I officially divorce myself from the skeptic movement

Thanks, Jamy Ian Swiss, you’ve opened my eyes and I will no longer consider myself a “skeptic”. I am a scientist, and from the talk he gave tonight (which was pretty much exactly the same as his TAM talk, except for the additions where he called me stupid and a liar), it is clear that “scientific skepticism” is simply a crippled, buggered version of science with special exemptions to set certain subjects outside the bounds of its purview. In addition, its promoters are particularly sensitive to having their hypocrisy pointed out (that, by the way, is what triggered his outburst — you’d have to be stupid or a liar to think that skepticism gives religion special privileges.)

But what else can you call this logic? Skepticism has no sacred cows! Except that skepticism only addresses “testable claims”. By the way, the existence of gods is not a testable claim.

That’s a pretty explicit loophole by definition.

I was also annoyed by the skeptic movement’s appropriation of the term “scientific” all over the place…except that it’s a “science” that doesn’t make use of accumulated prior knowledge, that abandons the concept of the null hypothesis, and that so narrowly defines what it will accept as evidence that it actively excludes huge domains of knowledge. It’s toothless science that fetishizes “consumer protection” over understanding.

So don’t call me a “skeptic”. I’ll consider it an insult, like calling a writer a stenographer, a comedian a mime, a doctor a faith healer, a scientist a technician. I’m out.

It was an incredibly repellent talk that was not improved in the past year, but only made uglier and more grotesque. He ignored all of my previous criticisms, answering them only by yelling louder. I coulda gagged at the end when he piously announced we all ought to be fighting together for the cause of reason…after an hour of caricaturing atheists as ignorant and smug posturing of “scientific skepticism” as the great good virtue.

Earlier tonight I spent 15 minutes getting interviewed by Ray Comfort. That was a far more pleasant experience than an hour of listening to Jamy Ian Swiss.

Bleh. And then the hotel bar was closed early.

“Intolerant Atheists Viciously Attack Christian School”

That’s right: a mob of snarling, vicious atheists on PCP descended on an innocent, pious group of reverent Christians, on their knees and heads bowed in prayer, and brutally clubbed and stabbed them. Just ask Ken Ham.

Oh, wait, no…what actually happened is that the Answers-in-Genesis inspired exam given at this one school came to light, and thousands of people expressed their dismay at the miseducation being delivered in the name of Jesus Christ. You’ve probably seen it. It’s so, so dumb.

creationsciencequiz

It’s got everything: the earth is only thousands of years old, dinosaurs and people coexisted, “Were you there?” Ken Ham is shocked that people all around the country saw that abominable collection of lies and were appalled, and immediately curled up into the traditional persecuted Christian ball of martyrdom.

Now, this Christian academy is not a large school. Yet the atheists went after it with incredible fervor. The school administrator informed us she knew that the school would be involved in a spiritual battle after the quiz went public, but she was not expecting such ferocity. She told us she was shocked at the level of hate that the atheists poured down upon her, the teacher, and the school in general.

This is clearly a sign that the atheists are taking over the world and opposing good Christian morality. Ham even has a list of all the evil things atheists are doing.

How Are Atheists Becoming More Aggressive in America?

  1. Billboards promoting atheism and attacking Christianity have popped up across the country.

  2. The American Humanist Association has launched a special website for children to indoctrinate them in atheism.

  3. An atheist rally in Washington DC last year had a special promotion to encourage kids to attend their atheist camps.

  4. Atheists have been increasingly using terms like “child abuse” to describe the efforts of Christians who seek to teach their children about creation, heaven, and hell.

  5. Many atheists claim that children belong to the community, not to their parents.

  6. Atheists have actively opposed any effort in public schools to even question a belief of evolution or suggest there are any problems with it.

My reply consists of simply referencing the material on the Answers in Genesis site.

  1. dragonbillboard

  2. The Answers in Genesis Creation Education Center.

  3. The Answers in Genesis Vacation Bible School.

  4. “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” (Luke 12:4–5)

  5. Citation needed.

  6. Does the quiz cited above give even the slightest acknowledgment of any education in the evidence backing up evolution?

Hypocrites and liars. Typical Christians.

Today is the National Day of Reason

We live in an unreasonable country, so I don’t expect that the National Day of Reason will get as much attention as the idiocy of the National Day of Prayer. But apparently we’re not supposed to pray today. Big change for all of you, I know.

But here’s a suggestion: usually we just sit quietly and let the faith-heads get on with their ritual nonsense. Today, though, take another step: if you find yourself in a situation where people are wasting your time babbling at an imaginary man in the sky, don’t hold your tongue. Stand up, say “NO”, and turn your back or leave the room. Let them play their game, but don’t let them continue without knowing that you reject superstition.

Unfortunately, that’s easy for me to say — I’ll be at a university, where I’ve never seen a prayer invocation. I think I’ll keep the television news off, too, or I might be waving my middle finger at the screen a lot.

If you don’t have an opportunity to openly express your contempt for prayer, you can at least sign the petition being sent to Obama.

What point would a protest have if it didn’t piss someone off?

Amina-Tyler

This well-written article in The Atlantic remarks on a familiar tactic. It’s about the Femen, the topless jihad, and Amina, and the complaints an annoying number of stodgy critics have made. You know the ones: the people who demand that all arguments be respectful, and insist that there are proper channels for debate, and protests that actually rile the establishment are inappropriate.

With its topless jihad and Femen leader Inna Shevchenko’s subsequent incendiary blog post on the event, Femen was both defending one of its own and upholding a right to freedom of expression (to say nothing of life and liberty) flagrantly violated by Amina’s own family and by an angry, largely Muslim, community from which threats against Amina and Shevchenko continue to emanate. It’s worth pointing out that Femen’s critics, several of whom professed concern for Amina’s well-being, did not speak out in Amina’s defense before the jihad, but only post-factum and in passing, all the while pummeling the group standing up for her with stale, politically correct shibboleths and demands to stay out of what they perceived to be their own business.

We saw this in all the battles over accommodationism: there’s always someone on your side who offended that you have chosen to battle antagonistically or unconventionally against oppression and foolishness. I think their favorite word must be “hush” — don’t upset the status quo, even if it’s the status quo you’re trying to upset. And most importantly, they insist that you have to follow their tactics, and they get to tell everyone how to engage, even if their history is one of largely sitting on their thumbs and getting chummy with the enemy.

Guess what is often at the root of that reluctance to actually confront? Yeah, it’s the same old boogeyman everytime, conservative traditionalism in the guise of religion.

There is a problem, however. The media has long fostered the view that religion should be de facto exempt from the logical scrutiny applied to other subjects. I am not disputing the right to practice the religion of one’s choice, but rather the prevailing cultural rectitude that puts faith beyond the pale of commonsense review, and (in Amina’s case), characterizes as “Islamophobic” criticism of the criminal mistreatment of a young woman for daring to buck her society’s norms, or of Femen for attacking the forced wearing of the hijab.

We’re seeing a lot of that lately, but it’s been going on for a long, long time. Point out that transubstantiation is ridiculous, and that Catholics don’t get to tell you to honor a cracker, and Bill Donohue raves that you’re an anti-Catholic bigot; stand aghast at ultra-orthodox Jews spitting on little girls for “immodesty” and you’re an anti-semite; critize the deeply rooted misogyny in Islam, a misogyny that harms men and women in the faith, and you’re declared an Islamophobe.

Just because it’s cloaked in the self-declared mystery of religion doesn’t mean it’s exampt from scrutiny and rejection.

Louisiana replaces science with voodoo

witchdoctor

Literally. A number of intelligent people have been trying to get the Louisiana Science Education Act repealed, a law that opens the door to teaching creationism in the public schools. The efforts have been stymied, though, and the Louisiana Creation Science Miseducation Act is still in effect.

One of the people who acted to kill the efforts offered an, ahem, interesting rationale.

Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures."

"Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man — in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed — if I had closed him off and just said, ‘That’s not science. I’m not going to see this doctor,’ I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said.

“in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed”…that’s how I’m going to picture Louisiana legislators from now on.

I do wonder about one thing in Mr Guillory’s story, though. How does he know his witch doctor “correctly diagnosed” his ailment? Did he, perhaps, see a real doctor?

The comets explain everything

Planets

People are always sending me links — sometimes it’s to a cogent rebuttal of lunacy, sometimes it’s something advocating lunacy, and sometimes…it takes me a while to tell. For instance, here’s this site called “The Truth of Genesis”. I read this and thought for a moment that it was a site debunking creationism.

The biggest laugh comes from the “young Earth” teachers, who try to convince others that the Earth is only 6 000 to 10,000 years old. This is in direct conflict with scientific reality, and the true reading of Genesis. It’s embarrassing to see them try to add up the years from Adam (who they think only lived 930 years), on down to Jesus, who was born in 7 BC. They deny the existence of humanity before Adam and Eve, which were formed from the dust of the Earth. So where do they put Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthals? They claim that there was “no death before Adam”, but that is not found in scripture.

Those fools at Answers in Genesis who think the earth is only 6,000 years old! How ridicuolus! All those inconsistencies and their absurd methodology of toting up the ages of the patriarchs…but then I read on.

Adam was formed in about 7200 BC. The modern animals, along with the birds, were made in about 7100 BC, and Eve came along in about 7000 BC. I’m guessing that the animals lived in and out of the Garden, and Adam probably took Eve out on sight-seeing trips to lands surrounding the Garden. They did this for 2,733 years., until Eve ate of the evil tree in 4267 BC. It is then that the years of Adam’s age begins to be counted, because that is when he “began to die”. So from 7200 BC, till 3337 BC, when Adam died, Adam had lived for 3,863 years.

