Rationality UK

Secular quote of the week

2009-09-09T08:08:00.001+01:00

From Albert Einstein:

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Fundamentalists often tell me that without their god, there are no morals. So without their god, these people believe they would rape, murder and all the rest of it. Not very moralistic is it to be good just through fear of punishment.

Creation Science Fair...arrrghhh!

2009-09-08T19:39:00.007+01:00

During my wanderings around the internet, I do find, some weird and wonderful sites. These sites are pretty insane and spout some pretty nutty stuff.

I have now found a site that takes this to whole new levels of nuttyness and evil. The unfortunate problem is, that the website takes itself seriously!

The first thing that gives this site away is the fact that one of the articles covers a 2001 'creation science fair'. 'Ok' you might think, that might be nutty and a slightly interesting curiosity as to wonder what kind of entries might be found in such a contest. Perhaps some research project which shows how stratification might support the hypothesis of a global flood perhaps? No, not this particular contest. This contest takes it far beyond that!

To get an idea about how bad this site is, think back to the 1950s, when women were slaves to kitchens and childbirth, when (most) women did not have careers, or jobs (apart from looking after the family). Ok, now you've thought about that, imagine what an experiment might be like that attempted to 'prove' and justify that a woman was only suitable for such stuff! Feeling disgusted? I bet. Now throw into the mix the fact that these words are coming from secondary school kids!

This site is so bad, at first, I was convinced that it's a parody of creation science. It took me a fair amount of lookin around the site to realise that these people are actually SERIOUS!

So, without any further delay, may I present the 2001 Creation Science Fair report from Objective: Ministries. Dont worry if you think you can't stomach reading the entire thing, I have re-copied some of the highlights here, saving the best for last:

(from the middle school prize catagories)

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

I know that this is supposed to be a competition for middle school children but come on! First point first, this experiment, even if it was correct in it's elements, would be an abiogenesis experiment, not an evolution, as abiogenesis deals with the beginnings of life where as evolution deals with the variation of pre-existing organisms (although I am sure I dont need to explain that here)

Second of all, all the ingrediants of this expreiment were wrong (this is what made me at first think that this was a parody) and I dont think that any correctly trained science teacher should be even promoting this kind of logic. Five minutes of research before designing this experiment would show all the elements to be hugely wrong.

The best bit:

2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

Wow, the ignorance, even when you consider the age of the author, is overwhelming. This just shows how creation science can be used to push the degradation of members of society, in this case, women. Using physiological evidence to support your sexist position to subjugate another member of society is just despicable. What is even more despicable is that the teachers and the competition allowed this to even enter. These people should be ashamed of themselves!

It's the same line of rhetoric that was spouted from pulpits across the nations, leading to slavery taking place. The teachers supporting this should be investigated right away, what the hell kind of world-view are they pushing in those classrooms?

The videos Ray Comfort doesn't want you to see!

2009-09-08T07:44:00.000+01:00

We've all seen them many times (or at least I assume you have), Ray Comfort's well edited videos at 'way of the master' and on his You Tube channel where he attacks some average Joe off the street and seems to successfully convince them that they are sinners and need to do exactly what his dogma says. (well, it doesn't always show you them wanting to accept but we get the inference!)

For many years it's been commented that Ray obviously isn't going to 'win them all' and that perhaps the ones he does show, represent only a small minority of his attempts.

Well, here are a couple of fish that did not bite his bait.

In this first one, watch as Ray gets completely out of his 'Comfort' (pun intended) zone:

Doesn't Ray sound angry in that, seems he can't control his emotions, even when he's full of Jesus!

In this second one, watch as Ray stumbles and contradicts himself in a desperate attempt to worm out of the dilemma he gets himself into when his victim pulls Ray away from his usual script:

I bet they never made it onto his sites :o)

James Randi on faith healing

2009-09-08T07:43:00.000+01:00

From 'Point of Enquiry' comes the following article:

James “The Amazing” Randi is a world-renowned magician, skeptic and investigator of paranormal claims and is a central figure in the founding of the world-wide skeptical movement. Perhaps best known for the One Million Dollar Challenge, in which his educational foundation awards $1,000,000 to anyone who is able to show evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties. Randi has appeared widely in the media, including on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show at least 22 times and he is also a regular on Penn and Teller’s Showtime series, Bullshit! He has received numerous awards and recognitions, including the MacArthur Genius Grant, and the American Physical Society's Forum Award for Promoting Public Understanding of the Relation of Physics to Society. He is the author of many books, including The Truth About Uri Geller, Flim-Flam! and The Faith Healers.
In this interview with D.J. Grothe, James Randi talks about the future of The Amazing Meeting, his annual popular critical thinking convention in Las Vegas. He also discusses various faith healers he has investigated, and his real motivations in doing so. He talks about the first faith healer he exposed in Toronto as a teenager. He explores reasons why faith healers he has debunked still persist in their TV empires. He shares his views of Ernest Angley. He recounts his expose of Peter Popoff, including Popoff's use of an earpiece to receive information about his congregants that they believed was revealed by the Holy Spirit. He explains why people believe in faith healers despite evidence to the contrary. Other faith healers he criticizes include Pat Robertson and his "Words of Knowledge," V.A. Grant, Oral Roberts, and Filipino psychic surgeons, recounting some of their deceptive methods they use to beguile believers. He talks about the special place "psychic surgery" has in the Pentecostal Church. He compares faith healers' methods to the methods of psychics and "cold readers" such as John Edward, and explores whether faith healers are deliberately deceptive or are merely self-deceptive. He also debates whether faith healing might actually work on occasion, due to psychological phenomena such as the placebo effect. And he talks about the role that magicians should play in exposing frauds in the public interest.
Also in this interview, James Underdown, scientific paranormal investigator and executive director of CFI's Hollywood branch, recounts his experiences with Benny Hinn's healing crusades, and talks about how Benny Hinn may or may not be like Adolph Hitler.

You can download the mp3 of the interview here.

Eric Hovind's last desperate plea

2009-09-07T17:17:00.003+01:00

Eric Hovind, son of Kent Hovind, who is incarcerated for tax fraud is at his wits end. Because of the money that his father owes the American government due to his father's fraud, the government is about to cease his ministry's property to recoup the money. Eric has until September 15th 2009 to raise $380,000 or forfeit the property. How is he attempting to raise this money? Well, here it is from the horse's mouth:

I still find it funny how he's trying to raise money from the ministry's supporters and on the other hand, just went on a trip to see his buddies Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron! I would have thought you would be saving every penny you can at the moment Eric!

Will he succeed? well, only time will tell. But I don't think that even if he does loose the properties, he's going to be down for long and the debates will rage on for years.

Science video of the week: 'made easy' series from Potholer54

2009-09-07T16:51:00.001+01:00

Ok, this week's science video comes curtsy of Potholer54 on You Tube. Potholer is a professional BBC reporter and has created a great, easy to understand series of eleven videos, starting with this one on the History of the Universe. The series also covers subjects such as evolution and creation science and is highly recommended.

Click through to the video to find the rest of the series.

My appologies!

2009-09-07T16:44:00.000+01:00

Just a quicky to let you know that the reason I have not posted in the last few days is that, due to the bundling stupidity of my internet provider, my internet has been off since Friday. I have told them what they can do with their so called 'service' and have swapped to another provider. It's going to take a week or so for that to get set up properly, but in the mean time, I've got my mobile broadband working so I can use that. So, business as usual again hopefully. I'm not mentioning in the text who my old service provider is, as I believe a picture says a thousand words lolololol :o)

Fundamentalist quote of the week #3

2009-09-07T12:34:00.000+01:00

This week's quote comes from that lovable nasty old 'expletive' fundamentalist nut job, Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and host of the popular christian news show 700 club..take it away Pat:

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

What a narrow mided, missrepresenting, warped, judgemental old fool!

The brightest of young things visit the Creation Museum!

2009-09-03T22:16:00.002+01:00

It seems that our friends over at Thebrightestyoungthings decided to give their brains the day off and go pay a visit to Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. He almost convinces them, almost.... You can read the friviolites that ensued here. (sorry, having a big word day, gonna slap myself out of it!!)

