I consider it a matter of conscience that as an atheist I can have a dialogue with any Christian or other religionist without resorting to verbal abuse or name-calling (oddly enough I’ve been given more grief with atheists in this regard!). But to keep things fair and balanced, I’m going to have to have a little discussion with my Christian friend Gregory Dickow after comments he made on his Friday edition of Ask the Pastor. It’s a call-in show in which I occasionally participate.
I took my kids to the mall on Friday. On the way I tuned in to Ask the Pastor (AM 1160 M-F, 5-6 PM in Chicago). My kids are old enough now that I don’t shield them from listening to Christian radio with me. I think it’s informative for them, and often leads to interesting discussions. I definitely don’t make excuses for fundamentalists, nor do I try to marginalize religious viewpoints (except perhaps the insidious purulent movement, Dominionism, what I call Christian Supremacy), when I discuss religion with my children.
But I have to admit that I beamed with pride at my indirect approach, when my 12 yr old made the comment, “Dad, he called us ‘unintelligent!’”
Most of the time my kids tune out Christian radio, but my son sat up and took notice when Dickow mentioned good ole ChucK the AtheisT as among his friends that call in to his show to offer the atheist perspective.
“Dad, he’s talking about you!”
Dickow was debating the absent straw man atheist as he often does. Not seeming to know much about science or indeed how evidence is actually obtained and weighed, he once again made the statement that the onus is on the atheist to scan the observable universe, every possible “corner” of it to prove that his god does not exist. My son then made the astute observation that it was up to Dickow to provide evidence for god.
“Good little man,” I thought. But then Dickow went through the litany of the lame evidence for god: the transformative and revelational truth that Dickow and other Christians have experienced and the “obvious” design in nature that should be self-evident to all. He believes it’s unintelligent not to see this truth.
“Dad, he called us ‘unintelligent!’”
Good little man.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Inconsequential Puddles
My creationist friend Marquis read a book by Darek Isaacs, Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution? (1) and seems to think he’s found the penultimate documentation discrediting the veracity of evolutionary theory. Marquis writes:
“Well lets start off with the fact about dragon legends. There has always been dragon legends told by every culture around the world and they describe the same type of creature. How do u explain this when these early civilizations were telling stories about the same creature but they had no means of communicating with each other?...How do you explain away that Marco Polo, Flavius Josephus, Herodotus, Pliny the Elder and Marco Polo all noted historians have written about seeing dinosaurs in their works.”
Well Marco Polo as a good witness is right out. His account was no doubt taken after rising from the lotus couch in some Oriental opium den prior to his alleged dragon sightings. Aside from that it makes perfect sense that dinosaur fossils uncovered by the inquisitive of the remote past are the source of the myth of dragons. I can tell you that such has been the assessment of paleontologists. Remember of course that the historical figures Marquis mentions and their reports are 500-2000+ yrs old. This of course is before the Renaissance, when folks back then didn’t know much about the actual geological age of the Earth or about the fact of extinction. They would have no way of knowing that their finds were old, very old. It would be pure speculation if I or Darek Issacs tried to read too much into alleged eye-witness accounts of such things as a dragon by our impressionable predecessors. Our classical forefathers could turn a yarn or two, and sometimes one would have to wonder whether or not reality for them is exactly the same thing as we find after the development of modern science. Hell, there are plenty of well-meaning folks today that think they’ve seen ghosts and UFO’s, crying Mother of God statues; and that’s in our time. I’m sure Marquis doesn’t believe in that sort of thing, right?
Marquis would be wrong as well to suppose that there wasn’t contact amongst the ancient European, Middle-East, and Asian cultures going back thousands of years (I’ll concede such may be the case if Isaacs reports on Mayan dragons). Such contact of course pre-dates the alleged historical eye-witness accounts reported by Isaacs. But I’m not sure exactly what was Marquis’s conjecture here. Perhaps he is trying to say, although being somewhat embarrassed to specify, that this is somehow evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in the years preceding Noah’s flood. Not sure, but if I ventured to guess…
Even if some accounts of dragons have some similarity cross-culturally, it says nothing about the well established fact that by 65 million yrs ago there were hundreds if not thousands of dinosaurs of all types. From fossils, paleontologists can distinguish many lineages (code for lots of evidence of transitional creatures confirming the fact that dinosaurs and all other creatures that have ever slumbered, bumbled, or rumbled on the Earth share a common ancestor). Isaac’s got nothing on such a consensus in the scientific community. A few classical accounts of dragons? Due to the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in creationist literature (2) “evidence” that there’s a common mythology about dragons probably needs quite a few qualifications as well (that’s code for it’s probably a dubious, conflated, or otherwise disingenuous account). But overturning Neo-Darwinian theory? Seems like a small, inconsequential puddle that is supposed to wash 150 yrs. of evolutionary theory away. Marquis continues:
“How do u explain that on 2006 at Hell's Creek there was a Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil discovered that had red blood cells still alive. Evolutionists claim the T-Rex has been extinct for 68 million years. It's impossible for red blood cells to last that long. How do u explain the coelacanth, which was supposed to be extinct 70 million years ago and was supposed to be the link between land and sea creatures, but it was found alive and thriving in Africa in 1938.”
It would indeed be fantastic that a 70 myo T. rex with living blood cells were discovered, but that is not what was reported. An article from the Washington Post describes this discovery. (3) What was found surreptitiously was soft tissue that had not been mineralized, after the fossil had to be broken to fit into a helicopter for transport. Schweitzer and her team discovered that some soft tissue had not been mineralized as would be expected in the fossilization process, but even cells and cellular components could be distinguished. Is this amazing? Yes. Is this fantastic? Well, no. It can’t be as this finding has been reasonably documented. This discovery, however, could spark a whole new effort for the study of soft tissue extracted from fossils. But Marquis’s statement of personal incredulity of this particular find does not negate or even conflict with the factual basis of evolutionary theory. Also I’m not sure how the re-discovery of a creature, the coelacanth, which was previously thought to be extinct, somehow discredits macroevolution. It’s not hard to imagine some representatives from an important evolutionary lineage such as the lobed-finned fishes (a representative species of a lineage that indeed lead to the evolution of terrestrial tetrapods) to have become extinct while others carry on to the present. I’m not sure why that is so hard to swallow. It may be that creationists expect ancestral species to always become extinct, while the more “progressive” daughter species take their place on the boring march to humanity. There were no preordained paths for evolution to take. Some of our ancestors went extinct, while others continued. Evolution does not take an expected linear path in which earlier links inevitably become extinct. Marquis concludes:
“These are just but a few facts from the book "Dragons or Dinosaurs" written by Darek Isaacs. Darek does a much better job explaining the fallacies of evolution and the truth about the dinosaurs. If you were to read that book I'm sure you would come out of that with your worldview severely damaged if not completely destroyed. The God of the Bible is real and you should investigate His claims.”
