An Index to Creationist Claims

This isn't anything brand-new, but I thought I'd point out this website: An Index to Creationist Claims.

If you've ever talked to Creationists, you'll know that most of them don't even have a fifth-grade level understanding of evolution. Many don't even know what evolution is. I'm no biologist, but that's been obvious even to me.

And you'll hear from these people lots of different arguments for why evolution is wrong. (Oddly enough - or maybe it's not surprising at all - you never seem to hear an argument for why Creationism is true. They seem to think that disproving evolution would magically make their own beliefs valid. Obviously, it doesn't work like that.)

Still, it's rather shocking to see all of the claims of Creationists on the same web page! I didn't realize there were that many of them. Heh, heh. But I love how the website handles these claims.

Click on a particular claim and you'll go to a page that clearly, and succinctly, describes everything you need to know. First, it repeats the claim and gives a source for the claim (just one source; many of these claims can be found all over the internet).

Then it lists one or more brief responses. These really are brief, and I love that. I should learn from this website! (But I know I won't.) Typically, a response seems to be all you need to know in the shortest version possible.

But after that, there are links and/or references for further research, so if you do need to know more, you can find much longer explanations (often scientific reference materials).

I've had this web page bookmarked for some time, but I don't use it much. (As I say, most arguments by Creationists require only a fifth-grade level understanding of evolution to refute.) However, it's a fascinating page to browse.

Take a look. It's really quite interesting, isn't it? I'm impressed!

Well, this will certainly make Deepak Chopra's life a lot easier, huh?

New Age Bullshit Generator

Namaste. Do you want to sell a New Age product and/or service? Tired of coming up with meaningless copy for your starry-eyed customers? Want to join the ranks of bestselling self-help authors? We can help.

Just click and the truth will manifest

Click the Reionize electrons button at the top of the page to generate a full page of New Age poppycock.

It works, too, although I value my readers far too much to inflict the result on you. If you're curious, try it out yourself.

In a blog post, Seb Pearce explains further why he created this:

A while back, I was on a philosophy debate binge. Watching Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens annihilate their opponents with precision and wit is my idea of a good night in [mine, too], and YouTube’s “related videos” are a deep, dark rabbithole.

I stumbled upon two debates involving Deepak Chopra: one alongside possible alien Jean Houston against Sam Harris and Michael Shermer called Does God Have A Future? and one against Richard Dawkins at the Dangerous Ideas festival. I had never seen Chopra speak before, and I was only familiar with his name from cheesy-looking self-help titles. As I watched the debate, his childish behaviour and smugness amazed me. He constantly interrupted and talked over the others, usually to make cheap shots or have the last word instead of making a sound argument. He got weirdly defensive when Harris pointed out that nobody at the debate was qualified to talk about quantum physics — quantum is one of his favourite buzzwords — and boasted that he was the most qualified one there because he’s an MD(!). It’s clear the man isn’t used to being challenged.

The thing that really impressed me, though, was his command of the vocabulary of woo (short for woo-woo for those not in the skeptic scene). This word is a blanket term for pseudoscience, New Age thinking, dubious alternative medicine and other things that reek of the heady fumes of snake oil. ...

As I sat there listening to the debates, I thought to myself, “This all sounds like random sequences of buzzwords. I bet I could write code to generate it.” It seemed like not only a fun side project, but a great way to prove how easy it is to make hogwash that looks compelling. It might help show that it’s the language games and emotions that lure people into this stuff. I started scribbling down any words I could think of that evoked a feeling of bullshit: quantum, growth, matrix, path, potential, flowering…

And thus the New Age Bullshit Generator was born.

He really did do a great job with this. Try it out. This random bullshit generator sounds just like much of the 'real' woo I've heard.

The causes of atheism

I stumbled across this page at Conservapedia on "the causes of atheism," and I just had to post something.

But first, I should warn you that this is one of the most unintentionally hilarious websites on the internet, from the heading ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia") on down. It's easy to get lost in the insanity, following link after link.

Luckily, the website went down soon after I started this post, so I didn't waste too much time there. Of course, that meant I couldn't give examples from other pages this one links to, but it was probably for the best.