Evolutionary Biology's contributions to society and science. Your turn ID

2009-09-03T21:26:00.001+01:00

Here is a thought that popped into my head today. Many of the fundamentalists I speak to on the internet, when backed into a corner about evolution, usually when shown the errors in Kent Hovind's claims, shift the goalposts by asking 'But what has evolution done for society or science?'

Well, I'm going first of all give some answers to that very question and then, I am going to ask a second, very important question in response. First of all, some answers.

Taken from the paper 'EVOLUTION, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: Evolutionary Biology and the National Research Agenda [working draft - last updated 23 December 1998]' (you see creationists, it's doesn't take long to do research):

HOW DOES EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY?
In addition to the historical dimension, evolution is an important feature in our everyday lives. Evolution is happening all around us: in our digestive tracts, in our lawns, in woodland lots, in ponds and streams, in agricultural fields and hospitals. For short lived organisms, such as bacteria and insects, evolution can happen on a very short time scale. This immediacy brings evolutionary biology directly into the applied realm. Indeed, evolutionary biology has a long history and a bright future in terms of its ability to address pressing societal needs (L. R. Meagher & T. R. Meagher (eds.). 1994. Workshop Report: The Emerging Relevance of Evolutionary Biology to Applied to Problems and Opportunities. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ). Evolutionary biology has already made particularly strong contributions in the following areas:

Environment and conservation.
Evolutionary insights are important in both conservation and management of renewable resources. Population genetic methods are frequently used to assess the genetic structure of rare or endangered species as a means of determining appropriate conservation measures. Studies of the genetic composition of wild relatives of crop species can be used to discover potentially useful new genes that might be transferred into cultivated species. Studies of wild plants' adaptations to polluted or degraded soils contribute to the reclamation of damaged land.

Agriculture and natural resources.
The principles of plant and animal breeding strongly parallel natural evolutionary mechanisms, and there is a rich history of interplay between evolutionary biology and agricultural science. Evolutionary insights play a clear role in understanding the ongoing evolution of various crop pathogens and insect pests, including the evolution of resistance to pest-control measures. The methods of evolutionary genetics can be used to identify different gene pools of commercially important fish and other organisms, their migration routes, and differences in their physiology, growth, and reproduction.

Finding useful natural products.
Many thousands of natural products are used in medicine, food production and processing, cosmetics, biotechnology, pest control, and industry, but millions of other potentially useful natural products have yet to be screened or even discovered. Evolutionary principles allow a targeted search by predicting adaptations to environmental selection pressures and by identifying organisms related to those that have already yielded useful natural products. Exploration of related species has also made it possible to develop natural products from more accessible relatives of rare species in which natural products have been found, as occurred when the rare and endangered Pacific yew was found to contain a substance (taxol) useful in treating breast cancer.

Human health and medicine.
Methods and principles from evolutionary biology have contributed to understanding the links between genes and human genetic diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease. Evolutionary methods help to trace the origins and epidemiology of infectious diseases, and to analyze the evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic microorganisms. Evolutionary principles are used to interpret human physiological functions and dietary needs. Methods developed by evolutionary geneticists are playing an important role in mapping defective human genes, in genetic counseling, and in identifying genetic variants that alter risks for common systemic diseases and responses to medical treatments.

Biotechnology.
The interplay between biotechnology and evolutionary biology holds great promise for application to important societal needs. As genetic engineering has reached the field implementation stage, evolutionary biologists have been prominently involved in risk assessment as well as interpretation of phenotypic consequences of transgene insertion. Finally, the automation of DNA sequencing has made it possible to reconstruct the precise genealogical relationship among specific genes, such as those of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Understanding humanity.
Evolutionary biology has contributed greatly to human understanding of ourselves by describing our origins, our relationships to other living things, and the history and significance of variation within and among different groups of people. Evolutionary anthropologists, psychologists, and biologists have advanced hypotheses on the biological bases of human culture and behavior. In addition, the evolutionary framework for understanding humanity has had a profound impact on literature, the arts, philosophy, and other areas of the humanities.

HOW DOES EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CONTRIBUTE TO BASIC SCIENCE?

Accomplishments in the Study of Evolution
Among their accomplishments in studying the history and processes of evolution, evolutionary biologists have

• established that all organisms have evolved from a common ancestor over more than 3.5 billion years of earth’s history
• developed methods of inferring phylogenetic, or genealogical, relationships among organisms
• described patterns of diversification and extinction in the fossil record
• developed and tested general theories that account for the evolution of phenotypic traits, including complex characters such as cooperative behavior and senescence
• made substantial progress in understanding evolution at the molecular level
• elucidated many aspects of human evolution Contributions to Other Biological Disciplines
Evolution is widely viewed as central to biological understanding in general (NAS. 1998. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.). Many biologists in diverse fields regard at least a portion of what they do as evolutionary. Recent accomplishments to which evolutionary biology has contributed include the following:

Molecular biology.
Evolutionary approaches have contributed insight into the function and structure of molecular processes within cells. Examples include reconstruction and functional analysis of ancestral protein sequences, and elucidation of the significance of different types of DNA. Evolutionary research thus points the way to research on fundamental molecular mechanisms.

Developmental biology.
A resurgence in interaction between developmental biology and evolutionary biology is now under way, in part through comparisons among families of genes that play critical roles in development. For example, the same genes in organisms as different as insects and mammals play similar developmental roles in some instances, and surprisingly different roles in other cases. Such studies help to identify the developmental functions of genes and lead to a deeper understanding of the processes that transform a fertilized egg into a complex adult.

Physiology and anatomy.
Evolutionary biology has long influenced the study of physiology and anatomy in animals and plants, and has the potential to make many other contributions that are only now being developed. Some of these contributions will affect the study of human physiology, including related areas such as clinical psychology. The logical perspectives, methods, and comparative data of evolutionary biology can advance our understanding of functional anatomy and physiological mechanisms, and can be applied to areas such as medicine, agriculture, and veterinary science.

Neurobiology and behaviour.
From its inception, the field of animal behavior has had a strong evolutionary base, for its goals have included understanding the evolutionary origin of behavioral traits and their adaptiveness. The evolutionary study of animal behavior has joined with comparative psychology in several areas of research, such as the study of learning and the search for adaptive mechanisms in human cognitive processes.

Applications beyond biology.
There have long been rewarding interactions between evolutionary biology and other analytical fields, notably statistics and economics. Some of the basic tools in statistics, including analysis of variance and path analysis, were originally developed by evolutionary biologists. Along the same lines, evolutionary algorithms that mimic natural selection in biological systems are currently being used in computer and systems applications.

Ok, that should have helped with your questions. Now for mine. What I want to do is to turn this question around. 'Allegedly', intelligent design is science. If this is true, and some claim it is, given what I have shown you above, evolutionary biology contributes to society and science, what exactly has intelligent design contributed to society and science. Let me put this another way, what advancements in science have been made through intelligent design?

Please tell me, I really would love to know. Perhaps some virus has been controlled through the deep knowledge that 'god did it', I don't know, perhaps you do?

Ray Comfort and creationist warp technology

2009-09-02T20:02:00.001+01:00

Why have I used the title above? Because creationists like Ray Comfort have an amazing ability to take any report about a scientific subject and warp it's contents to meet their narrow minded religious agenda. To show you Ray in action doing just this, I am going to look at one of the latest posts on his blog.

First of all, for those not acquainted with the colourful character known as Ray Comfort and his ex-child actor friend, Kirk Cameron, who now run the 'way of the master' ministry, here is a video of the two in action:

Ok, I don't need to say anything more about that, I believe it speaks for itself. But at least now you know the kind of intelligence level we are dealing with here.

Ok, as I said before, Ray owns a blog, strangely named: Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort's blog. (yes, I too believe there is a slight attempt to deceive atheists there, how dishonest Ray, admit it!) Now, one of his latest entries is titled: 'Scientists recover T.Rex soft tissue. 70 million year-old fossils yields preserved blood cells.' Here is the text, it's a short one thankfully:

Could someone explain why anyone would believe that a 70 million-year-old fossil would contain "soft tissue"? See:

http://">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

(The blood is wet and fresh, the tendon has elasticity, and the bone is like fresh bone).