Well I haven’t read this book, but I did come across a review of the film, Dragons and Dinosaurs. (4) Yes there’s a film, a book, and a study guide for home schoolers, complete with a children’s story, Danny the Dragon. Apparently his book and film are being hawked as tools for evolution deniers complete with creationist propaganda for children. The reviewer, Svenson, writes:
“The first section of film starts with a broad overview of the subject and then touches on a couple of different instances which were somewhat interesting, but then Darek Isaacs (the director/producer) never goes deeper beyond references to “Behemoth” and “Leviathan {in the Bible}…It’s almost if Isaacs can’t wait to get to all the old arguments about the flood, dating methods, the fossil record, etc, that we’ve heard time and time again… Isaacs has left too many unanswered questions and filled his exploration with old hat creationism that does not relate to his premise.” (my brackets)
I found a bio on Isaacs at Creation Ministries International. (5) Isaacs has a degree in communications and one in, of course, theological studies. If our friend Svenson is correct, there’s probably nothing new under the sun in Isaac’s argument. Inconsequential puddles. Steven Jay Gould:
“Consider, for example the standard rhetorical, and deeply anti-intellectual, ploy of politically motivated and destructive critics, American creationists in particular. They just list the mistakes, envelop each in a cloud of verbal mockery, and pretend that the whole system has drowned in this tiny puddle of inconsequential error.” (6)
Finally to my friend Marquis, I would be happy to read Isaac’s book. But there is only one condition that I have that has worked rather well when my creationist friends want to “share.” I’ll read a book that you suggest, but at the same time you’ve got to read one of my suggestions. My pick is Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True, a very readable and cogent treatment of evolution. What say Marquis? Are you game?
References/Notes:
1. Isaacs Derek. 2010. Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution. Bridge-Logos Foundation
http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dinosaurs-Darek-Isaacs/dp/088270477X
2. For tactics of the evolution deniers see my summary here http://chucktheatheist.blogspot.com/2011/06/chiropractors-christian-supremacy.html of
Carroll, Sean B. 2006. Making of the Fittest. WW Norton & Company: New York
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
3. Gugliotta, Guy. A Major T. rex Breakthrough. Washington Post: Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63318-2005Mar24.html
4. Svenson (Administrator). Dragons or Dinosaurs: A DVD Review of Derek Isaacs Film. Freethunk, posted: October 12, 2010.
http://www.freethunk.net/articles/freethinking-movie-reviews/dragons-or-dinosaurs-a-dvd-review-of-darek-isaacs-film-275
5. A bio of Isaacs: http://creation.com/darek-isaacs
6. Gould, S. J. 2002. The Stucture of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press: Cambridge.p. 168.
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135
“Well lets start off with the fact about dragon legends. There has always been dragon legends told by every culture around the world and they describe the same type of creature. How do u explain this when these early civilizations were telling stories about the same creature but they had no means of communicating with each other?...How do you explain away that Marco Polo, Flavius Josephus, Herodotus, Pliny the Elder and Marco Polo all noted historians have written about seeing dinosaurs in their works.”
Well Marco Polo as a good witness is right out. His account was no doubt taken after rising from the lotus couch in some Oriental opium den prior to his alleged dragon sightings. Aside from that it makes perfect sense that dinosaur fossils uncovered by the inquisitive of the remote past are the source of the myth of dragons. I can tell you that such has been the assessment of paleontologists. Remember of course that the historical figures Marquis mentions and their reports are 500-2000+ yrs old. This of course is before the Renaissance, when folks back then didn’t know much about the actual geological age of the Earth or about the fact of extinction. They would have no way of knowing that their finds were old, very old. It would be pure speculation if I or Darek Issacs tried to read too much into alleged eye-witness accounts of such things as a dragon by our impressionable predecessors. Our classical forefathers could turn a yarn or two, and sometimes one would have to wonder whether or not reality for them is exactly the same thing as we find after the development of modern science. Hell, there are plenty of well-meaning folks today that think they’ve seen ghosts and UFO’s, crying Mother of God statues; and that’s in our time. I’m sure Marquis doesn’t believe in that sort of thing, right?
Marquis would be wrong as well to suppose that there wasn’t contact amongst the ancient European, Middle-East, and Asian cultures going back thousands of years (I’ll concede such may be the case if Isaacs reports on Mayan dragons). Such contact of course pre-dates the alleged historical eye-witness accounts reported by Isaacs. But I’m not sure exactly what was Marquis’s conjecture here. Perhaps he is trying to say, although being somewhat embarrassed to specify, that this is somehow evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in the years preceding Noah’s flood. Not sure, but if I ventured to guess…
Even if some accounts of dragons have some similarity cross-culturally, it says nothing about the well established fact that by 65 million yrs ago there were hundreds if not thousands of dinosaurs of all types. From fossils, paleontologists can distinguish many lineages (code for lots of evidence of transitional creatures confirming the fact that dinosaurs and all other creatures that have ever slumbered, bumbled, or rumbled on the Earth share a common ancestor). Isaac’s got nothing on such a consensus in the scientific community. A few classical accounts of dragons? Due to the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in creationist literature (2) “evidence” that there’s a common mythology about dragons probably needs quite a few qualifications as well (that’s code for it’s probably a dubious, conflated, or otherwise disingenuous account). But overturning Neo-Darwinian theory? Seems like a small, inconsequential puddle that is supposed to wash 150 yrs. of evolutionary theory away. Marquis continues:
“How do u explain that on 2006 at Hell's Creek there was a Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil discovered that had red blood cells still alive. Evolutionists claim the T-Rex has been extinct for 68 million years. It's impossible for red blood cells to last that long. How do u explain the coelacanth, which was supposed to be extinct 70 million years ago and was supposed to be the link between land and sea creatures, but it was found alive and thriving in Africa in 1938.”