Anyway, they list 17 different "reasonable explanations" for the causes of atheism, from hedonism to satanic deception. The top cause, though, is Moral depravity. "Moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism."

Well, I can't argue with that, can I? We atheists are certainly a depraved bunch. Of course, we hide it pretty well, since atheism is positively correlated with societal well-being worldwide. That correlation holds up in America, too, with our Bible Belt states faring poorly in nearly all measures (including teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases).

The second cause of atheism is Hatred towards God,... but can you really hate an imaginary creature? I mean, atheists don't believe that there is a God - any god. That's the definition of atheism, in fact. So, if you really hate God, you can't be an atheist, I'd think.

Certainly, if you've read the Bible, there would be good reason to hate and fear the god depicted there, but only if you believe it. If you don't believe it - and, again, that's the very definition of atheism - then "hatred" doesn't really apply. You could hate Christian beliefs, no doubt, but not the imaginary deity Christians worship.

Third is Atheistic upbringing, although they're quick to say that most people raised in atheist or agnostic households, or where there was no specific religious attachment, later choose to join a religious faith.

That links to this Pew Research study, which found that "Americans [not just atheists and agnostics] change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives."

In this study, Pew Research noted that 21% of Americans were "raised unaffiliated" (i.e. in households not affiliated with a specific church). Please note that those were not necessarily atheist or agnostic households.

Most were almost certainly raised with some sort of belief in the supernatural, and likely in a specifically Christian 'God,' but just not associated with a particular Christian sect. And, certainly, most were surrounded by Christian believers, raised in a society overwhelmingly Christian, where Christianity and Christian pastors of all kinds were widely respected.

But how does Conservapedia's claim hold up, that a majority of the unaffiliated later join a religious faith? Well, check out this chart from that particular study:

(Pew Research)

Apparently, a whopping 44% of Americans do not currently belong to the faith they were raised in (and another 9% changed their faith at some point, but returned to the fold later). Of those, 4% are listed as "raised unaffiliated, now affiliated."

Now, again, these aren't specifically atheists and agnostics, so we don't know how many people raised specifically as atheists later become religious believers. However, in this same study, Pew indicated that 21% of Americans are considered "unaffiliated," so 4% is a lot less than a "majority," wouldn't you say?

Note that Pew also says, "The biggest gains due to change in religious affiliation have been among those who say they are not affiliated with any particular faith,... with the vast majority of this group (79%) reporting that they were raised in a religion as children."

Again, the "unaffiliated" include atheists, but aren't just atheists - or even non-believers of any kind. So it's hard to get a real handle on this. Still, the claim that a major cause of atheism is "atheistic upbringing" seems a little hard to swallow, at least in America.

(Need I point out that Conservapedia has an American flag in their logo? They're not exactly cosmopolitan. Besides, they link to that Pew Study, themselves. That's why I brought it up.)

The fourth cause of atheism is "Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence." Right. Atheists don't actually disbelieve in God. We just make a "deliberate choice" to ignore reality. (Obviously, we could never accuse conservatives of ignoring reality, right?)

If you're unsure about that, they helpfully quote Dinesh D'Souza: "Look at Satan's reason for rebelling against God. It's not that he doesn't recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It's just that he doesn't want to play by anybody else's rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan's motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as Christopher Hitchens."

Well, if Dinesh D'Souza says it, it must be true, huh? We atheists actually do believe in God, but we prefer to burn in Hell for eternity, rather than take an hour out of our week to go to church...

Actually, I have to wonder why you'd serve a bully like that, anyway. The idea that God requires slaves to serve him in Heaven,... well, that doesn't describe anything admirable, does it? Especially if he'll torture people for eternity if they refuse? Of course, that's assuming that atheism really is a "deliberate choice." (Can you fool an omniscient, omnipotent god by pretending to believe?)

I'm not going to list all of their "causes of atheism," but I do have some real favorites. For example, there's "Naiveté/Gullibility: Many atheists have embraced a number of far fetched, unworkable, and errant notions and ideologies" - such as evolution - "despite abundant evidence of their falsity."

