Furor over Stupidity

It's high time that scientists and the educated organize against attempts by the dogmatically ignorant to undermine education in America. AiG's deceptive junk-tank monument to stupidity, aka the Creation Museum, has squandered $27 million in order to promote their LIES against scientific fact.

YECs appear not to be a particularly bright group, so it seems unlikely that many budding geniuses are being misled into ignorance. However, this is no reason not to decry the damage done to average children by causing deliberate confusion about science and reality.

The Founding Fathers were wise to separate Religion and the State, though not necessarily for prescient reasons. Whether or not they foresaw the likelihood that organized stupidity would attempt to undermine education, the Constitution should be used to protect education from superstition and ignorance. The mere fact of "scientists'" having signed a document against Darwinism demonstrates the desecration of science, critical thinking, and logic wrought by religious dogmatists. Polls indicate that far too high a percentage of Americans are so ignorant of the facts on which scientific theories are based that they hold a strict creationist view of origins.

Modern politicians, concerned more for their political ambitions than for truth, are all too aware of the vocal agitators who sway religious dogmatists on voting day, so they abrogate their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. To make matters worse, the most stupid president ever not-to-actually-be-elected resorts to claims of communication with God. It's intriguing to ponder how America came to be a nation that largely reviles knowledge while protecting organized stupidity. America has not come very far since 1925!

Statement of Concern
"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."

National Center for Science Education petition: http://www.sciohost.org/states

"One of the petitions, started by the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a Washington, D.C., group that focuses on church and state issues, says the museum is part of a "campaign by the religious right to inject creationist teachings into science education."'

Campaign to Defend the Constitution: http://www.defconamerica.org/

Elsewhere: Gallup Poll on Evolution, which reveals that the overwhelming majority of religious fundamentalists are ignorant of the fact of biological evolution : comment on Pharyngula : Religion—our maelstrom of ignorance: "Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse."

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Myths Revered and Myths Exposed

Two very different museum exhibits have hit the news recently (5/26/07).

First the bad news: "Creation Museum juxtaposes dinosaurs, Noah's Ark"
This monument to stupidity in Petersburg, Kentucky was erected under the direction of Ken Ham. He's the expatriate Queenslander who founded the oxymoronically-titled Answers in Genesis ministry. Ham's "non-profit" organization came up with $27 million to build a 60,000-square-foot museum devoted to biblical literacy and creation mythology.

Says Ham, "The Bible doesn't talk about fossils, but it gives you a basis for understanding why there are fossils around the world."

Understanding? Ham is not interested in understanding, Ham is interested in promoting nonsensical insistence that Genesis is not allegorical. Of course the Bible doesn't mention fossils – the ancient tribesmen of Israel who invented the Genesis-creation-myth knew nothing of fossils.

"Christians across this nation see this place as a rallying point," Ham said. They "recognize that we live in a culture that no longer believes the Bible is true."

Misleading! Only some Christians are so deluded that they believe that the Bible is literal, though I suppose that religious dogmatists are spread across America. The museum is actually a rallying point only for those Christians who are so ignorant as to insist upon Special Creation. The only good news is Ham's admission that most of the "culture" no longer takes the Bible literally.

Ham said the museum received three gifts topping $1 million, which only goes to demonstrate that the deluded may become rich. On the other hand, perhaps chimpanzees have funded this inanity in order to divorce themselves from the deluded amongst their cousins.

Ham has filled the museum not with dioramas but with lie-oramas, displays that lie about paleontology. The dinosaurs disappeared some 65 million years ago, when the only evidence of mammalian ancestors comprised tiny insectivores. Hominids did not evolve until the Miocene.

Why dinosaurs in such an exhibit? Children love dinosaurs, and if you wish to inculcate creation myths into another generation you must con the kiddies.

To demonstrate that two can play at the game of deceptive imagery, I have created the Ham-headed-dinosaur to illustrate "Different Views of Dinosaurs".

Some good news is that Ham's lie-oramas have excited well-deserved criticism and that protests are planned.

The other exhibit deals with the phenomenon of myth building in a realistic way:
Dragons and other mythic creatures featured in NYC museum exhibit

"What's going on? Has one of the pre-eminent science museums in the world made a find that would show these creatures are real? No, no, the exhibit actually looks at how people have come up with all kinds of myths and stories to account for things they didn't understand.

The exhibit shows how cultures around the world came up with such strange, mysterious creatures. Dragons, for instance, can be found both in the East and West, although they're considerably more benevolent in Chinese culture than they are in Europe. "

That's more like it – display that consititutes an acknowledment that ignorance promoted fantasy.