Evolutionists will believe anything but the Bible.

Ok, fair enough, it seems from what Ray says that scientists have recovered soft tissue and fresh blood from a dinosaur fossil. Interesting, lets dig a little deeper. First of all, lets take a look at that msn article he sites.

Ok, looking at that post it does indeed make it seem as though they have indeed recovered soft tissue from this fossil:

WASHINGTON - March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

So, lets look around the page. It does not take long for the lights to start flashing that the science shown in this article may not be entirely accurate. The dead give away is the news agency, MSN, oh dear, we may need to find other sources if we want a more in-depth look into what is really going on here. So, lets do what creationists such as Ray refuse to do, lets do some research into this.

Looking further around the web, it does not take long before I come across this BBC article. The first thing you notice here is the date (Thursday, 24 March, 2005). This article is actually over 4 years old! Well done MSN and Ray for being bang up to date! But I suppose I couldn't expect any better as creation science is always years behind.

Ok, lets read on....

Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance.

Oh dear Ray, looks like your lack of research is starting to backfire on you already my friend, lets read on shall we, see what else we can find...

"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.
"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC.

Ray, Ray, Ray, it just goes to show you that just five minutes of research could have saved you having egg on your face, yet again.

For anybody who reads the claims of people such as Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and Kent Hovind, don't take their claims at face value, go and actually look at the subject they are making the claims about. Don't go to some creationist website to do your research, go look at the real research. You will often find that it has been changed beyond recognition to allow these fraudsters to make their preposterous claims!

For anybody who either wants a laugh or wants to study these guy's tactics, they also have a You Tube Channel where they try and convert people. It will show you what to look out for.

DonExodus2 also has a great series of videos exposing their lies and ignorance.

Stephen Anderson prays for Obama to die of brain cancer

2009-09-02T17:30:00.002+01:00

If you have not seen my first post about Steven Anderson, it is available here. It seems that since that first post, things at the Arizona Faithful Word Baptist Church have deteriorated further. In a recent interview with MyFoxPhoenix Steven Anderson, the churches oh so slightly insane pastor announced “I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy. You know, and I hope it happens today.”..charming.

Alarmingly, protesters in front of the church, many christians themselves, noticed that a lot of the parishioners entering the church were carrying firearms. The church gained notoriety when one of his parishioners carried a loaded automatic rifle outside of a town hall Obama was talking at.

When asked about whether he condoned violence, he said: “I will not take the law into my hands. I will not take up any arms. It’s a spiritual battle. It’s a spiritual warfare.”

In an attempt to keep the peace at the church, police were having to do regular patrols to try and keep the peace.

So what should we do about this vile turd? As already reported, it's got to the point were even fellow christians are protesting outside of his church, one protester saying "“I find it incomprehensible that someone can believe in the message of Jesus and preach hate,”

For one thing, even as a none christian, I can't see how this guy can be a christian, supposedly a religion of peace and continue to spout this vial hatred.

Should his parishioners leave his church? Well, ideally, yes, no normal person with morals could possibly sit through this barrage of madness, but I feel that even if some of them do wish to depart, there are going to be the social factors keeping them in place.

Should he be arrested? Judging by his comments, he has not, so far, condoned violence, although I think he's attempting to plant the seeds into people's minds that it's the right thing to do with that statement: "I will not take the law into my hands. I will not take up any arms. It’s a spiritual battle. It’s a spiritual warfare" Even if he's not planning to do anything himself, doesn't he realise how irresponsible it is to make such statements, suggesting that others do take the law into their own hands? Or, as I suspect, that is his intention!

Should his church be shut down? Well this is where it gets interesting. Is it me or is not a church supposed to be a place where religeoon is taught. It seems that Anderson is using his church to push his own politics. This should mean, at least, that it loose it's tax free status!

I do hope that people will arrange large protests outside this church and make as much noise and problems for the parishioners as possible so that this becomes national news and this guy is exposed to the world so that hopefully, he can be forced out. I hope that his parishoners will force him out, wouldnt that be a sign that they really do support their religeon and not the vile hatred of this excuse for a human being!

I suspect that although the government have no comment on this case, they are going to be watching every move this guy makes

Secular quote of the week #2

2009-09-01T23:09:00.004+01:00

This week's thought provoking secular quote came out in a debate on paltalk quite a while ago. I don't have the nic of the person who typed it unfortunately, but it makes you think (spelling mistakes left in):

Eot has stated that due to the fact that I am an atheist, that I am possibly another Stalin. Yet I would contend that Eotjk, who concedes submission to authority, who has justified eternal torture and genocide in the name of said authority is far more closer than I could ever hope to fascism, dictatorship or totalitarianism.

Why Intelligent Design is not science

2009-09-01T18:34:00.002+01:00

From Charles McAlpin of Examiner.com comes an excellent three part series (at the time of writing) on why Intelligent Design is most definitely not science. Part 1 available here.

UK suffers creationist theme park madness too!

2009-09-01T18:13:00.002+01:00

Our American cousins will be so glad to know that they are not the only ones that have to suffer creationist theme parks such as Kent Hovind's now closed 'Dinosaur Adventure Land', we in the UK have one too it seems! (lucky us)

In an article from Yahoo news UK, it seems that if you go to Wraxall, near Bristol, you will find the wonderful 'Noah's Ark' creationist Zoo. The only good thing about this park is that at least it's in Wales so we can blame the Welsh (joke before I get hate mail).

It seems that the British Humanist Association (BHA), of which Dawkins is the Vice President has been getting all heated about this place, wanting 'South West England' and 'Visit Britain' to stop promoting the zoo as a tourist attraction.

The writer of the article, only refered to as 'the editor' says that he sees no problem with the existance of the park and it's promotion, this being a free country, and I agree. One of the joys of freedom of speech is that you are free, within certain legal limits, to express your own ideas. If you do not agree with the ideas, do not go, simple. That said, if I was in the area, I certainly would want to visit, purely seeing it as an entertaining oddity and to look at all that incorrect science and religious assumptions.

Where I and 'the editor' part in our oppinions is that he says creationism causes nobody any harm. He admits to not knowing much about the subject and through this assumption, that shows. Creationism does cause damage to society. Look at the effects it's had on science in America. Research such as stem cell has been slowed dramatically because of the belief that a 'god' creates each fetus. There are raging battles in schools with creationists repeatedly trying to get evolution removed from the classroom and their religeous beliefs slotted in instead.

Don't think for one moment that they want to 'teach the controversy', they want rid of evolution, that's their goal. If it wasn't they would welcome every creation myth going and be happy to teach that, aside of their own nonsence.

As for the zoo here in England. I do honestly believe that it's not a threat to anything, for a start, it has no political clout, it is not trying to get people into government to legislate any of it's beliefs. I'd like to see anybody try that, I remeber when Tony Blair mentioned his god belief in parliment and ended up being the butt of jokes.

Looking at the zoo's website itself, it's obvious how carefully hidden the creation aspect of the business is hidden from the casual observer, only a small link on the right hand side takes you into that section. Once the 'creation science' section, you see that it's just the usual collection of long dead creationist claims that would even embarrass 'answers in genesis'. From reading it I smell the influence of Kent Hovind videos. Although I would say that their presentation is far more mature than he could ever manage.

I believe that people over here are more level headed and better educated in the sciences to fall for this kind of convoluted klap trap. Trying to get it shut down I believe only leads to a sence of an oppinion being 'silenced' making it look as if science is really threatened by this.

Another thing that they have inadvertently achieved by trying to get this place shut down is to give it thousands of pounds worth of free advertising. Even I had not heard of before, their visitor numbers will rocket.

I think those non creationists that do visit it will see it for what it is, a quaint look at a dying old myth.

Science video of the week: How evolution works by DonExodus2

2009-09-01T08:28:00.001+01:00

This week's science video comes courtesy of DonExodus2 on YouTube and is the first in a series of videos done by him on how evolution works. It is aimed at lay people and is an excellent resource although, you may need to watch them several time and take notes to understand some of the concept, enjoy:

Journey to the centre of the Creation Museum

2009-09-01T08:22:00.001+01:00

The following article by Brook Wilensky-Lanford is reprinted from The Faster Times:

Recently, reports came out that Florida Adventure Land, a Christian dinosaur theme park in Pensacola, Florida, was shut down for tax fraud. Apparently the owner contended that he was working for God, not the federal government, and so was not required to pay taxes. But let’s back up: what on earth do dinosaurs have to do with Christianity?

Kent Hovind, the evangelist behind Dinosaur Adventure Land, is not alone in using paleontological wonders as a tool for religious outreach. Last October, I visited the Creation Museum in Bullittsburg, Kentucky, a 27-million-dollar pseudo-scientific complex built in 2006 by a group called Answers in Genesis to promote young-earth creationism. Dinosaurs were everywhere, animatronic jaws opening and closing, letting out pre-recorded elephant-like roars on a constant loop. They were hanging out with Adam and Eve in the lush recreation of the Garden of Eden, marching two by two onto Noah’s Ark.

I was confused. Wouldn’t an organization that wants us to believe the earth has only been around for 6,000 years want to distance itself from creatures which have been proven to be millions of years old?

Young-earth creationists have been around forever, but it wasn’t until relatively recently that they had 27 million dollars to throw around on dinosaurs. In the 1980s, what had been an obscure, retiring religious movement began to emerge into the limelight as a political faction, led by Jerry Falwell and others. They advanced, Rip-van-Winkle-like, back into a world of carbon dating, genome mapping, and dinosaurs.

It’s not that the mere existence of dinosaur fossils necessarily vanquished belief in a God-designed planet. In fact, the scientist credited with coining the word “dinosaur”—British Museum director Richard Owen, in 1842—did so entirely convinced that the creatures had been created, and “neither derived from improvement of a lower, nor lost progressive development into a higher type.”

But dinosaurs, along with meteors and early-hominid remains, became some of science’s most compelling discoveries–real, physical evidence of other worlds and other times. So their co-option by fundamentalist religion struck a particularly sour note. On the fundamentalists’ part, borrowing science’s headline act for pseudo-science was a savvy decision. Who doesn’t like dinosaurs? Nature’s mysterious giants would bring people, particular 10-year-old boys, into the fold like never before. Dinosaurs were, after all, too big to ignore. Beyond that, dinosaurs proved that this was a modern movement.

By 2006, fundamentalists had amassed so many converts and so much revenue that they had the confidence to create new theology on the fly, without batting an eye. They simply worked backwards: the Bible says (according to their reading) that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Dinosaurs existed. So naturally, they can’t be more than 6,000 years old.

The Museum’s cheerful placards matter-of-factly conclude that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. As a visual aid, a tiny animatronic velociraptor stands next to a giggling caveman child, a benevolent prehistoric pet. By rewriting the ancient past, Answers in Genesis could show that it was in the here and now. And rewrite they did. There were so many dinosaurs at the Creation Museum that I started to wonder whether they would appear with Christ on the cross.

The theological move is so new that the dinosaur details haven’t been ironed out. Dinosaur Adventure Land contends that the dinosaurs were all killed by Noah’s Flood, neatly explaining their extinction. The Creation Museum posits that dinosaurs did make it onto Noah’s Ark, and were saved. So why aren’t they around today? Past the food court and the gift shop, a plush-seated movie theater showed a 10-minute documentary that claims to prove that dinosaurs actually survived the Great Flood—as dragons. Which are of course real. (How else would Saint George have converted people to Christianity?) A few individual survivors—like the Loch Ness Monster, and the Komodo dragons—were still around centuries later.

It’s unclear what religious purpose this could serve…

How to ease the pain of crucifixion

2009-08-31T11:59:00.003+01:00

I know I should not, but this picture is really calling to my evil side:

Video: Atheist Ronald Numbers debates creationist Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute

2009-08-30T21:16:00.003+01:00

An excellent video where blogger Ronald Numbers debates Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. This video is an excellent look into the mind of a creationist as Paul tries this way and that to pretend that intelligent design is not creationism. (70 mins) enjoy!

Weekly biblical inaccuracy/contradiction #2

2009-08-30T20:06:00.002+01:00

This week we have a biblical contradiction regarding the rather nasty biblical concept of children and father's carrying the weight of the other's sin (I know, it's rediculous). There are 2 contradicting instructions:

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

OR IS IT....

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

I suppose it's up to the fundamentalist here to choose which one depending upon their agenda at the time!

More evidence emerges against intelligent deisgn

2009-08-30T17:50:00.002+01:00

One of the phrases often used by intelligent design proponents is 'irreduciable complexity'. They used this to try and show that the bacterial flagellum was an example of intelligent design until this was shown to be incorrect. Another area that the hypothesis's supporters often talk about is the complexity of cells and irreducibility of the cell components.

New research has shown that the components of cells have been found in other areas, a finding that supports 'neutral evolution'.

This report is from Weird Science:

Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.
But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.
The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mitochondria are descended from free-living bacteria, which several billion years ago were swallowed by complex cells. The mitochondria soon became central to the cells’ function.
Mitochondria couldn’t have lasted in their new home without the help of a protein machine called TIM23, which delivers other proteins harvested from the cell’s body. Bacteria don’t possess TIM23, suggesting that it evolved in mitochondria. This seems to pose a cellular chicken-and-egg question: How could protein transport evolve when it was necessary to survive in the first place?
The essential paradox applies to other protein-transporting cell systems, providing disbelievers of evolution with a key part of their critique. As articulated by intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, “This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function or the system breaks down.”
According to evolutionary theory, however, cellular complexity is reducible. It requires only that existing components be repurposed, with inevitable mutations providing extra ingredients as needed. Flagella, the hairlike propellers used by bacteria to move, are one example of this. Their component parts are found throughout cells, performing other tasks.
Intelligent design mavens once cited flagella as evidence of their theory. Scientific fact dispelled that illusion. The mitochondria study does the same for protein transport.
“This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general,” write the researchers, led by molecular biologist Trevor Lithgow at Australia’s Monash University. “The complexity of these machines is not irreducible.”
When they analyzed the genomes of proteobacteria, the family that spawned the ancestors of mitochondria, Lithgow’s team found two of the protein parts used in mitochondria to make TIM23.
The parts are located on bacterial cell membranes, making them ideally positioned for TIM23’s eventual protein-delivering role. Only one other part, a molecule called LivH, would make a rudimentary protein-transporting machine — and LivH is commonly found in proteobacteria.
The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.
“It hasn’t been possible up until this point to trace any of those proteins back to a bacterial ancestor,” said Dalhousie University cell biologist Michael Gray, one of the researchers who originally described the origins of mitochondria, but was not involved in the new study. “These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.”
“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”
Citation: “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine.” By Abigail Clements,1, Dejan Bursac, Xenia Gatsos, Andrew J. Perry, Srgjan Civciristova, Nermin Celik, Vladimir A. Likic, Sebastian Poggio, Christine Jacobs-Wagner, Richard A. Strugnell, and Trevor Lithgow. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 33, August 25, 2009.

Once again, we have a prime example of science pushing back the need for an intelligent designer, showing that things are not intelligently designed, it's just that their origin has not yet been found!

Hovindism of the month #1 - Everything came from nothing

2009-08-30T11:25:00.002+01:00

Welcome to the first in our monthly series on hovindisms. A Hovindism is a false claim about science that are made by Kent Hovind in his video series and debates (before they locked him up, but that is another story). Although we call this section Hovindisms, these claims are also generally made by any young Earth Creationist.

This month, Kent's claim that the Big Bang Theory says that:

"There was nothing, nothing exploded and everything appeared"

This claim about the Big Bang Theory is so wrong, it's really painfull. First of all, the theory does not state that there was nothing. The theory states that there was infact, a singularity. Now, where this singularity came from, is outside the relms of this particular theory and is left for other theories such as 'M theory'. This theory only deals with the expansion of the already existing singularity.

