http://creationtoday.org/debate-18-berkeley-hears-the-truth/

I have mentioned it before, but it was only incidentally; why don’t I just ignore the silliness of the YECs? The article linked is exactly why. 160 professors at Berkeley declined to debate Kent Hovind (subsequently indicted and convicted for tax fraud [he OPENS the video linked with ‘thou shalt not bear false witness’ and clarifies that to mean ‘no liars’, and his EXACT conviction shortly after this video was recorded was for bearing false witness regarding his taxes], how odd is that?), and therefore Creation Today has painted that picture as one of showing the weakness of the arguments on the other side.

Again, you might ask, “Why does that matter?” It matters, friend, because this is not a problem that goes away if you ignore it. They are ardent in their spreading of their attempts to spread the word, and they are succeeding (even if in limited numbers). Ignoring them is allowing their numbers to grow, no matter how slowly.

Just thought I’d write something about it specifically before I do my primary post for the day.

An eternal theme in evolution is the act of favoring your own in group. Primarily, this is your family, of course — but your sphere extends beyond your closest members to your friends, and those who share your outlook and/or genes. There are many interesting neurological relationships between who you view as part of your community and who you view as part of the group known colloquially as “others”. This is important.

Selection Bias itself refers to choosing people for a poll or experiment that will yield the desired results. An egregious example of this would be polling a group of white males with the question “Do you think race tensions are a problem in modern day America?”

Surely, some will say it is still an issue, but your answer will be massively skewed in one direction. I would say there are more subtle ways to implement an intentional selection bias while hiding the fact (of course there are), but that isn’t the point of this particular post. This post is pointing out intentional selection bias that is not only NOT hidden, but positively heralded. YEC selection bias in action is almost hilarious in its transparency.

The funny thing is by engaging so thoroughly in systematic selection bias, people outside of their group hardly realize it is happening, like a meeting happening in the sound proof room next door. They could be working towards dark purpose, but without someone actually going into the room, you’d never know. Lucky for us, the room is open!

YEC is the perfect case study for selection bias; their ideas fly in the face of accepted science, and yet, as I have so frequently quoted “At Liberty University we are doing better science than any secular university, because we are Liberty University. Liberty University.” They obviously make claims towards scientific knowledge, and herald to the skies that their scientists, too, publish to peer reviewed journals! They have set up an obstacle course of excuses that I get nothing but pleasure from running.

Let’s take a couple of examples from my very favorite YECs, the staff at the Creation Today show. They have a 4 episode series titled The Origin of Life, which is rich with content, densely packed and well organized in such a way as to give me a point by point series of data to play with. Really, I won’t lie, I am glad they published something that can so easily be played with. I have been passively researching the YEC theories and their evolutionary counterparts for years, over thousands of pages of text and hundreds of hours of videos — there was no way for me, a layperson at best, to compile it all into bite sized chunks. (The entire series is available for free. Episode one is located here: http://creationtoday.org/the-origin-of-life-part-1-s03e09/ )

The first topic they tackle is “Dinosaurs walking with humans.” Their … Well, I hesitate to call it evidence. In court, in a legal trial, the judge would look at you funny if you tried to present accounts written hundreds of years ago whose veracity cannot be ascertained as binding evidence, but here we go.

The evidence they supply that humans walked with dinosaurs is the prevalence of literature and artwork presenting dragons. Dragons, in contemporary lore, are large reptiles. This is, obviously, very descriptive. Why, I could practically draw the biological diagrams of how their internal organs worked with this knowledge!

Alright, enough of the mocking, let’s move on to some of what they present. First is a bronze cast statue of a dragon that comes from ancient China. Here is where selection bias comes in; for verification they send this statue to a very careful researcher! Well, that doesn’t sound so bad… Except for the fact that the researcher they sent the bronze statue to is a fellow YEC who has written a book about dinosaurs walking with humans. And here’s the thing; the guy who put forth the idea that the bronze cast is proof of dinosaurs walking with humans runs his own website (genesispark.com) which is a YEC apologetics site (and obvious parody of Jurassic Park, if you missed the subtle reference). So we have a YEC asking for verification from another YEC. That’s a great peer review process!