More mutterings about the stupidity that is creationism:
ɷ Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance
ɷ un-designed intelligences
ɷ Judge Jones Rules
ɷ The Wedge Document

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

un-designed intelligences

In my opinion, the concept quoted below warrants lower case and reaction to the concept ought to evoke UPPER case refutations.

"Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?"

So far, so good. This is the whole point of scientific investigation as embodied in numerous branches of empirical and experimental investigation. The trouble is that the writer is not really interested in learning where we come from, rather he or she is interested only in promulgating an older-than- two-thousand-years creation myth.

Of course, the above quote would not have evoked mimbling if subsequent statements were not contradictory:
"We promote the scientific evidence of 'intelligent [sick] design' because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality."

There is no scientific evidence that points directly and incontrovertibly to the operation of an "intelligence" behind the evolution of biological complexity. Creationists choose to interpret the physical evidence as sign of the operation of a deity, just as the creators of other creation myths have done.

However, mainstream science involves not merely collection of data, it also demands that acceptable inferences be made from the data toward expert-scrutinized scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws that reasonably explain physical mechanisms. Most creationists appear to be ignorant of the content and the process of science. Merely discussing science, as I am here, does not constitute science.

Science, by definition, can only investigate the physical, and scientists can only speculate about the natural world in light of physical principles. The purpose of science is the elucidation of mechanisms that operate in the physical world, so legitimate science speculates neither on the supernatural nor on the existence or nonexistence of purported deities.

This said, unbiased, scientific understanding objectively points away from the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer toward mechanisms that select blindly for inherently successful mechanisms. If this were not the case, Christian literalists would not attack scientific understanding of the origins of life and the evolution of biological complexity, instead they would espouse mainstream science.

Further, "neutrality" behooves a lack of bias, a lack of ulterior motive or hidden agenda. No matter what their duplicitious protestations may be, those who promote the concept of "intelligent" design do have an agenda that is unrelated to scientific objectivity – they wish to promote creationism and their right-wing social agenda by pushing thinly disguised religion into the science classroom. It is a credit to many American parents, educators, and judges that the invidious inroads of ‘intelligent [sick] design' propagandists are being overthrown.

It has been my unhappy observation that few people know more than a smattering of scientific facts and even fewer understand scientific principles. However, many reasonable thinking Christians are not so closed-minded as to deny the expertise of scientists in order to protect their emotional need for a belief in a deity. Recognition of biological evolution does not preclude personal religious belief. Religionists, however, exhibit not only different sectarian beliefs they also exhibit different degrees of obtuseness.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Omnia In Ventor

Life is full of interesting discoveries, so this blog will be a repository for sundry tidbits.

Life is also replete with irritants, so this blog will be a release valve, which could evolve (hint, hint) to be deliberately noisome to creationists and religious dogmatists, not to mention Regressive Conservatives and Republicans.


Latest Quiz – the image at left has been color-altered – what does it depict?

So, with tongue planted firmly in cheek . . .
ɷ The Etymology of Mimble Wimble
ɷ Dastardly Stubborn Mean IV Revised
ɷ Do Canadians hate Americans?
ɷ Do Americans hate Canadians?
ɷ The Bathing Suit

With interest . . .
ɷ Topical Oinkment
ɷ Karyoti
ɷ Through the Microscope Brightly
ɷ Explore Virtual Caves
ɷ Galleria
ɷ In God, Distrust
ɷ Aboriginal Rock Art
ɷ We, the Products of Blind Evolution

It is with great irritation that we bring to you . . .
ɷ Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance
ɷ Myths Revered and Myths Exposed
ɷ un-designed intelligences = intelligent [sick] design
ɷ All Concepts are NOT created Equal
ɷ Black Sheep are Sheep Too
ɷ Silly Ideas
ɷ Free Speech or Propaganda of Hate?
ɷ hate tanks
ɷ Should One Call One's Ex a Dog?
ɷ The Wedge Document

With relief . . .
ɷ Judge Jones Rules

Quo Vadis?

Roll-over images for a snap preview of link destination (snap is a cool widget/web search tool that I stumbled across on someone's website.)

...section index...

Bible Bumping

Bible Thumping combined with Bible Bashing ... get it? Corny, corny, corny.

The Bible is filled with internal consistencies that are critiqued on other sites. It is the position of the authors that the Bible is an allegory with minimal historical accuracy. It cannot be the word of God, since it is the only "evidence" for the existence of a God for which their is no incontrovertible evidence.