And that's the second point, the theory does not state that nothing 'exploded', it states that a singularity 'expanded', there is a huge difference. Lets look at some definitians here:

Explosion: An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave. [1]

Expansion: to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of. [2]

From this, you can see that there are no simularities between the characteristics of an explosion and expansion. An explosion is a chemical reaction, requiring an environment to react with. An explosion will also give off gases and a shock wave. An expansion is simply an increase in the volume of the object, in this case a singularity.

I've heard creationists in the past, when backed into a corner, to say that 'well, a singularity is nothing', well, wrong. Time for another definitian:

Gravitational singularity, a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume. [3]

Now, you may look at that and say that something with zero volume is nothing, well, wrong. It is it's characteristic of having an infinate density that gives it it's zero volume. If something has infinate density, then it has a characteristic, it exists!

So there you go, a taster of how Kent Hovind warps true science. If you want to read further on the real Big Bang Theory, I suggest this article as a good starting point.

A brilliant video on intelligent design by FfreeThinker

2009-08-29T23:47:00.008+01:00

A hilarious look at the dumosity of intelligent design, by FfreeThinker on You Tube.

Dembski is 'lying for Jesus' yet again!

2009-08-29T09:55:00.000+01:00

It seems that our old friend Willaim Dembski has been at it again, lying for Jesus that is. You see, he's bought out yet another book called 'The design revolution' in an attempt to misrepresent science, scientific concepts and to pretend that the idea of intelligent design is not creationism wearing a suit and tie!

I am not going to post the entire article, if you wish to read it, you can do so here. What I am going to do is look at some of the claims made within the article.

The first thing I will look at is a part of chapter one of his book, as posted on that site. One of the first claims he makes is this:

Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from creation science, or scientific creationism. The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not.

Oh really? I would say otherwise, and, as I like a scientific approach to my claims, I am going to back up my claim with some evidence.

One of the most important events in the history of the intelligent design movement so far, is the 'Dover Trial' which took place at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in mid to late 2005. I am not going to say much about this case as I could do an entire series on that, just to say that it's ultimate aim was to establish whether intelligent design was creationism in disguise. In the end, judge John E. Jones III ruled that is was and that it was not constitutional to teach it in the classroom, a case that has been fought over by creationists ever since.

There are several aspects of the case that are useful in my evidence that intelligent design is creationism, evidence that was used in the case itself.

First of all, we have the intelligent design proponents themselves. These included William Dembski, Michael Behe, Richard Nilson and Steve Fuller (click on names for more detailed information about these people). One thing that the concept of intelligent design claims is that it is obvious through observation and study that the universe had to be 'designed'. Now, in creationism, this 'designer' is assumed to be the christian god, in intelligent design, they claim not to make any claims about who the designer might be, their only goal being to show that somebody or something designed it.

Could this be true? could intelligent design be an honest attempt just to show that there was a designer? or is it leading towards creationism.

Well, in the case, several factors came up. First of all, there are the backgrounds of those defendants, all of them actually being creationists as was shown in the Dover Case'. This hardly gives an impartial view of whom the 'designer' might be.

The second factor here, and one in which Dembski was actually found to be lying, was with regard to the book 'Of pandas and people'. The for mentioned book was involved in the case because when students were being taught about evolution, they were also given the option of reading this book, which, they claimed was a book about intelligent design. As the case progressed, earlier print runs of the book were acquired and it was shown that throughout the book, the word 'god' had been replaced with the word 'designer', showing that Dembski had used a creationist book and just changed the concept of the creator. This was one of Dembski's stumbling blocks.

Another piece of evidence I present to show that intelligent design is creationism, and this is pretty conclusive, comes from Dr Steven Meyer himself. You see, Meyer is the vice president of the 'discovery institute', a think tank which is at the heart of the intelligent design movement. In 1999, a Discovery Institute internal document entitled 'The Wedge Document' or 'wedge strategy' was leaked to the web. This document, which Meyers later admitted was actually sourced from the institute, outlined an aggressive 20 year plan to change public opinion and policy towards eventually having an evangelical, creationist viewpoint.

The document it'self sets out it's goals in the opening paragraphs:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
There are three "wedge projects," referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:
Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.

Recognising that they will need support for this plan from the evangelical community, the document recognises it's evangelical orientation:

Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."

As can clearly be seen from this document, the so called 'Discovery Institute' clearly has an evangelical, creationist agenda
.
So you see my friends, given the backgrounds of intelligent design's proponents, the fact that they re-authored creationist materials, and the fact that the institute that is at the very heart of it has a creationist adjenda, you can see that intelligent design is, infact, creationism in a suit and tie!!

The next bit of the article I am going to briefly look at is:

Intelligent design begins with data that scientists observe in the laboratory and nature, identifies in them patterns known to signal intelligent causes and thereby ascertains whether a phenomenon was designed. For design theorists, the conclusion of design constitutes an inference from data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Now, there you go, from the fish's mouth, he's saying that they take the data, then identify in that data, patterns known to signal intelligent causes and then ascertains whether a phenomenom was designed. So, there he admits that when he approaches the data, he approaches it with a pre-existing bias, a bias of looking for intelligent patterns, instead of looking at what the data is telling him without any pre-existing prepositions. That's creation all over, go in looking for data to match your hypothesis instead of creating a hypothesis from the data!

In the next section, he talks about the propositions of intelligent design and gives this statement:

ID1: Specified complexity and irreducible complexity are reliable indicators or hallmarks of design.

First of all on this point, let me just say that irreducible complexity has been refuted many times. Also, even if that concept was true, it does not mean, because you don't understand how something came about, that it must have been designed, it just means we don't know yet and all other avenues have not been explored?

ID2: Biological systems exhibit specified complexity and employ irreducibly complex subsystems.

Ooh, a swing and a miss, as I said before, irreducible complexity has been refuted many times before, even the id flagship example, the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be reducible! (click on flagellum link for more details)

ID3: Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of specified complexity or irreducible complexity.

That is not a scientific statement. Even if naturalistic explanations had failed to explain the origin of specified complexity yet, it would not mean that we default to 'sky daddy did it', which is what id basically is.

ID4: Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of specified complexity and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Wrong again, the best explation is that we have not yet found the solution. To say that a designer had done it is to say that you know 'everything' about the natural world and have managed to rule 'everything' out.

Ok, the rest of the article, apart from the one small bit I am about to post is basically phsydoscience and talking around in circles in a desperate attempt to break free of creationism, which, due to the evidence above, we can show that the two are most definatly the same animal.

As I could go on all day about this article, I will post just one bit, as I believe I have already delt with the heart of the article:

Intelligent design, by contrast, is free from such charges of religious entanglement. Intelligent design is not scientific creationism cloaked in newer and more sophisticated terminology.

May I refer you to the Dover Case papers once more. You see, if you don't think that these people won't lie through their teeth to try and slip their religion through the back door under the cover of id, then just read the papers from this trial to see how much lying and outright deception took place in this case. They were 'lying for Jesus', right through their teeth!

More Details about the Jaycee Lee Dugard case

2009-08-28T18:41:00.000+01:00

If you have not seen my first post regarding this sad case, it can be found here. Since my origional post, more details of this sad case have bee released. You can read the new details here as I can't reproduce it here due to difficulties in cutting and pasting it.

Now, I don't profess to be an expert in phsycology, but from what I can see of the case so far, it seems as though Mr Garrido may have become racked with guilt through the years about what he had been doing but could not find any way out of it. This is where fundamentalism would have stepped in. A lot of people turn to religion to comfort them during the low points of their life, and this was definatly a low point in his. Perhaps he thought there was some justification for his actions to be found in fundamentalism, or perhaps he saw it as some way of repenting and being forgiven for his sins, for Jesus loves a sinner apparently!

Perhaps religion was not the source of this problem originally, but it seems to me, that it enabled Garrido to justify it and feel he had found a way to be forgiven for his actions.

Another interesting thing that has now been discovered and can give you a real insight into this is that Garrido had a blog . I have not looked into these much myself, I shall later, but what I have seen so far, including him getting a signed affidavit that he can speak in tongues (wtf?) and conspiracies about voices in people heads, it's a pretty scary insight into a very warped mind!

Fundy quote of the week #2

2009-08-28T13:25:00.000+01:00

The following piece of complete inanity was found on Ray Comfort's blog, on an article called 'Nothing has changed in over 100 years". The comment was in response to a guy called G.E

TB said... @ G.E. (General Electric?)

You should stick to electricity, instead of lecturing on science being a part of the religion of evolution.

"Nothing" has been gained thru science from this 'conjecture'.

You can not trace it back to the point of origin in the past, and the 'big bang' conjecture is the foundation of evolution. Which means there is no foundation for it. I have a degree in science from City University and I tell you that evolution has NOT been proven!

If it had been proven, it would be a branch of science. If you need more information, then visit DrDINO website for plenty of evidence that DISPROVES your religion. God Bless!

Hope that helps ! :)

In His Love,
Terry Burton

Wow, I think this guy is going for the record for the most falsehoods in the smallest amount of space! They are so obvious, I don't feel that I even need to comment on them!!

Fundamentalist Christian kidnaps child, 18 year ordeal!

2009-08-28T08:26:00.000+01:00

From Yahoo News comes the sad report that a person who ran a church from his home, claimed that he could talk to god and recently posted "... the Creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wake-up call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world." on his blog, was responsible for the kidnap of Jaycee Lee Dugard in 1991:

A woman kidnapped nearly 20 years ago in California when she was a girl of 11 has apparently turned up alive and well at a police station in San Francisco.
Jaycee Lee Dugard was abducted from outside her house in South Lake Tahoe in 1991 as she was walking to the school bus stop.
Police are currently carrying out DNA tests on the woman but say they are "99% sure" it is Miss Dugard.
The El Dorado Sheriff's department is to hold a news conference later, where it is expected to confirm the woman is Jaycee Lee.
Two people are being held in custody over the kidnapping.
The missing girl's family have spoken to her and are travelling to San Francisco in the hope of being able to positively identify her.
Jaycee Lee's stepfather, Carl Probyn, described it as "like winning the lottery".
"To have this happen where we get her back alive, and where she remembers things from the past, and to have people in custody is a triple win."
Mr Probyn, 60, witnessed his stepdaughter's kidnapping 18 years ago from the drive of their home.
She was bundled screaming into a car and driven away. He gave chase on his bicycle but failed to catch the vehicle.
The case attracted national coverage and was featured on the TV show America's Most Wanted.
Police sources have revealed the kidnappng suspects are Phillip Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 55, who live near Antioch.
Phillip Garrido is being held on suspicion of kidnapping, rape, lewd and lascivious acts with a minor, sexual penetration and conspiracy.
Nancy Garrido has been detained on suspicion of conspiracy and kidnapping.
The couple were arrested after they walked into the police station with Ms Dugard to make an inquiry, authorities said.
They would not say what it was but it apparently aroused the suspicions of a police officer.
He ran a check on Garrido and found he was a registered sex offender with a conviction for rape. Records show he also has a conviction for kidnapping in 1980.
Neighbours of Garrido have described him as "weird". One told the San Francisco Chronicle there were bars on the windows and doors of his house and he believed he could talk to God.
His next-door neighbour Haydee Perry said that when Garrido helped her jump-start her car a month ago, he had a pre-adolescent girl clinging to him in a manner that struck her as odd.
The girl told Perry that Garrido was her father and that she had older sisters, including one who was 28 - a year younger than Jaycee is believed to be now.
"She stayed close to him at all times," Perry said of the girl. "It wasn't normal behaviour. She had a blank stare on her face."
It has emerged Garrido has a blog entitled 'Voices Revealed' and has been running a church from his home.
His last blog was posted on Friday August 14, 2009. In it he writes: "... the Creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wake-up call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world."

I am not assuming that his fundamentalist beliefs were responsible for the initial kidnapping of this child, he may not have even had those beliefs at that time. But it's amazing how a person who will ultimately claim that they have superior, god based reality to those people who do not share his belief, can commit such a dispicable act!

It's obvious from his extreme religeous convictions and his actions that this gentleman is suffering from mental illness. But it also shows how perhaps fundamentalist beliefs can feed on insanity, giving them a focus and perhaps making the person even more dangerous. If your suffering mental conditions, and you believe that a god is telling you to do something, your already precarious mental state is going to find it harder to resist.

At this point, it is difficult to say what role his beliefs played in this act, but I suspect they are a fairly sizable factor. I will be following this case as it unfolds.

Fundamentalist bullying in the American Army alive and well

2009-08-26T21:02:00.003+01:00

It seems that repression and bullying from fundamentalist christians is alive and well in the American Army. Ed Brayton has received a request to post a statement from an army officer and west point graduate about his on-going, heart-breaking experiences in the army, have a read:

I am a United States Army Captain. On a spring day at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York several years ago, I took a solemn oath to support and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic as an officer in the United States Army. I took a legally altered oath which omitted the words "So Help Me G-d." When I submitted my first signed copy, with those words neatly crossed out and initialed, I was informed that it was not valid. When threatened with the prospect of not graduating and being refused a Commission, I stood by my refusal to sign the Oath as it read. I could not in good conscience do so because I was deeply disturbed by fusion of religion and military service. I could not reconcile the suspicion that the Oath itself was establishing religion in a way which contradicted the spirit of the Constitution with the intensity of my commitment to defend same. I believed, and still believe, that my personal metaphysical experience of the universe must be separate from my role as a military professional.

In the passing years, I have come to the unsettling conclusion that the sentiment in the Oath which so disturbed me is a practical reality in my United States Army. Based on my alteration of The Oath, you may be tempted to label me "non-religious." I find this odd, because religion has broadly influenced my life and values. I was born into a mixed Jewish and Catholic family. The family I belong to now is mixed Buddhist and Agnostic. I attended Catholic high school where I excelled in my religious studies. I was one of a literal fistful of non-Christian students voluntarily attending a religious institution, and I never once felt pressure to conform. In our mandatory religious classes we studied Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Quaker, Mormon, Jewish, Protestant, Wiccan, and other religions and we were taught that mere "tolerance" was abhorrent and basic "acceptance" was the absolute minimum standard. I learned during my second semester as a Plebe (freshman) at West Point that even lowly tolerance is a privilege not to be bestowed on all Soldiers in the United States Army.

During my second year at the West Point, my Squad Leader for summer training expressed disapproval on numerous occasions with my being Jewish, and, during one mission, he grabbed my MRE (a military meal) as we sat down for lunch and handed me another. He ordered me to eat the pork chop and I reminded him that I refrain from pork for religious reasons. He told me that I could eat the pork or eat nothing. One of his peers, a female Jewish cadet, urged me to obey him and not to make him angry; I declined. The next day, my cadet Platoon Leader presented me with a written counseling statement detailing my signs of "anorexia" and a "troubling" refusal to eat which was detrimental to my health and indicative of "incapacity for leadership." I was filled with righteous indignation. I went through the Cadet and Commissioned Chain of Command and my rebuttal culminated with a conversation with the Active Duty Major in command of the summer training. When I explained the events in detail, he told me that my Cadet Chain of Command was right to be concerned, and spoke words I will never forget: "the Army is not in the business of catering to people like you." Those words have haunted me throughout my career as an Officer. They were the turning point for me--when I finally understood the message several of my leaders had been expressing to me all along: the Army has no place for people like me: dissidents who stray from the unofficially mandated military religion; conservative fundamentalist Christianity.