Another major form of bias in YEC science their reliance on what they can see today. This is very, very visible when speaking with or to YEC geologists. The Grand Canyon is a major point of concern for YECs, as the standard understanding of its formation is that of millions of years of river water flowing through the canyon and carving the deep chasm. The YEC view cannot, obviously, suffer the idea of “millions of years”, so they have to come up with something of their own. In one episode (again, my favorite guys!) of Creation Today, they perform an experiment wherein a wall of sand is created, and water is run at high pressures against it. Lo! Behold, for a narrow canyon was carved through the wall of sand! Grand Canyon confirmed, the flood water went through and made it in a month or two! Of course, only YEC scientists seem to be able to prove this, so they always send their “research” to other YECs for peer review. Technically, I suppose, those scientists would find something closer to a “peer” in that group, but that is kind of crippling the spirit of science, if not the word of the law.

Another interesting thing done is how they judge “real” science, through a type of article analysis they call “Fuzzy Word Analysis.” (Does it not worry anyone else that their version of science can be reduced to the acronym “FWA” which is the sound I make when I don’t even understand the idea of what a person is telling me? Maybe just me.) Now, Fuzzy Word Analysis in practice is to take popular science articles, and highlight anything that isn’t definite (Things like “It is believed,” or “It seems,” or anything that isn’t “This is exactly how it happened.”). The vacuousness of this approach to science is, again, tough to capture in only a few words. First, why would you target popular science articles? They are the lowest common denominator of science. It is like they believe by going after journalists, they are discrediting scientists. The other reason it is vacuous is that it is very difficult to prove with p>0.0000000 (apparently that is their standard) anything that has happened say billions of years ago. The other thing in science, though, is that you almost want to be proven wrong, or rather, and more explicitly, science continues forth by people making their theories public, and they stand until they can be proven wrong empirically. A fuzzy word is an invitation to be proven wrong; science has pride, but by definition it is not arrogant. A scientist may fight against evidence in defense of a theory, but you will fall if you do not have something to stand on.

Let’s continue onto a systematic attack on science that shows a level of either ignorance or disingenuity that baffles the mind. From just a SINGLE episode of “The Origins of Life” by creation today, these are some quotes that I managed to glean; they “blend frogs in a blender” (they do this off screen, so one assumes they did not do so, what with the fact that there are very few people so morally barren as to kill so indiscriminately), but that’s not the point. The point is what they said afterwards: “We have all of the molecules of life in this blender, and we keep adding energy, but I do not see life. That really proves that you can’t get life from random molecules and energy.” (Emphasis mine)

“If you have some evidence that does not fit a theory, you throw it out. They’ve (evolutionists) invested so much intellectual capital in the model of evolution that they cannot throw it away.”

“We will talk about the origins of life in the coming weeks knowing all along that we’ve got the right answer.”

Oh, where to start? First, performing one completely flawed, scientifically invalid “experiment” and passing that off as factual just seems silly. I know they are more intelligent than that, but the idea that they would say “This proves,” in this context at all shows intellectual dishonesty that is frightening to behold.

They have made numerous accusations that biologists are painting a moving target of evolution, despite (again) accusing them of sticking to a single theory. The theory of evolution is living and breathing; many pieces of the puzzle are locked in, but many have yet to be placed. Biologists are accused simultaneously of being too open minded and too closed minded. The theory is regenerated, changed, and fixed based on new evidence constantly; that is science in a nutshell. We understand more every day, and that is wonderful; if we knew everything (as YECs often profess they do), the world would be devoid of wonder.

They argue that “The Earth had less oxygen in the early stages of its formation” is a presupposition made without evidence (there is tons of evidence, of course, based on mineral analysis, and in more recent years (still going back hundreds of thousands of years) in analysis of ice cores taken from Antarctica)), then, only a SINGLE BREATH later, say “… [K]nowing all along that we already know the answer.” I am open to them making statements, but I would like it if they would at least be even handed enough to play by the very rules they laid out. Science is, if nothing else, internally consistent.

