He pushed the ban even in the1990s, when Bill Clinton was in the White House and the legislation stood nary a chance of a presidential signature. “He walked the walk,” Land says. “When no one else would carry our water in the Senate, he would.”

Just a quick reminder. . . does not affect your basic American o n e w h i t! This is posturing. This is taking a stand so that you can get votes from the mentally defective who pride themselves in liking babies. OK, who doesn't?! I like babies. I like puppies too! But it is not a day to day agenda item for the president of the United States. Get it?

8. Ditto on same-sex marriage. Santorum sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage at a time when many Republicans lawmakers didn’t want to touch such a hot potato.

Sigh. . . Let's say you're a conservative evangelical and you DO get the country to outlaw same-sex marriage. How will your life change? How will this be a better land? All you'll get is a way to add to that smugness you already carry around because you believe in invisible people. You'll wake up and get to say, SO THERE! Oh, and by the way, the president cannot make this happen for you.

9. Santorum’s big on compassionate conservatism. Though he gets the most ink for controversial stances on issues such as homosexuality, Santorum has also been a leading advocate for funding to fight AIDS in the Third World and has led conservative responses to poverty. “A lot of people have a hard time getting Rick Santorum because they’re used to a debate between liberalism and complete free-market approach and he’s not either of those things,” says Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

I like pistachio nuts.

10. Santorum isn’t afraid to challenge science, questioning the theory of evolution and dismissing global warming as “a hoax.” The former senator “confirms (social conservatives’) view of science as being at odds with a Christian worldview,” tweets Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College, an evangelical Christian school in Pennsylvania.

Ok, here we go. This is either ignorance or pure posturing and I suspect the later. There is NO controversy in the biological sciences about evolution. There is only 'controversy' that is created by assholes who want schools to teach religion which is what creationism is. There is no university you could attend and major in intelligent design. It is transparent as hell and courts have seen intelligent design for that and ruled accordingly.

As for global warm the verdict is in. Here's a link to some quick references that show why it is real and that we caused it. The really scary part is that his counter argument to the scientific evidence that supports global warming is that, wait for it. . . .IT'S A HOAX! Oh sure. A few million scientists got together and decided to create this most giant of hoaxes since the landing on the moon. Yeah that is a LOT more believable than the data supporting global warming itself. Again, the only reason to say such a thing is that you are a complete unread idiot or that you are just posturing to an obvious group to get votes.

I think I'm leaning toward NOT supporting Rick Santorum for any office and especially the presidency.

Book Review: Mr g by Alan Lightman

I should say first off that I’m a big fan of Alan Lightman. I read his clever little book, Einstein’s Dreams, years ago when I was teaching physics at Maine East High. I used to buy a copy for each of my AP seniors as a graduation present. That said I recently saw Mr g sitting on the featured table at the neighborhood bookstore (Borders is gone but the mom and pop shops live on!) and just bought it without another thought.

As you may have already guessed, Mr g is a all seeing, all knowing, immortal, omnipotent being that lives in the ‘void’. He is accompanied there by his aunt and uncle - a literary or philosophical gizmo that has escaped me so far. Mr. g, after waking up from a nap decides to create a universe. He goes through may prototypes experimenting with what the initial conditions need to be to have it not blow up in 2 seconds and so forth. With zillions of his prototypes zinging around the void he settles on a favorite and gives it a name that involves the 10,000th prime number.

Lightman being an MIT physicist and professor of humanities gently works in good physics about time, the big bang, and evolution. Mr g is tempted to cause the creation of sentient beings and is surprised to find that with matter, energy and his initial boundary conditions it happens spontaneously all over the billions of galaxies in his favorite universe.

By Mr. g’s inherent ‘goodness’ the creation of a universe caused to be created his opposite - Baalial. He goes by various names but he is the cynic to Mr. g’s optimism. They have many interesting discussions about goodness, free will and more.

A thought provoking book, a quick read, and Mr. g never reveals himself to the sentient beings of the universe he created. . . .or does he?

Link to the book below. . . I notice that the reader reviews on Amazon are all over the place. I'd be interested to know what my fellow atheists think of the book.

