Tag Archives: Halloween

I’ve Been Tagged… Now Release Me Back Into Suburbia

2nd Place

2nd Place

I’ve just received a shot across my bow from InformalSkepticism aka NaonTiotami. In other words, he’s tagged me. I’ve always known America and Australia would one day go to war. The Aussies are warlike by nature. Being constantly surrounded by strange and poisonous animals like the Duckbill Platypus makes them nervous and unpredictable. But as an American, I formally surrender. I’ll talk.

But first the tagging rules:

1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random things about yourself.
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
5. Let each person know they’ve been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

Here are six random things about me:

  1. I recently came 2nd in a pumpkin carving contest (picture above). And I’m still bitter about the loss.
  2. I think about fish, a lot. They’re the perfect creatures, and they’re superior to humans. When the fish overlord seizes control, I’ll be by his side, laughing an evil laugh. Fine, call me a traitor to my species.
  3. I originally studied film-making, but later shifted to marine biology, evolutionary biology, and science writing.
  4. For years I collected movie t-shirts, but I never wore any of them because I didn’t want to be a walking billboard. But I did sell them on eBay for some sweet profit.
  5. I like raspberry yogurt, but I hate raspberry jam. Scientists are baffled by the paradox.
  6. I’m a first generation, UK American, which means I like Weetabix and Apple Pie, just not together.

Now I must gather allies by tagging six others:

  1. The Science Pundit
  2. Tiny Frog
  3. The Digital Cuttlefish
  4. Chimaera Comtemplations
  5. The Flying Trilobite
  6. The Invisible Pink Unicorn
Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Faith By Any Other Name Is Just As Empty

In a Newsweek opinion peice from September 27th, writer Lisa Miller, “argues against the atheists”. The column is called “Belief Watch”, and Miller’s apologetic scribblings do the vacuous nature of religious belief complete justice. She begins by arguing that atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are unfamiliar with real believers.

First, if 90-odd percent of Americans say they believe in God, it’s unhelpful to dismiss them as silly. Second, when they check that “believe in God” box, a great many people are not talking about the God the atheists rail against—a supernatural being who intervenes in human affairs, who lays down inexplicable laws about sex and diet, punishes violators with the stinking fires of hell and raises the fleshly bodies of the dead.

When over fifty percent of Americans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, what are we atheists supposed to think? If we include all Christians worldwide, particularly the ones in poorer Catholic and Eastern Orthodox nations, the percentage is probably much higher. This doesn’t take into account the non-democratic Islamic nations, where Western ideas are spat upon, and where basic education is limited to males, and where people are threatened into believing in the all-powerful Allah. So, the actual number of believers in an angry, vengeful, and intervening god is probably much much higher than even Lisa Miller cares to imagine.

Apologetics is a form of faith; it’s faith in faith. Miller finishes her paper-thin argument by hauling in the invisible sacred cow.

Submitting faith to proof is absurd. Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don’t know). Reasonable believers can live with both at once.

Reasonable believers? Can reason and faith coexist? And how can faith define the unknown? Isn’t the unknown, by its very definition, indefinable? Here, Miller’s mental gymnastics are Olympic quality. And most believers would likely take great offense to her reducing their unshakable faith to an algebraic X. Personally, I prefer to think of all faith simply as a Y.

Leave a comment

Filed under Atheism, Christianity

Three Blind Fools, See How They Run Into A Wall

These guys either didn’t read the complete definition or they have a really crappy dictionary, or they’re just stupid. They are wearing clownish costumes on TV, after all. I just wish they had looked up the word “colloquialism”. If they had, they might have understood that some words, like “theory”, often have a common everyday definition as well as a scientific one. Even Scrabble players appreciate the fact that many scientific terms can’t be found in Webster’s or American Heritage.

The “evolution is only a theory” argument is sad, pathetic, and old. It’s what uneducated goofballs spout from their blowholes.

In addition to the common definitions, Merriman-Webster’s defines a theory as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another”.

It’s strange how these three wise men missed that one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Trawling For Creationism

Texas Evolution Poll Dancing

Over at ScienceBlogs.com, PZ Myers, on his Pharyngula blog, issued a request for people to bust up a pathetic evolution poll (read the text of the story). His readers succeeded and the poll was dashed. The question asked in the poll was:

What do you think the appropriate lesson should be in public schools?

1. Evolution only
2. Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory
3. Evolution and creationism
4. Creationism only

What strikes me as disturbingly normal about this poll is that creationism is immunized against criticism. Evolutionary biology is a science and all scientific positions are open to falsification, if valid counter evidence is presented. But in the poll, creationism isn’t set up in the same manner as evolution is in choice #2. To be fair, shouldn’t there have been the following 5th choice?

5. Creationism, pointing out weaknesses in the theory

Denounce evolution all you want, but if creationism is to be allowed in the science classroom, it has to be able to withstand rigorous testing, picking and prodding. And that means looking at all its weaknesses. All of them. It’s kind of like asking a sleazy politician to open up his closet door. Skeletons aplenty.

1 Comment

Filed under Trawling For Creationism