All opinions expressed here are those of the authors – all Devout Atheists.

ɷ In God, Distrust
ɷ Agnostic vs Atheist
ɷ Agnosticism is NOT more rational than Atheism
ɷ Apologists make Apologies for God
ɷ Besottism
ɷ Canadians Can be Stupid Too
ɷ Dei Non Existent
ɷ Dawkins refutes Behe
ɷ Furor over Stupidity
ɷ Inverse Correlations
ɷ Moral Absolutism
ɷ One Evolution, Many Creationisms
ɷ Spirituality, Religiosity, and Madness
ɷ Statistics on Stupidity
ɷ un-designed intelligences = intelligent [sick] design
ɷ YEC yack

Silly religiously-motivated ideas:
ɷ Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance
ɷ Myths Revered and Myths Exposed
ɷ Judge Jones Rules
ɷ The Wedge Document

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Moral Absolutism

America's prisons are full of convicted criminals. Correct? Convicted criminals have almost all committed acts that society has deemed illegal because those acts are undesirable. Correct?

Could any sensible person imagine that no incarcerated individual in America believes in God? Of course not. Are all atheists in America convicted of criminal activity? Of course not.

If those who commit crimes believe in God, can we assume that religious belief is a guarantee that the believer will not commit a crime? Of course not, because the evidence indicates otherwise.

Are all acts that society considers immoral punishable by incarceration? Of course not. When was an adulterer last jailed in the West purely for having sexual relations with another consenting adult? I don't have the date, but it would have been some time ago.

Are all atheists/agnostics/non-Christians in America responsible for all the immoral behaviour that occurs? Of course not.

If even a single fundamentalist Christian commits an acts that society, by current consensus, deems either immoral or criminal, then the contention of religious dogmatists that the Bible dictates absolute moral truths and that fundamentalist religious belief is the guarantee of moral behaviour, then religious dogmatists are grossly mistaken.

How then could religious dogmatists be correct in their oft-repeated fallacious slippery slope arguments that "moral relativism" will inevitably lead to moral chaos? Of course their arguments are ridiculous. Fundamentalist religious belief is no guarantee of "good" behaviour, while lack of religious dogmatism is no guarantee of moral decline.

Moral relativism is a bigot's buzzword for any moral view that differs from the rigid and narrow proscriptions of the ancient tribes of Israel. This phrase has become a hot favourite with the bigots who take the high moral ground and presume to dictate, as did the Calvinists and Puritans, on all behaviours of others.

Ironically, Christ was a liberal and preached tolerance. Too many Christians conveniently this fact. Jesus would be horrified by the bigotry and intolerance of many religious fundamentalists.

Morality:
ɷ We, the Products of Blind Evolution

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Inverse Correlations

Numerous studies demonstrate an inverse or negative correlation between religiosity and:

intelligence

educational level

education in science

liberal moral attitudes

acceptance of the fact of biological evolution

(An inverse or negative correlation indicates that as one variable goes up, the other variable goes down. So, those who are not religious are more likely to be intelligent, highly educated, science educated, liberal, evolutionists, and vice versa.)

"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."
Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13

In 1998, most members of the National Academy of Sciences rejected the notion of God, with the highest rate of disbelief noted amongst biological scientists. Table.
Larson, Edward J.; Larry Witham (1998). "Leading scientists still reject God". Nature 394 (6691): 313. Available at StephenJayGould.org, Stephen Jay Gould archive.

"Seventy-two percent of Americans are certain there is a God and have no doubts, while another 14% think that God probably exists and have only a few doubts. Only 3% are certain that God does not exist. There are no significant differences in belief in God by age. Men, those living in the East and West, those who are college graduates, and those with high incomes are less likely to believe in God than others."
Who Believes in God and Who Doesn't? Belief in God correlated with socioeconomic status, by Frank Newport


"Research has revealed a positive correlation between IQ and education, as well as a negative correlation between education and religiosity. In a regression analysis . . . only QSAT (which was related to father’s education) was uniquely related to prayer fulfillment. The results suggest that an educated father influences his offspring’s cognitive ability, which in turn reduces certain aspects of religiosity and spirituality. The results also suggest that the relationship between religiousness and spirituality is one of degree: both religious and spiritual individuals performed activities formally conceptualized as either "religious" or "spiritual," but religious individuals more frequently performed such activities."
Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked? (pdf) Regan Clark

"Religion is much more important to Americans than to people living in other wealthy nations. Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada (30%), and an even higher proportion when compared with Japan and Western Europe. Americans' views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations."
Among Wealthy Nations …U.S. Stands Alone in its Embrace of Religion, Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Clark, Regan (2004). Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked? (PDF).