Throughout my service, I have been inundated by reminders of the tenacity of this "Army Religion". On a regular basis, I am confronted with being forced/coerced to partake in involuntary prayer. At change of command ceremonies, promotions, retirements, banquets, mandatory Officer/NCO call, the list goes on. What do I do when this happens? I see no reason why I should have to bow my head to participate in this involuntary prayer. But if I stand at attention, I am still showing that I am subject to religion in my professional duties. I have discovered that any other movements or fidgeting are viewed as disrespectful to those who wish to pray. Army leaders send the message out that prayer is voluntary, and that Soldiers do not have to participate. As a Platoon Leader serving in Iraq, my Squad Leaders and I were ordered to attend a mission briefing with the Battalion Command Team's security squad. The briefing concluded with a Soldier being ordered to lead the group in prayer. I was disturbed because I knew that there were Soldiers on this team who did not share the specific, sectarian Christian religious beliefs being expressed. I was standing at the edge of the formation, and chose to quietly walk away. I was later counseled by my Commander and informed that the Battalion Command Team had heard of the incident and recommended I be relieved from my duties as Platoon Leader. My Commander explained that, by not bowing my head in blatantly Christian prayer with the others, I was sending a message that I "want my Soldiers to die." These words penetrated my core. What leader can imagine a worse accusation? Who wouldn't doubt herself or himself when confronted with this message? The threat of being relieved was completely overshadowed and, again, I was an outsider, incapable of leadership because I refused this unconstitutional perversion of Christianity synonymous with the Command.Could I not, would I not be an effective combat ready officer/leader/warrior without first very publicly and repeatedly demonstrating my singular loyalty to Jesus Christ? Could I not lead brave military women and men into combat for my country without being an avowed fundamentalist Christian? I stopped practicing my own religion; I disassociated myself from Soldiers who were similarly persecuted; I lost hope.

Who can you talk to about something like this? Certainly not my Chain of Command- my immediate supervisor/rater and senior supervisor/rater had threatened to relieve me. Obviously my counseling statement wouldn't address mandatory prayer, but what did it matter what it said if both my rater and senior rater agreed I was "unfit" and there were no other Officers who I worked with or around? I later contacted the Equal Opportunity Office to make an official anonymous report about the noxious, compulsive Christian, command climate. Shockingly, the NCO I filed the report with wasted no time in contacting my Battalion Commander directly, in complete violation of the privacy regulations and guarantees of protective anonymity attendant to such hyper-sensitive filings. I later became a member of an Installation Inspector General Team and observed firsthand the impotent, incapacity of the IG to affect any meaningful change. The difference between lower enlisted Soldiers and myself is this: they suspect that they have nowhere to turn in order to escape this unbearable religious persecution--in contrast, as an officer, I do not suspect. I know.

Looking back over all my time in the Army and at the United States Military Academy at West Point, I know that there were so many good memories, so many wonderful opportunities, and so many outstanding leaders of character I met along the way. Yet, the time is painfully tainted for me by a long shadow of bitter religious persecution by zealously righteous Christians essentially universally extant throughout the United States Army command structure.What has most surprised me about this struggle is how utterly powerless I am as a Captain- a Command level Officer- to stand up for my rights and for the Constitution and Country I love. I am a great Soldier, a great leader, and a great person, and I am a victim. It is not comfortable to admit one is a victim; I believe that admitting it takes a certain type of personal strength. The first day I met my current military superior/rater, he was playing Christian gospel music in his office while he called me in to talk. Perhaps it was an innocent oversight on his part, or perhaps it is another hint of the sinister nature of the current "Army Religion". There is no safe way to find out. My experiences have shown that the inundation of invitations for fundamentalist Christian prayer and fellowship, "spiritual growth" and "moral development" that target fellow Soldiers tends to thinly mask an undeniable and comprehensive underlying propensity for aggression, hatred, and ambition to subjugate the United States Army to an official religion; fundamentalist Christianity. The result for the American military is a total destruction of esprit de corps, teamwork, morale, good order and discipline. The result for the fundamentalist Islamic enemies we fight is an immeasurable bonanza of emboldenment for their recruitment, propoganda and insurgency efforts to maim and kill our soldiers down range in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was there. I saw it. I lived it. I am still living it.

When Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation describe this catastrophe of fundamentalist Christian usurpation of the command and control of our armed forces as a "national security threat of the gravest magnitude", they are precisely correct. It is injuring and killing our brave military members, specifically. It is desecrating the magnificent Constitution we swore an oath to, generally. And it is destroying our military's solidarity of purpose and ability to accomplish The Mission, completely.

Now, obviously the validity of this statement cannot be verified. But, if we assume for the sakes of arguments that it is completely true then this situation sounds like hell. Here is a person who is just trying to get on with his job who has become the subject of attention because his beliefs differ from others (sound familiar). Anyway, the bullying is one thing and i'm not putting down the hell he's going through in any way, but even more disgusting is that there seems to be a system in place that is not helping the situation.

I am in no way saying that the army supports what is going on there, it is likely that the upper command are not even aware of the goings on, because these fundamentalists are keeping it at a local level. How can you escape this situation when the very people who are there to help you in this situation are betraying your trust and passing that information right back to the source of the trouble. It's disspicable!

Can you imagine what this person is going through, trapped in a world where the only reasonable escape would be to leave. He's supposed to have a greavence system that is just adding to his problems. I think that in cases like this, the support system needs to be improved so that people who are being targeted because of their beliefs can have access to independant, outside organisations who can take up and moderate the cause.

I know if i'd have been in his situation, I may even have gone awol and gone to some organisation to get help and made the situation VERY public to force their hand. Although, admittadly, this may have future repercussions on their career.

It's a tough one isn't it? Perhaps if you are, or have served in the american armed forces, or any other armed forces for that matter and have had similar experiences, you could let us know your experiences please.

Video of the week #2

2009-08-26T19:06:00.001+01:00

If you haven't heard of Ray Comfort and his Way Of The Master TV series, then I suggest you put your feet up and watch of few of them here.

Once you've done laughing at them and want a dose of reality, you can watch an excellent, seven part video series that has been done by You Tube user DonExodus2, in collaberation with ExtantDodo3 which will show you just how false the claims of their videos are.

Link to first video

Top of the Popes

2009-08-26T17:36:00.003+01:00

From Yahoo comes news that the 82 year old pope Benedict XVI, the head of the Catholic church, is to release an album of all things:

Pope Benedict has a website, his own YouTube channel and he's on the social networking site Facebook -- now he's about to release his first album. Skip related content

The Pope will be singing litanies and chants and reciting passages and prayers in five languages on an album being released ahead of Christmas by Geffen Records, the label that signed up Snoop Dog and Ashlee Simpson.

The album will feature the backing vocals of The Choir of the Philharmonic Academy of Rome blended with modern classicist recordings by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. It will be mixed at London's Abbey Road Studios.
Colin Barlow, the president of Geffen Records which is owned by Vivendi's Universal Music Group, said he did not think it was odd to put out a religious record in Latin, Italian, Portuguese, French and German on a mainstream music label.
"I think in this day and age, as the public are, as I am, people are fascinated by all kinds of music. We're not fed on one type of music," he told Reuters Television.
The pope's voice was recorded in St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican and during papal trips abroad.
It's not the first time a pope has released an album on a major label.
Pope John Paul released "Abba Pater" on Sony Classical Music in 1999.
Pope Benedict's album "Alma Mater" will be released on November 30 and some of the proceeds will go towards supporting music education for poor children around the world. (Reporting by Cindy Martin, Editing by Belinda Goldsmith)

It does say in the article that 'some' of the proceeds will go to the education for poor children around the world. I wonder where the rest of the proceeds will go? paying the others off perhaps?

I really don't see this getting in the charts any time soon, and at 82, what is his voice going to be like?

I do hope he includes a rap mix, I have some lyrics for him:

People, people, you know it’s true;
I’m the Pope; I’m here for you!
I flew to the U.S.A.
So you could listen to the words I say.
See my skullcap; see my stole.
Dig my dress of white and gold,
And then after I can do my thing,
Kiss my ring.

Papal Man, Papal Man.

Put me into the Popemobile
To deflect the lead and steel.
Anything they shoot my way,
It won’t get me, so I hope and pray!
All your throngs fill me with joy,
Singing to this Birthday Boy.
It’s the greatest thrill I’ll get this spring!
Kiss my ring.

Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)
Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)
Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)
Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)

Papal Man, Papal Man.

People, people, you know it’s true.
I’m the pope, I’m here for you.
Need more priests in your employ—
Not the kind that mess with little boys!
God’s the one I love the most:
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
So I’ll listen to you pray and sing.
Kiss my ring.

Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)
Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)
Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)
Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia! (Allelu, Allelu, Alleluia!)