It would indeed be fantastic that a 70 myo T. rex with living blood cells were discovered, but that is not what was reported. An article from the Washington Post describes this discovery. (3) What was found surreptitiously was soft tissue that had not been mineralized, after the fossil had to be broken to fit into a helicopter for transport. Schweitzer and her team discovered that some soft tissue had not been mineralized as would be expected in the fossilization process, but even cells and cellular components could be distinguished. Is this amazing? Yes. Is this fantastic? Well, no. It can’t be as this finding has been reasonably documented. This discovery, however, could spark a whole new effort for the study of soft tissue extracted from fossils. But Marquis’s statement of personal incredulity of this particular find does not negate or even conflict with the factual basis of evolutionary theory. Also I’m not sure how the re-discovery of a creature, the coelacanth, which was previously thought to be extinct, somehow discredits macroevolution. It’s not hard to imagine some representatives from an important evolutionary lineage such as the lobed-finned fishes (a representative species of a lineage that indeed lead to the evolution of terrestrial tetrapods) to have become extinct while others carry on to the present. I’m not sure why that is so hard to swallow. It may be that creationists expect ancestral species to always become extinct, while the more “progressive” daughter species take their place on the boring march to humanity. There were no preordained paths for evolution to take. Some of our ancestors went extinct, while others continued. Evolution does not take an expected linear path in which earlier links inevitably become extinct. Marquis concludes:
“These are just but a few facts from the book "Dragons or Dinosaurs" written by Darek Isaacs. Darek does a much better job explaining the fallacies of evolution and the truth about the dinosaurs. If you were to read that book I'm sure you would come out of that with your worldview severely damaged if not completely destroyed. The God of the Bible is real and you should investigate His claims.”
Well I haven’t read this book, but I did come across a review of the film, Dragons and Dinosaurs. (4) Yes there’s a film, a book, and a study guide for home schoolers, complete with a children’s story, Danny the Dragon. Apparently his book and film are being hawked as tools for evolution deniers complete with creationist propaganda for children. The reviewer, Svenson, writes:
“The first section of film starts with a broad overview of the subject and then touches on a couple of different instances which were somewhat interesting, but then Darek Isaacs (the director/producer) never goes deeper beyond references to “Behemoth” and “Leviathan {in the Bible}…It’s almost if Isaacs can’t wait to get to all the old arguments about the flood, dating methods, the fossil record, etc, that we’ve heard time and time again… Isaacs has left too many unanswered questions and filled his exploration with old hat creationism that does not relate to his premise.” (my brackets)
I found a bio on Isaacs at Creation Ministries International. (5) Isaacs has a degree in communications and one in, of course, theological studies. If our friend Svenson is correct, there’s probably nothing new under the sun in Isaac’s argument. Inconsequential puddles. Steven Jay Gould:
“Consider, for example the standard rhetorical, and deeply anti-intellectual, ploy of politically motivated and destructive critics, American creationists in particular. They just list the mistakes, envelop each in a cloud of verbal mockery, and pretend that the whole system has drowned in this tiny puddle of inconsequential error.” (6)
Finally to my friend Marquis, I would be happy to read Isaac’s book. But there is only one condition that I have that has worked rather well when my creationist friends want to “share.” I’ll read a book that you suggest, but at the same time you’ve got to read one of my suggestions. My pick is Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True, a very readable and cogent treatment of evolution. What say Marquis? Are you game?
References/Notes:
1. Isaacs Derek. 2010. Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution. Bridge-Logos Foundation
http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dinosaurs-Darek-Isaacs/dp/088270477X
2. For tactics of the evolution deniers see my summary here http://chucktheatheist.blogspot.com/2011/06/chiropractors-christian-supremacy.html of
Carroll, Sean B. 2006. Making of the Fittest. WW Norton & Company: New York
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
3. Gugliotta, Guy. A Major T. rex Breakthrough. Washington Post: Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63318-2005Mar24.html
4. Svenson (Administrator). Dragons or Dinosaurs: A DVD Review of Derek Isaacs Film. Freethunk, posted: October 12, 2010.
http://www.freethunk.net/articles/freethinking-movie-reviews/dragons-or-dinosaurs-a-dvd-review-of-darek-isaacs-film-275
5. A bio of Isaacs: http://creation.com/darek-isaacs
6. Gould, S. J. 2002. The Stucture of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press: Cambridge.p. 168.
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Of Monarchs and Spicebushies
A while back I took some pics of a Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in my back yard. I had been trying to save all of the milk weed plants in my yard from the lawnmower. Each summer they would come back, and after a few years I finally got some to flower.
This is probably a female for it has dark, sharp black veins in its wings. I also saw an unidentified moth that shared the flower top with the Monarch.
This is probably a female for it has dark, sharp black veins in its wings. I also saw an unidentified moth that shared the flower top with the Monarch.
Anyone know what moth I've got here? Let me know. Then the other day, I saw another beautiful butterfly in the yard. I didn't know what it was right away, but recognized it as a member of the Swallowtails, family Papilionidae.
One of the prettier butterflies that I've seen, I found out that this one was a Spicebush Swallowtail (Papilio troilus) thanks to Wikipedia (1), and a cool website, Illinois Butterflies (2). Again I think I have a female. Females often sun themselves in the open, while males rarely do. It's thought that females must obtain more heat to warm their thoraxes, while males usually don't exhibit this behavior. Males apparently generate enough heat through vigorous mating displays. But Wow! What a looker. I think I find the Spicebush prettier than Monarchs.