Yes, indeed. Evolution has been the foundation of modern biology for more than a hundred years, the bedrock on which scientists have made discovery after discovery, despite "abundant evidence" that it's false, huh? Yeah, accepting the overwhelming consensus of scientists, rather than the stories of primitive goat-herders in the Bible, sure shows "gullibility," doesn't it?

Here's another favorite: "Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts."

That's it. They don't even bother to mention those "facts." They don't bother to make their case at all. Heh,  heh. I think I like this one because it's so much like the arguments I usually hear from Christians. God exists because... well, it's just obvious. Just look around.

Um, just claiming that God exists doesn't make your point. The fact that you believe in a god doesn't prove your case or tell us anything at all, except that it's what you believe. So if atheism really is in "error," maybe some details would help.

There are many other causes listed, including "Self-deception" (without any explanation), "Satanic deception" (which at least provides a link to another Conservapedia page), and "Poor relationship with father" (apparently, your mother is completely inconsequential).

I just stumbled across this, because I don't make a point of reading Conservapedia. Funny as it is, it's just a huge time-waster. I'm actually glad the website crashed today, because I've got lots more important things to do.

Lincoln Atheists

When I was growing up, I didn't know a single other atheist. In fact, as far as I knew, I didn't know a single other person who wasn't a Christian.

I was always a reader, so I knew other non-believers existed. But it wasn't like today, with frequent bestsellers by "new atheists." And, of course, there was no internet.

These days, it's easy to find atheists online. You have your pick of atheist, agnostic, skeptic, or humanist groups online, and you can join as many as you want. I must say that there are real advantages to online communities, too.

But most human beings want more than that. Sometimes, you just want that personal contact, face to face, with people who understand what it's like being an atheist in America. Well, that's becoming easier, too.

Here in Lincoln, Nebraska, for example, we have the Lincoln Atheists, a small group which meets for coffee on Sunday mornings (every other Sunday) and for supper once a month. (I'm a member, though I haven't yet attended any meetings.)

There is also the Lincoln Secular Humanists, though I'm not sure if they're still active. That website doesn't appear to have been updated in a long time. They seemed to be mostly into left-wing politics when I discovered them a few years ago (they even considered me to be hopelessly conservative!).

If  you're still in school, you can check out the Secular Student Alliance. As far as I can tell, there's no affiliated Lincoln group, but there is one at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. And groups seem to be starting at the University of Nebraska at Kearney, Wayne State College, Chadron State  College, and even Crete High School. Gee, what happened to Lincoln?

Well, there are groups, not of atheists, but where you might find compatible people. The Nebraska Citizens for Science is based in Lincoln. And there's R.E.A.S.O.N. - Rationalists, Empiricists and Skeptics of Nebraska - but that's based in Omaha.

Well, it's not much, not yet, but it's a lot better than it used to be. And there's the internet, which tends to suit me just fine. :)

Snopes gets it wrong?

Snopes.com is one of the most useful sites on the internet. Filled with "urban legend reference pages," it's the place you go to check out those emails that get forwarded to everyone in your grandmother's or your crazy uncle's address book - usually, over and over again.

A knowledgeable person never forwards one of those emails without checking Snopes.com first to see if it's actually true. Really, I don't know what we'd do without Snopes.

So I was disappointed to find that, well, maybe they're not perfect. (I can't say they were completely wrong in this, just misleading.)

The latest is, as usual, from an email going around. "Is it true that Congress tried to add Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial but President Obama killed the plan?"

Snopes rates this as true,... but if you read further down the page, you find out that it's actually false. Admittedly, it's a lot closer to being true than most of the emails being passed around about Barack Obama. But that's not saying much, is it?

So, did Congress try to add Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial? No, not exactly. One Congressman did introduce such a bill, and it got through committee in November, but that's all. "Congress" hasn't even voted on it yet.

Did Barack Obama "kill" it? No. As Snopes says, the bill hasn't been passed by Congress, so it hasn't been sent to the President for his signature. And as far as I can tell, President Obama has never said a word about it.

True, Robert Abbey, director of the Bureau of Land Management, testified that his department couldn't support the bill:

The Department cannot support H.R. 2070, which essentially proposes adding another commemorative work to the existing World War II Memorial and as such is contrary to the Commemorative Works Act. We support the continued application of this law which, by prohibiting encroachment by a new commemoration on an existing one, respects the design of this completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new elements.

Abbey was simply explaining that the bill conflicted with an existing law, the Commemorative Works Act. Whatever you think about that, this is hardly Barack Obama "killing" the bill. Indeed, Abbey was testifying in front of a sub-committee of the committee that later passed the bill to the full House. He clearly didn't kill it, either.

So in both respects, it seems to me, that original question is false. How can it possibly be rated "true"? If you read the whole page there, you'll learn the truth, but how many people do that? How many just check Snopes.com for a quick true-or-false answer, not really bothering with the details?

I have to wonder if Snopes is just trying to appease the right-wing, which regularly accuses them of a liberal bias. Well, conservatives claim that about PolitiFact.com, and other independent fact-checking groups, too. And they claim that about scientists. And the media. Let's face it, they make that same claim about everyone who finds that the truth isn't actually what right-wing fanatics claim it is.

This is a minor issue. Snopes.com is still a very useful, very valuable website. And they did explain the full truth, if you read further down the page. But it does show that you have to make an effort, if you really do care about the truth. Even Snopes can be misleading (PolitiFact, too). Stay on your toes. :)

The Orwell Diaries

(Orwell's press card photo, 1933, via Wikipedia)

I hate to publicize a competitor, but did you know that George Orwell has a blog? Here's the start of his post last Thursday:

The French have surrendered. This could be foreseen from last night’s broadcast and in fact should have been foreseeable when they failed to defend Paris, the one place where it might have been possible to stop the German tanks. Strategically all turns on the French fleet, of which there is no news yet…

Considerable excitement today over the French surrender, and people everywhere to be heard discussing it. Usual line, “Thank God we’ve got a navy”. A Scottish private, with medals of the last war, partly drunk, making a patriotic speech in a carriage in the Underground, which the other passengers seemed rather to like. Such a rush on evening papers that I had to make four attempts before getting one.

OK, as you might have guessed, these are actually posts from George Orwell's diary, 70 years ago to the day. That one was originally written June 17, 1940. It's a neat idea, isn't it? Each "blog post" is that day's diary entry. It's as if you were reading about these events in real-time. And, obviously, it's a fascinating period of time.

Many of the "posts" right now concern worries about a possible German invasion of Great Britain. Think we have problems now? That must have been absolutely terrifying. But the British held up under the strain. Indeed, it was perhaps their finest hour. (Winston Churchill's "This was their finest hour" speech was delivered to Parliament the following day, June 18, 1940.)

Here you can follow along and relive those events of 70 years ago with George Orwell.

It is impossible even yet to decide what to do in the case of German conquest of England. The one thing I will not do is to clear out, at any rate not further than Ireland, supposing that to be feasible. If the fleet is intact and it appears that the war is to be continued from America and the Dominions, then one must remain alive if possible, if necessary in the concentration camp. If the U.S.A is going to submit to conquest as well, there is nothing for it but to die fighting, but one must above all die fighting and have the satisfaction of killing somebody else first.

We must remember that it's in times like this that nations either rise to the challenge or falter and fail. Do we live in difficult times? Well, this is nothing like World War II or even the Great Depression. So, can we show even half the courage our ancestors did? Or have we become timid little people, gullible, frightened of shadows, and easily led by demagogues?

We've certainly failed to show much courage or common sense so far, in the first decade of the 21st Century. Can we recover our nerve now? I guess we'll see. Given the current teabagger lunacy, the anti-immigrant hysteria, the "birther" idiocy - and, just basically, Fox "News" making money hand over fist - I can't say that I'm optimistic. But I hope I'm wrong.

Republicans, meet the 21st Century

Yesterday, I wondered why Republicans have failed to offer any ideas of their own. Is it because all of their ideas had been thoroughly discredited during the Bush years? Or is it just because their ideas are too loony to stand the light of day?

Well, apparently the GOP has a glorious new plan to fix all that. They've set up a new website to collect ideas from the public. Unfortunately, Republicans don't seem to know the public all that well. According to this column in The Washington Post (registration required, though it's free), many of the suggestions offered so far are "pretty far out."

"End Child Labor Laws," suggests one helpful participant. "We coddle children too much. They need to spend their youth in the factories."

"How about if Congress actually do thier job and VET or Usurper in Chief, Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen in any way," recommends another. "That fake so called birth certificate is useless."

"A 'teacher' told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!" a third complains. "And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story."

To me, the really funny thing is that it's hard to tell which suggestions are meant seriously and which are sarcastic jokes. After all, if you listen to tea-baggers, you have to wonder if some of those people are just putting us on. Are they really that crazy, or are they just pretending to be crazy in order to pull off some elaborate prank? It's really hard to tell.

"Build a castle-style wall along the border, there is plenty of stone laying around about there." That was in the "national security" section of the new site.

"Legalize Marijuana, cause, like, alcohol is legal. Man. Also." That was in the "traditional values" section.

"I say, repeal all the amendments to the Constitution." ("American prosperity" section.)

"Don't let the illegals run out of Arizona and hide. . . . I think that we should do something to identify them in case they try to come back over. Like maybe tattoo a big scarlet 'I' on their chests -- for 'illegal'!!!" (Filed under "job creation.")

The GOP using the Internet always seems bizarre, anyway. How can you effectively use 21st Century technology when it's the 13th Century you yearn for? Isn't a certain amount of cognitive dissonance inevitable?

Obviously, anyone would expect a certain number of prank postings. There were certainly plenty on Barack Obama websites. But it's far worse for Republicans, because their real supporters are at least as likely to post crazy stuff as any amateur humorist.

Can you really tell which of these were meant seriously and which were not? OK, some of them, yes. But certainly not all, maybe not even most. And what happens if the GOP dismisses some seriously meant lunacy from the tea-baggers? After all, you really can't be too extreme for the right-wing these days. Moderation is fatal.

When you can't tell your own supporters from gag posters, I'd say that means you need some new supporters. But maybe that's just me.

"Let kids vote!" recommended one. "Let's make a 'Social Security Lotto,' " proposed another. "What dope came up with the idea of criminalizing a parent's right to administer corporal punishment?" a third demanded.

Some contributors demanded action to uncover conspiracies involving the 9/11 attacks and the "NEW WORLD ORDER." One forward thinker recommended that we "build the city of the future somewhere in a non-inhabit part of the United States, preferably the desert."

Some of the uglier forces of the Internet found their way to the House Republican site. "I oppose the Hispanicization of America," said one. "These are not patriotic people." Another contributor had parody in mind (we hope): "English is are official langauge. Anybody who ain't speak it the RIGHT way should kicked out."

But Republicans might want to take a hard look at the suggestion that "we need to reframe the discussion" about the BP oil spill to counteract the "environmental whackos" worried about wildlife. Republicans, this person proposed, should argue that "BP is creating a new race of faster dolphins. These fish are unable to compete against the fish of other countries, but now their increased lubrication will allow them to fly through the water. Faster fish = good."

Ask a Biologist

At the Ask a Biologist website, anyone can ask questions which will be answered by professional scientists. Yes, it's aimed at school kids, but it's open to everyone (and given the embarrassingly low level of knowledge of the biological sciences, at least in America, that's a very good thing).

It's also a fascinating site to browse, since the questions and answers are posted online. Check out the "Popular Questions," or just click on "Browse Answers."

This website is based in Great Britain, but that's the neat thing about science - it's universal. Unlike religion, the answers don't change depending on geographical location. Science is science.

Not Exactly Rocket Science

Congratulations to Ed Yong, author of one of my favorite blogs, for winning three Research Blogging Awards this year. Not Exactly Rocket Science was named the Research Blog of the Year and Best Lay-Level Blog (er, apparently that means layman-level). And his post on duck sex was named the Best Post of the Year.

In further news, Not Exactly Rocket Science has moved from ScienceBlogs to Discover Blogs.

For any newcomers, here’s an introduction. Formally, Not Exactly Rocket Science is a science news site; informally, it’s a bit like an excitable child jumping up and down and pointing to things, but with more syntax. This is my attempt to portray science as the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky field that it is, to as many people as possible. You shouldn’t need a science degree to be able to dive into the stream of new discoveries, and on this blog, you won’t need one.

He really does do a great job in portraying the wonder of science. His posts are always fascinating.