Book burning

No, it's not what you think. It seems there may be a portion of the Jews in Israel that aren't exactly interested in converting like the Hageeites would like. And they're burning New Testaments to make their point. No doubt many of the evangelicals that read this story will recoil in horror as they conveniently forget how they accused the Harry Potter books of promoting witchcraft and yes, burned them.

Beyond the obvious irony, it's a fascinating look into how religion is really just an extension of our tendency towards tribalism. Even among those that claim to be Jewish, the divisions among the traditional Jews and the Messianic Jews are so deep that it is not only driving some individuals to burn the New Testament, but to also attempt to have the government restrict the distribution of the text altogether. The State of Israel is assaulted from almost all sides by Islamic countries who don't believe their country is legitimate. And yet Israel is still beset by the same lunacy that drives Muslim hatred. Their eyes are so colored by their fealty to the tribe that they cannot see themselves in the eyes of their enemy.

Some funny

It's about a year old but still quick funny. The first time I saw Red State, I couldn't tell if it was a parody or not. That's the amazing thing about creationists. The loopy ones are almost indistinguishable from a joke.

Creepy Christian fetishism

Newsweek has a report on the "Holy Land Experience", a bible based theme park in Orlando, Florida. To say this is weird really doesn't quite do it justice. One of the main attractions of the park is a recreation of the crucifixion tale complete with fake blood and an actor playing Jesus nailed to a cross. So amid all the standard trappings of your typical theme park, the $4.00 sodas, cotton candy, and a variety of frozen confections, you get ritual torture and scape goat fetishism.

I honestly have to wonder about the mental stability of a person who would actually go to a place like this for fun. The crucifixion story is not only barbaric in the physical, it's a horrible moral tale. The idea of transferring the wrongs of one person to something else is a common theme in primitive superstitious storytelling. And yet the people watching this somehow find comfort in a god that demands one person be tortured and killed before he grants forgiveness too everyone else.

Creep, creepy, creepy. The intermingling of Jewish and Christian themes also looks an awful lot like the Christian Dominionist style of evangelicalism. I'm sure pastor Hagee would approve.

The WaPo sees through the charade

There's a nice editorial on the Washington Post editorial page echoing my previous post about the red herring of "Academic Freedom" bills. This is a clever tactic in a political sense. It exploits one of the most admirable values of our nation's conscience: our devotion to free and unfettered speech. The problem is this has nothing whatsoever to do with speech. Teachers have a contractual obligation to teach the curriculum as adopted by the governing school district. This is why the creationist tactic has been to target school boards and cajole them into adding ID into it. But that tactic simply won't work. It's creationism promotion in public schools which is a clear violation of the establishment clause. So they have decided on a new tactic. After all, if you can't play by the rules, why not just change them!

This new attempt at inserting GAWD into public schools could do far more damage than even a few school boards adopting "Of Pandas and People". If these pass, teachers would be endlessly bringing their own agendas into public school classrooms. And if they teach some nonsense, they would simply be able to wrap themselves in the flag of "speech". Curricula are adopted for a reason. Without some standard base, education cannot build upon itself. Science teachers would be contradicting each other from year to year and the learning progression would be a muddled mess. Sure science changes. But not in primary and secondary school classrooms. It changes in research and private labs and universities. Then once the science is established, it trickles down to the grade school level.

But ID proponents want to bypass all that and go straight to "teaching the controversy" to 12 year olds. These bills would not just affect the teaching of Biology, but ALL the sciences. It's insidious and needs to be exposed for what it really is.

Dippy Ben Stein wants Darwinism to explain "where gravity came from"

No, I'm not kidding. Here's the clip. If this is the "weakness" of Darwinism, then it's also a weakness in a score of other scientific disciplines. Yet I don't see him tackling chemistry, geology, or even physics. Quite simply, none of these disciplines are even concerned with that question at all. Stein apparently wants every biology class to turn into philosophy 101. He doesn't even understand how science functions. Muddled thinking from a B-list actor. I wonder how he would feel if math classes began asking the question, where did pi come from?

This is NOT a free speech issue unless we define free speech as teaching nonsense. The interviewer of course doesn't challenge him on any of this lunacy. So sad.

The silliness of UFO reports

In an attempt to defuse UFO conspiracy theorists, the UK has declassified a large cache of documents concerning various investigations it has conducted over the years. The result? Precisely what you would expect. Many of these sightings had simple, albeit earthly, explanations. Of course this is not enough for news organization like CNN which reports on the matter complete with cut scenes from popular sci-fi movies and an interview with a UFO investigator atop a background of spooky music. Indeed there are some reports that are unexplained. But instead of the the more likely explanations, we get UFO investigator-man declaring that "the truth lies somewhere in these documents". All in all, UFO reports are innocuous. The mystery surrounding most of these generate all sorts of stories, that usually morph into exaggerations and sometimes flights of fancy. But this report is typical of the way media usually covers these stories. Debunkers are rarely interviewed because the news agency doesn't want to be the spoiled sports for the great majority that pine away for the most fantastic story they can imagine.

For my part, I think it far more likely that a discovery of interstellar life will first be simple and probably unicellular and not a super intelligent race of technologically superior little green men.

That's just wild speculation though ;)

Berkeley defends its "Understanding Evolution" site.....from a 1st Amendment challenge??

Apparently some right wing "legal defense fund" called the Pacific Justice Institute is suing UC Berkeley over some language used on their "Understanding Evolution" web resource. This particular case tugs at 2 of my competing interests and requires me to do a little extra work.

On the one hand, it's vitally important that we teach evolution. Without it, we cannot understand modern biology, physiology, genetics, and a whole host of other scientific disciplines that improve our lives and health. The Berkeley site is a fabulous resource for explaining both the evidence for evolution and its usefulness.

On the other hand, church state separation is a vitally important wall to maintain. The government should never be in the business of taking sides in theological debates or doing anything that could be construed as endorsing a particular religion over another. If the Berkeley site does either of these, it should be reworded to avoid violating the 1st Amendment.

So what's the truth of the matter then? Let's take a look at the complaint and the potentially offensive material. Here is the PJI Press Release. The first clue that these clowns have an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with dutifully protecting church state separation are the quotes surrounding misconceptions. Although it's clear they are trying to attach derision to the Berkeley site, they fail to acknowledge the the misconceptions are very real. The information presented by the offending page is absolutely factual. There is no derision on that page, merely a factual statement that there are indeed religious ideas that are simply incompatible with evolution. They use, as an example, the literal 6-day creation. Nothing here endorses or derides this as a RELIGIOUS idea. It simply points out the fact that it is incompatible with the body of established evolutionary science. There are literally thousands of other examples of religious creation stories they could have used. They simply chose the one that is most pervasive in the United States. I have a deep suspicion that had they chosen the equally incompatible Islamic creation story, the PJI would not have complained in the same way.

They also complain in the press release that: "The site also warns teachers that student questions which expose the weaknesses of evolution "may be designed to disrupt the learning process" and should not be given the same respect as "legitimate" questions."

Again with the sneering quotes. I'm beginning to wonder if these are serious attorneys or political ideologues. Here is the supposedly offensive page. The Berkeley site is trying to help teachers who are besieged with inanity get through it so they can actually teach the science. In science or any subject, there are legitimate line of questioning and there are dead ends. The PJI surely would not expect a science teacher to seriously entertain astrology while teaching planetary movements or 16th century alchemical beliefs in a chemistry class. But in Biology, they want students to be able to railroad classes with ridiculous non-science questions.

This is the complaint that gives up the deceitful little game the PJI is playing here. This lawsuit is quite transparently part of the new strategy from the ID proponents and their creationist kin. They first tried to insert literal biblical creationism into science classes. Edwards v Aguilar destroyed that dream so they turned to the more nebulous non-science of ID. Even a conservative judge appointed by GWB himself saw through that little ruse. At every turn they have been blocked. So they needed a new strategy. It appears they are now going with a term that very few average people would have a quibble with: "Academic Freedom". Over the past year or so, several states have seen these deceptive little bills show up. They couch them in terms that most Americans, even non-religious ones would support. Students and teachers should have academic freedom to "follow the evidence". They have begun pairing this with RELIGIOUS freedom and have introduced bills that would basically allow students to inject their non-scientific ideas into science classes without fear of academic failure. Here's a rundown of these efforts. Notice the rank dishonesty of these efforts. Again, these bills are not aimed at physics, chemistry, astronomy, or mathematics. It is ONLY the life sciences that are under attack here.

If you go through Berkeley's evolutionary educational site, you can clearly see its purpose. There is no endorsement of any kind of any particular religion at all. The focus is on the SCIENCE and how to answer the inevitable questions they will have to deal with WITHOUT any particular religious issues. The overarching idea of the site is that evolution deals with the material and observable NOT with the supernatural at all. This fall firmly within the Austin Dacey's definition of the accommodationism attitude in the newly published collection from Trinity College, Secularism and Science in the 21st Century. Berkeley is not endorsing any theological belief over another. They are merely pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that some religious ideas directly contradict evolution. They then try to direct teachers to the proper focus of their efforts when teaching evolution: stick with the science. Avoid the supernatural.

In the end, this lawsuit is attempting to accomplish the exact OPPOSITE of what it says. The goal here is not to protect the 1st Amendment prohibition of church/state entanglements. The purpose is to give creationist, religious teachers and students the latitude they need to turn science class into a bible study.

What is an Ardent Skpetic?

So what exactly is an ardent skeptic? It is simply someone who has a very strong belief in practicality and utility of skepticism. Of course skepticism is not an absolute by any means. It is usually measured by the how remarkable or implausible the claim is. That is balanced with the evidence presented in support of the claim and a probability of truthfulness can then be determined. For instance, if my coworker tells me he had a taco salad for lunch, the claim is most certainly quite plausible and therefore very little evidence would be necessary to believe it. (And he would probably look at me funny if I demanded a receipt.) If, however, my coworker claims that his prophet flew to Mercury on a winged horse and delivered a diamond encrusted book that told of how the earth was formed in the belly of an interstellar ogre, I would require a remarkable amount of supporting evidence before I believed it.

Ardent skepticism is not always an easy way of going about your life. Like any pattern seeking mammal, I am sometimes prone to wish-thinking and see evidence for things when no such evidence exists. However, it seems to be the best means available for determining truth we humans possess. While I may veer into some other topics of interest, this blog will focus mostly on skeptical topics and will probably rant on the lunacy of religious and superstitious thought. The easily offended should probably stop here.......