Mr g by Alan Lightman

Joe Pa

Just read an obit of Joe Pa - the Penn State football coach. Nice guy, too bad the way it ended. But to the point of this blog here's a quote from the piece I read by Jack McCallum at SI.

But when the end came, it came with such breathtaking suddenness that even non-believers must pause for moment to wonder if it wasn't part of some cosmic script.

I guess this is just a writer trying to make a deadline or trying to a little more than a sports guy but what kind of a sentence is that? I'm a non-believer and I don't see any cosmic script here. Things happened as reported and all explainable by the vagaries of human behavior.

It's this kind of 'cosmic glasses' that a huge number of people enjoy looking through to help support their world view. This is not evil. This is just what people do. When there is a particularly beautiful sunrise some tend to think that some super being made is special just for them. Perhaps some cannot separate beauty from that beauty being connected to someone or some super-being creating it.

To me the oceans, the sky, a sailboat, a summer day . . . all of that is particularly beautiful. My thinking stops there and I just enjoy it as is.

Why I Care

Uh oh. . .here comes a presidential election year. I'm of two minds. Part of me wants to chuck the TV out the window (nice splash from the 12th floor!), disconnect from the internet, go for runs and walks until November. I can't stand all the stupid sound bites, the back biting, non-answers to simple questions, the posturing, and so forth.

But then there's this Mitt guy and I think of Martin Luther King: "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it". So let's see what fight do I want to fight. . .

As a scientist, I want to focus my attention on the candidates and their stand on science and rationalism. Mitt seems to be a guy who will say ANYTHING while understanding NOTHING in a run at the white house. Sadly this is probably a good strategy in the under-educated America in which we live.

So, what do I care what the president thinks? Well, I do because of his influence at the bully pulpit. I would like a leader who lets the conclusions of numerous experiments direct policy. That's not how it works however. What dictates policy is what can generate votes and sadly, stupid people's votes count just the same as intelligent people's.

For example, the Creationists want schools to teach the 'controversy' between evolution and creationism. . .BUT THEY CREATED THE PRETEND CONTROVERSY! There is NO controversy in the scientific community.

So then that's a conspiracy, right?

Sigh. . .

CRASH!

(That was the TV hitting the sidewalk.)

Sorry about the dog.

Seriously, I want a president who says something to the effect of, "Let the scientists teach science based on our current knowledge and their training as scientists and let the preacher teach his moral lessons." Nobody attending any university is being taught creationism. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

Let's teach what we KNOW and preach what we BELIEVE.

No candidate is going to say that, right? Not Obama either who is pretty religious.

But, I taught at a catholic school (by the way the pope acknowledged evolution as the way the world works back in 1950) and I'm sure there was no up-ightness about what was being taught in the biology classroom. Why? Because they got their shot in the religion classroom! So, if you're uptight about evolution just take your kid to church (some protestant one I would think) and let them teach your kid too. Then, let the kid THINK for him or her self.

Scary?

HOLY CRAP! What if they pick 'wrong'.

I don't think Mitt has any clue about any real science. Real science says evolution is real and proveable and has for about a hundred years but he won't be able to cop to that. Hundreds of separate experiments and investigations show that the earth is warming up and that is our doing but he won't be able to cop to that either.

In this day and age it takes a big government to do big, important science for the sake of society as a whole. The days of a single scientist working late at night in his lab and inventing the light bulb are long past. Fundamental research requires huge labs and huge budgets. A guy who clearly doesn't understand it or chooses to ignore simple facts is a danger to society. Mitt is not the guy we need in the white house but I suspect 'the guy' doesn't exist and if he did he wouldn't be electable.

Guns make us safe

Think of the things you cannot advertise on TV.

cigarettes (they kill people)
people actually drinking liquor or beer
outright prostitution (political speeches get an exemption).
heroine (etc)
baby seal clubbing
kitten torture
selling babies

I would even imagine a hefty dose of outrage if one even showed a kid riding a tiny 2 wheeler with training wheels WITHOUT a helmet (on the child not the wheels). We’re nothing if not extremely safety conscious in this country. Oh yeah. I bought a pair of binoculars recently (true story!) and one of the items on the 2 page SAFTEY information sheet was to not swing them around by the strap. See? We’re extra safe in this country.

But it turns out you can and we do advertise guns on TV. Not up north here so much but in places like Indianapolis (hillbilly capital), Kentucky, etc. they definitely do.























And while it’s true enough that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, I’m puzzled by, on one hand our crazy, over-zealous safety consciousness played against our affection for about the most dangerous item around, the hand gun.

I’ve never bought a hand gun so maybe they come with a super duper safety sheet:

1. Do not aim at your head
2. Do not aim at your brother’s head
3. Etc.
4. Only shoot some bitch ho who dissed you.
5. Try to use that as a defense.
6. Do not look down the barrel to see if it is clean.
7. Do not look down the barrel for a laugh in a bar.
8. 9. Do not put gun near fundamental particle detectors as the steel will alter the magnetic field
9. Do NOT run out of bullets.
10. Do not swing around by the holster.

Whoops! Atheist blog. . . uh, YEAH, there's no God.

Cheers

the Sabbath

From a silly CNN article about 'faith-based predictions for 2012'.

Sabbath becomes trendy! Fourth Commandment makes a comeback! Sabbath named Time’s person of the year! A new movement sweeps the country. They call themselves 24/6. Worn out by being tethered to the grid 24/7, sick of being accessible all hours of the day, inundated by updates, upgrades, and breaking news, Americans finally rebel, demanding, “We need a day off.” People all over the country go offline for 24 hours every week. The simple break from the frenetic pace results in lowered cholesterol rates, fewer speeding tickets, and a reduction in marital strife. Peace, tranquility and contentment spread like wildfire.
–Jamie Korngold, rabbi and author of "The God Upgrade"

I gotta tell you, I'm FOR this. When we lived in the Caribbean just about everything is CLOSED on Sunday. Sure sometimes when you need a part or are out of rum this can be annoying but it does force you to take a day off. The towns are quiet. Fewer cars about and it makes for a nice break. I don't think there is any way to go back to a time when most businesses were closed on Sunday (or any day really) but it would make for a nice break.

Michelle Bachman is a Bad Person

First in an ongoing, occasional series on the 2012 presidential election.

Michelle Bachman - My first foray into research on her just tells me she is truly a bad person. I usually think people are mostly good but deluded or good but under educated. Like that. This person, though, might truly be evil. Let's start with global warming. This from Wikipedia:

Bachmann has charged that global warming is a hoax[82] and has been a vocal skeptic of global warming.[83] She has asserted that since carbon dioxide is "a natural byproduct of nature", it is a beneficial gas required by plant life. She stated that because life requires carbon dioxide and it is part of the planet's life cycle, it cannot be harmful. In a statement she made on the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Bachmann stated she was against the cap and trade climate legislation, stating: "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful.... We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth.

Wow. This is just gross ignorance or gross pandering to an ignorant segment of society, i.e. Republicans. Maybe Ms. Bachmann would like to breath a big bag of carbon dioxide for severall minutes? Of course Cabon Dioxide is needed for life but how much? UV light is necessary for some chemical reactions but how much? Plus, to say that global warming is a hoax would imply that someone has something to gain by promoting such a hoax. Who? The entire scientific community is in on some grand practical joke? (See a very nice, concise article on reasons to conclude that global warming is real from NASA.) A hoax from NASA? What do they have to gain by claiming that the earth is warming up? I think Bachman just says the word 'hoax' to gain attention and votes from the idiotic conspiracy crowd that have infected the Republican party.

I find several examples of Bachman being a champion of the new political methodology of 'my way or nothing'. Here's an example.

On August 31, 2009, Bachmann spoke at an event in Colorado, saying of Democratic health care overhaul proposals that: This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass.

Not much room for debate there is there?

Similarly -

Bachmann has characterized the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "ObamaCare", and has continually called for its repeal.

No honest debate. No entering of actual bills. Just calling for a repeal.

Now how about evolution. From the Huffington Post:

Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject. For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."