Now, this next bit is not as egregious (though it does offend me personally as much as the rest), but it certainly is a brush stroke on the same canvas. Science does not yet profess to know how life formed; we have theories and models, ideas and guesses that fits the current evidence, but it is not satisfactory. We are building a puzzle with some pieces missing, and then being asked (by scientists) and told (at gunpoint) (by YECs) that we must STAND AND DELIVER! “You have half the puzzle pieces! That is plenty enough to draw the whole picture!!!”

“Oh, you don’t know what the full picture looks like now?” we are asked, indignantly. “THEN YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!” After this outburst, they often run off cackling before we (that is to say, the scientific community, both the professionals and laypeople) have a chance to rebut.

I’ve mentioned in the past the YEC tendency to attack a single idea or person (sometimes going as low as to just make fun of the person) in the effort to discredit the scientific community as a whole. In “The Origin of Life” series, they continue that revered tradition. Panspermia, an outside idea that does not in any way represent a scientific consensus, is the idea that life on Earth began outside of our own atmosphere. (The cores of the idea rely on either an external body impacting Earth with proteins that could have kick-started life, or in aliens seeding the planet intentionally.) The problem is that, while panspermia has some very strong underpinnings (molecules that could represent precursors to life have been found on meteorites under close observation, though anyone will admit that it could be a case of contamination), it is young and very open to changes based on ongoing evidence and research.

In the second episode of the “Origin of Life” series, they speak about (not using these words, but using this idea) cognitive dissonance in science. They say that since scientists (who are all of one mind obviously) sometimes disagree with each other, that means that God created the Earth, life, and all that is in the Heavens. It is odd to throw that stone, given all that is written in the Bible (Am I supposed to follow Mosaic law or not? Matthew 5:17-18 illustrates Jesus himself saying that he has not come to abolish the law, and not even one letter of the law shall be removed until he comes again [ie: Follow Mosaic Law]. Alternately, Galatians 3:13 states that Jesus freed us from “the curse of the law.” [ie: Do not follow Mosaic Law]. Worth noting, of course, is the wording; Paul accuses (indirectly) God of CURSING us with the law.). The dissonance in the Bible is staggering, and which of the opposing sides of the coin you choose says a lot about you as a person.

The point of this whole post is this; if you talk only to people who already agree with you, it will be difficult for you to ever understand where you are flawed. To that end, I read and watch YEC literature, and scientific literature in equal measure. I will not lie, their telling me that science is flawed has led me to a much deeper understanding of evolution, as I go out to learn and educate myself about what they have said. I will not lie, it could be said that I am biased in this regard; the previous sentence read (in revision 1) “… as I go out to prove them wrong,” but that is not really correct, is it? If science agrees with them, as it does occasionally, then I have still learned something new and deepened my understanding.

Don’t just listen to people who agree with you before the race even starts. Try to reach out and understand the world around you, do not apply your ideas to it, let nature apply her ideas to you. Or if, as me, you are not close to one with nature, let scientists do it for you. Maybe not 100% as effective, but I find enjoyment in it. .

As a final postscript, is it odd that the idea of social community (absolutely integral in evolution) is shown so strongly (almost militantly) by the YEC culture? One might find that ironic, I think.

After discussions among peers, it came to my attention that my own personal views about abortion may have been lost in my excessive verbosity. To clear up these misunderstandings, I’ll write a much shorter, to the point piece.

I think Abortion Clinics should serve the same purpose as clean injection clinics in Vancouver. To assume that people won’t have abortions just because they are illegal or hard to find is naive to the point of dangerousness. Given that logic, drugs wouldn’t be a problem at all.

Providing a clean, safe place for abortions to happen could reduce the horrible complications of a botched surgery, save lives, and help those who have made poor decisions. Further, they could be used as a launching ground for education, provide condoms and/or birth control, and provide a thousand other services that benefit the public interest. To simply say “No, they are monstrous,” is callous, and ignores the amazing benefits they could provide.