Papal Man, Papal Man, Papal Man,
The Papal Man!
Papal Man, Papal Man,
The Papal Man!
Papal Man, Papal Man, Papal Man,
The Papal Man…!

But seriously, if this project helps the pope to pay back some of the good will he owes children after all the recent activities carried out and covered up by his church, then I hope that it does well, I would like to see somebody independent monitoring where ALL the money goes though.

Secular quote of the week #1

2009-08-26T17:03:00.005+01:00

Found on a discussion about 'Where is Carl Segan Now' on the 'Ray Comfort' blog, the following is a response to the following paragraph in Ray's original post: (I've left his spelling mistakes in, he ain't the sharpest tool in the box!)

Imagine the tragedy and sense of betrayal--if you base your whole life on the empty philosophy of Carl Sagan, and find on Judgment Day that he did repent and trust the Savior. Imagine seeing him separated to Heaven, and yourself cast into Hell because you followed him in life but weren’t privy to his death.

Ryan Anderson responded with:

Imagine the tragedy and sense of betrayal if you base your whole life on the empty philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, and find on Judgment Day that he's right there in hell with you!

Just brilliant!

Also, if your interested in Ray Comfort and his work, here is a link to a nice series of videos exposing him, by donexodus2 on You Tube.

True science is open to God, says bishop

2009-08-24T18:40:00.004+01:00

According to Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil of Guwahati, "Science that studies the universe is an exciting path to God." Theologians and scientists can speak of mysteries. I smell bull, but lets see what the article says, from Speroforum:

Science and religion are allies and partners, not competitors, and true science opens out an exciting path to God, an Indian archbishop says. "Science that studies the universe is an exciting path to God," Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil of Guwahati told a national seminar on "Christian Faith in a World of Science and Technology: Challenges and Opportunities."

The Salesian prelate is also chairman of the Commission for Education and Culture under the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI).

The CBCI Committee for Science, Religion and Society, which operates under the commission, organized the Aug. 18-20 seminar in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Science and Religion. It was held in Pune, western India.

Two Vatican delegates were among 60 bishops, Religious superiors and scientists who addressed issues related to the religious, moral and social challenges science poses.

Archbishop Menamparampil described the universe as a book of theology, a spiritual treatise.

It is difficult to change the mindset of those who wish to cause trouble, says a Catholic priest of violence between religions in India.

An article on a semi-official Chinese site details a roadmap to divide India in 20 or more little states, giving support to nationalists, separatists, Tamilians, Srilankans and Bangladeshis

"Today, not just theologians and mystics but also scientists speak of mysteries," he said in his presidential address. Mystery has been the underlying principal of religion, art and science as they look into deeper realities, he said.

While scientists in the past have insisted on experience and observation as the criteria of knowledge, "modern scientists are not embarrassed to say that they were guided by their intuition whenever their performance peaked," the prelate noted.

Archbishop Menamparampil also described scientists' version of the universe's origin as no less mysterious then the biblical account in the Book of Genesis.

"We get into the mystery of mysteries when we begin to study subatomic particles, supernovas and distant galaxies, speculate about the possibilities of multiple big bangs, of parallel universes and undreamt of dimensions of space-time, until we are lost in the majestic beauty of God's creation," he said.

The archbishop later told UCA News that science and religion need each other to appreciate the complexities of the world and the cosmos.

"Science and technology can make us only ardent consumers but religion gives meaningful direction to purposeful life," he explained.

A scientist cannot pretend to know all the answers to questions such as what preceded the big bang, what is the ultimate source of energy that holds sub-atomic particles together and what is human consciousness, he pointed out. Science needs religion and vice versa, which is why Albert Einstein exclaimed that science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind, he continued.

The prelate said scientists and religious thinkers should avoid unilateral reductionism and self-imposed isolation, and each should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to find the ultimate meaning in life.

Archbishop Menamparampil recalled that at one point religion seemed to be on the way out and Nietzsche declared God as dead.

"But we have seen God is neither dead nor dying. Instead, God is back in a big way."

He cited the many Catholic ecclesial movements that thrive in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Religion, he said, is making "rapid headway" and using modern tools to propagate itself.

Even communists seem to concede that religion and modernization could co-exist, the prelate noted. He urged religious leaders and scientists to assume responsibility to realize the ultimate destiny of humanity and of all creation.

The good archbishop says that 'Scientists and theologians can speak of mystery!' Well this is indeed true, and why we have scientists, TOO SOLVE THOSE MYSTERIES! This is my particular favourite bit of that article:

A scientist cannot pretend to know all the answers to questions such as what preceded the big bang, what is the ultimate source of energy that holds sub-atomic particles together and what is human consciousness, he pointed out. Science needs religion and vice versa, which is why Albert Einstein exclaimed that science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind, he continued.

So basically, what he is saying there is that because scientists do not know exactly what preceded the big bang (although there are a few hypothesis!) we should just give up advancing science in an endevour to find the answers to such questions, an endevour that may provide countless benefits to humankind. Instead, we should just sit on our ignorant backsides, look up at the stars and say, ooh bugger it, I dont understand, therefore, god did it,(that brings into question which god did it exactly but that's another subject) just because it says so in a rather poor, 2000 year old book eh?

Yes, scientists, put those scientific tools down....I'd prefer the human race to spend an eternity in the cave of ignorance instead!

I debate creationists on Eric Hovind's Facebook page part 3

2009-08-24T18:15:00.004+01:00

This is part 3 and the final part of this debate which I had on Eric Hovind's page on Facebook. If you've not read them, here is Part 1 and Part 2.

Alan Dale Whitcomb

Evolutionist and Creationists have the same evidence. Just two different interpretations, about the evidence.

19 August at 21:45

Alan Dale Whitcomb

I am going to the site now to send $200 to help!

19 August at 21:49

Rationality UK

Secular quote of the week

Creation Science Fair...arrrghhh!

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

The videos Ray Comfort doesn't want you to see!

James Randi on faith healing

Eric Hovind's last desperate plea

Science video of the week: 'made easy' series from Potholer54

My appologies!

Fundamentalist quote of the week #3

The brightest of young things visit the Creation Museum!

Evolutionary Biology's contributions to society and science. Your turn ID

Ray Comfort and creationist warp technology

Stephen Anderson prays for Obama to die of brain cancer

Secular quote of the week #2

Why Intelligent Design is not science

UK suffers creationist theme park madness too!

Science video of the week: How evolution works by DonExodus2

Journey to the centre of the Creation Museum

How to ease the pain of crucifixion

Video: Atheist Ronald Numbers debates creationist Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute

Weekly biblical inaccuracy/contradiction #2

More evidence emerges against intelligent deisgn

Hovindism of the month #1 - Everything came from nothing

A brilliant video on intelligent design by FfreeThinker

Dembski is 'lying for Jesus' yet again!

More Details about the Jaycee Lee Dugard case

Fundy quote of the week #2

Fundamentalist Christian kidnaps child, 18 year ordeal!

Fundamentalist bullying in the American Army alive and well

Video of the week #2

Top of the Popes

Secular quote of the week #1

True science is open to God, says bishop

I debate creationists on Eric Hovind's Facebook page part 3

Steven Anderson, an utterly vile person, UTTERLY VILE!

Weekly biblical inaccuracy/contradiction #1

U.S. group dispenses audio Bible in UAE labor camps

Fundamentalist quote of the week!!

Faith available in a breath spray!!

Product Features

Vicar fights Swansea lap dancing club application

So where are we taking this

I debate creationists on Eric Hovind's Facebook page part 2

A Beautiful Mind

Typical intelligent design responce

Atheist meetings and secular events in the UK

Video of the week # 1

No Burquini, No Bathing: British Pools Impose Muslim Dress Codes on All Swimmers

I debate creationists on Eric Hovind's Facebook Page..Part 1

Ok friends and enemies, this is a rather long debate i've been having on Eric Hovind's page on Facebook. The conversation was sparked when Eric claimed that the judge had ordered the family to pay $360,000 within one month, or they will have to find their ministry a new home.

Cambodians mourn 'Holy Cow'