I think she's got a bit of a Goth look to her. Spicebush Swallowtails are the state butterfly of Mississippi, and also exhibit Batesian mimicry in both larval and adult stages. Larva look very snake-like with huge posterior spots that look like huge eyes. Adults mimic another butterfly that tastes awful to predators.
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spicebush_Swallowtail#cite_note-Scriber_ecology-4
2. http://www.illinoisbutterflies.com/butterflies.htm
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Chiropractors & Christian Supremacy
I recently read a very good book by Sean B. Carroll, “The Making of the Fittest.” (1) I wanted to review more of the content later for you, because it really is one of the best treatments of the genetic evidence for biological evolution that I’ve come across in a book intended for the general public. Today I want to skip to the end, where Carroll takes up the subject of the denial of evolution by the religious right from an interesting perspective. He compares the rhetorical tactics used by Chiropractors to denounce the practice of vaccination to those used by anti-evolutionists.
Carroll tells us that Daniel David Palmer in the late 19th century theorized that most disease is caused by pinched nerves in turn caused by a misalignment of the vertebrae. This of course was in conflict with Pasteur’s and Koch’s developing Germ Theory at the time. By the early 20th century during the battle against polio, The National Chiropractic Association suggested that chiropractic adjustments should be given instead of vaccination. Because Germ Theory conflicts with the central chiropractic dogma, Palmer and his followers ever since have fought the conclusions of modern science that call this into question. Carroll provides us a list of tactics that the Chiropractic profession has used to deny the value of vaccines and the evolution-deniers have used to discredit the established central principle in biology.
1. Doubt the science. Chiropractors have tried to instill doubt into modern scientific claims that microorganisms cause many diseases. The incidence of polio decline, they say, was caused by natural patterns. They ignore controlled clinical studies that demonstrate the Germ Theory as the causal explanation of much disease. Evolution deniers continually ignore science, and claim that there is no evidence for evolution. There are no intermediate fossils that show a pattern of common decent. Mutation cannot explain adaptation. There is no mechanism to show how new genetic information is produced. In spite of 150 years of evidence that natural selection has been the primary process that has lead to evolutionary change, it can’t explain the diversity of life on Earth.
2. Question the motives and the integrity of scientists. Evolution deniers and chiropractors have alleged a conspiracy against their movements on the part of scientists. Vaccination is motivated by the greed of scientists and pharmaceutical companies. Evolutionary science is motivated by atheism. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (2) thinks that evolution is an assault upon the fundamental principles that made America great.
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities. Chiropractors have inflated the significance of technical disagreements that scientists have about details of the effectiveness of vaccination: timing and dosing, the need for boosters later in life, etc. Experts are trotted out, whether or not their views have been substantiated by the scientific community. Likewise evolution deniers also try to inflate the importance of technical disagreement about certain details of evolution amongst biologists (include evolutionary, developmental, cell, or microbiologists, geneticists, systematists, paleontologists, archaeologists-put your discipline here). Worse still, the “expert” evolution deniers may try to get their flocks to think that they have a real research agenda and publish in peer reviewed publications (which they don’t and don’t again, respectively).
4. Exaggerate potential harm. Those opposed to vaccination like Chiropractors over-emphasize the risks of vaccinating, while often ignoring the consequences of forgoing vaccination. Ken Ham thinks that evolution teaches children that life is about violence and bloodshed. Because of the implication that natural selection is a blind, anti-teleological process, evolution deniers often try to show that philosophically Darwinism will lead to all sorts of social ills. Carroll quotes Jerry Bergman, “If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our savior and we have crucified him.”
5. Appeal to personal freedom. Since vaccination of school-aged children has become compulsory, one Chiropractic practice in Denver has stated that vaccination is “a conspiracy aimed at the destruction of basic American freedoms.” Carroll notes that many religionists view the teaching of evolution in public schools as an assault upon the religious freedom. We have also heard about school boards like the one in Cobb county, Georgia, that have put disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks. A balanced treatment policy is often attempted to discredit evolutionary theory by appealing to the freedom to have a counter-point argument for everything, including Darwinism, no matter if such positions have any scientific merit or not.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. Among chiropractors the idea that all diseases come from a misalignment of vertebrae is not open to further scientific inquiry. Carroll quotes R.B. Phillips, “{A}bsolute truth is already known {by the faithful} and only needs personal confirmation through individual observations.” David Cloud of the Way of Life Fundamental Baptist information service argues that evolution denies the Bible, and that we must reject evolution because it denies god and salvation. My evangelical friend, Pastor Gregory Dickow, has stated that science cannot contradict the Bible. Therefore any finding of science that denies the word of God has to be flawed in some way.
If you’ve been as frustrated as I have been about the entrenched belief of mostly Christian evolution-deniers, but have been a little mystified as to how some segments of the population can basically ignore the scientific evidence, you will find Carrolls treatment of the subject enlightening for the very reason that he points out that Christian apologists think that they are at a debate in which rhetorical tactics can win the day in spite of the validity of the arguments of the opposing team. But the thing that really makes me angry is not the poor slobs that buy in to the arguments of the Christian apologists, but the disingenuous tactics of the apologists themselves. I’m personally convinced that fundamentalist Christian apologists aren’t really trying to convince anyone in the sciences, but are exercising tactics to keep their adherents quiet and subjugated , while motivating them politically to “take back” America in acts of Christian supremacy.
Oh, by the way, how many of you rationalists out there swear by the chiropractic treatments you receive?
1. Carroll, Sean B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest. New York: WW Norton & Company
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Carroll tells us that Daniel David Palmer in the late 19th century theorized that most disease is caused by pinched nerves in turn caused by a misalignment of the vertebrae. This of course was in conflict with Pasteur’s and Koch’s developing Germ Theory at the time. By the early 20th century during the battle against polio, The National Chiropractic Association suggested that chiropractic adjustments should be given instead of vaccination. Because Germ Theory conflicts with the central chiropractic dogma, Palmer and his followers ever since have fought the conclusions of modern science that call this into question. Carroll provides us a list of tactics that the Chiropractic profession has used to deny the value of vaccines and the evolution-deniers have used to discredit the established central principle in biology.