I hope that helps.

Can We Trust the Bible? – Season 3 Episode 26

I have spent the last two days preaching understanding and finding common ground. This episode of Creation Today is so mind bogglingly frustrating, I had to write about it. I just really, really had to.

First, they are decontextualizing a statement by Bill Maher painting all religion as bad, extending that argument ad absurdum, then “refute” it by supplying further absurd arguments. Luckily for me, they managed to tie everything I have been talking about for the last few days together all in one nice little package of ignoring ALL OF MY ADVICE FOR GETTING ALONG. Fine, Bill dropped the gloves, you decided to punch everyone because of him, so I am picking up my own gloves and punching back.

You will have to watch the video for Bill Maher’s exact statement, but it comes down to the foillowing: Religion is a negative force, as it has caused major wars, supported honor raping, honor killings, suicide bombings, protection of pedophiles, etc.

Now, everything Bill Maher said is, technically, historically correct; religion has been used to justify all of the above in the past. To be fair to Mr Maher, he did catch things that are identified primarily with Islam, and also identified things primarily associated with institutionalized Christianity (essentially, The Catholics).

He is an asshole, so I can hardly be mad at their response. Let’s see what they have to *RAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEE*. Oh, sorry, I blacked out for a second there.

What?! That’s their response?! For those of you that cannot watch the video due to being at work, I will speak about it while exercising my willpower to prevent myself from blacking out from the sheer disingenuity of their argument!

“Bill Maher is saying all religions are bad, because some of them have done these things. Therefore, we have to ban cars because they cause accidents, we have to ban bats because people can use them to kill someone, we have to ban paper to protect the people from paper cuts!”

Bill Maher left himself open to ten thousand arguments, and this WAS NOT ONE OF THEM. Cars are regulated, licensed, sold only to people who have proven some level of responsibility. If someone is running at me with a bat, I am going to defend myself. If you are afraid of papercuts, you generally (doubly so in the information age) do not have to handle paper.

Your argument is so vacuous and pointless I think every time I think about it, my mind goes completely blank. It is making this post very difficult to write, and people keep commenting that I look like I am just staring blankly into space.

You could easily counter Maher’s argument by putting it in context, for example — in first world America, Christianity is hardly ever used to justify killing! (Bigotry, though… Well, it justifies that plenty.) Instead, you reply to his absurd argument with an absurd argument, and you have left me so many openings to hit you, there are so many holes in your defense, I am standing here, confused, wondering where to attack first!

Let’s go with religion justifying slavery, as I know you hold very tightly to the Bible. The original Hebrew word ‘eved’ is often translated as ‘slave’, and best know that the holding of slaves is a Biblical INSTITUTION. The counter argument received, to show that Christianity does not support slavery, is that slave really just means “worker” or “servant”, so really, it doesn’t mean “owning slaves,” it just means “having employees.” It was all just a silly misunderstanding! Tee hee!

NO! Screw you! I went and looked it up! I went and studied a brief bit of Hebrew, just so I could talk to you about this! So sit the eff down and read!

Eved means more of an indentured servant, as opposed to ‘sakhir’, which is used to denote a hired worker. What are the rights afforded to someone who is an ‘eved’ then? Well, first, they get no wages. Nothing. You keep them alive for the purposes of work, and they get what you give them. Further, the owner retains “patria potestas” (Originally in Roman Law, but still effective in the Bible) over him; this denotes ownership in terms of property law. You choose what your slave does, who he marries, whether he lives or dies, how to punish him. Oh, don’t get me wrong, you COULD certainly pay your slaves. They COULD be your workers. The Bible does not sanction minimum wage, living standards, work hours — that is all secular law. So is this starting to sound familiar?

They aren’t SLAVES! They are just workers we don’t have to pay, that we can beat, and that we legally “own”. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING!

Further, as per Exodus chapter 21, a father may sell his daughter into slavery. He may sell his daughter to someone, that she would work for him without pay, and so he can marry her to another of his slaves. BUT THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE KNOW SLAVERY TODAY, GUYS! Also, the Bible explicitly states, further, in Exodus 23:12 that any child of a slave becomes the property of the head of house, and will work for him, and will receive no pay, and functions specifically as property. BUT TOTALLY A DIFFERENT THING, THAT IS NOT SLAVERY, GUYS! REALLY!

One last bit of Bible for you, then, before we move along. Deuteronomy 15:15 “Thou shalt remember that thou were slaves in Egypt.”

Oh, you were just workers in Egypt, not slaves! No problem, then. Hell, why’d you even run away? Being ‘eved’ isn’t so bad, that’s what I’ve been told by apologists. But no, your God himself compared what you do with your property with what Egypt did to their slaves; remember that. The only thing I have been able to find that truly tempers your power over your slaves is that a master may punish his slave as he wishes, but leave no permanent wound. Well, there you go; you can take the child beater’s logic towards the humans that you own. Cheers.

I think I have illustrated the above well enough. So you are good, Bible believing Christians, and you just “word play” away the parts that you don’t like. The Bible certainly does sanction and set down rules for the ownership of human beings. You can word play that “well, we COULD pay them…” as much as you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that your own book says it’s cool guys, go to town! (Except for Jewish men. You can’t make slaves of Jewish men! Jewish women, though…)

Alright, let’s move onto Islam, as it is preached in Qur’anic literalism. (I still love you, Reza Azlan, don’t be mad at me! I know you choose to think of Religion as imagery and metaphors, and I respect that and respect you! This is Qur’anic literalism, which I hope you will understand if you ever read this!) In the Qur’an it frequently references themes such as this, found in Chapter 9, verse 5: “Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

You can claim that is imagery, or not in the theme of the Qur’an, or out of context. I don’t know, I am used to Christian Apologetics, I am not used to debating the tenets of Islam, but to an outsider, it is easy to see from whence the extremists in your Religion take their inspiration. And please believe me, I know they are extremists, but they are still using clear words from their Prophet, and following his commandments as best they know how. This is not a function of the message, this is a function of the understanding of the message.

I am prepared to accept that Religion is a net good force, but I am also going to ask you to admit that there are pieces in the two most widely accepted doctrines (Christianity and Islam) that leave themselves open for interpretation by those seeking to do harm to the world. So the question is what do we do about it? Please read that last sentence again, by the way. Notice how I said “we”.

We all have to work on extremism together, because it affects all of us — but it helps no one (NO ONE) to say “Well, the extremists are misinterpreting our [Name of Holy Book].” Saying that makes no difference. Saying religion is a positive force on the whole does not make the extremism go away. “Look, I am a good person for literally 99% of the day, but you know, I just hit my wife once or twice every week.” That is what it sounds like to someone on the outside of you religion when you say “We are mostly a force for good!” Look, I want to help you with the small percentage of people who have taken your Book in a way that disagrees with you. I am willing to help you with educating people, insiders and those outside. I will help people who do not know the Bible understand the good points it makes, and I ask people intimately familiar with the Qur’an to do the same.

Woah, I got sidetracked there. Where was I? Right, vacuous replies.

Technical definitions! Atheists will often say that it is impossible to ‘know’ anything, using the technical definition of the word. To know, as it is used in technical writers, implies 100% certainty, which is (as a scientific construct) impossible, or nearly impossibly to achieve. To say “I am a caucasian male, I ‘know’ that,” leaves open the door that perhaps I am in a coma, and this is a dream. Maybe I have brain damage, and my perception is wildly skewed. To be fair, I am *reasonably certain* I am a caucasian male, but even then, reasonably certain has scientific connotations (technically, I am certain I am male, p<.01). I have not done a strictly statistical analysis, but this is more illustrative than literal.

The reply of Eric Hovind in this argument? “Well, you said you can’t know anything. I win, because my God told me what is written in the Bible is true, and I know he is true, so bam! I win. Q.E.D.” To use the argument that “My God told me that the Bible is literally true,” without any further justification is just… Well, the worst I can say is that it is not playing fair. Atheists are trying to play by the rules of formal debate, in this specific instance; define the word (and they have laid out definition for what is to ‘know’), and Eric Hovind (as well as so many other of the religious persuasion) ignore that definition.

You know what? Atheists don’t even have a limb to stand on, aside from “We are sticking to our guns because it is fair.” Christians are not formally debating, and you are being silly by sticking to formal debate rules. In fact, formal debate rules allow for you to use your opposition’s own definition. “My God said this is true,” is a valid proposition for what is “to know”, therefore you can counter with “My reason dictates,” and we all move along. To stop a debate from moving forward because two sides are having literally the MOST BORING pissing match ever (a pissing match OF WORDS) is just — stupid. On both sides’ part.

So Eric, stop being a prat. And ignore Bill Maher, most respectable atheists are comfortable ignoring him. I think that’s really the point I wanted to make here.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/29/on-cnn-reza-aslan-explains-how-the-media-is-fai/200942

Bill Maher. Now there’s a guy. Always has a can of bigotry to throw around.

Now, let’s be fair; he is a comedian, and most of what he does is to get a reaction — but that definition is the exact same definition one can apply to a bully. I actually couldn’t watch the full length of his… Well, it is called a “documentary” on paper, but his movie Religulous. It is less a “documentary” and more “making religious people feel awkward and confused.” It has been years since last I even tried to watch it, so I cannot quote it, but my heart went out to the religious people he was speaking with. There is the reasonable approach to getting people with dated beliefs to join the 21st century inclusive society, and then there is… that.

Now, he is paid to be over the top, in the same way that Bill O’Reily is. (Is it something about the name Bill? Most Bills I have known have been a little over the top, and hold very aggressive views. #WhatsInAName) As I mentioned just yesterday, though, this is lowering the level of discourse.

So what brought all of this up? Well, Media Matters released a video of Bill Maher speaking at some length about the problems with Islam. The woman hating, the bigotry, the racism, etc. Reza Azlan, one of my personal heroes, is interviewed regarding what Maher said, and he takes his interviewers to task. Reza Azlan, despite GREAT opposition, tries to raise the level of the debate. “Women are treated poorly in Saudi Arabia, therefore all Muslims treat women poorly.” Azlan’s response carries his characteristic level-headedness; “You can’t paint a religion based on one country when the population of the religion is 1.5 billion.” He provides counter arguments, he provides examples, he provides wonderful replies to his increasingly flustered interviewers, because that is who he is.

I am not so level headed as Mr Azlan, and I am sure you’ll understand from having read my blog. My reply, the very first thing I thought when I heard these interviewers, and when I heard Maher’s speech, was “Well, there are known pedophiles in the Catholic Priesthood. Does that mean all Catholics are pedophiles? There are known racists among the Baptist Churches. Does that mean all Baptists are racists?” No, you’re being silly. I will admit I am not well versed in gender politics as it relates to Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, but if a man who has written books on the subject tells me “The majority of Muslim countries have a large amount of gender equity,” and then proceeds to give me empirical examples (that I am free to verify), maybe I will check my opinion and rethink.

That blade does cut both ways, though. Bill Maher is an asshole, but I’d like to think that painting all nontheists with a brush based on his template is just silly. What’s really funny is that I think Maher does more damage to reason and rationality than he does help, especially because in atheist circles he is often well liked. Up until a few years ago, I would have said he was universally liked. You know what hurts more than anything, though? Atheists in public positions actually have to denounce Maher’s often bigoted opinions, because they DO get painted with the same brush.

So hey, let’s stop being assholes to each other first, then after that we can start to come together and decide what we all believe in, and we can stop calling each other bigoted racist faggy pedophilic necrophiles.

If you are, in fact, a bigoted racist faggy pedophilic necrophile, I am sorry to say this, but you’re kind of like… Messed up. You should go get that looked at.