IQ Religiosity Redux : graph of IQ vs religiosity : Religiosity and IQ : IQ and the Wealth of Nations :

Quo Vadis?

...section index...

Slippery Slope

Slippery slope fallacy, thin end of the wedge, camel's nose

The slippery slope fallacy consists of claiming that one thing will inevitably lead to another when there is no good reason to believe that such a sequence will necessarily occur.

The slippery series can be based upon causal or upon semantic relations. In the causal, non causa pro causa, series event "1" leads to outcome "n" by way of a series of steps, which may be explicit, but are often implicit.

Thus, music may lead to dancing, which may lead to sex, which may lead to unwanted pregnancies, which may lead to unwanted children, which may lead to child abuse, which may lead to criminal activity. All because someone turned on the radio!

In the semantic version, two terms that lie on a continuum are treated as though there is no point of distinct transition. Thus, doctor-assisted suicide at the request of a mentally competent, suffering, terminally ill patient is depicted as transitioning directly to physicians playing God and murdering patients at will.

The slippery slope fallacy is commonly employed in the arguments of religious dogmatists who erroneously claim that "moral relativism" will lead to moral decay, and ultimately to moral mayhem. Equally erroneous, and tied into creationist awareness that Darwin was the first to shed light on the actual mechanisms of biological evolution, religious dogmatists like to link Darwinism to moral laxity. The Wedge Document anonymously decries "the catastrophic legacy of Darwin, Marx, and Freud—the alleged fathers of a “materialistic conception of reality” that eventually “infected virtually every area of our culture.”"

Conversely, civil libertarians might claim that an increase in governmental controls would inevitably lead to a police state. While it might be quite justified to anticipate that extra surveillance powers given to the authorities after 9/11 could be employed to infringe upon the civil liberties of some innocent citizens, it is not necessarily the case that most or all citizens will suffer intrusion.

It is not a slippery slope fallacy, on the other hand, to point out that permitting creationist intelligent [sick] design theory into science classrooms would lead to a further deterioration in the standards of science education.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Ex Ducare

In a scene in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie", Edinburgh schoolmarm Jean Brodie is under attack from headmistress Miss MacKay.

The dialogue runs something like this:
Jean Brodie: "Education is from the Latin, ex and ducare, meaning leading out."
Miss MacKay: "I wish there were a little more putting in!"

(Maggie Smith won a well-deserved Oscar for her role in this Jay Presson Allen adaptation of the multi-layered play based on Muriel Spark's novel.)

The key point of the book/play/movie is encapsulated when Miss Brodie says, "Give me a girl at an impressionable age and she is mine for life."

Proponents of religion recognize this credulity and malleability of children when they campaign to insert religious teachings into the classroom or create dinosaur lie-oramas.

Modern education is, of course, probably more about putting in than leading out, yet both seem important at the university level. Critical thinking skills certainly seem particularly vital in an electronic age of unedited-crap-bombardment.

Although the US boasts some of the highest ranked universities in the world when comparisons are based on quality of research output, American 15-year olds rank dismally low in math (25th-28th), reading (12th-23rd), and science (20th-27th). The low rankings were reported for a 2003 comparison of more than 250,000 15-year old students from 41 countries. Why the discrepancy?

I have not found a posted explanation, but the answer probably lies in the mega-buck funding of America's top research universities. Take a look at the research scientists, post-graduate fellows, and graduate students of the top science research labs and you will quickly notice that the labs are heavily weighted with foreign-trained scientists. The US is draining brains from other nations because it has the funds to attract top scientists. This does not necessarily mean, though, that the quality of American university graduates stacks as high as the standards of research publications would suggest.

Another quality comparison can be performed by examining science course materials on university websites (.edu). The better American universities do provide high quality material, but many lecture notes from lesser colleges indicate that the courses for which they are posted are low in quality and informational content. By comparison, British (.ac.uk) websites suggest much more demanding undergraduate courses.

No wonder the usual inverse relationship between science education and religiosity fails in the US. It appears that many American universities provide a less than rigorous basic education in the natural sciences. Couple inadequate educational standards with the vehement creationism and anti-science machinations of religious fundamentalists and it is little wonder that the US has not progressed far since the ludicrous Scopes "monkey trial".

ɷ Inverse Correlations

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Atheism versus Theism

Commentary on the backlash:

Theists frightened and confused by Atheism.

Atheistic Aspies?

Atheists frustrated with religionists and creationists.