1. Doubt the science. Chiropractors have tried to instill doubt into modern scientific claims that microorganisms cause many diseases. The incidence of polio decline, they say, was caused by natural patterns. They ignore controlled clinical studies that demonstrate the Germ Theory as the causal explanation of much disease. Evolution deniers continually ignore science, and claim that there is no evidence for evolution. There are no intermediate fossils that show a pattern of common decent. Mutation cannot explain adaptation. There is no mechanism to show how new genetic information is produced. In spite of 150 years of evidence that natural selection has been the primary process that has lead to evolutionary change, it can’t explain the diversity of life on Earth.
2. Question the motives and the integrity of scientists. Evolution deniers and chiropractors have alleged a conspiracy against their movements on the part of scientists. Vaccination is motivated by the greed of scientists and pharmaceutical companies. Evolutionary science is motivated by atheism. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (2) thinks that evolution is an assault upon the fundamental principles that made America great.
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities. Chiropractors have inflated the significance of technical disagreements that scientists have about details of the effectiveness of vaccination: timing and dosing, the need for boosters later in life, etc. Experts are trotted out, whether or not their views have been substantiated by the scientific community. Likewise evolution deniers also try to inflate the importance of technical disagreement about certain details of evolution amongst biologists (include evolutionary, developmental, cell, or microbiologists, geneticists, systematists, paleontologists, archaeologists-put your discipline here). Worse still, the “expert” evolution deniers may try to get their flocks to think that they have a real research agenda and publish in peer reviewed publications (which they don’t and don’t again, respectively).
4. Exaggerate potential harm. Those opposed to vaccination like Chiropractors over-emphasize the risks of vaccinating, while often ignoring the consequences of forgoing vaccination. Ken Ham thinks that evolution teaches children that life is about violence and bloodshed. Because of the implication that natural selection is a blind, anti-teleological process, evolution deniers often try to show that philosophically Darwinism will lead to all sorts of social ills. Carroll quotes Jerry Bergman, “If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our savior and we have crucified him.”
5. Appeal to personal freedom. Since vaccination of school-aged children has become compulsory, one Chiropractic practice in Denver has stated that vaccination is “a conspiracy aimed at the destruction of basic American freedoms.” Carroll notes that many religionists view the teaching of evolution in public schools as an assault upon the religious freedom. We have also heard about school boards like the one in Cobb county, Georgia, that have put disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks. A balanced treatment policy is often attempted to discredit evolutionary theory by appealing to the freedom to have a counter-point argument for everything, including Darwinism, no matter if such positions have any scientific merit or not.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. Among chiropractors the idea that all diseases come from a misalignment of vertebrae is not open to further scientific inquiry. Carroll quotes R.B. Phillips, “{A}bsolute truth is already known {by the faithful} and only needs personal confirmation through individual observations.” David Cloud of the Way of Life Fundamental Baptist information service argues that evolution denies the Bible, and that we must reject evolution because it denies god and salvation. My evangelical friend, Pastor Gregory Dickow, has stated that science cannot contradict the Bible. Therefore any finding of science that denies the word of God has to be flawed in some way.
If you’ve been as frustrated as I have been about the entrenched belief of mostly Christian evolution-deniers, but have been a little mystified as to how some segments of the population can basically ignore the scientific evidence, you will find Carrolls treatment of the subject enlightening for the very reason that he points out that Christian apologists think that they are at a debate in which rhetorical tactics can win the day in spite of the validity of the arguments of the opposing team. But the thing that really makes me angry is not the poor slobs that buy in to the arguments of the Christian apologists, but the disingenuous tactics of the apologists themselves. I’m personally convinced that fundamentalist Christian apologists aren’t really trying to convince anyone in the sciences, but are exercising tactics to keep their adherents quiet and subjugated , while motivating them politically to “take back” America in acts of Christian supremacy.
Oh, by the way, how many of you rationalists out there swear by the chiropractic treatments you receive?
1. Carroll, Sean B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest. New York: WW Norton & Company
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Eat That Coal Monkey!
I’ve been getting the periodical Natural History for several years now. I originally read it for Stephen Jay Gould’s monthly essays on paleontology, evolution, and sometimes even baseball (always with a poignant lesson on the history of science or to point out some fallacy of understanding in evolutionary theory). Since the great master’s death, however, the magazine has gone into some decline. There are only a few featured articles now, and it’s evolved to be a fairly slim fifty page periodical.
And yet one thing that continually impresses me is the photography. The magazine cover has always been an attention-getter with a vivid photo of some exotic animal (often with awesome pigmentation or other interesting morphology). The Dec/Jan 2010-2011 issue has a picture of the Zanzibar red colobus monkey (Procolobus kirkii). Its expression is just amazing in a Zen-like way: perfectly at home in its surroundings, perfectly composed.
Natural History also features a centerfold photo in which this issue has a snap of a male P. kirkii that is eating coal. What the hell is he up to? A short article on the primate by naturalist Fred Bruemmer accompanies the photos.
And yet one thing that continually impresses me is the photography. The magazine cover has always been an attention-getter with a vivid photo of some exotic animal (often with awesome pigmentation or other interesting morphology). The Dec/Jan 2010-2011 issue has a picture of the Zanzibar red colobus monkey (Procolobus kirkii). Its expression is just amazing in a Zen-like way: perfectly at home in its surroundings, perfectly composed.
Natural History also features a centerfold photo in which this issue has a snap of a male P. kirkii that is eating coal. What the hell is he up to? A short article on the primate by naturalist Fred Bruemmer accompanies the photos.
Zanzibar Red Colobus Monkey (Procolobus kirkii)
Photo courtesy of Olivier Lejade
How the monkeys initiated the habit is unknown. The behavior is transmitted maternally by imitation, and is confined to a small population in the Jozani Forest on Unguja, the main island of Zanzibar, according to primatologist Thomas T. Struhsaker of Duke University. The monkeys have taken up the practice since the Indian mango and almond have been introduced. The leaves are rich in phenolic compounds that, when eaten in large quantities, are toxic. Coal binds many toxic compounds and not nutritious proteins in the monkey’s digestive tract. They steal coal from man-made hearths or from burnt-out tree trunks. There are only 2,000 Zanzibar reds left on Unguja, down from a population of 375,000 in 1988.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Break Me Oh Lord
Christians not only want to be humbled but broken. Our friend @CrispySea posted an interesting blog about the disgust he felt at a Christian response to a cool video about the vastness of the universe in comparison to the Earth and humanity (see reference). We should use our knowledge of the complexity of the universe and our realization how insignificant and small we are to promote the proper sort of humility before an angy god.
