Calling dishonesty

Posted on September 17, 2010 by Michael

I’ve never been a big fan of calling someone dishonest with much ease. There are exceptions (a lot of politicians by virtue of being politicians, people who understand the science behind something but intentionally contradict it at the behest of a big corporation, i.e., researchers who long denied the effects smoking has), but I’m not usually ready to throw out a label of “dishonest” without good reason. I’ll say it for virtually all public-figure young Earth creationists because they present arguments they know are wrong (i.e., Kirk Cameron and his crocoduck; even when it was explained to him that evolution predicts no such thing, he continued to claim otherwise. I don’t think he’s smart, but he can’t be that stupid), but I won’t say it for the random young Earth creationist because they usually don’t know why their arguments are silly. For the former, I have good reason. For the latter, I do not.

And then there are theists in general. I believe most of them think their positions are valid and logical. They don’t inherently make arguments they know or believe to be false simply so they can push an agenda. This is true for all religious members as well as atheists, agnostics, and whatever else we care to name. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t big name theists willing to distort facts, make up history, and outright lie.

Enter the Pope.

‘As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society.’

Specifically, he means Nazis. This is a fallacious argument that attempts to link what just about everyone recognizes as a terrible regime to atheism. Hitler wasn’t an atheist and the Nazis did not promote atheism. The Pope is being overtly and brazenly dishonest.

In light of this, PZ has a series of Hitler quotes that help to demonstrate what the German leader thought. They’re worth a look in their entirety, but I’ll provide just a few here.

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” (1936 speech)

~~~

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.” (1922 speech – this one goes on for longer than what I’ve represented here)

~~~

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.” (Mein Kampf)

~~~

“ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED

Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers

Wireless to the New York Times.

BERLIN, May 13. – In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members …” (New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler’s outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree)

Far from being an atheist, Hitler believed in God. Furthermore, he actively suppressed atheist groups. The Pope, having lived in Nazi Germany and having been forced to join them, knows this. His people know it. Everyone frickin’ knows it.

But my favorite quote of all (which isn’t on that list):

Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth. Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law–one may call it an iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. (Mein Kampf)

Mmyes. In addition to not being an atheist, Hitler didn’t even accept the fact of evolution. Only a fundamentally dishonest theist would bother to argue otherwise.

Filed under: Creationism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 14 Comments »

Show me one ape-human. Just one!

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Michael

That’s what Melody Weeks of Oakland wants, anyway. At least that’s what she said in her response to one of my past letters to the editor.

After reading two letters from Michael Hawkins regarding his discriminate view that “creation” shouldn’t be taught in public schools, I am compelled to write this letter.

He considers evolution a science that should be taught because evolution is “scientifically proven.” OK, show me one human being conceived, carried and delivered by apes. What? Can’t do it? Then I guess you can’t prove it, eh?

His is one of theory and speculations by “educated” human beings.

I can’t prove creation. I believe in it as it is so logical but only by faith. So why is creation any less of a theory than evolution? What is Hawkins so afraid of that he can’t provide children different theories and allow them, their parents, and their personal faith to dictate their own beliefs?

Is this the only problem he has with candidate Paul LePage? Personally, I think it’s about time we get rid of career politicians and lawyers in any branch of government. Maybe then, the average American, could understand the tax laws and state regulations under which they are forced to adhere.

I think a good farmer would be the very best candidate as they know what it’s like to work hard for very little. They share no entitlements unlike our current “leaders.” Why can’t our representatives, senators and Congress brown-bag it for lunch? Why are they given $30 for a meal? And the rest of us, if we’re lucky, eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Oh yeah, because they write the laws that entitle them to it. I keep forgetting. I just live here, and pay taxes for them to thrive.

Melody Weeks

Oakland

I’ll humor Melody.

1) All humans are apes. There is no evolutionary or taxonomic distinction.
2) Yes, evolution is a theory. Just like gravity.
3) Creationism is less of a theory than evolution, Melody, because (as you point out) it is based upon faith. It has no evidence; not in its common form, not in its dishonest intelligent design form, not in any form. Evolution has nothing but evidence behind it. (This, by the way, is one good example of the damage religion, and specifically faith, does to science education.)
4) I’m afraid of telling children things known to be false. That is a wrong in the world.
5) No, I also have the problem with LePage that he’s a liar who sucked money from the state while claiming his policies somehow saved the city of Waterville.
6) I don’t care about the rest.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Letter to the editor correction

Posted on July 31, 2010 by Michael

After butchering a previous letter to the editor I wrote, the Kennebec Journal has printed my correction.

On July 19, the Kennebec Journal ran a letter with my name as the author. Neither the title nor the edited content reflected what I had originally written.

The piece was titled “Irreparable harm to sciences if LePage is elected?” The substance of the letter did not make any such claim. Paul LePage will cause harm to science, but it will not be irreparable. Science is the best way of knowing we have; it can recover from an anti-science politician like LePage. It would just be preferable to avoid any harm in the first place.

Two paragraphs were edited to say “LePage seems to indicate he thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.” I stand by what I wrote: “Paul LePage thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.”

I used this wording because when asked in a debate if he believes in creationism and if he thinks it should be taught in schools LePage’s answer concluded, “I believe yes and yes.” My second paragraph compared LePage’s rationality to a common aquatic bird found on many Maine lakes.

The KJ has offered me this space so I may clarify the original letter. For that, I am thankful. But there is the much more important issue of LePage’s anti-science stances.

Any politician who rejects some fundamental aspect of any field of science based on religious belief is unqualified for any public leadership position.

Eliot Cutler, Kevin Scott and Shawn Moody have all voiced their support for the strong teaching of evolution in public schools. Libby Mitchell has not stated a position, but there is little doubt of her support for the fact of evolution. All are far better choices than LePage to lead Maine.

For those who haven’t read or don’t remember my first letter, that “common aquatic bird” is a loon. Personally I think I was being too generous.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Here’s one I missed

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Michael

Everyone knows Paul LePage is a huge liar. But still some people refuse to believe he wants creationism taught in schools. For Christ’s Sake.

Creationism: “Quite frankly, it’s a learning tool for our kids. I think we should teach them everything possible and let them make their own minds up on how they want to live their lives.”

There is no candidate more anti-science than Paul LePage.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

LePage: lying about his creationist views

Posted on July 27, 2010 by Michael

When asked if he believed in creationism and if it ought to be taught in schools, Paul LePage answered this.

I would say intelligence, uh, the more education you have the more knowledge you have the better person you are and I believe yes and yes.

It’s a ramble, but a ramble that ends with a definitive answer: “I believe yes and yes.”

But now LePage is lying.

Over the weekend, during a whistle-stop train trip through the Midcoast, LePage told reporters that his opponents had claimed LePage was not fit to be Governor because he’s French and Catholic. He claimed the comments had been made in blogs by Arden Manning, manager of the Democrats’ statewide campaign effort, called Victory 2010.

Manning says he doesn’t have a blog, denies ever making such comments, and says LePage’s allegation is “a lie”. But LePage was defended by Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster. He told NEWS CENTER that Democrats have been attacking LePage as “too extreme” because of his French Catholic values.

