From SMBC (via Friendly Atheist):
So, so perfect.
I love xkcd
xkcd is such a great web comic, not just for the humor, but for the insights. It’s also wonderfully techie and appeals to the geek part of me.
Today’s comic is one of the funny and insightful ones (reproduced with the original title text for your hovering enjoyment).
What I love about it is the mocking of the idea that the truth is always somewhere in the middle of two opposing positions. It’s not. Sometimes, one side is right and the other is just wrong.
Flat Earth versus spherical Earth… faked moon landing versus actual moon landing… evolution versus creationism… germ theory versus spontaneous generation… etc. There are myriads of examples of issues where the truth does not lie somewhere in the middle.
Of special interest to me, of course, is the evolution versus creationism issue… where creationism and intelligent design have no basis in scientific fact while evolution holds all the evidential cards. Saying something like, “Evolution happens, but man is God’s special creation and was made in his present form” is not only incorrect, but there’s no valid reason to even suggest it. Some might say it fills a spiritual need in people. Perhaps that’s true, but so do many other things… like pizza.
I don’t mean to be smarmy (much), but the issue is that people fill their lives with meaning in thousands of different ways, some mundane and some grandiose. Isn’t it better to create meaning and purpose in your life based on something that is real? Family and friends come instantly to mind and I can say that they provide a huge amount of purpose in my life. Charity, kindness, curiosity, nature, and many other things (Yes. Pizza, too) all bring some meaning and purpose to my life. Why would I need to add something make-believe to all the joy and wonder that already exists in the real world?
I have plenty of meaning and purpose now… without a compromise.
Mississippi targeted by creationists
Mississippi can now lay claim to hosting the first anti-evolution bill of 2010, according to the National Center for Science Education. Gary Chism (R-District 37), who last year introduced a bill that would have required biology textbooks to include a classic creationist disclaimer about evolution, has sponsored this new bill, HB 586.
From the NCSE article:
[The bill] would, if enacted, require local school boards to include a lesson on human evolution at the beginning of their high school biology classes. The catch: "The lesson provided to students … shall have proportionately equal instruction from educational materials that present scientifically sound arguments by protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution."
Chism seems to be a classic creationist… meaning that he has no business poking his nose into the science education of our children. This is from the NCSE article referring to his 2009 bill…
Speaking to the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (January 24, 2009), Chism was candid about his motivations for the bill [HB 25 from 2009], explaining, "Either you believe in the Genesis story, or you believe that a fish walked on the ground," and adding, "All these molecules didn’t come into existence by themselves." HB 25 died in committee on February 3, 2009.
Chism is obviously ignorant about evolution.
The (sort of) bright side is that the newly proposed bill also says…
The lesson provided to students shall not evidence bias through selective instruction on the theory of evolution, but rather, shall have proportionately equal instruction from educational materials that present scientifically sound arguments by protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution.
I’m amused by the phrase "selective instruction," but the good part is the phrase "educational materials that present scientifically sound arguments." As anyone who’s honestly studied evolution knows, there are no scientifically sound arguments against evolution… so Mississippi could be safe. I doubt Chism sees it that way, however, so perhaps we should still be worried.
Let’s hope HB 586 suffers the same fate as HB 25.
(via)
Pat Robertson Voodoo Doll on eBay
Pat Robertson, as you probably already know, decided to rant about Haiti making a deal with the devil to get free of the French which, according to Robertson, is why Haiti has such problems… like earthquakes.
Nevermind that Haiti didn’t make a deal with the devil (or that the devil doesn’t exist) or that devil-deals are supposed to make things awesome (until you die) or that the cause of earthquakes is pretty well known or that thousands of people have died and thousands more are injured and at serious risk of dying… Robertson decided to take the opportunity to peddle his nonsensical, self-righteous bigotry instead of doing something to help those in need.
Well, johnnyvoodoo on eBay has decided to take matters into his own hands and is auctioning a Pat Robertson Voodoo Doll with 100% of the proceeds going to Doctors Without Borders to help with relief efforts in Haiti.
After an exclusive deal with devil, we are finally able to bring black magic into your very own home! The lucky winner of this auction will attain the soul of Televangelist PAT ROBERTSON in a handheld figurine comprised of the finest straw, cloth, and other organic natural materials!
Ever wanted to cause Pat Robertson a massive headache? give him back pain? jab him in the crotch?  Of course you have! Well then BID NOW to own your very own pysical representation of the dark, dark soul of Pat Robertson.
Accessories included with the doll are Pat’s very own “HOLY” BIBLE and BAG OF MONEY taken from real Americans! WOW!
The bidding started at 99 cents and, at the time of this writing, was up to $1,200… with 73 bids! (see updates)The idea is awsome, but as johnnyvoodoo says, “the truly awesome people are the bidders.”
In addition, there’s evidently been enough requests that he’s also offering a Rush Limbaugh Voodoo Doll which includes a microphone and a bottle of Oxycontin. The high bid is currently $338.33 with 29 bids.
Each auction is a perfect combination of fundraising, humor, and (well deserved) smackdown!
(via)
Update (1/19/10 @ 11:00am): It seems the Pat Robertson auction has been removed. The Rush Limbaugh auction is still up. I sent a message to johnnyvoodoo asking what happened. I’ll post here if I get an answer. I’m very disappointed.
Update (1/19/10 @ 12:30pm): johnnyvoodoo said that the Red Cross had asked for the auction to be removed… I assume so it wasn’t associated with the dissing of Pat Robertson… so the new auction is to benefit Habitat for Humanity. New auction here. Links have been updated. Sadly, the auction had to be restarted.
Update (1/19/10 @ 9:30pm): Evidently, the new listing was taken down as well because it offered something for sale that didn’t exist. I think it was Pat Robertson’s soul or something, the existence of which johnnyvoodoo admitted he could not prove. So it’s been relisted at this URL. Sadly, again the auction had to be restarted and is without the funny commentary in the description. It also now benefits Doctors Without Borders. The Rush Limbaugh voodoo doll auction has also been removed. eBay has made me sad. That was quite a bit of money that was going to go for charity.
Update (1/20/10 @ 1:40pm): The Rush Limbaugh doll has been relisted. johnnyvoodoo is a hero for perservering through all the item removals and eBay policy issues.
Dr. Oz is promoting woo
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a long time guest on Oprah, used to be lauded as being one of the few guests on her show that dispensed practical, real medical advice. However, it seems that lately, he’s given in (at least somewhat) to the woo side of things. Orac, over at Respectful Insolence gives a rundown of some recent offenses, but the main point he makes is that Dr. Oz has recommended reiki as a valid medical treatment (Dr. Oz is also making some vaguely anti-vaxx statements, too).
Reiki is a type of “energy healing” or, as Orac puts it…
As I’ve pointed out before, reiki is nothing more than faith healing using Eastern mysticism rather than Christianity as its base, and the “demonstration” on Dr. Oz’s show really is more akin to the sorts of demonstrations at a Benny Hinn or Peter Popoff revival
I first heard about reiki around eighteen years ago from an audio program by Wayne Dyer (Real Magic: Creating Miracles in Everyday Life… I know. I’m ashamed) and it seemed pretty fishy, especially given his description of it (flashing lights, shocking hands, cuts magically healing, etc). Scientifically, there’s no evidence that it works for… well… anything, except perhaps lining the pockets of “reiki masters” with money.
So here’s a clip of the reiki demonstration on Dr. Oz’s show.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPj2uuiReds
The first thing that should raise a red flag when it comes to an explanation of “alternative medicine” treatments is deliberate vagueness. Here’s what Pamela Miles, the “reiki master” says in way of explanation.
Reiki is a balancing practice and so, rather than addressing the headache or whatever else is the problem, what it does is it influences the person’s overall system toward balance and then, as her system becomes more balanced, symptoms tend to fall away. Then, over time for example, if you get headaches, you know, you may find that you get them less frequently.
Now that is some world class vagueness. She admits to not addressing the actual problem, but only “influencing” the person’s “overall system toward balance.” I’d bet that even she doesn’t know what the heck that means.
So then the conversation continues with Dr. Oz asking, “Do you feel anything, Dalita?” (the woman getting “treated”).
She replies, “Oh, yes. My headache’s going away.”
Oz says, “Your headache’s going away. Do you feel any heat?”
“Yes.”
Break out the reiki fireworks, it’s a miracle!
The really sad part is that Dr. Oz’s recommendation will mean that people will go out and possibly try reiki rather than going to an actual doctor. In many cases, no harm will be done. I’m sure that Dalita would survive her headache without any kind of treatment. But there will be others, and this is where Oprah abdicates her responsibilities, who will take what Dr. Oz says as valid medical advice, seeking out a reiki master to treat them… and the only symptom that will be relieved is a heavy wallet.
Dr. Oz should be ashamed.
Stephen Baldwin vs. Richard Dawkins?
Hemant Mehta, at The Friendly Atheist, linked to a video showing Stephen Baldwin commenting on evolution during Celebrity Big Brother 2010 UK… and an explanation by Richard Dawkins showing why Baldwin’s comments are ignorant bunk.
Here’s the video:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c
And here’s the money quote from Hemant:
It’s both funny and sad when you realize the person who is the most ignorant about evolution is the person who appears to be the most confident in his knowledge of it.
I find that to be true for a number of other scientific issues as well.
(credit to Atheist Media Blog for the original find)
Fun with church signs
A local church recently changed its sign to read:
Begin to weave and God will provide you with the thread.
I’ve heard a similar statement made by Christians trying to "convert" those of different religious persuasions, but it goes something like, "Just have faith in Jesus and He will show Himself to you." This isn’t something that is used only by fundamentalists or TV evangelists. I’ve heard it from far more moderate sects.
The problem, of course, is that it’s a "cart before the horse" sort of thing. The request is for someone to reach a conclusion before seeing any evidence… just have faith in Jesus (the conclusion) and He will show Himself to you (the evidence).
Faith, of course, in a religious context, is belief that is not based on evidence, so the evidence is something that is somewhat irrelevant here, not just because you’re supposed to get to the conclusion without it, but also because, in this case, it’s non-existent (before or after your application of faith). Jesus doesn’t appear and play a game of Frisbee with people and visions, hearing voices, and Jesus pareidolia don’t really qualify as "appearing."
Requesting evidence for religious claims is something that, for some reason, tends to offend a lot of fundamentalists. Not all of them, of course, but enough that it makes them seem a bit disingenuous. If someone makes a claim (Jesus was born of a virgin… Jesus performed miracles… Jesus rose from the dead… Jesus is God… God is real) without providing supporting evidence, he has no justification for being upset that his claims are dismissed. This, in general, is a huge failure of theists (of any denomination) and is, perhaps, the reason that "faith" is placed in a position of such high regard.
With no evidence to back them up, all they have is faith.
Vatican Gives Avatar Poor Review
I just read an Associated Press article written by Alessandra Rizzo. It was comical and in my opinion partially true at the same time. Here’s the first paragraph of the article:
The Vatican newspaper and radio station have called the film “Avatar” simplistic, and criticized it for flirting with modern doctrines that promote the worship of nature as a substitute for religion.
Okay, first of all I agree it is simplistic. I saw the movie and like most people I was impressed with it graphically but it wasn’t a great movie. It was good but not great. It was by no means original. One friend of mine compared it to Dances 
With Wolves only in space. Okay so much for me agreeing with the Vatican. Apparently the Vatican now sees a threat in a movie that promotes the fictitious worship of a fictitious tree by a fictitious people on a fictitious planet. I find it ironic that a group who believes the story that God’s only son was born of a virgin, died, came back to life three days later and erased all of our sins, takes issue with this movie.
…the film “gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature.” Similarly, Vatican Radio said it “cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium.”
If there were an award for clever winking it would go to the Vatican. You know things like sexual abuse scandals, acts of omission and commission during World War II and the early Catholic involvement in Rwanda; in particular the church’s support for the former president. Of course these are just the tip of the iceberg.
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that while the movie reviews are just that — film criticism, with no theological weight — they do reflect Pope Benedict XVI’s views on the dangers of turning nature into a “new divinity.”
I found this paragraph to be particularly funny. They’re concerned about a “new divinity”. Sounds like they’re scared of competition.
There is not a whole lot more to say about this article. It had all the silly, superstitious, medieval thinking you can expect to find from the Catholic Church.
They did have one thing right, the movie was simplistic.
Monarch Butterflies and creationism
I almost had a confrontation with someone I believe is a creationist today, but I refrained.
I was at the Pennsylvania Farm Show with my daughter and while we were walking through the exhibits, I heard a voice talking about monarch butterflies over a PA system. What I heard was interesting and I finally located the person behind the voice… an elderly gentleman with a white beard seated on a chair in front of one of the stages. He had a small audience of maybe ten people.
My daughter and I were headed a different direction to see other things, so I didn’t pay him much attention, but I did hear him talk about how Monarch Butterfly caterpillars eat the milkweed plant… and only the milkweed plant… that without it, they would starve.
He was just passing out of my attention sphere when I heard (something like), “If there are any evolutionists in the crowd, I’d like to hear an explanation about how the milkweed plant just happened to evolve right where the butterflies are. It doesn’t make much sense and doesn’t seem very likely.”
I froze. Oh, that seemed like a challenge… and a rather simple one at that. I looked back at him. He didn’t really wait for an answer, but went on talking about butterflies again, so perhaps he meant it as a rhetorical question… just a snarky aside that really didn’t have anything to do with his topic, but everything to do with his religious views (and his ignorance). I weighed my options, decided not to interrupt, and then laughed in his direction before continuing on with my daughter to other exhibits.
It bothered me to not respond, but I wasn’t in his audience and the presentation really was about butterflies, not evolution. In addition, my daughter and I were headed a different direction to find other things, so it would have been an interruption of our plans as well. But not responding was letting ignorance go unchallenged and letting it spread to others. I think that’s why it continued to bother me and has me mildly disappointed in myself.
It’s rare for me to encounter that type of behavior in person. I read about it happening a lot and hear stories of it happening, but when it happens to me, I’m always a bit stunned… like a deer in the headlights.
I think I need more practice.
Steven Newton on Science Denialism
Over at EvolutionBlog, Jason Rosenhouse links to an editorial by Steven Newton, a project director for the National Center for Science Education. The editorial is posted on Huffington Post, which, as Rosenhouse points out, is "not usually the go-to place for intelligent commentary on scientific issues," but in this case, Steven Newton represents the NCSE and does it quite well.
Some excerpts:
From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists–those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself.
[…]
Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing. Sometimes progress is slow. But through a difficult and often frustrating process, we learn more about the world.
Science denialism works differently. Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by mountains of climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence, focusing instead on a few hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man, or a few stolen e-mails. For denialists, opinion polls and talk radio are more important than thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.
[…]
Understanding science has never been more important than it is today. Critical issues such as climate change and the threat of newly evolved flu strains demand greater scientific literacy among the public and politicians. As long as scientists must squander their time defending their work from denialism, we will fall behind on our fundamental responsibilities.
Check out the full piece. Newton makes some great points about denialism, things I’ve seen happen over and over. What makes it increasingly frustrating is that the denialists themselves can’t recognize what they’re doing. They think they’re actually being scientific. They think they’re rational. They think they have actual damning evidence.
They’re not, they aren’t, and they don’t.