We can kind of understand (but not agree) how a Christian or other religionists believe that they should display a humility before a god that created the vast universe. But there's an even more sinsiter and self-deprecating mindset that especially Christians are subject, it's the doctrine of brokeness.
I monitor Christian radio broadcasts, and have been struck often by comments to the effect that before a Christian can properly relate to their god, not only must they be humble, but they must be broken. This means that they must come to a place where their will, their ego, and any outlook that gives them some reliance on their own internal strength must be shattered by their god so that they can be properly humbled before him. It's reminiscent of the sensory depravation techniques that the Soviet Union experimented with to see if communitst ideology could better be instilled in individuals if they were mentally broken first.
What's even worse than believing such nonsense is that Christians DESIRE to pummeled, shattered and put in their lowly place. They pray and beg their god for it. They think that they can't come to a place within themselves to have a proper appreciation (and fear) of god, they need his help to bring themselves into subservience. Any person in a free society should be disgusted by such brainwashing techniques, but I suppose it's good for religion.
Reference Tweet:
RT @CrispySea Humble - Why? - http://tinyurl.com/bkyh7c #Freedom #Bible #Atheism
We can kind of understand (but not agree) how a Christian or other religionists believe that they should display a humility before a god that created the vast universe. But there's an even more sinsiter and self-deprecating mindset that especially Christians are subject, it's the doctrine of brokeness.
I monitor Christian radio broadcasts, and have been struck often by comments to the effect that before a Christian can properly relate to their god, not only must they be humble, but they must be broken. This means that they must come to a place where their will, their ego, and any outlook that gives them some reliance on their own internal strength must be shattered by their god so that they can be properly humbled before him. It's reminiscent of the sensory depravation techniques that the Soviet Union experimented with to see if communitst ideology could better be instilled in individuals if they were mentally broken first.
What's even worse than believing such nonsense is that Christians DESIRE to pummeled, shattered and put in their lowly place. They pray and beg their god for it. They think that they can't come to a place within themselves to have a proper appreciation (and fear) of god, they need his help to bring themselves into subservience. Any person in a free society should be disgusted by such brainwashing techniques, but I suppose it's good for religion.
Reference Tweet:
RT @CrispySea Humble - Why? - http://tinyurl.com/bkyh7c #Freedom #Bible #Atheism
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Abortion Foes Need to Sign Up for Adoptions
ChucKtheAtheisT's style isn't usually confrontational. But I have to admit I'm getting a little sick of Christian fundamentalism, the active, political ilk of which I call Christian Supremacy. Here is a little conversation I had with an evangelical Christian on the subject of abortion:
RT @ChucKtheAthesT Line up the bastards that feel the need to dictate women's reproductive rights and require that they adopt two crack babies each. #prolife
RT @littlebytesnews @ChucKtheAtheisT why bc you rather abort poor babies,or babies exposed to crack because you believe abortion is more humane? #prolife
Littlebytes,
No I don’t think only poor unwanted babies should be aborted, but yes I feel that abortion may be more humane in many cases. The main point is what kind of life would many of the unwanted, sick, and developmentally disabled lead? Perhaps if abortion foes were required to adopt unfortunates, that really would be a consciousness-raiser, and you would see a lot fewer protests that feature pictures of aborted babies and people that manipulate women into having babies that they don’t want or can’t raise themselves. And if a woman is brutally raped, and becomes pregnant, should she have to carry that baby? So if YOU specifically do not want her to have an abortion, YOU should sign up to adopt the baby. Anti-abortion Christians very easily and freely want to decide for people they don't know.
And if you think it’s the secular world that is having the most abortions, you may need to consider your own demographic. An interesting observation of a former Planned Parenthood site director (a radio interview I heard on a Christian radio station) was that around 70% of women that had abortions at her facility were in fact Christian. The women reported that it was often their fear of the Christian community in which they lived that made them clandestinely opt for abortion. They feared ostracism and abuse (and expected to receive both). So perhaps if women in Christian communities felt the love of their community, they wouldn’t feel the need to have abortions. The blood may really be on the hands of the twisted, hypocritical Christians in your own community.
A video was also disseminated (http://awe.sm/5GQKT) showed the response to a question posed to anti-abortion activists at a rally. The reporter asked what should happen to women who have abortions, if abortion was indeed illegal. Several people were interviewed, and none had a satisfactory answer. Most interviewed had obviously not even considered the question before. The consensus was that nothing should happen. Isn’t that something. Let’s make an unenforceable law.
My wife's cousin, a fundamentalist Christian knob, has 14 children and one on the way. He expects god to close his wife's womb. Who is really supporting these children? Not the father in any substantive way; it’s taxpayers and the children’s grandparents. Perhaps we should have a special tax assessment for Christians that don’t believe in birth control as well.
If YOU are going to insist on dictating the reproductive rights of others, YOU need to take the responsibility.
RT @ChucKtheAthesT Line up the bastards that feel the need to dictate women's reproductive rights and require that they adopt two crack babies each. #prolife
RT @littlebytesnews @ChucKtheAtheisT why bc you rather abort poor babies,or babies exposed to crack because you believe abortion is more humane? #prolife
Littlebytes,
No I don’t think only poor unwanted babies should be aborted, but yes I feel that abortion may be more humane in many cases. The main point is what kind of life would many of the unwanted, sick, and developmentally disabled lead? Perhaps if abortion foes were required to adopt unfortunates, that really would be a consciousness-raiser, and you would see a lot fewer protests that feature pictures of aborted babies and people that manipulate women into having babies that they don’t want or can’t raise themselves. And if a woman is brutally raped, and becomes pregnant, should she have to carry that baby? So if YOU specifically do not want her to have an abortion, YOU should sign up to adopt the baby. Anti-abortion Christians very easily and freely want to decide for people they don't know.