OK, there is no controversy among scientists. There is a "controversy" only because there is a large group of evangelicals who can't accept a simple scientific fact because it might mean that we are no more special than aardvarks. The best news about her claim is how it was shot down by a high school student, Zack Kopplin:

Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists."

Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there.

For the next hand, I raise you 43 Nobel Laureate scientists. That's right: 43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law. ... Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?

No response ever from Bachman. But, this is her method. She makes outrageous claims with no supporting evidence, gets her name in the paper and her face on TV. . . and moves on.

How about gay and lesbians?

gay and lesbian people “live a very sad life” that is “part of Satan” with “sexual dysfunction and sexual identity disorders.”

"We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It's not funny, it's sad. Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle-we have a member of our family that is. This is not funny. It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It's anything but gay."

Bachman's husband is some sort of counselor and runs a business where you can pray the gay away and get 'cured' of that particular affliction. Here's her response to a hidden camera foray into his counseling business:

HOST: What is your opinion on reparative therapy and is it something that’s conducted in that center?

BACHMANN: Well, I’m running for the Presidency of the United States and I’m here to talk about job creation and that we do have a business that deals with job creation. I’m very proud of the business that we created and I’m here today in Indianola, Iowa….

HOST: But of course the issue today is about this reparative therapy and about what this hidden camera caught and their opinions are going to be aired on tonight’s news. And you don’t want to comment on that and give your side?

BACHMANN: Well, I’m here to talk about the Presidency of the United States. As I said again, we’re very proud of our business and we’re proud of all job creators in the United States. That’s what people really care about.

OK I think we've seen enough. She's a bad person. I think she's so bad that she has no chance. No one can make this many undefendable, crazy statements and survive the scrutiny of a run for the presidency. That would be like if George Bush could get elected! Wait. . .

We need to keep her feet to the fire. When she claims things we HAVE to ask for the evidence. Show your cards. Don't let her just spout off and then get back on the plane to the next sound bite option. I hope she does many more interviews because anybody who has read anything can take her apart easily.

2012 Presidential Race

Here we go again!

I’m disgusted with the current state of our government. It is a do nothing, CYA, pit of hollering at each other. It is impossible for anyone to simply have a good idea. If a Republican has an idea it is BAD as reported by the Democrats and visa-verse. By definition! No one can break ranks without being ostracized by his or her own party. There is no real debate and no real consideration of what is best for the country as a whole. All proposals are looked at ONLY in the light of ‘what does this do for me and my party’. The hell with ‘the people’.

In that light I’m tempted to just ignore the whole thing. The process upsets me. The bickering is annoying and really the whole thing just becomes depressingly boring. Tempted.

But here comes a new year ending in said election. So, I need to buck up, do a little reading and try to sort out what the candidates really say (should they actually say something) from all the hollering and posturing. I think I’ll start by just reading up on one candidate at a time and writing about them.

I’ll try to keep and open and reasonable mind as I read and write but from the outset I’m going to be leery of anyone who thinks he has an upper hand just because he is more pious than another. I don’t expect America to elect an atheist anytime soon but I’d at least like to find a candidate who, 1. Understands the essence of the separation of church and state and, 2. one who is not anti-science nor anti intellectual. I know that by saying those two things I’ll not find a candidate at all but I’d like to keep banging the drum for reason and for keeping myths out of government.

Now. . .who shall I start with. . .

Jesus Toast!

Tired of waiting for the savior of mankind to appear on your morning toast? Who isn't. Well wait no more!

Jesus Toaster

Just goes to show you - you can sell some people anything! (I kind of want one though)

JESUS CRUST!

Anthropic Principle

One time a theist friend challenged my atheism by asking me, “How do you explain goodness”? A flippant answer would be, “How do you explain badness”? but I think there’s a better answer.

Think of proto-humans. Short, slow, no claws or fangs. We had sizable brains but not early on. About the only remaining way for the humanoid branch to continue to grow was for packs of us to stick together. Evolution would select cooperation over eating our young or our neighbor’s young for example. This is not unlike the anthropic principle in cosmology. The physical constants and age of the universe are apparently just right for consciousness because we’re here to observe them. Because we’re here at all ‘proves’ that what we now call ‘goodness’ must have evolved naturally - was naturally selected. I put proves in quotes because I haven’t proven anything in a truly slam dunk logical way. On the other hand, which scenario seems more reasonable? That a magical entity whose existence cannot be demonstrated imbued humans with ‘goodness’ and that’s why we’re good and don’t kill each other, or drop bombs on each other, or lie to each other, or steal from each other OR that overall we are more good than bad (regardless of the evening news) because evolution would pick that otherwise I wouldn’t be here to make this clever argument!

What's Next?

I'm reading an article on CNN about the controversy on what to call a 'Chirstmas tree'. It was a holiday tree in Wisconsin's capital and now it's a Christmas tree again. In Rhode Island it's no longer a Christmas tree but is now a holiday tree. Lots of loud talking from theists and atheists alike on what's proper.

This past year has seemed especially busy in the formation of free thinking student alliances on campuses around the country and by the multitude of atheist billboards going up. Of course each of these is accompanied by the usual loud talking and fist shaking by both sides.

And I tire of it.

I started this blog about 6 years ago. I've been reading other atheist blogs, I've read Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens. I read Friendly Atheist every day. Now, I can't help but wonder what is next? The writing, the arguments, the billboards all seem the same, same, same.

And I tire of the rhetoric.

I'm all for and excited about the modern atheist movement but it seems stuck in 'billboard' mode. While I think it's important for the message to continue to go out I yearn for something more. What would that be?

The only thing I can think of that would really stir the pot is if atheist numbers and organization could get to the point to support and promote a truly free thinking, free speaking, atheist political candidate at the senate or governor level. I think we're years away from that but I'd like to think that it is going to happen sometime.

How great would it be for a reporter to ask the candidate about his religious affiliation and have him look straight into the camera and say, 'Atheist'. Follow this by asking the reporter in what way belief, faith, adherence to myths, etc is connected to governing?

In the meantime I guess we just keep banging the drum and speaking our minds. Freely and reasonably.

Magic Sweatshirt

I’ve been running better lately. A little farther. Maybe faster and just generally feeling better while running. Yesterday I had my first bad run in a while. Only went a quarter mile and turned around and came walking/jogging back.

But I had my longest run in a long, long time today (4 miles!) and felt pretty darn good too. What the hell happened yesterday? Hmmm….

I know! Of all those recent runs it was the only one where I didn’t wear my old Maine East High School sweatshirt. So what have we learned children?

THE SWEATSHIRT IS MAGIC.

The same logic works for prayer. When you pray for someone or something and it ‘works’ we’re happy to celebrate the magic while ignoring the millions of other explanations for the outcome. Our prayers were ‘answered’. One reinforcement of a magical hypothesis tends to make many of us ignore other possibilities and conclude that the hypothesis has been proven to be true. This is especially true if you WANT the hypothesis to be true because you’ve already made a philosophical and monetary commitment to magical happenings and their trappings.

So, besides lacking my magical sweatshirt what else could have been different about yesterday’s run? What did I eat the night before? How much sleep? What time of day did I run? Temperature for the run? Wind? There are hundreds of variables and thousands of combinations of those variables that work for or against us runners. We sort out some as we learn about our own running bodies. I cannot run before 7. I can’t and there is not enough magic in any shirt to change that. I can’t run 2 days in a row (very often). My body needs an easy day between runs. Things like that.

When someone is prayed for AND they recover from an illness some think they’re prayers have been answered. Well, they were ‘hoping’ for such and outcome (I can’t find a real difference between hoping and praying) and they got it. It certainly is tempting to conclude that one caused the other but there’s no logical reason to do that and a million other factors to consider. The drugs worked. The doctors diagnosis was correct. The body heals itself sometimes and so on.

Does praying for someone make the one doing the praying feel better? I think it does. I think it makes them feel like they're doing something in a time of maybe feeling helpless. That's fine and I'd never interfere. But ease up on schools and government involvment with church and prayer ok? And don't get on your high moral horse with me if you're praying for someone and I'm just hoping.

Well tomorrow is an off day for running but I'll be back on it come Saturday. I better remember to get that sweat shirt in the wash!