The reason the sequence of events in Genesis chapter one, do not agree with those in Genesis chapter two, is because Moses was writing about two different time periods. So actually, Genesis is declaring the existence of pre-historic man, which lived more than 60 million years before God made Adam and Eve. The world of science won’t admit to mankind being on Earth any earlier than 10 million years ago., which shows how misinformed they are. Or is it that they are in denial?

I don’t know about you, but I’m always impressed with the specificity of their dates, all derived from the land of making-crap-up.

It’s good to know we’ve now found the one correct creationist, rather than all those other wrong creationists. Also a brave creationist, because he’s going to reveal the truth to us at last.

Now, let us talk about the world of science. They are insane, because they would rather lie to the public, than to admit that there is a Creator. Yes, they lie, and they know it, because they have been withholding evidence from the public in order to not have to explain certain ‘phenomena”.

What is this evidence? You will be dazzled by it, but I’m afraid that as a mere biologist I am not qualified to even contemplate the author’s vision. This one is for the physicists out there. Have at it:

Science refuses to come clean about comets, especially Shoemaker-Levy 9. They know good and well that comet was never “captured” by Jupiter. Captures of comets and satellites never occur, because their paths (orbits) obey the command of God. That is why the moon Metis, of Jupiter, does not crash into the planet, even though it is only 79,800 miles from Jupiter. Science calls it a “gravitational lock”. There is no such thing.

Also, science tells the public that the nine planets of our solar system revolve around our Sun, because of the Sun’s “gravitational pull” and centrifugal force on the planets (the same excuse for why our Moon doesn’t “fall”). But that too is not the truth. If they came clean, their theory of stellar evolution, namely the origin of our solar system, would become suspect. Our planets are not really just orbiting the Sun. The Sun is actually following the planets, as they spiral around the Sun, as they all orbit the center point of our galaxy, the Milky Way, as the galaxy spirals around the center point of our “local group” of about ten galaxies. All of the stars (suns) that you see in our galaxy are moving with the rotation of our galaxy.

So when Halley’s Comet orbits around the Sun, how does the comet know where our Sun will be 75 years later, since the comet leaves the solar system in the opposite direction of the Sun’s orbital path (around the galaxy)? Where does it go? What causes it to come back? Certainly not gravity. How did comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 know where Jupiter would be two years later, when Jupiter had moved over 500 million miles since the comet’s previous orbit of the planet? Its apojove was 32,313,600 miles, so again, gravity was not a factor. For more than 4 billion years, it obeyed the command of God, until its (Divinely) staged crash into Jupiter.

Well all righty then, I guess that’s all settled now.

We don’t know everything, but we know enough

Sean Carroll explains the sufficiency of physics. Magic disproven with Feynman diagrams!

Wait, I saw this talk at Skepticon, and I think it was close to an hour long. They’ve edited down to 10 minutes? And it still makes sense? This bodes ill. I fear they’re going to take my talks now and distill them down to 30 seconds.

By the way, Skepticon 6 has been announced: 15-17 November in lovely Springfield, Missouri. Will I see you all there?

They’ve also created a Skepticon blog in which they promise to reveal the dark, hidden secrets behind running a free conference, and I hope embarrassing stories about JT (maybe they’re waiting for more donations before they unveil the juicy stuff). Everything has a dinosaur theme, too, which is good, because I’d like to go to Skepticon this year and talk about fossils.

Dawkins & Krauss in a new movie

I’m looking forward to The Unbelievers, too…although I suspect there is no way in hell it will ever be shown at the Morris theater. When I can get it on DVD we’ll have to have a screening for the godless folk around here.

Is every CNN announcer now required to bring up the Boston bombing at every occasion? My wife had it on yesterday while she was working out, and it was intolerable — everything was Boston, Boston, Boston, with talking heads yammering about the horrible Mooslims. I think Dawkins addressed it well here, though.

Best response to the Aquatic Ape nonsense yet

Mockery is good. Behold the #spaceape hypothesis: humans clearly evolved in outer space!

#SPACEAPE

Basic Arguments of the Space Ape Theory:

1. we have evolved big brains relative to our bodies because we don’t need our bodies to move around in space.

2. we don’t have much body hair because what would be the point of a few more follicles worth in 2.73 Kelvin (-270 Celsius)?

3. sinuses, far from being evolutionary spandrels, are little miniature internal space helmets.

4. our outsize eyes clearly show our relation to other species in space.

It’s taking off on Twitter, too. Next time someone brings up the soggy monkey story, I’m just going to reply with “Space Ape!”