And if you think it’s the secular world that is having the most abortions, you may need to consider your own demographic. An interesting observation of a former Planned Parenthood site director (a radio interview I heard on a Christian radio station) was that around 70% of women that had abortions at her facility were in fact Christian. The women reported that it was often their fear of the Christian community in which they lived that made them clandestinely opt for abortion. They feared ostracism and abuse (and expected to receive both). So perhaps if women in Christian communities felt the love of their community, they wouldn’t feel the need to have abortions. The blood may really be on the hands of the twisted, hypocritical Christians in your own community.
A video was also disseminated (http://awe.sm/5GQKT) showed the response to a question posed to anti-abortion activists at a rally. The reporter asked what should happen to women who have abortions, if abortion was indeed illegal. Several people were interviewed, and none had a satisfactory answer. Most interviewed had obviously not even considered the question before. The consensus was that nothing should happen. Isn’t that something. Let’s make an unenforceable law.
My wife's cousin, a fundamentalist Christian knob, has 14 children and one on the way. He expects god to close his wife's womb. Who is really supporting these children? Not the father in any substantive way; it’s taxpayers and the children’s grandparents. Perhaps we should have a special tax assessment for Christians that don’t believe in birth control as well.
If YOU are going to insist on dictating the reproductive rights of others, YOU need to take the responsibility.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Gay Men Really Want Jesus
ChucK the AtheisT loves his friend Gregory Dickow, Evangelical pastor. Dickow comes up with some great theology on occasion. For a fundamentalist Protestant he is reasonably liberal. It’s OK to use birth control, he doesn’t kick LBTG folks out of his church, and he says that it’s pretty much anything goes in the bedroom of two consenting, married adults (man and woman, of course). That’s commendable, I suppose, but then he’ll come up with a doozie like:
“God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide on the Canaanites, because he had to protect the bloodline of Jesus.” You know how evil people are…even the kids have got to go, because they’ll just grow up and make war on God’s chosen. That just wouldn’t do for the nation that was to sire the Messiah.
So yesterday the Pastor came up with another whopper on his radio show that I’ve just got to share with you. One of his callers was despondent, because he kept on having impure thoughts about other males.
“I keep thinking about that gay stuff,” he lamented. Dickow gave his usual answer that it’s not what improper thoughts you have, but those upon which you act that are sins. Then he provided us with a far out insight. The thoughts that gay men have for one another are actually is a misplaced man-love that should be directed towards Jesus.
Well, you might ask, “Where does that leave lesbians?” Perhaps they are really looking for the Virgin Mary. That wouldn’t be quite right for Protestant theology, though. Dickow never explained this, perhaps didn’t think it through. I don’t know. But a man yearns for acceptance and warmth from men sometimes. Gay men can wean themselves from improper love of other men, if they would just yearn for Jesus instead.
(Meh...I said, “wean.”)
“God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide on the Canaanites, because he had to protect the bloodline of Jesus.” You know how evil people are…even the kids have got to go, because they’ll just grow up and make war on God’s chosen. That just wouldn’t do for the nation that was to sire the Messiah.
So yesterday the Pastor came up with another whopper on his radio show that I’ve just got to share with you. One of his callers was despondent, because he kept on having impure thoughts about other males.
“I keep thinking about that gay stuff,” he lamented. Dickow gave his usual answer that it’s not what improper thoughts you have, but those upon which you act that are sins. Then he provided us with a far out insight. The thoughts that gay men have for one another are actually is a misplaced man-love that should be directed towards Jesus.
Well, you might ask, “Where does that leave lesbians?” Perhaps they are really looking for the Virgin Mary. That wouldn’t be quite right for Protestant theology, though. Dickow never explained this, perhaps didn’t think it through. I don’t know. But a man yearns for acceptance and warmth from men sometimes. Gay men can wean themselves from improper love of other men, if they would just yearn for Jesus instead.
(Meh...I said, “wean.”)
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Filtering Software for Christian Accountability
“Why would religious folks need accountability and filtering software? Doesn't their god know their very thoughts?”
I've spent quite a lot of my time listening to Christian broadcasting. I find most interesting the advice call-in shows. Of the few I monitor regularly, I must have heard a couple of hundred calls. I’m a scientist, so as I judge my experience, I try to make myself aware of what kind of sample I must be getting. I recognize that the folks who call may be of the troubled variety. But also there are many that wish to simply voice their opinions without having a discernable difficulty in their lives that I can detect. And I have to say that, after listening closely for quite a long time now to these people, I’m not convinced that their faith has done them all that much good.
These people are just as nasty to each other as you might expect humans to be that aren’t allegedly guided by a higher power, or who are purported to have the very spirit of their god, just as prone to have sex outside of marriage, just as likely to shack up with their girlfriends, just as prone to physically and mentally abuse their wives and families. There’s no observable difference that I can tell between the religious and the secular. Their religion has not saved them in this lifetime as far as I can tell, let alone the possibility in the next. You have to wonder why they would think that any secular person would want to have anything to do with their religion after observing their example.
On Chris Fabree Live on WMBI FM Chicago (Moody Bible Institute) a former Planned Parenthood site director Abby Johnson tells us the that 78% of the abortions performed at her facility were on Christians. It’s often reported by these women that it is the fear of the judgmental Christian community in which they live that lead them to make the decision to abort their fetuses. Overtly their community gives lip service to their anti-abortion remedies, that women should allow their developing “children” to come to term, and either keep their babies or give them up for adoption. But the message that these troubled women receive subliminally is that to avoid the severe judgment, to avoid being shunned and castigated, it might be better to quietly go have an abortion without telling anyone and live in fear of being discovered as well as with the guilt that they believe that they have murdered their babies.
On Gregory Dickow’s show, Ask the Pastor (WYLL AM Chicago), many callers can’t get over the fact that many of their fellow Christians cannot obey the law of the Sabbath, and worship on Sunday instead of properly on Saturday. As much as Dickow tries to steer them back to the main message of the Gospel, it’s more important to stick to their legalistic observance rather than embrace the alleged ideal of the atonement of Christ. Jewish readers could inform me whether or not the faithful even go to temple on the Sabbath; it’s my understanding that they are suppose to do practically nothing other than think of their god. At any rate the legalists simply want to subject everyone else to their self-imposed and unnecessary ritualistic slavery.
But now I hear about religious companies that offer filtering software for Christians that have a problem with pornography or trolling for relationships with those other than their spouses. Now doesn’t that beat all? Steve Aterburn’s New Life Ministries has an advice broadcast that features Christian psychologists, New Life Live (WYLL AM Chicago). Arterburn’s org has seminars for men that have “integrity” issues. This is how it works: usually the wife catches her reprobate husband in some sexual infraction; the councelors then encourage wives to give their husbands the ultimatum of going to the seminar, then follow a regimen in which they become accountable to their wives through monitoring software and AA-type religious men’s groups. But why would religious folks need accountability and filtering software? Doesn't their god know their very thoughts? Don’t they fear or respect or really believe in the transformational properties of their own religion? I doubt it. It’s a sham.
I'm not saying that all religious folks are hypocrites, although I can imagine that there are plenty of these. And I suppose that a standard apologetic answer might be that Christians or other religionists have the same failures as anyone else. But that is exactly my point. The more I spend time listening to Christians, the more I realize that the vast majority seem to behave as if there really isn’t a god, or that it really doesn’t matter to them. Just like anyone else. Perhaps to their credit Christian broadcasters try to steer their screwy followers toward a better understanding of what their religion should be, toward a more balanced subservience to their god (or at least to keep them from torturing each other). This perhaps might result in an authentic religious observance. More likely what is lacking is the very existence of their god; what is apparent is that their self-deprecating ideals do them no good. For those who can’t help themselves, I suppose they think that they can get it right some day, or lay it at the feet of Christ or something. But in the mean time they perhaps should think about what sort of example they are setting, what kind of witness they are giving for their wonderful way of life with the King of the Universe instead of behaving like everyone else.
I've spent quite a lot of my time listening to Christian broadcasting. I find most interesting the advice call-in shows. Of the few I monitor regularly, I must have heard a couple of hundred calls. I’m a scientist, so as I judge my experience, I try to make myself aware of what kind of sample I must be getting. I recognize that the folks who call may be of the troubled variety. But also there are many that wish to simply voice their opinions without having a discernable difficulty in their lives that I can detect. And I have to say that, after listening closely for quite a long time now to these people, I’m not convinced that their faith has done them all that much good.
These people are just as nasty to each other as you might expect humans to be that aren’t allegedly guided by a higher power, or who are purported to have the very spirit of their god, just as prone to have sex outside of marriage, just as likely to shack up with their girlfriends, just as prone to physically and mentally abuse their wives and families. There’s no observable difference that I can tell between the religious and the secular. Their religion has not saved them in this lifetime as far as I can tell, let alone the possibility in the next. You have to wonder why they would think that any secular person would want to have anything to do with their religion after observing their example.
On Chris Fabree Live on WMBI FM Chicago (Moody Bible Institute) a former Planned Parenthood site director Abby Johnson tells us the that 78% of the abortions performed at her facility were on Christians. It’s often reported by these women that it is the fear of the judgmental Christian community in which they live that lead them to make the decision to abort their fetuses. Overtly their community gives lip service to their anti-abortion remedies, that women should allow their developing “children” to come to term, and either keep their babies or give them up for adoption. But the message that these troubled women receive subliminally is that to avoid the severe judgment, to avoid being shunned and castigated, it might be better to quietly go have an abortion without telling anyone and live in fear of being discovered as well as with the guilt that they believe that they have murdered their babies.
On Gregory Dickow’s show, Ask the Pastor (WYLL AM Chicago), many callers can’t get over the fact that many of their fellow Christians cannot obey the law of the Sabbath, and worship on Sunday instead of properly on Saturday. As much as Dickow tries to steer them back to the main message of the Gospel, it’s more important to stick to their legalistic observance rather than embrace the alleged ideal of the atonement of Christ. Jewish readers could inform me whether or not the faithful even go to temple on the Sabbath; it’s my understanding that they are suppose to do practically nothing other than think of their god. At any rate the legalists simply want to subject everyone else to their self-imposed and unnecessary ritualistic slavery.
But now I hear about religious companies that offer filtering software for Christians that have a problem with pornography or trolling for relationships with those other than their spouses. Now doesn’t that beat all? Steve Aterburn’s New Life Ministries has an advice broadcast that features Christian psychologists, New Life Live (WYLL AM Chicago). Arterburn’s org has seminars for men that have “integrity” issues. This is how it works: usually the wife catches her reprobate husband in some sexual infraction; the councelors then encourage wives to give their husbands the ultimatum of going to the seminar, then follow a regimen in which they become accountable to their wives through monitoring software and AA-type religious men’s groups. But why would religious folks need accountability and filtering software? Doesn't their god know their very thoughts? Don’t they fear or respect or really believe in the transformational properties of their own religion? I doubt it. It’s a sham.
I'm not saying that all religious folks are hypocrites, although I can imagine that there are plenty of these. And I suppose that a standard apologetic answer might be that Christians or other religionists have the same failures as anyone else. But that is exactly my point. The more I spend time listening to Christians, the more I realize that the vast majority seem to behave as if there really isn’t a god, or that it really doesn’t matter to them. Just like anyone else. Perhaps to their credit Christian broadcasters try to steer their screwy followers toward a better understanding of what their religion should be, toward a more balanced subservience to their god (or at least to keep them from torturing each other). This perhaps might result in an authentic religious observance. More likely what is lacking is the very existence of their god; what is apparent is that their self-deprecating ideals do them no good. For those who can’t help themselves, I suppose they think that they can get it right some day, or lay it at the feet of Christ or something. But in the mean time they perhaps should think about what sort of example they are setting, what kind of witness they are giving for their wonderful way of life with the King of the Universe instead of behaving like everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)