I present to you an open letter in three parts, a sort of triune epistle issued in the hope that it will save one, just one of you from the trap of self-imposed ignorance that is religion, particularly the fundamentalist type. Following find my notes on “Intelligent Design”, prayer in school, and the mix of religion with politics.
Intelligent Design is Bullshit
There is simply nothing to it, and everyone knows that it’s a Trojan for teaching creationism as science. There is no factual support for Intelligent Design, and those who adhere to it are becoming increasingly known as IDiots, a term I think I might have coined a couple years back.
The fact of evolution is supported in more than the fossil record; as Richard Dawkins points out, it’s obvious in the genomes of all living organisms, as well as the body-plans. The DNA of every living animal, plant, saprophyte, cyanobacterium and protist on this planet literally screams common descent. That is evolution, it is a fact, it is a reality.
What is theoretical is the mechanism that drives the force of evolution, much as we’re still theorizing about the actual cause of gravity. However, no one is stupid enough to say that gravity is “only a theory” — so maybe, just maybe, it’s only the stupid who say the same of evolution.
Those of you who listen to authorities who tell you ID is worth pursuing: You are being lied to. Ask your church leaders why they are lying to you. Demand that they stop lying to you. You have nothing to lose but your ignorance.
Which is not bliss, by the way; it is slavery.
Christ is Not the Answer
In response to the latest round of school shootings, Il Duce participated in a discussion forum wherein guns were not mentioned once, Dana Milbank points out. What was mentioned was religious twaddle. Lots of it. Shovelsful of it, in fact. Craig Scott, who is the brother of a girl killed in Columbine in 1999, continued the lie that she died for her faith, and then read a bit of doggerel.
When Bush arrived, Craig Scott was invited to speak again. This time, he read a poem he said his father read while appearing before a congressional committee.
“You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
“Now gunshots fill our classrooms and precious children die . . .
“You regulate restrictive law through legislative creed, and yet you failed to understand that God is what we need.”
Hey, Craig: What about the Amish school? The one full of children being taught in the Amish way, complete with daily prayers and lots of Biblical reference? Your sky daddy sure as hell didn’t seem to be on the stick that morning, huh? So how can you even think of suggesting that a religious tenor in schools is going to help?
Oh, sorry — maybe Amish is the wrong type of religion, huh? Guess it’s a good thing you have all the answers, isn’t it?
Of course, there are several tens of millions of Christian idiots just like you who think they have all the answers … and their answers won’t match yours.
Stop Stealing Good Men’s Minds
John McCain is the latest example of Christian and right-wing droidism. He’s suggested he’d be willing to speak at Bob Jones University, a virulent nest of backwards-thinking fundamentalist Christian vipers; he voted in support of the bill that suspends habeas corpus for Il Duce’s political opponents suspected terrorists; he’s making an ass of himself by claiming Clinton let North Korea slide on nukes — and totally overlooking what Duh-bya failed to do for the last six years, not even acknowledging the fact that Bush himself asked, in 2000, why he should be worried about North Korea.
This memetic corruption is outrageous. While it’s inarguable that McCain has let himself be poisoned, it’s equally undeniable that you fed him the hemlock to begin with. The intellectual toxins you push — insisting that silly superstitions are somehow on par with evidence-backed reality, for instance; or adherence to the utterly ridiculous notion that the deity which allegedly created everything looks like a human in every respect, complete, presumably, with a penis — these crazy, foolish notions that are acceptable only to those with the mentality of a six-year-old are driving this nation into ruin.
Just as happened in Rome before its downfall, we have a rash of religious ideologues infesting every level of our government, rotting it away from within, and just as with Rome, unless this is stopped, we’ll have a new wave of crusades that culminate in the establishment of a domineering religion which actively attempts to oppress and destroy every shred of dissension for at least half a millennium.
Stop poisoning our world. You are wrong — or at least you should consider the possibility that you might be — and your thuggery has no place in decent, civilized, enlightened society.
The United States was not founded as a Christian nation; the founders, in fact, very deliberately avoided religious establishment. So stop lying about the roots of democracy, which is actually founded in the ideals of equal justice, intellectual honesty and education. Stop trying to corrupt children away from their birthright. Stop ruining this country.
If you really want to experience life in a theocracy, try living in Iran for a while.
And please, don’t come back.
Excellent! I could have written everything you wrote.
I hate to bring up the name of St. Richard Dawkins too often, as I know he makes the biscuit worshippers come out in a rash. However, in his new book (”The God Delusion” - that’s what I love him for, zero words minced) he actually talks about the secularism of the founders and the evidence for Jefferson, at least, being an out-and-out atheist.
These guys were doing their polito-philosophical stuff under the influence of deists like Voltaire. I find it hard to believe that Jefferson - arguably the most brilliant man to run a country, anywhere, ever, and certainly the sort of chap I’d choose to found my nation - believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
We have, then, regressed. Over here in the UK we’ve got it bad, too: Mr. Anthony Blair is a paid-up Biscuiteer, as are several members of his cabinet. One of them, Ruth Kelly, is even a member of Opus Dei, though I don’t believe she’s tried to kill Tom Hanks yet.
Back when you had Jefferson, we had Pitt (OK, then we had Lord Liverpool, who was a bit shit, but I guess you win some, you lose some). When you had Roosevelt, we had Churchill. I can appreciate both nations getting great individuals at the same time, but WTF did we do to get the pair of goons we’ve got right now?
Great post, by the way. These issues need a little less civilized debate and respect for the faith of others (why should I respect idiocy?) and a little more raw anger. You tell ‘em!
Great post! I agree that we’ve been too respectful for far too long. Believe me, these people have no intention of reciprocating that degree of respect for our views. They know The Truth and are ready to use any means to impose that truth on the rest of us. What’s that absurdly ridiculous bumper sticker say ? God said it, I believe it, that settles it. I mean, could they be any more obvious about their ignorance?
I was sent a review copy of Dawkins’ new book, but I gave it to my father. If he indeed suggests that Jefferson was an atheist, he is engaging in the same kind of revisionist crap that we get from David Barton and the religious right, who claim that Jefferson was an orthodox Christian. None of the founding fathers were atheists, nor were any of them even close. Even the most radical of the bunch, Thomas Paine, who published a scathing critique of Christianity and claims of revelation in The Age of Reason, still believed strongly in a benevolent God. Calling Jefferson an atheist is every bit as laughable and idiotic as calling him a fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps even more so.
This seems to have turned into an interesting exchange on Ed’s site, which is pretty
funnyironic. Earthman, do you have attribution that you can share from Dawkins that indicates he might be arguing for atheism in Jefferson — or, for that matter, in any US founder? (It would be even cooler if there were refs to source material.)I’ve been reading ancient history again, and I agree that the parallel with Rome is striking. In fact, I’ve been considering the possibility that it was the Christian Church itself which caused the Fall (with the structural changes it imposed on the Roman empire). I’m waiting for a real historian with no particular religious convictions to attempt that thesis. Polytheism - never really taken seriously, even by the Greeks and Romans - was a fairly harmless practice. Certainly no-one died in the name of Jupiter, or was inspired to do so. But as soon as monotheism crept in, all of a sudden religious fanatics were throwing themselves around in an orgy of matyrdom. It’s a curious little psychological disease.
Please keep up the good work. Your posts are refreshing and remarkably well-written.
(Warren, from what I can remember of what Dawkins wrote, he said that Jefferson, although a self-declared theist, approached life from an atheist perspective. From my point of view : Although - I don’t think - Jefferson ever announced himself an atheist, it would be reasonable to assume that, were he alive today, he would do so; he trusted in science and reason to eventually explain the universe and the nature of God.)
Thanks, Colin. Re polytheism: It’s pretty democratic, isn’t it? What does that suggest about monotheism?
As for Jefferson — being a Deist, he would have held that whatever was responsible for creating nature essentially got the whole shebang started, then backed off and became totally uninvolved with the affairs of daily life.
From Dawkins’s perspective this might very well appear to be atheistic, since Deists seemed to be of the opinion that there was no godly involvement in men’s affaris whatsoever; however, Deism is a form of goddish belief. It’s merely one of the few that’s not so irrational as to seem utterly nonsensical, and one of the few that doesn’t allow its followers to become instilled with a fervent certainty of their own absolute rectitude.
No wonder it’s not around any more. One step further (eliminate gods or souls) and Deism turns into Buddhism.
When you have a time crisis in your life, who will support you, and confort you, and i mean a REAL crisis that maybe some of you hasnt experimented, and yet, the power and the love you feel when you have Jesus at your side.
Hey, people i can not stop saying this, but its a message to be delivered. JESUS lives, i can demonstrate on millions of people who are free from addictions (sex, alcohol, drugs), or existencial issues like depresion, fear, pain.
If you think that taking drugs or having sexual activities almost daily is OK, well, i cannot do so much for you then.
I JUST want to say JESUS IS REAL, at least on the lifes of those people, and in mine’s also, if you are in that situation, try it (Well if your SOOOO Closed atheist mind lets you do it).
By the way EVOLUTION cannot be demonstrated, there are paths in the evolutive process that have a missing stage, so, how can you believe in evolution ALONE.
I think science and beliefs should not be opposite, as they can help explain each other, think about it , “SMART” people.
Think about what Pascal said..
The most remarkable scientists also were religious persons, so, dont bring me lies about that {Xtians | such that X means CHRIST} are stupid and brain-washed people.
Finally, the PROOF not of God’s existence but of the power of the Gospel is that of the people set free by that Knowledge, and also, the real faith, is that based directly upon Jesus and the Father, and also the Holy Spirit, you can see it in the advanced countries, REVIEW the history of those advanced countries, and study what makes the difference between them and the 3rd world countries.
Please people, dont be fool, go to the facts of something that can not be proven.
One last thing, why hasnt it been proved that God does not exist??, Can someone tell me??
Can some of you give me a counterexample, a formal demonstration, maybe you could use as hypothesis some evolution hypothesis also.(Because they hasnt been demonstrated also).
HOPE YOU CAN FEEL THAT POWERFUL AND FAITHFUL GOD YOU NEED, EVEN YOU SAY YOU DONT.
Wow! My very first fundie troll!
Hey, you know what? Your clear, lucid prose has shown me the light. (I thiink it was the ALL CAPS pronouncements that did it.) I’m here to say right now that I’ve accepted Jesus into…
Snort, guffaw … sorry, even I can’t manage the level of bullshit required to create a legitimate-sounding conversion post.
Look, I know you think you’re right, and maybe on one level — the emotional one — you are, at least inside your own mind. But there’s a hell of a big difference between saying you believe in some kind of god, and letting that belief become a matter of ironclad, dictatorial public policy.
The founders knew this; that’s why there’s an establishment clause in the constitution. The document is tattered and timeworn, but that much at least is definite.
Believe all you want. Worship all you want. But keep your god in your church. Don’t bring your phantoms and hallucinations into the public forum; don’t confuse the images in your brain with reality.
Lives are compromised and ruined every day by the laws created in the name of god.
You don’t know what you are talking about… which is problem #1 with most close-minded creationists. You’ve got your storybook written by primitive desert nomads some 2-3 thousands years ago, and you follow it letter by letter as if it is some sort of proof.
The Bible is not proof it is a claim, and claims require proof for them to be accepted by atheists. Waving your fairy tale about over your head and extolling the saving power of Christ is not proof.
Now let’s talk a little bit about evolution, because I assure you the proponents of Intelligent Design are not telling you anything remotely resembling the truth about evolution. And if you’ll permit me, I’ll use a parable to get across to you how idiotic it is to speak of filling in all the gaps in evolution.
Imagine there is a giant boulder sitting on top of a high hill. One rainy and windy day, the boulder’s purchase is so eroded that it finally tumbles down the hill scouring a huge groove in the surface of the hill. The way down is rocky and clogged with debris, so the boulder, as it tumbles, bounces this way and that, popping up in the air when it hits an outcrop or a fallen tree. At the bottom of the hill, the boulder bounces off the ground and falls into the lake beyond, where it sinks into the mud and is covered over by water.
Hundreds of years later some men come by and notice the great furrow cut in the surface of the hill. The furrow is incomplete because over time parts of it have weathered away, and a subsequent landslide has destroyed portions of it, and there were times when the boulder was airborne. The rock itself lay hidden beneath the muddy floor of the lake. The men try to explain what caused this furrow. One man, the theist, says that God created the furrow. The other men like this idea and they go back to their village and spread the good word, culminating in Fred Franklin writing a book that tells about God creating the furrow.
Several hundred years after that a theist and a scientist come to visit the furrow.
The scientist climbs the hill and studies the rock at the top. He tests rolling small rocks in various places on the hill’s surface. He studies the sides of the furrow and compares them to pictures of furrows created when other boulders rolled down other hills. After much study, he announces that something massive, probably a large boulder or a slab of stone, slid or rolled down the surface of the hill sometime in the past.
The theist points to the missing areas of the furrow and says “If a rock rolled down the hill, where is the evidence here? There are gaps in your evidence, and therefore you must be wrong, and God must have done it.”
The scientist explains that (a) even if his hypothesis is incorrect, that doesn’t mean that the “God hypothesis” is correct, and (b) it’s possible that over time that some of the furrow would be filled in by landslides or other sorts of erosion.
The theist refuses to abandon the God hypothesis (despite the fact that there is no proof.) So the scientist takes a pick and a shovel and digs up a spot in the center of the landslide. Sure enough eventually he uncovers evidence of the rolling boulder beneath several feet of gravel and dirt, a deely gouged stone and compacted dirt matching the profile of the furrow above and below the slide.
“See?” he says.
“See what?” the theist says. “You uncovered a stretch that is only six feet long. How do I know that if you dug upslope or downslope another six feet you would find any evidence there? You haven’t uncovered the whole furrow! Therefore, you’re wrong, and God did it.”
So the scientist removes the rest of the landslide. It takes many days, but it reveals the furrow like structure almost the entire length of the formerly covered area. In the meantime, while the scientist is doing real work, the theist preaches and glorifies the greatness of the god that cut the furrow. Once the landslide is removed the scientist identifies two thousand three hundred and seventy eight pieces of evidence that point to a large slab of stone rolling through that location following a path that connects up the furrow on both ends.
“See?” he says to the theist.
“See what?” the theist says. He points to a 3 foot gap between evidence #1,536 and #1,537. “You haven’t demonstrated that a boulder rolled through this three foot area.”
The scientist shakes his head while wiping dirt and sweat from his brow. “No, and I’m not going to. I’ve amassed more than enough evidence to demonstrate that a boulder rolled down the entire length of this hill. There is enough evidence on either side of this gap to safely assume that the boulder which caused impact #1,536 also caused scrape #1,537.”
“Your theory has holes in it. How can you accept that?”
“You’re not thinking, sir. The only way to be 100% certain that a boulder rolled down this hill would be to go back in time and watch it happen. That’s clearly impossible. Over time some of the evidence will be destroyed, and therefore gathering all of the evidence after the fact is similarly impossible. Nonetheless I’ve been able to find enough evidence to support that hypothesis.”
“Why should I take your word for it?”
“Oh you shouldn’t. It’s still just a hypothesis. Now I need to publish my findings, those findings will have to be reviewed by other scientists, and they will need to come here and conduct their own experiments to see if I’m right or wrong. They will likely perform other sorts of tests that I haven’t thought of, they may propose alternative hypotheses that will need to be tested, and I will need to stay out of their way and let them work. Only after my findings have been independently reproduced and thoroughly reviewed and confirmed will my hypothesis become a theory.”
“And then it is simply accepted as fact?”
“Oh no, theories can be and are challenged all the time. Over time through scientific advances we come up with new and better ways to test old theories. The best theories will endure the test of time.”
“So when will you know for sure?”
“I don’t understand?”
“When will you be able to say beyond all shadow of any doubt that a giant boulder rolled down this hill?”
“Never. Science doesn’t deal in 100% certainties, only in probabilities. Personally I’m 90% certain a boulder rolled down this hill, science will never be certain. Science may approach 100% certainty, but it can never say ‘for sure’… new information may be found in the future that casts an accepted theory into doubt. That’s why Science is so wonderful, it’s not doctrinal… it’s open to new information.”
“So you admit you can’t prove with 100% certainty that a rolling boulder did this.”
“Yes, of course I admit that.”
“Then I can’t see why you would expect me to believe that. I am 100% certain that God created that furrow.”
“Well what evidence can you provide to support your hypothesis?”
The theist pulls his holy book from his pack, opens it, and begins to read. “Yea and verily, it was upon the morning of the ninth day that The Lord touched the great hill with the tip of his divine finger and scratched a long furrow in it leading to the lake and said. ‘See how I your God have marked this hill. Look upon this mark and remember it is I who …’”
“I’m still waiting for evidence,” the scientist interrupts.
The theist holds up the book. “This is the word of God.”
“That is the word of Freddie Franklin. The fact that he wrote that story to explain the great furrow is interesting from an anthropological perspective, but it doesn’t amount to proof either way. Besides, I can provide evidence that this furrow is 750 years old. Freddie Franklin only lived 300 years ago, so he didn’t see it being formed. Therefore I repeat, where is your evidence?”
The theist flips to another page and begins reading again. “I stood upon the Earth and trembled as God cut the furrow in the soil …”
The scientist interrupts again. “That’s not evidence dammit. You can read that book from end to end and it doesn’t amount to one iota of evidence beyond ’someone said so’.”
“Well where is YOUR evidence?” the theist demands.
“Are you kidding? I just spent two weeks digging up this…”
“No, I know you’ve uncovered a few scattered bits of evidence to support your delusional rolling boulder idea, but where is your evidence that God DIDN’T create this furrow?”
“Why on Earth would I ever try and prove that?”
“What?”
“Science finds conclusions which fit the evidence. You have a conclusion based on no evidence at all. That’s not science, it’s storytelling, and I can’t see why you would expect me to disprove it. I’m not the one making an outrageous claim here. You’re the one who is claiming an invisible supernatural being made this feature. That’s one hefty claim, and you need to prove that it is true.”
“You don’t seek proof of the almighty… that would be blasphemy.”
“I’m not asking you to prove the existence of your supernatural entity of choice, I am asking you to prove that this furrow was created by a supernatural entity. And DON’T start reading from that book again. That’s not evidence.”
“This is all the evidence I have, and it’s the only evidence I need.”
And off the theist goes to his village to profess how Science was unable to disprove that God made the great furrow. Leaving the exhausted and exasperated scientist to shake his head and get back to work discovering the truth.
So it is with evolution my friend. The amount of evidence which has been gathered which supports evolution is overwhelming. It is a truly phenomenal quantity of evidence. It is more than enough evidence to allow one to safely assume that A evolved to B even when there is a gap in the evidence between A and B.
And, as the scientist notes in the above story, gaps in the evidence for evolution do not equal proof of creationism. If someone managed to scientifically disprove evolution as we understand it today, that would not mean that creationism is proven. Creationism would be just as much poppycock then as it is now.
The reason why intelligent design didn’t hold up in court is largely because it is a series of (largely unfounded) challenges to evolution… challenging evolution is not proving creationism. Scientists by and in large understand this.
People who are free from drugs and alcohol? Great! But they did it on their own or with the help of other humans. Yes perhaps someone told them some religious mumbo jumbo, and perhaps they believed and it motivated them to get their shit together, but it was their motivation, and they who got their shit together… not some phantom pooper scooper following them about.
Being an atheist does not equal being a hedonist or a satanist. I am a Humanist Atheist. I and all my atheist friends are highly moral people. We don’t binge drink, take drugs, or have orgies. I don’t know *any* atheists who do.
I married an atheist, and my wife and I are bringing up our daughter in a naturalist way–which is to say, we are not filling her head with supernatural nonsense. We help out at the local school, we give to charities, we pay our taxes, and live in peace with our neighbors.
Because the scientific method doesn’t work that way. YOU are the one making the outrageous claims, not atheists. YOU are the one who has to prove it, and you haven’t done so.
I counter sir, that it is YOU who really needs to look at the evidence, and I suggest you start with something written by someone unaffiliated with a church, so as to get something objective into that head of yours.
Or don’t… it really doesn’t matter to me. If your faith makes you happy, so be it. I’m glad you are happy and find fulfillment in your make-believe. Found a church, found a private school, teach and preach, that’s all fine and dandy. Until you start trying to legislate your faith onto the rest of us. Or legislate your particular brand of twaddle into public schools. Yeah, then it becomes a problem.
Pascal’s Wager means little to atheists, you won’t find any purchase on that tack. Assuming that God exists just in case he does so as to make infinite gains in heaven is not a compelling argument.
The fact that there are scientists who believe in God is likewise irrelevant. Naturalistic belief systems don’t work that way. Even if they did, there are and have been many great thinkers and scientists who did not believe in God, as well (Richard Feynmann, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, to name a few).
I agree with you. Most Christians are not stupid people. I know a number of devout people of various faiths who I count among my friends. I don’t think any of them are idiots.
That doesn’t mean they’re right. But as long as they are happy, I’m happy for them.
An excellent post. I’m adding you to my blog list.
And Abacquer: An excellent story defining the difference between scientific method and faith.
Abacquer: brilliant. Probably the best comment about the “god of the gaps” fallacy, and the difference between theistic and scientific thinking, I’ve ever read.
It is damned good. Really damned good. I’m pleased it came up here. I expect that single rebuttal to find a home in the memetic counterculture — anyone who reads it will be further inoculated against the intellectual virus of the IDiots.
Well done, Abacquer. Thanks for the comment.
Tim, thanks, BTW — you’re in the roll too, along with Abacquer and Pedro. I just love a heady mix of ideas.
That was truly exceptional. I loved the story of the rock. Fantastic mate.
Thanks folks… wow I didn’t expect such a positive response. It’s nice to get a little affirmation. I almost ended up deleting that comment because I felt I was hind-legging a bit to stick a big story on the end of Warren’s article. I’m really glad you liked it.
Warren, would you mind if I linked to this article from my blog? I think my friends would enjoy your article as well.
Abacquer: I can’t speak for Warren, but a link is something positive, like a vote of approval… I don’t think anyone ever minds.
Some people actually pay for incoming links, in fact…
And, yes, you deserve all the praise you get.
RE Abacquer
I just wanted to ask if you wrote that parable about the rock? It is a great way to explain “god of the gaps.”
Yes beepbeep, I composed that just for that comment. If it had come from somewhere else I’d have used an attribution.
Feel free to reuse it if you like.
Link away, Abacquer; I don’t mind at all.
That goes for everyone, BTW; if you hit something here you like, link it up. I don’t limit and I assume attribution in your links. I’m a link whore. I like the hookups.
And for you fundies, if you want to hit against this, you’re welcome to. I try to argue facts. If you think you have facts that counter mine, link away line-for-line if you want. I’ll know when you do; SiteMeter alone tells me much more than you might guess.
Enjoy!
excellent rock story!!thank you. if it’s ok i’m going to post it here and there.. and send it to friends… and.. and.. and.. always link back to you.
This is a stupidly late followup, but in reviewing old pages and seeing if they were worthy of inclusion in my “Worst Of” category, I came across this inane drivel and had to reply from a perspective afresh.
The real KING said:
I have had such a crisis; it happened in 2001, the day before The Tur’rists flew their planes into the WTC.
It was a literal life-threatening crisis, a serious problem that wasn’t ameliorated in a few days. The repercussions dragged on for years, years, and could well have destroyed me.
And in all that time, I didn’t turn to Jesus for help: My problems were very real, not at all supernatural, and could only be dealt with by earthly agents, here on … well, earth.
I find it arrogant and totally unsupportable that you would dare to suggest that I need your god to get me through life; that is clearly, factually false. You are simply wrong, but the saddest part of all of it is that you can’t even see it.