This morning on the bus, I barely missed suffering a panic attack very much like a feeling of physical confinement, the walls closing in. But it was not caused by a literal constriction of space. It was the surrounding pressure of self-absorption and stupidity oozing from the people around me. It’s like suffocation, like a sense that being so surrounded is cutting off the flow of breathable air. It continues at work, as it continues at home. It’s no joke when I proclaim that I do not play well with others. Because the experience of “others” very much resembles being smothered, being buried alive.
Archive for the 'Creationism' Category
“Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place,” wingnut Ben Stein told the wingnut Trinity Broadcasting Network, “and science leads you to killing people.”
Over at a blog called “Terrance this is stupid stuff”, they demonstrate that what they mean by the “stupid stuff” is the stuff they themselves post. In this case, unthinkingly touting Ben Stein’s pro-creationism not-umentary without regard to the various and many problems with the film, all of which already have been exhaustively documented.
It isn’t just the meaning of the word “theory” which Creationists get wrong, viewing it merely as a synonym for “opinion”. They also are confused about the meaning of the word “proof”, which for them merely is a synonym for “belief”.
… [T]here are many powerful examples of scientific evidences that are inconsistent with an old earth, such as C-14 in diamonds. But the proof that the earth is young is that this is the clear teaching of the Bible, which cannot be wrong since any alternative leads to irrationality.
Don’t bother to actually read the linked item. It’s entirely dependent upon the same tortured illogic they use all the time over there, wherein (as I wrote before) “because the laws of logic necessarily come from God, atheists and their materialistic worldview can’t make use of logic without automatically admitting that God exists”.
This is a very strange story in some ways. It seems that until this week, the term “evolution” was not used in biology classrooms in the state of Florida, although teaching about biological “changes” was permitted. In the debate over potential new standards, the Board of Education ended up adopting a “compromise” position: “Evolution” must be referred to as the “scientific theory of evolution”.
It was considered a compromise because that so-called “academic freedom” amendment was proposed by the righteous wing. The reason the proposal would come from them is explained pretty clearly by Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association.
My only concern is that ‘theory’ might be used as a wedge to start teaching controversy where there is no controversy.
The use of the term “wedge” there surely is no accident. It’s likely a direct reference to the so-called wedge strategy used by proponents of Intelligent Design.
So, on the one hand, “evolution” can be uttered and explained in Florida biology classrooms. On the other hand, apparently until now it couldn’t be, despite it being the early twenty-first century. On still another hand, it must be called the “scientific theory of evolution” because the righteous wing thinks “theory” is a synonym for “opinion”.
The joyous part of their compromise proposal, however, is that it has every potential to backfire on them.
Not only will Florida’s students learn about evolution; they’ll also learn that the scientific definition of a theory is different from the everyday definition, referring not to wild-eyed speculation but to a vast body of observation and testing that confirms a hypothesis so strongly that it might as well be considered fact.
By insisting that any reference to “evolution” be couched as the “scientific theory of evolution” because they think that “theory” simply means “opinion”, the righteous wing has managed to inject into biology classrooms the opportunity to explain to students that in science this, in fact, is not what the term means at all.
For the life of me, I cannot find a single independent report of this anywhere online, and it’s driving me batshit.
It seems that Ken Ham of the infamous Answers in Genesis (which I first encountered thanks to Kris Helphinstine using some of its Creationist literature in an Oregon public school) asserts that founding board member Carl Kerby delivered a “Creation message” to 2,000 assembled Marine recruits in San Diego back on February 3.
Answers in Genesis, according to Ham, has been receiving words of thanks such as the one from which he quotes, in which the father of one Marine recruit says that his son “was greatly motivated by Mr. Kerby’s message”.
Without any other reports, it’s difficult to tell just what occurred. Why was Kerby giving an address at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego? Was it really an overt “Creation message”, or just a more subdued religious one that Ham is trying to spin as a propaganda success for Answers in Genesis?
It’s too much to hope, I suppose, that someone out there reading this just happens to know a Marine recruit who was in attendance, and who therefore could clear up the confusion once and for all.
Please tell me that someone will be attending the Answers in Genesis Conference next weekend across the river in Vancouver.
Following up on reading Matthew Chapman’s 40 Days and 40 Nights, I’ve now started in on Edward Humes’ Monkey Girl, another of the three books out there about the Dover Panda Trial. There’s one passage in particular in the first section (in which Humes sets some of the national context for the dispute) worth sharing here.
Not too long ago, I missed an opportunity to appear on a BBC discussion on atheism — although I’m more properly described as an agnostic, since I find atheism to be as baffling a faith-based belief as any religion. I mention this now mainly because a blog post by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis infamy gives me the opportunity to do so.
There is a painfully laughable article from Answers Magazine — filed under “Semi-technical” of all things — which includes that statement about toes and logic. In essence, their “argument” is that because the laws of logic necessarily come from God, atheists and their materialistic worldview can’t make use of logic without automatically admitting that God exists. It will make your brain run screaming from the room, it’s so unfathomably nonsensical and confused. “Laws of logic require the existence of God — and not just any god, but the Christian God,” they write. They are laying claim to ownership of the laws of logic, and yet themselves are incapable of actually making use of those laws.