Webster and LePage both claim the issue revolves around creationism and whether it should be taught in schools. LePage says he has never said it should be taught, but MPBN radio has reported that during a GOP primary debate on MPBN television, LePage answered that he believes it should be taught.

Aside from no such blog or comments existing about LePage’s heritage or religion (both of which are strong forces in many parts of Maine anyway), LePage did – definitively – profess support for the teaching of creationism. Since that time he has backed away slightly, saying he supports local boards deciding what ought to be taught. Unfortunately, this still means he is okay with allowing creationism in schools. A rational person would reject such rubbish getting anywhere near children.

What I really want to hear is someone ask LePage how old he thinks the Universe is, how life has come to its current state – with specific reference to whether or not he accepts the fact of evolution – and if he believes Adam and Eve really existed. These are important questions that LePage needs to directly address – and not lie about later.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Barbara Forrest exposes lying creationist

Posted on July 25, 2010 by Michael

I’ve said it before: public figure creationists are liars. They don’t care about being honest or straight-forward. That’s what the whole intelligent design bullshit is about: call God a “designer”, deny that’s exactly what they’re doing, and cry academic oppression all over the place (despite almost never being associated with anything remotely close to the academic world). They lie, lie, lie.

One of the results of all this lying has been that awful bill, the Louisiana Science Education Act, signed by creationist governor Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. Now a school board is considering utilizing it.

[Jan] Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.

Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”

Students will be taught nonsense if these board members have their way. They should all be kicked out and forced to take a college level biology course.

But that’s the thing. Most if not all of these people are ignorant: ignorant of science first and foremost, but also ignorant of just how much creationists lie. Fortunately, National Center for Science Education board of directors member Professor Barbara Forrest has some revealing information.

In his June 26 response to Charles Kincade, the Rev. Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), portrayed the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) as “landmark” legislation — a “bold step” to “promote critical thinking skills” in public school science classes.

But legislation that is about real science education need not include religion disclaimers. Disclaimers are typically included in creationist laws, which are precisely about promoting religion. Moreover, only creationists complain, as Mills did, about “Darwinian dogma in our schools.”

…

Finally, Mills’ referring to public schools as “our schools” is sheer hypocrisy. Mills considers himself qualified to manipulate the education of other people’s children in public schools to which he doesn’t send his own. In his 2008 Christmas newsletter, updating readers on his children’s activities, he revealed that they don’t attend public schools. They are home-schooled and attend a private Christian school. Yet this man is dictating educational policy.

People like Gene Mills love to lie. They love to make up this false reality to trick everyone. They’re well aware of the American penchant for terms like “freedom”, rah! rah! rah!, so they usurp this politically charged language and appeal to the simplest of American libertarianism, fooling everyone into believing they just want to be fair in how they indoctrinate educate children.

But will Barbara Forrest’s thrust for honesty make much of a difference? I have to doubt it. Her case is exceedingly convincing, what with all those pesky facts, but most Americans aren’t looking for that. Instead they want emotional appeals; they want to be given an opportunity to feel as though they’re acting in the promotion of their rah! rah! rah! principles.

Above that, though, people want to see religious vindication and that’s the biggest problem of all. American ideals are fleeting; the country may well not exist 300 years from now. But religious ideology digs itself into the mind like a tick in a dog’s skin. Except unlike lyme disease, religion is a virus – a virus which is all too often inherited. That’s what motivates these people to want to teach creationism. Their public figure leaders will appeal to vague American principles in a faux attempt at a secular argument, but it’s the undercurrent of religion that fundamentally moves this wave of educational destruction.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Reader responds to letter

Posted on July 24, 2010 by Michael

A Kennebec Journal reader has responded to my heavily edited letter to the editor. Unfortunately, the paper has not uploaded the response online, so I do not currently have access to it. However, I do want to respond to it briefly. (I will type up a copy when I get my hands on a hard copy of the paper.)

In my letter I pointed out that creationist Paul LePage will do harm to science by discouraging the critical thinking required in science. He will encourage students to accept that creationism is intellectually viable, and that is inherently anti-science. A reader responded that Paul LePage’s daughter, Lauren LePage, will be graduating shortly with biology and chemistry degrees. The reader then said Lauren had been supported greatly by her father in her scientific endeavors.

It’s just too bad for the reader and the LePage’s that there’s more to the story.

Awhile back I documented some of the ongoing dishonesty of the LePage campaign. In that post, I referenced a question posed on the LePage Facebook page which asked why LePage supports teaching creationism in schools. Lauren LePage offered this answer:

He just thinks knowledge is a good thing, the more knowledge you have, the better off you are. And he has alread said that school curriculum should be decided on the local level, local school boards should be deciding what they want taught in their schools.

Lauren LePage is describing her father’s irresponsible thoughts on education (‘Teach kids whatever you like so long as you’re micromanaging!’). It isn’t a stretch to believe she also thinks “knowledge is a good thing”. But this isn’t knowledge in the traditional sense of the word. This is knowledge as virally delivered by religious indoctrination. And that isn’t really knowledge at all. It’s belief, faith, fairy tales. It isn’t a view discovered based upon any verifiable facts; it is a view which contradicts verified facts.

So when that reader says Lauren LePage is a good example of how Paul LePage isn’t going to taint the education system, he’s wrong. The belief that it is okay to tell students that creationism has any validity whatsoever is an active danger to science and science education – no matter what degrees one obtains.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

LePage will allow schools to teach creationism

Posted on July 22, 2010 by Michael

I’ve gotten many comments from many people who have claimed Paul LePage’s support for creationism will not find its way into Maine schools. This is untrue, especially given the fundamental dishonest nature of creationists, but now I have proof. I sent this question to the LePage campaign:

I have become aware that in an interview in May you said you support teaching creationism in public schools. I asked for a clarification on your fan page, but my post was deleted (and my posting privileges removed). I’m hoping you can clarify why you support such a position. Do you see scientific evidence for creationism? Do you disagree with court rulings that have said creationism is religion and thus illegal in public schools? Which version of creationism do you support?

John McGough of the campaign offered this evasive response.

Dear Michael:

Thank you for emailing Mayor LePage. I am a volunteer helping the Mayor answer the thousands of questions and requests we are receiving after winning the primary.

The Mayor will not seek to have Augusta make all curriculum decisions for local school districts. He believes that locally elected school board members and parents should have input in their children’s education. This includes allowing local school boards to provide guidance as to whether classroom discussions on the origin of life be included with scientific theories. As Governor he will work to ensure that every child receives a quality education so they can succeed while allowing local school boards and parents input in their children’s education.

This isn’t some political spin. It isn’t some bullshit.

Paul LePage will allow schools to teach creationism.

Any rational person would be against this. Any rational person would stand up and say, “No, you may not teach known falsehoods to students.” Any rational person would not allow religion an in-road to the minds of children at public, secular schools.

But Paul LePage is not rational.

He is a creationist.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , | 10 Comments »

Letter to the editor: LePage will harm science

Posted on July 19, 2010 by Michael

I’ve written a letter to the editor which appeared in the Kennebec Journal today. As is ever so common, the KJ threw in some poor editing. One of the changes I’ve noticed has to do with an omission – I refer to Paul LePage as a loon. Another is that they changed “okay” to “OK”. I half-expected the first change; the second change is just bad writing. I would never use “OK” anywhere besides maybe a text message.

But then there’s the big change. Here’s how the paper starts my letter.

In a televised debate on May 27, Paul LePage seems to indicate he thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.

No, no, no. Paul LePage actually, literally, without any doubt said he supports the teaching of creationism in public schools. He is a creationist. The KJ is effectively lying when they put these words into my mouth. I would never make such firm claims on such flimsy (and poorly written) grounds. Here’s how I actually started my letter.

Paul LePage thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.

He’s a loon.

Now does that sound a bit more like me?

In addition to this malarkey, the KJ also changed my final sentence, taking away its punch. Whereas I say, “Do not vote for Paul LePage”, they’ve pretended I said, “Do not vote for LePage”. In addition to this, they also made the title of the letter “Irreparable harm to science if LePage elected”. That’s crap. Bush harmed science greatly, but it isn’t irreparable.

Given all the errors the KJ has forced upon me, I will be giving them a call very shortly. I may report back on it. Until then, enjoy the letter I really wrote.

Paul LePage thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.

He’s a loon.

Creationism, in one version, means telling students that Adam and Eve really existed, that the entire globe flooded (in just over a month, no less), and that the Universe is 6,000 years old.

All these things are falsehoods. And LePage is okay with teaching them to children because he doesn’t really understand science.

This isn’t just some abstract misfortune in science education. There will be real world consequences including, for example, the harming of future conservation and management efforts.

Biologists often use genetic markers to determine variation within and between populations to determine the best way to maintain healthy species. One example involved the use of microsatellites to determine the temporal and spatial population structure of Atlantic cod populations across the Gulf of Maine. Were we seeing several distinct populations or was there breeding between seemingly distant groups? How much variation was there within populations that were being treated as separate? These were just some of the questions that had to be asked in order to better manage Maine’s Atlantic cod population.

Under LePage, students could be discouraged from ever getting to know what microsatellites are, what their importance in genetic testing is, or what they mean to management services in Maine. LePage could instead encourage students to reject science – especially biology and its underlying theme and fact of evolution – by having teachers instruct them that faith is an okay way of knowing. If LePage has his way, the future of Maine biologists – and all the species they manage – will be threatened. And that’s just the first field of science we know he could harm.

Do not vote for Paul LePage.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , | 23 Comments »

More creationist canards

Posted on June 27, 2010 by Michael

In my post on the continued dishonesty of the LePage campaign I skipped over a few creationist canards from LePage’s creationist supporters. (As he is an ardent creationist, believing it is okay to tell children that dinosaurs and people walked the Earth together, he has many creationist supporters.) Here’s one of the most common from Christopher Bowker. (Scroll down to the question from Matt Ellis – I cannot link directly to the wall post in question.)

I have a BA in Zoology from the Univeristy of Maine. I am also an evangelical christian, believe me when I say you can believe God created the world, and species can evolve from other species, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I say be tolerant of each other, this scientific theory take a bit of assumption or faith, as much as believing the biblical account. Learn as much as you can and make your own judgement. People who believe in the Genesis account aren’t forcing their beliefs on anyone. Keep an open mind!

He starts out okay – people can believe God created the world while also accepting the fact of evolution. Unfortunately, he quickly takes a wrong turn. The two are mutually exclusive as a matter of philosophical compatibility. One is an ancient sheepherder’s myth while the other is established science. Bowker may as well say it isn’t mutually exclusive to believe in gravity while also believing the Earth rests on the backs of turtles.

What is actually true is that plenty of people can believe two distinct, conflicting ideas. Everyone does it. In fact, as with Bowker, Christians who accept any science whatsoever are constantly doing it. But that isn’t an important point in the whole compatibility debate insofar as the question of whether these things are true or not is concerned. I know, I know. Then why do Christians constantly point out all the scientific authorities who manage to hold biblical and scientific beliefs? It’s because they’re bad at argumentation. No, really. It’s that simple.

Yes, people can hold two beliefs. No, this does not mean they are not in conflict. Internal harmonization of the world does not equate to external harmonization.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »