The dishonesty of the LePage campaign

Posted on June 27, 2010 by Michael

Paul LePage has been running a pretty shoddy campaign so far. Take his Facebook fan page, for instance. It has this disclaimer.

Paul LePage, Maine’s Next Governor is a fan page.

It was created by volunteer supporters of Paul LePage’s candidacy for Governor of Maine. For that reason, we cannot get into answering policy questions that get posted here.

Therefore, our rule on this page is to NOT respond to policy questions, but rather refer people to Paul LePage’s contact form on his official campaign website.

We do encourage discussion and debate by other fans, but ask that you refrain from vulgarity or other language that could be deemed offensive or demeaning to others. The page admins reserve the right to delete such posts, or posts that are unrelated to the content of this page (SPAM).

Thank you for your understanding on this issue.

Fans of Paul LePage, Maine’s Next Governor

As I’ve documented already, I’ve asked on creationist Paul LePage’s page why he wants to teach creationism in public schools. I originally blame him or his people for deleting my question and preventing me from posting any further. But according to this, these are just some random schmucks running a fan page, right? Oh, hang on.

Want to be a part of the success? Come join our team and help spread the message!

Simply drop us a line at any of the methods below:

* Paul’s campaign Twitter Page.
* Paul’s campaign Facebook Page.
* Call us at (207) 877-7616
* Email paul@lepage2010.com
* US Mail:
Committee To Elect Paul Lepage, Governor
c/o Rick Swanson Treasurer
P.O. Box 1788
Waterville, ME 04903

Guess where that link to “Paul’s campaign Facebook Page” links. Can you guess? That’s right – directly to the page that claims to have no affiliation with the actual campaign. (Here’s a screen shot in case they edit and deny all this.)

This is all just a big excuse to not be held responsible for anything. The LePage campaign wants to run an unofficial fan page so he doesn’t have to actually answer anything. Fortunately, my calls for people to continue asking LePage why he supports creationism has spilled over to Eliot Culter’s page.

Regina Karapetyan: So Mr. Cutler, I was going to vote for Paul LePage… But, I asked a simple question on his facebook page about his beliefs on whether creationism should be taught in public schools… well my post was deleted and I was removed from the fan page. I don’t believe that my question was rude or disrespectful in any way, I simply would have liked to know his view on the subject if the man is to be voted into office. I think the question should have been answered and left on the page but instead was deleted. So Eliot Cutler, what is your view of creationism being taught in public schools?

Regina happened to miss my question to Cutler earlier where he responded that he does not support teaching garbage to children. But something did come from this because an administrator from LePage’s officially unofficial fan page was lurking.

Aaron Prill: Regina that is not true. I am co-admin of Paul LePage’s facebook page and we don’t delete questions, and we definitely don’t remove people from the pag (it’s not even possible on pages). Paul LePage’s vision is a fiscal one for Maine to save our state from generational debt. He will bring fiscal responsibility and welfare reform to a state that needs both. Social issues like the one you mention are not even on the radar.

Lies, lies, and lies. After receiving a thorough shellacking, Aaron Prill eventually apologized.

Regina- let me first apologize for saying you weren’t being truthful. You are right on the ability to Remove people. I didn’t notice the “X” next to people’s names that does allow them to be removed. I am in fact the creator of that page. I said co-admin just so it was clear I wasn’t the only admin. I am following up with the other co-admins now to find out what happened in your case.

Our rule on that page is to NOT respond to policy questions, but rather refer people to Paul LePage’s contact page on his website. This is because that page is a fan supported page created by a supporter (me) back in February, it is not run directly by the campaign… nor is it a place to discuss policy questions.

So, in short, what the admin should have done is explain the above policy to you and refer you to the campaign website. If we got into debates on every issue, then that wouldn’t be a “fan” page now would it? Other fans are allowed to respond to people when they ask questions like yours, but the admins typically don’t.

Again- I’m sorry you (or anyone) was removed, and you are welcome back anytime…

I’ve since sent a private message to Aaron telling him that I was also banned from the page. I really hope he does fix the LePage campaign’s unofficial officially unofficial official error because someone has been answering policy questions over there ever since one of my reader’s asked why LePage supports teaching creationism.

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.

Why, Michael, you say, that is but one random fan! Yes, yes, it is. Well, sort of. It’s hard to say she’s random when her name is Lauren LePage. I’ve been unable to confirm any details, but it appears this is Paul LePage’s daughter. And lo, she is answering policy questions without being deleted. Hell, my question was deleted within 4 hours. And that wasn’t even a violation of the officially unofficial official unofficially official fan page policy.

Oh. And Eliot Cutler responds on his fan page routinely. It isn’t a violation to state a candidate’s policy positions – especially when that candidate lists the fan page as his own.

Thanks to Dave for much of the information here.

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

Eliot Cutler responds

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Michael

I’ve asked the three main candidates* to either state or clarify their positions on the teaching of creationism in public schools. Paul LePage acted like a spoiled little brat and deleted my question from his Facebook page. Libby Mitchell has yet to respond. Eliot Cutler, on the other hand, has responded. First, here is how I worded my question.

Mr. Cutler, I recently left a message on Libby Mitchell’s and Paul LePage’s respective Facebook pages asking them to either state or clarify their position on teaching creationism. Mitchell wants to be known as the “education governor”, so I presume she will favor teaching the basis of biology – evolution. (But I await… a response.) LePage, on the other hand, has had my question deleted and kicked me from his Facebook page. I presume he views his support for creationism as a liability.

What is your position? Thanks.

And once I write up a letter to the editor explain Paul LePage’s actions and inane, anti-science position, I hope his ignorance does become a liability. But first, here is Cutler’s response.

Hi Michael,

I support the teaching of evolution in elementary and secondary schools. Evolution is fundamental to every student’s comprehensive understanding of the world they live in and their ability to reason critically from evidence.

I have no objection to referencing creationism as an alternative view, but I do not believe it should be taught as part of the curriculum in public schools.

As a matter of principle, I do not believe that religion should make rules for government or that government should make rules for religion.

Eliot

It took me a second to digest this response. At first glance, being okay with references to creationism sounds sketchy, but then I thought back to my first biology course at university. Intelligent design and creationism were referenced before much got started. The professor basically covered his ground so that students wouldn’t be bringing silly challenges to him. He certainly welcomed a whole range of questions (and fielded them incredibly well, as he’s likely one of the smartest people I know), but he wasn’t there to undo 20 years of religious indoctrination. In that light, Cutler’s response works for me.

*Update: I’ve also asked Shawn Moody and Kevin Scott for their positions. They aren’t as high in the polling as the others, but they certainly aren’t off the radar.

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

The cowardice of Paul LePage

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Michael

For the past few weeks I’ve been trying to think of a good topic for a letter to the editor. Ideally I want to write about evolution, but my space is limited. Then I think maybe I could respond to some inane letter that says the U.S. is based upon Christian ideals. But nah, people prefer topical stuff, not history lessons, at least in their newspapers. But then I realize, oh yes! Paul LePage is a creationist. He’s even on video professing his desire to teach children that Jesus rode on dinosaurs.

But now it gets better. Take a look at Paul LePage’s Facebook “Like” Page’s comments. Now filter it to “Just Others” and look between the comments by Sandra Blanchette and Marc Worrell, the first of which was made at 5:15 pm June 21, the second of which was made around midnight tonight. Do you see it? Do you see what it says?

No, you don’t.

The reason is that I left a message very near to this one:

You’ve said you support the teaching of creationism.

…why?

Fairly mundane by my standards.

But it got deleted. And I have been forced from his “Like” Page.

I mean, I’m glad LePage has learned that his anti-science ignorance ought to be viewed as an embarrassment, but the fact remains that he’s on video saying he supports the teaching of something known to be false. He is against every biology professor in the state of Maine. He is against every relevant scientific organization in the country. Paul LePage is an ignorant creationist who is too cowardly to defend what he believes.

But I thank him for the topic idea for my next letter to the editor.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Robin Ince on creationism

Posted on June 18, 2010 by Michael

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

Paul LePage is a creationist

Posted on June 17, 2010 by Michael

Like several other states, Maine recently had its party primaries for governor. Three candidates have emerged as the overall front runners. Libby Mitchell won the Democrat primary, Eliot Cutler didn’t have to worry about any of that since he’s running as an independent, and Paul LePage won the Republican nomination. And that’s where the danger is.

Paul LePage isn’t too far from the ideals of the Teabaggers. He hates government, poor people, basic services, and most of all, education. In an interview from May 27, he was asked “Do you believe in creationism, and do you think it should be taught in Maine public schools?” Here is his answer.

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 unclear what the word “intelligence” is doing in his answer as the concept is nowhere to be found.

Few if any who visit FTSOS are going to vote for LePage, I know. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t important to get the word out that he is anti-science. One way to do this is to buy a bumper sticker which reads “No Creationism in Public Schools. No to Paul LePage.”

This is the last guy any state needs as a leader.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Racism through proxy

Posted on June 12, 2010 by Michael

Didn’t you know? The racist past of 20th century America wasn’t based upon cultural oppression, poor education and high illiteracy, the loss the economic viability of slavery, religious tolerance and encouragement for slave holding, segregation, rural isolation, or any of those well-known things. Nah. It was based upon eugenics.

Frequently, when seeking a legal precedent for same-sex marriage, advocates will cite the Supreme Court’s rulings against anti-miscegenation laws. Those laws, which existed in a number of states in the early half of the 20th century, prevented people of different races from marrying. The primary Supreme Court ruling in question was Loving v. Virginia which effectively rendered unconstitutional all laws against interracial marriage. Interestingly the specific law it dealt with, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, wasn’t based on ‘racism’ per se, but on scientific ideas of eugenics, an idea derived from Darwin’s evolutionary theory, a product of the scientific and legal consensus in the 20′s and 30′s.

You got that? Racism – that thing that existed long before the abolitionist Darwin came along – wasn’t really the basis for the Racial Integrity Act. Heck, how can a law be racist if people try to justify in other ways? I mean, no one wanted to quiet down all those civil right leaders because they were black; it was really because they were uppity. Or all those women who wanted to vote? Well, gee, let’s be fair. No one was against them voting because they were women; it was really because they were hysterical. Or those Injuns. Golly shucks, it wasn’t because they looked different and dressed funny; it was really because they were so savage.

What the above blogger – to no one’s surprise, I’m sure, Jack Hudson – is willfully missing is that eugenics was never much of a scientific idea as it applied to humans. When it comes to animals, we use it frequently because we put less value on the lives of, say, livestock. That makes it more acceptable to say it is of high value for a cow to produce copious amounts of milk; we haven’t given the cow much value in the first place, so we have no particularly diminished anything. With humans, we tend to start with a high base value. Whether that’s right or wrong is another question, but it’s what people tend to do.

Let’s say we have two sorts of scales. We have a universal scale we use to measure species against each other. It’s a rather detestable, arbitrary scale, but the reality is that we unconsciously use it all the time (it’s okay to torture a moth, but not a bird, usually). Then we have a local scale which measures individuals against each other. Say each scale runs 1 (low) to 10 (high). On the universal scale we almost always rank humans as having the highest value of 10. We may, however, rank other animals very highly. A baboon, for example, may be a 9. This provides for two distinct base lines; we start humans at a high base value than other animals.

This high base value comes with a number of usual stipulations. Treat all humans fairly, all humans deserve freedom, do not kill any human, etc. But once we apply the local scale, we may put restrictions based upon actions and behaviors. Deranged killers do not deserve their freedom. On the universal scale they’re still a 10 by virtue of being human, but they may rank as a 1 on the local scale.

What eugenics did was change the fundamental ranking of humans; it altered our universal scale ranking. No longer were humans 10 simply by being human. They were instead ranked by the same arbitrary measures used to place baboons and leopards below humans in the first place.

But in order to get to the point of ranking humans as non-humans based upon race – and this is a crazy one – racism had to exist. The prejudices and bigotry of civilizations did not spring from any scientific idea: look at the Christian-induced Dark Ages. A severe lack of science did nothing to stop the de-valuing of individual human lives.

In the time during and after Darwin, racism flourished. From this – not evidence, knowledge of genetics, or any known mechanisms of evolution – eugenics arose. Science was the faux veneer abused to make it all look legitimate. Evolution had nothing to do with the matter. But even if it did, this is all an ugly, dishonest, creationist rhetorical tool. Associate evolution with something bad and, well, it just must be wrong! Just ignore the fact that evolution is a scientific fact, void of anthropomorphic values, while eugenics is nothing but a reflection of racist values.

The rest of this ugly, ill conceived post goes on to quote a philosopher of bigotry, Francis J. Beckwith, about same-sex marriage.

“It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory.

Most of the emphasis is in the original piece itself, but note mine in bold. By nature. You know what that is? It’s an invocation of Natural Law theory. That’s the silly little theory that says the good is what is natural. What it really tries to do is say that human action is bad because it presupposes that humans are somehow not a part of Nature. But it isn’t honest enough to come out and say it. And what’s worse, it is entirely impotent to explain why same-sex marriage is bad but flying across the country in a giant metal tube is good.

Beckwith is saying the analogy drawn between anti-miscegenation laws and anti-gay marriage laws fails because the former was meant to prevent reproduction while the latter has a different basis. This misses the whole point of the analogy. Historically it’s very important to understand the reasons behind discrimination. Practically it matters less: discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. How one wants to rationalize bigotry doesn’t really matter, what with Lady Justice being blind and all.

But if Beckwith really wants to disseminate the reasons for gay discrimination, the reality is that bigots place their opposition to marriage equality in their religious-based sexual immaturity, their ignorance of what it means to be gay, and the one big thought that goes through their minds, “Yucky!”.

Filed under: Creationism, Rights, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Explaining denialism

Posted on June 4, 2010 by Michael

It’s ever so common to come across an evolution denier only to discover the person is also a global warming denier. This may be chalked up to ideology – American conservatism practically demands a god and it’s too pro-business to accept the science of global warming (or at least the predicted consequences). But another reason must often be sought; the denialism can extend beyond a conservative agenda. This includes HIV denial, vaccine denial, second-hand smoke denial, and a host of other forms. In fact, the anti-vax movement will often find sympathies on the left.

Some of the common underlying themes of denialism are alleging conspiracies, moving the goalposts in the face of evidence, and manufacturing evidence. In other words, it’s all very anti-scientific. But it isn’t necessarily an outright hostility towards science that causes this – though many conservatives suffer from such an affliction. Instead, it’s the way many people tend to think.

All denialisms appear to be attempts like this to regain a sense of agency over uncaring nature: blaming autism on vaccines rather than an unknown natural cause, insisting that humans were made by divine plan, rejecting the idea that actions we thought were okay, such as smoking and burning coal, have turned out to be dangerous.

This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control.

Emotional appeals are not always bad. When they are mixed with substance, they make for powerful rhetoric. But often, entire arguments are premised in emotion. Take creationism/intelligent design. It isn’t that there’s any evidence for it; many people recognize that natural selection is a blind process which builds piece by piece, bit by bit, thereby not being random and not being improbable, thus making all life the product of purely natural processes. God has no place to go but out. Since no science supports creationism/intelligent design, an emotional response is the result – to the detriment of science.

[Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut at Storrs] believes the instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. “They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder”, he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. “Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory.”

Neither the ringleaders nor rank-and-file denialists are lying in the conventional sense, Kalichman says: they are trapped in what classic studies of neurosis call “suspicious thinking”. “The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere,” he says. “All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.”

The likes of Maloney and Moritz certainly fit this profile. Both have had some of the most radical reactions to criticism I’ve seen since grade school, they both are clearly angry (especially Maloney), and both actually have taken measures to expand their web presence upon its destruction by Pharyngula and FTSOS (Moritz on Facebook, Maloney everywhere else), apparently believing what they have to say is too important to be drowned out by facts, evidence, and other pesky things.

But this extends beyond those two. Many creationists fit this profile. Just wait for one to write an editorial to a paper. The emotion, the anger. Then respond. Watch for the screeching about tone, respect, not being nice enough. And I don’t mean to watch for those reactions from my style of writing (though I get those, too). The most tempered response is met with hostility.

But as damaging as denialism has been to science education, it has had more immediate, more serious consequences.

Denialism has already killed. AIDS denial has killed an estimated 330,000 South Africans. Tobacco denial delayed action to prevent smoking-related deaths. Vaccine denial has given a new lease of life to killer diseases like measles and polio. Meanwhile, climate change denial delays action to prevent warming. The backlash against efforts to fight the flu pandemic could discourage preparations for the next, potentially a more deadly one.

If science is the best way to understand the world and its dangers, and acting on that understanding requires popular support, then denial movements threaten us all.

Science is, in fact, the best way of knowing.

Filed under: Creationism, Politics and Social, Religions | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Morality does not come from God

Posted on May 27, 2010 by Michael

At least that’s what Jack Hudson has finally admitted.

All morality starts with a set of facts about the world one believes to be true.

Surely, being a creationist, Jack is attempting to make a false equivalence between his faith and the objective determination of what is known to be true via science, but let’s ignore that old rhetoric. He has actually acknowledged (even though he probably still doesn’t get it) that morality is derived from internal perceptions of the world, predicated on the notion that internal consistency is worthwhile. That’s one reason religion remains so strong: it often is not internally consistent, but it is consistent over large spans of time (until secular morality takes over, such as when slavery was rebuked throughout various times and places in history). This consistency is a viable substitute for reasoned consistency, something to which secular ethical theories lay primary claim.

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

I told you he read FTSOS

Posted on April 26, 2010 by Michael

Jack Hudson is a bit like Ken Ham. Both are Christians. Both are creationists. Both routinely fail to defend positions. Oh. And both refuse to link to those who criticize them.

Anyone who regularly reads Pharyngula knows that Ken Ham and his Creation ‘Museum’ people will not link back to PZ’s articles. It’s a cowardly passive-aggressive sort of thing. They have made a habit of referring to PZ as an “atheist professor”, a “professor from Minnesota”, or some other similar name, but they won’t mention him directly. Now it looks like Jack Hudson has taken out a page from that play book for use on me.

After getting up in a huff over something someone else said to him, he left FTSOS, vowing never to return. Okay. But it has been clear that he still lurks around here. His articles have often been based upon links posted here, and his remarks have often been thinly veiled responses to comments made here (and a couple times even to comments made on Facebook…sort of like how he referenced his Facebook discussions when he texted my cousin).

You know, I can’t deny that I’ve had conversations with friends that have resulted in posts here. It happens from time to time. Of course, if I’ve made specific responses to a person, even if written in a generalized voice, I’ve always sent on a link to the person. It’s just common courtesy. And really, why would I want to hide from what I’ve said? I said it in the first place because I want people to listen.

Jack has had at least three responses to FTSOS. The first was an update to a post of his that was pro-bigotry while vaguely featuring some infantile libertarianism.

An Addendum:

It’s a bit of a myth that this wouldn’t have happened to a heterosexual married couple; in fact, this does happen to elderly married couples.

This was in response to my post about an elderly gay couple that was separated by the state. The two men had about as much legal documentation as they possibly could so as to avoid the hardships of current end-of-life care in the United States which disregards their humanity. But it didn’t matter. They were separated and had their belongings stolen and sold by Sonoma County in California.

Jack thinks that’s the same as another older, heterosexual, married couple who was forced into a nursing home. While that is superficially similar (the gay couple was also forced into a nursing home), the fact is that this all hinges on marriage. Someone blinded by pure bigotry dressed up in lies isn’t likely to see this: the gay couple was separated and not allowed to see each other, despite the lack of any sort of conviction for alleged abuse (which was alleged by known liars), much less the presence of any charges. A married couple would have been given better than that. And, in fact, the married couple in the second story, while in a deplorable situation that was and is an abuse of power by the state, were not separated, the only reason being because they were married. Honestly. One friend (who will be getting this link, incidentally) recently told me that this whole thing is about “the legitimization” of gay relationships, suggesting that there are ways gay couples can get rights “without calling it marriage”. That’s crap and this is just another piece of evidence that separate but equal can never be equal. Oh, and gay relationships already are legitimate, gays already act as the heads of households and families, and no denial of equal rights is going to change that fact.

But that isn’t the only passive-aggressive attack.

To that end I need to make clear a few simple rules I have here – one’s that I have always had, but didn’t feel the need to make public before, but now feel compelled to.

First off I filter foul language – if you can’t say anything without dropping the f-bomb or referring to a body part in the crudest of terms, then it won’t get posted here. It is a pretty simple rule for most to follow, but some can’t seem to help themselves.

This is in response to posts of mine which occasionally have featured th-th-th, gasp!, the F-bomb!

There are three reasons I don’t stop anyone from saying “fuck” all they want on my website. One, I’m not a child. I can deal with it. Two, censorship is mostly crap. Three, it is an immature view of language to think it a good thing to curb any of its use. Words should be elastic, allowed to move and flow with the times, context, and even emotion. Sometimes a good go fuck yourself is the best available terminology; the magic is in its simplicity. I often intentionally use very simple, straight-forward titles for my posts to get my point across. Was anyone confused about what I was saying when I titled a post Andreas Moritz is a stupid, dangerous man? Was anyone befuddled as to where I was going when I said Deepak Chopra is not an intelligent man? I like to think I was pretty clear. And that was the whole point behind those titles. Sometimes simple words are needed when what’s behind the meaning is simple. There is no need to be an obtuse, pompous douche when there is so much more clarity in being short. But then there are times when a pretentious title is needed. For instance, when I wrote about the tenability of unsourced claims as they pertain to objective morality, I wasn’t trying to convey that an easy read was ahead. Philosophical styles differ markedly from most other ways of writing – and not in a way that makes them a breeze to peruse. For anyone who actually gives a rat’s ass about writing, it is abundantly clear that it is a mistake to unnecessarily corner language and only allow what feels good. Language is expression; express it.

Secondly, I don’t post personal attacks or responses to them.

Really?

You know Michael, I almost never feel compelled to deal with anyone physically, but you are very lucky your puny little bank teller body is in Maine, because i would kick your butt from one side of the room to the other if you said that to my face. Of course you wouldn’t because you are a coward.

And along with that readers should know I never call or email strangers or people who I interact with online.

Again, Jack is directly responding to material from FTSOS, but he’s pulling the ol’ Ken Ham. He doesn’t want to link others here and get any exchange moving between users, I suppose. Fortunately, while Jack has a handful of creationist milling about his page, I have a bit of a larger audience. I encourage everyone reading this to venture over to Jack’s site and start leaving comments. Don’t spam the guy’s stuff, but make him actually response to something intelligent. I recommend starting with this incoherent post about atheism, but feel free to tear apart whatever seems appealing. Unlike Jack, I don’t want to pretend I’m your boss.

And finally:

Recently I saw an atheist claim that ‘spiritual beliefs do not equal religious beliefs’. This may be true, but for an atheist to say so is a bit like a vegetarian lecturing on the best way to prepare a steak.

Surprise, I’m that atheist.

This analogy is just so awful. First, an atheist has no religion. That does not mean an atheist has no knowledge of religion or is unable, like Jack, to tell the difference between a real world phenomenon and a nebulous term that always needs to be defined before being used. Second, aren’t theists always claiming that atheism is a religion? In Jack’s bad analogy, atheism is very unlike religion. Isn’t it amazing just how often these people undermine their own silly claims?

So a quick wrap-up (because this post is way longer than I ever intended): Jack is a creationist like Ken Ham who refuses to link back to those who criticize him; he does not understand how to parallel socially important issues because (also like Ken Ham) he is a bigot; and finally, he apparently does not pay close enough attention to FTSOS. Say something stupid loudly enough, like Christopher Maloney or Andreas Moritz, or cross me in a magnificently stupid way like Rawn and Judy Torrington or Lt. J Christopher Read, and I have no issue posting and posting and tearing apart what I see as a wrong on my website (and for all five of those people, publishing and distributing stories all around my hometown, including Maloney’s own neighborhood). I mean, honestly. Have I not been clear? Has there been confusion as to what I am willing to do to get my point across? Do people not realize that to do something for the sake of science does not simply mean to act in a way that shows passion for science because science is good, but it also means to stand up to bad actions, bad behavior, lowly thoughts, and dishonest methods?

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Creationism, Misc, Religions, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Deepak Chopra is not an intelligent person

Posted on April 15, 2010 by Michael

Deepak Chopra is capable of saying some of the most incoherent things imaginable.

The idea that we live in an intelligent universe has thrived for quite a while. It’s an important idea because it would explain many things, including how we got here. I keep my eye out for any bit of evidence to support the theory, and a beauty surfaced recently on the PBS program, Nature, entitled “Clever Monkeys.” It turns out that monkeys are far more than clever. They may be tapping into the basic fabric of the cosmos.

Wow! The whole wide cosmos? Goodness gracious. The rest of this article is going to be amazing!

But the red colobus [monkeys] recently made a life-altering discovery. They found that if they eat a bit of charcoal from the abandoned fires of local villagers, their indigestion is cured. This had made them happier monkeys, and as a result their numbers have dramatically increased; not only that, but they are free to explore other food sources. These advantages aren’t felt by the white-and-black colobus, who haven’t hit upon the charcoal-eating trick. New generations of red colobus learn the habit by having it passed on from mother to child.

Oh. A population of monkeys started eating something random (because that’s what monkeys do) and it helped settle their stomachs.

Again. Oh.

It’s amazing how much critical knowledge is contained in this one anecdote. Self-medication is well known, but here the red colobus has hit upon the same property in charcoal that emergency room doctors use when a patient arrives with acute poisoning. Medical science is able to explain how charcoal absorbs toxins in the stomach. Monkeys can’t explain anything or do laboratory research. It is completely untenable to claim that they eat substances at random until they hit upon just the one perfect remedy — such random behavior isn’t seen among them.

God damn it. They’re monkeys. They eat whatever is in front of them. And no, Chopra, they aren’t doing it with the intent of hitting “upon just the one perfect remedy”; they discovered they felt better after eating charcoal. That’s it.

But this is not an intelligent man. He continues.

What we are witnessing is an intelligent discovery on the part of creatures who stand far below Homo sapiens on the evolutionary chain, and that discovery is being passed on from mother to child without genetic adaptation. To me, this means that quite a blow has been struck for intelligence being innate in the universe. It suggests that evolution itself has never been random but is guided by the principle of intelligence — not “intelligent design,” which is a red herring supplied by religious conservatives. The intelligent universe is a cutting-edge idea, not a throwback to scripture. As a theory, it gives us a much more elegant explanation for many things that are clumsily explained by falling back on randomness to explain every new development in Nature.

So many things wrong. Brain explode.

1) Homo sapiens do not stand atop any chain. In fact, there is no chain. Those monkeys are perfectly well adapted in their intelligence for the sake of being monkeys. Evolutionary success is not measured in particular characteristics or traits (should one want to compare species), but rather in survivability and longevity.

2) This does not indicate any sort of intelligent guidance. It indicates that monkeys eat a lot of crap. Sometimes that crap makes them feel good.

3) This is not an example of evolution. Chopra has no grasp of the concept.

At the moment, evolutionary theory refuses to abandon the notion of random selection, and geneticists cling stubbornly to the doctrine of random mutations to explain why new things appear in the unfolding story of life.

Evolutionary theory is so much more than Chopra knows. Selection is not random, plenty of mechanisms exist which help to explain the appearance of new characteristics and traits, and again, he hasn’t even offered an example of evolution in the first place. But just to be clear, he eventually comes right out and says it:

We all have a stake in this argument, however. Seeing the red colobus evolve before our eyes cannot be denied.

No, no, no, no.

Rather than saying that a larger brain made intelligence possible, why not say the opposite, that intelligence dictated a larger brain so that it could expand?

Because you have no evidence for the ridiculous claim that inherently says natural selection has foresight?

This guy is such a fucking joke.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , | 12 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »