Evolution Rocks!

"A God of the Gaps" Parable from : - Abacquer at Dear Christians…

~*~

Imagine there is a giant boulder sitting on top of a high hill. One rainy and windy day, the boulder’s purchase is so eroded that it finally tumbles down the hill scouring a huge groove in the surface of the hill. The way down is rocky and clogged with debris, so the boulder, as it tumbles, bounces this way and that, popping up in the air when it hits an outcrop or a fallen tree. At the bottom of the hill, the boulder bounces off the ground and falls into the lake beyond, where it sinks into the mud and is covered over by water.

Hundreds of years later some men come by and notice the great furrow cut in the surface of the hill. The furrow is incomplete because over time parts of it have weathered away, and a subsequent landslide has destroyed portions of it, and there were times when the boulder was airborne. The rock itself lay hidden beneath the muddy floor of the lake. The men try to explain what caused this furrow. One man, the theist, says that God created the furrow. The other men like this idea and they go back to their village and spread the good word, culminating in Fred Franklin writing a book that tells about God creating the furrow.

Several hundred years after that a theist and a scientist come to visit the furrow.
The scientist climbs the hill and studies the rock at the top. He tests rolling small rocks in various places on the hill’s surface. He studies the sides of the furrow and compares them to pictures of furrows created when other boulders rolled down other hills. After much study, he announces that something massive, probably a large boulder or a slab of stone, slid or rolled down the surface of the hill sometime in the past.

The theist points to the missing areas of the furrow and says “If a rock rolled down the hill, where is the evidence here? There are gaps in your evidence, and therefore you must be wrong, and God must have done it.”

The scientist explains that (a) even if his hypothesis is incorrect, that doesn’t mean that the “God hypothesis” is correct, and (b) it’s possible that over time that some of the furrow would be filled in by landslides or other sorts of erosion.

The theist refuses to abandon the God hypothesis (despite the fact that there is no proof.) So the scientist takes a pick and a shovel and digs up a spot in the center of the landslide. Sure enough eventually he uncovers evidence of the rolling boulder beneath several feet of gravel and dirt, a deely gouged stone and compacted dirt matching the profile of the furrow above and below the slide.

“See?” he says.

“See what?” the theist says.

“You uncovered a stretch that is only six feet long. How do I know that if you dug upslope or downslope another six feet you would find any evidence there? You haven’t uncovered the whole furrow! Therefore, you’re wrong, and God did it.”

So the scientist removes the rest of the landslide. It takes many days, but it reveals the furrow like structure almost the entire length of the formerly covered area. In the meantime, while the scientist is doing real work, the theist preaches and glorifies the greatness of the god that cut the furrow. Once the landslide is removed the scientist identifies two thousand three hundred and seventy eight pieces of evidence that point to a large slab of stone rolling through that location following a path that connects up the furrow on both ends.

“See?” he says to the theist.

“See what?” the theist says.

He points to a 3 foot gap between evidence #1,536 and #1,537. “You haven’t demonstrated that a boulder rolled through this three foot area.”

The scientist shakes his head while wiping dirt and sweat from his brow. “No, and I’m not going to. I’ve amassed more than enough evidence to demonstrate that a boulder rolled down the entire length of this hill. There is enough evidence on either side of this gap to safely assume that the boulder which caused impact #1,536 also caused scrape #1,537.”

“Your theory has holes in it. How can you accept that?”

“You’re not thinking, sir. The only way to be 100% certain that a boulder rolled down this hill would be to go back in time and watch it happen. That’s clearly impossible. Over time some of the evidence will be destroyed, and therefore gathering all of the evidence after the fact is similarly impossible. Nonetheless I’ve been able to find enough evidence to support that hypothesis.”

“Why should I take your word for it?”

“Oh you shouldn’t. It’s still a hypothesis. Now I need to publish my findings, those findings will have to be reviewed by other scientists, and they will need to come here and conduct their own experiments to see if I’m right or wrong. They will likely perform other sorts of tests that I haven’t thought of, they may propose alternative hypotheses that will need to be tested, and I will need to stay out of their way and let them work. Only after my findings have been independently reproduced and thoroughly reviewed and confirmed will my hypothesis become a theory.”

“And then it is simply accepted as fact?”

“Oh no, theories can be and are challenged all the time. Over time through scientific advances we come up with new and better ways to test old theories. The best theories will endure the test of time.”

“So when will you know for sure?”

“I don’t understand?”

“When will you be able to say beyond all shadow of any doubt that a giant boulder rolled down this hill?”

“Never. Science doesn’t deal in 100% certainties, only in probabilities. Personally I’m 90% certain a boulder rolled down this hill, science will never be certain. Science may approach 100% certainty, but it can never say ‘for sure’… new information may be found in the future that casts an accepted theory into doubt. That’s why Science is so wonderful, it’s not doctrinal… it’s open to new information.”

“So you admit you can’t prove with 100% certainty that a rolling boulder did this.”

“Yes, of course I admit that.”

“Then I can’t see why you would expect me to believe that. I am 100% certain that God created that furrow.”

“Well what evidence can you provide to support your hypothesis?”

The theist pulls his holy book from his pack, opens it, and begins to read. “Yea and verily, it was upon the morning of the ninth day that The Lord touched the great hill with the tip of his divine finger and scratched a long furrow in it leading to the lake and said. ‘See how I your God have marked this hill. Look upon this mark and remember it is I who …’”

“I’m still waiting for evidence,” the scientist interrupts.

The theist holds up the book. “This is the word of God.”

“That is the word of Freddie Franklin. The fact that he wrote that story to explain the great furrow is interesting from an anthropological perspective, but it doesn’t amount to proof either way. Besides, I can provide evidence that this furrow is 750 years old. Freddie Franklin only lived 300 years ago, so he didn’t see it being formed. Therefore I repeat, where is your evidence?”

The theist flips to another page and begins reading again. “I stood upon the Earth and trembled as God cut the furrow in the soil …”

The scientist interrupts again. “That’s not evidence dammit. You can read that book from end to end and it doesn’t amount to one iota of evidence beyond ’someone said so’.”

“Well where is YOUR evidence?” the theist demands.

“Are you kidding? I just spent two weeks digging up this…”

“No, I know you’ve uncovered a few scattered bits of evidence to support your delusional rolling boulder idea, but where is your evidence that God DIDN’T create this furrow?”

“Why on Earth would I ever try and prove that?”

“What?”

“Science reaches conclusions which fit the evidence. You have a conclusion based on no evidence at all. That’s not science, it’s storytelling, and I can’t see why you would expect me to disprove it. I’m not the one making an outrageous claim here. You’re the one who is claiming an invisible supernatural being made this feature. That’s one hefty claim, and you need to prove that it is true.”

“You don’t seek proof of the almighty… that would be blasphemy.”

“I’m not asking you to prove the existence of your supernatural entity of choice, I am asking you to prove that this furrow was created by a supernatural entity. And DON’T start reading from that book again. That’s not evidence.”

“This is all the evidence I have, and it’s the only evidence I need.”

And off the theist goes to his village to profess how Science was unable to disprove that God made the great furrow. Leaving the exhausted and exasperated scientist to shake his head and get back to work discovering the truth.

So it is with evolution my friend. The amount of evidence which has been gathered which supports evolution is overwhelming. It is a truly phenomenal quantity of evidence. It is more than enough evidence to allow one to safely assume that A evolved to B even when there is a gap in the evidence between A and B.

And, as the scientist notes in the above story, gaps in the evidence for evolution do not equal proof of creationism. If someone managed to scientifically disprove evolution as we understand it today, that would not mean that creationism is proven. Creationism would be just as much poppycock then as it is now.

LINKS:

• Talk Origins
• Ken Miller - On Apes and Humans

god of the gaps , evolution , creationism , god , science , creation

"Like A Rolling Stone" - (Dylan Cover) by A Beggar's Opera

CHEAP GRACE - The Bible Belt Gets It Wrong

From : - CHRONICLES OF THE BEAST - Cheap Grace

Far from being filled with the Holy Spirit, it appears as if some religious leaders and their authoritarian followers are filled with what John Dean refers to as "cheap grace."

It is as as if these individuals had worn down their consciences with cheap grace--a remarkable and frightening process. "One of the things a conscience is supposed to do is make us act better, but when you have a means of eliminating guilt there is not much incentive to clean up your act. You see how conscience gets short circuited," (Robert) Altmeyer noted. He added. "bad behavior may produce guilt, but it is easily washed away.

So then more bad behavior can result again and again, getting removed very easily through religion. There is a terrible closing to this reality. The lack of guilt over things he has done in the past can actually contribute to the self-righteousness of the authoritarian. And this self-righteousness has proven, in experiments, to be the main factor that unleashes the right wing authoritarian's aggressive impulses."

He concluded, "I have called them 'God's designated hitters.' We end up with the irony that the people who think they are so very good end up doing so very much evil, and more remarkably, they are probably the last people in the world who will ever realize the connection between the two." There is no better explanation for the behavior of many Christian conservatives, for it accounts for their license to do ill, Christian beliefs notwithstanding." -From Conservatives Without Conscience (page 64) -by John Dean

Consider the following:

THE 10 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST OVER ALL INCARCERATION RATES: Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Arizona , Delaware. In short, nine out of ten were Red States. [Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners, 2003 (November 2004)]

THE 10 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST RATE OF FEMALE INCARCERATION IN 2003: Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Alabama, Nevada, Colorado. Ten out of ten were Red States. [Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 2003 (November 2004)]

THE TEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF EXECUTIONS IN 2004 WERE ALL RED STATES: Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Nevada . [Bureau of Justice Statistics. Capital Punishment, 2004 (November 2005)]

The 15 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF DEATH BY FIREARMS IN 2003 WERE ALL RED STATES: Alaska , Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky. [Deaths. Final Date for 2003 National Center For Health Statistics Volume 54, No 13, 2006 ]

OF THE 15 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF SUICIDE, 14 OUT OF 15 WERE RED STATES: Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, Idaho , Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, South Dakota, Kentucky. [Deaths. Final Date for 2003, National Center for health statistics. Volume 54. No 13, 2006]

TEN OF THE TOP TEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST DIVORCE RATES ARE RED STATES: Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida. [Division of Vital Statistics. National Center for Health Statistics CDC. 2005 among 45 reported.]

NINE OF THE TEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST ILLEGITIMACY RATES ARE RED STATES: New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Delaware, Arizona, South Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Georgia, Arizona. [Births. Final Data for 2003. National Center for Health, Statistics. Volume 54, Nov 2, 2005 ]

14 OF THE 15 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST OBESITY RATES ARE RED STATES: Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee,Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Georgia. [Behavioral Risk Surveillance System. Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2004 ]

EIGHT OF THE ELEVEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST GROSSING MARKETS FOR GAMBLING ARE RED STATES: Nevada, New Jersey, Mississippi, Indiana, Louisiana, Illinois. Montana, Michigan, Iowa, Colorado, South Dakota. [United States Gaming Bulletin. Ernst Young 2005. Includes Native American gambling. ]

EIGHT OF THE TEN SMARTEST STATES ARE BLUE STATES: Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine, Minnesota, Virginia, Wisconsin, Montana, New York. (On the other hand, the 10 states with the worst paid teachers are all red states. Out of the bottom states, eight out of ten are red states, a situation that might be explained by the fact that blue states place a higher premium on both education and a willingness to pay for education. [From Morgan Quinto Press. Based on 21 factors from its reference book Education State Rankings 2005-2006]

Read the rest here.

Perhaps the Bible Belt is too busy concentrating on the "evil" it imagines in others to notice that the problems it complains about most, are in the highest evidence in their own backyard.

Methinks they have forgotten a biblical passage that as believers, they should be aware of, and reminded of often:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" - Matthew 7:3

In other words, they should clean up their own act before they try blaming the world's problems on everyone else excluding themselves.

"no short haired-yellow bellied son of tricky dicky is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me with just a pocketful of hope" - John Lennon

LINKS:

Red States and Blue States
Divorce rates highest in the red states
Red-State vs Blue-State Morality
The League Table of Teenage Births

"Don't It Make Your Red State Blue"

red state , blue state , democrat , republican , bible belt , hypocrisy , john lennon , youtube , bible

God Belief - The Meme Thought Virus

Image from : Atheists Online

MEME: (pron. `meem') A contagious information pattern that replicates by symbiotically infecting human minds and altering their behavior, causing them to propagate the pattern.

God belief is like a thought virus which sets up residence within our minds. It feeds on emotional insecurities, fear of the unknown, fear of death, psychological insecurities and our all encompassing egotistical states. It replicates itself into the minds of our children through the indoctrination and assimilation of culture, and mutates in following generations in order to survive.

~*~

Dawkins is right on the money when he says that religions claim a privileged position from which criticism is seen as blasphemy. And, it was, of course against the law in many nations for hundreds of years to in any way, suggest that religion was wrong. It has maintained this position of political privilege because it sleeps with the political parties of each country. It whores itself out in the political arena where it promises the votes of its followers and demands as payment for services rendered, political protection and, if it can get it, religious exclusivity.

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." - Richard Dawkins (The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1)

Discuss.

Stevie Wonder - "Superstition."

LINKS:

Religion and Memetics: The God Meme
Meme Central
The Mind Virus

god meme , meme , thought virus , virus , Richard Dawkins , superstition , youtube , memetics , religion

"Gotta Have Faith?

"Gotta Have Faith" - by AC Grayling

The repetition this week of the weary old canard that atheism is 'a faith proposition' shows that our archbishops need a lesson in semantics.

This is classified in logic as an "informal fallacy" known as a "tu quoque" argument. We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, so a simple lesson in semantics might help to clear the air for them on the meanings of "secular", "humanist" and "atheist". Once they have succeeded in understanding these terms they will grasp that none of them imply "faith" in anything, and that it is not possible to be a "fundamentalist" with respect to any of them.

~*~

Read more here.

~*~

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

Faith No More - "Epic"

fundamentalism , faith , atheist , atheism , informal fallacy , humanism , fundamentalism , mark twain , A C Grayling

John Saffron VS The Mormons

Watch @ onegoodmove - John Safran vs. The Mormons. or here on Youtube.

Transcript:

Look. I'm tolerant. I'm the Mahatma Friggin Gandhi of tolerance. I don't mind what you do. What you believe. How you dress or who you bang. To paraphrase Salt n Pepper, if you wanna take a guy, home with you tonight, it's none of my business. If you wanna be a freak and sell it on the weekend. It's none of my business. I just don't care. I don't mind who you worship. I don't mind where you do it. I don't care if you think that christ is the messiah. I don't care if you think that christ is the anti-christ. I don't care if you think that YOU'RE the messiah. I don't mind if you put on an ornage robe, shave your head and join a friggin suicide cult. Care factor - zero.

It doesn't worry me. Do whatever you want to do. Just don't knock on my door before midday on Saturday. Don't do it. I'm looking at YOU mormons. Now listen up, mormons. A lot of people would say that you are freaks. That you wear special underpants and worship some guy with magic glasses. That you are not proper christians. That in fact, you're a cult and that your theology compares unfavourably to the Raelians, The Branch Davidians and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. But not me. I think you're fine. You definitely don't make less sense than the catholics, muslims and buddhists.

However, the catholics don't come round bashing on my door on Saturday morning. The muslims and the buddhists don't come round bashing on my door on Saturday morning. Even the Salvation Army who rock up with their trumpets, bazoons, tubas and tamborine ensemble making more noise than Iron Maiden, have the common decency to wait until after lunch. But that's not for you mormons, is it. You're up bright and perky on Saturday morning after going to bed at 7:30 the night before after watching some "Benji Movie."

Well, I wasn't. Maybe I was out living a little. Maybe I was out till five in the morning drinking kalhua and milk and dancing to "Yaz and the Plastic Population." You didn't think about that, did you. You didn't factor "Yaz" into your little plan to ring my bell at eight in the morning. I don't remember that bit in The New Testament where jesus says unto his flock: " Go around and annoy the shit out of people, by bashing on their door." I must have overlooked Deuteronomy 13:11 - "Blessed is the man who goes around banging on people's doors at all hours of the morning because he truly is jesus's little friend." Listen mormons. I fair dinkum have put up with your crap for long enough. And seeing as you mormons seem so open to the concept of door to door belief pushing, well, it just got me to thinking.

(John flies to USA) - I've come to Saltlake City, Utah, the world capital of mormonism. The spiritual home of LDS, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I've got my pamphlets. I've got my copy of "Origin of Species". I've got my atheist badge. Let's do some good. As religious door knockers always travel in twos, I thought I would drag along my director, Craig Melville.

• First mormon door - (Bell rings) "Hello. Could I take a moment of your time?" (Door shuts)
• Next door - "Hello my name is John and this is Craig and we would like to take a moment of your time to talk to you about atheism. Would you be interested in that?" Woman's reply: "Well, actually no." John: "We want to talk to you about atheism and how it can change your life." Woman: "No no."
• John talking to old man: " Us atheists believe that the bible isn't really true and that it's all just stories." Old man's reply: "I'm a bishop of the (indiscernible) church." John: "Well, have you ever considered atheism?"
• John talking to another man: "We believe that the bible is just made up and it didn't really happen." (Old man starts hitting John with a broom.)
• John talking to another man: "We follow the teachings of a man named Charles Darwin who's an evolutionary biologist. "
• John talking to woman at door: "And he brought an amazing message to us. For example, did you know that your relatives were monkeys?
• John talking to another woman at her front door: "Did you know that when you die that your body just decomposes into the earth and nothing happens. There's no soul. There's no heaven. God is meaningless, false and irrational."
• Next door: " There's a lot of literature that backs up atheism. From the 1980's band XTC. "Dear god, you are always letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you drown. And it's the same the whole world round. Dear god, I don't believe in you."
  Next door: "Just imagine that you're wasting your entire life going to church and it all adds up to nothing."
• Next door: " This cognitive dissidence causes anxiety within you but the thing is, atheism can cure you of this anxiety by providing scientific explanations..."
• NEXT door: " Oh, did we disturb you from your sleep?"
• Next door: " Oh, sorry, were you doing something else? Were you enjoying your own private time and it was really intrusive to have someone come bashing on your door and push their beliefs on you?
• Next door: Man speaking at door: "Did you understand what I said? This is inappropriate. Take us off your list."

LINKS:

1. The Official John Safron Website
2. John Safran

"Evangelism is the art of selling 'Get Out of Death Insurance Policies' to people who won't be able to use them BECAUSE they are dead."

john safron , mormonism , mormon , atheist , atheism , evangelism , evangelize , satire , comedy , humor , humour , youtube

Top 10 Signs You're A Christian Fundamentalist

From: - ExChristian Net

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth ( 4.55 billion years) , but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs --though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that theremaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

LINKS: -

Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist Christianity
Christian Fundamentalism Exposed
Why The "Fundamentalist" Approach To Religion Must Be Wrong

Fundamentalism Around the World–What’s Really Behind It?

"A characteristic of religious fundamentalism is to perceive the world as an arena of continuous battle and to nourish it with anger and the desire for revenge. " - Ilter Turkemen

And a different list from: - two or three.net

You Might Be A Christian Fundamentalist IF...

~*~

• If you think the most important aspect of the Ted Haggard story is that Mike Jones is a man. (I think that IS the most important aspect and I am an atheist.)
• If you refuse to take a snake bite kit when hiking.
• If you think "Hard Music" is music that's difficult to play.
• If you use the words "thee, thou or fornication" in everyday speech (you can be doubly sure if you pronounce the latter word "fornification".)
• If you purposely call Santa "Satan" and then coyly act as if it was an honest mistake.
• If you believe that a fat preacher has the right to preach about the virtue of self-control.

And some suggestions from readers of my blog.

You might be a christian fundamentalist if : -

• If you denounce homosexuality, but spend more time talking about it than even gay people do.
• If you make a big deal about giving their life jacket to another passenger on a sinking ship because you think they can walk on water...
• If, after being told there is only one god you accept from your monotheistic preacher that God is in Heaven and the Devil is in Hell.
• If you think calling yourself a christian fundamentalist gives you the right to say or do what you want and disregard the beliefs of the entire world as Bush and his perverted version of fundamentalism has done.

Feel like adding to the list? Leave suggestions in the comments.

The Fundamentalist's Theme Song

quotes , fundamentalist , fundamentalism , christian fundamentalist , christian , top ten , monotheism , polytheism , bible literalism , bible literalist

"Rumsfeld Bites The Dust"

My reaction to the news that Donald Rumsfeld resigned.

Memorable Rumsfeld quotes: -

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." – on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (Where were they again exactly? )

"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." (The ultimate dance in order to avoid saying anything.)

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." - on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (Tsk tsk and people fell for that too.)

"I don't do quagmires."
"I don't do diplomacy."
"I don't do foreign policy."
"I don't do predictions."
"I don't do numbers."
"I don't do book reviews." (Sure you will.)

• Act I in historic drama: Rumsfeld war crimes suit proceeds
• Rumsfeld war crimes complaint filed in Germany
• Past Sins Might Keep Rumsfeld From Roaming World: Ann Woolner

donald rumsfeld , rumsfeld , resign , quotes , bush administration , iraq war , wmd , weapons of mass destruction , unknown , youtube

"Teapot Atheists"

Watch "The Teapot Atheist" video at Onegoodmove.

TRANSCRIPT:

Science can't disprove the existence of god but that does not mean that god exists. There are a million things we can't disprove. The philosopher Bertrand Russell had an analogy. Imagine there's a china teapot in orbit around the sun. You cannot disprove the existence of the teapot because its too small to be spotted by our telescopes. No one but a lunatic would say, "Well, I'm prepared to believe in the teapot 'cause I can't disprove it." Maybe we have to be technically and strictly agnostic, but in practice we are all teapot atheists.

But suppose that everybody in the society, the teachers, the tribal elders all had faith in the teapot. Stories of the teapot have been handed down for generations. It's part of the traditions of the societies, there are holy books about the teapot. Then, someone who said that they did not believe in the teapot, might be regarded as eccentric or even mad.

There's an infinte number of things like celestial teapots that we can't disprove. There are fairies. There are unicorns. Hobgoblins. We can't disprove any of those, but we don't believe in them anymore than nowadays we believe in Thor, Amon-Ra, or Aphrodite. We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us, just go one god further.

LINKS:

1. Richard Dawkins

2. Bertrand Russell

"Take some more tea," the March Hare said to Alice very earnestly. "I've had nothing yet," Alice replied in an offended tone, "so I can't take more." ~Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

The Mad Hatter's "Unbirthday Teaparty"

teapot , teapot atheists , atheist , agnostic , youtube , bertrand russell , richard dawkins , beepbeepitsme

Ken Miller - On Apes and Humans

TRANSCRIPT:

The second thing you saw at the trial was that when data was introduced at the trial which I and another witness introduced from whole genome sequencing , the ID advocates literally had nothing to say. We weren't asked questions in cross examination, the other side never brought it up, they never argued against it, they just left it.

Here's an example : - Many of you may know that a few months ago that the genetic code of the chimpanzee was published. Therefore we can compare our genome to these primate relatives. What do we find? I want to show you one striking finding that dates to about a year ago. You all know that evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, the chimpanzees, the gorilla and the orangutan.

Well, if that's true, there should be genetic similarities and in fact there are. But there's something that's really interesting and has the potential, if it were true, to contradict evolutionary common ancestry. And that is that we have 2 fewer chromosomes than the other great apes. We have 46 and they all have 48. Now that's very interesting. Now what does that actually mean? Well, first of all, the 46 chromosomes that we have have, you got 23 from mom and 23 from dad, so its actually 23 pairs. These guys have 24 from each parent, so they have 24 pairs.

So everybody in this room is missing a pair of chromosomes. Now where did it go? Could it have gotten lost in our lineage? If it got lost, if a whole primate chromosome was lost, that would be lethal. So, there's only 2 possibilities. And that is, if these guys really share a common ancestor, that ancestor either had 48 chromozomes or 46. Now, if it had 48, 24 pairs which is probably true because 3 out of 4 have 48 chromozomes, what must have happened is that one pair of chromosomes must have gotten fused.

So, we should be able to look at our genome and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of 2 primate chromosomes. So we should be able to look around our genome, and you know, if we don't find it, evolution is wrong. We don't share a common ancestor. So how would we find it? Biologists in the room would know that chromosomes have nifty little markers. They have markers called centromeres which are DNA sequences which are used to separate them during mitosis and they have cool little DNA sequences on the end called telomeres.

What would happen if a pair of chromosomes got fused? Well, what would happen is that the fusion would put telomeres where they don't belong in the center of the chromosome and the resulting fused chromosome should actually have 2 centromeres. One of them might become inactivated, but nonetheless, it should still be there. So we can scan our genome, and you know what if we don't find that chromosome, evolution is in trouble.

Well, guess what? It's chromosome number 2. Our chromosome number 2 was formed by the fusion of 2 primate chromosomes. This is the paper from 'Nature' a little more than a year ago and I put up a little of the paper. I am sorry it's technical but look at what it says: " Chromosome 2 is unique to our lineage. It emerged as the result of the head to head fusion of 2 chromosomes which remain separate in other primates."

Those of you who have not kept up with how much we know about the genome should pay attention to this cause you will be amazed at how precisely we can look at things. The precise fusion site has been located at base number 114, 455, 823 - 214, 455,838. In other words within 15 bases. And the other thing you'll notice is multiple sub-telemeric duplications; the telemeres that don't belong and low and behold, the centremere which is inactivated corresponds to chimp chromozome number 13.

It's there. It's testable. It's confirms the prediction of evolution. How would ID explain this? Only one way. By shrugging and saying, "That's the way the designer made it. No reason. No rhyme. Presumably there is a designer who designed human chromozome number 2 to make it look like it was fused by the fusion of a primate ancestor."

I'm a roman catholic. I'm a theist in the broadest sense. I would say I believe in a designer but you know, I don't believe in a deceptive one. I don't believe in one who would do this to try to fool us. And therefore I think that this is authentic and I think it tells us something about our ancestors.

LINKS:

• Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
• Genome
• Chimpanzee Genome Project
• Diagramatic representation of the location of the fusion site of chromosomes 2A and 2B and the genes inserted at this location.
• The chromosome image below is the online version of chromosome 2 depicted on the Human Genome Landmarks poster.
• Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
• Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry

"If the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet who employs those faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion—I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape." - Thomas Henry Huxley

Hey! Hey! We're the Monkees!

monkees , ken miller , intelligent design , ID , genome , genetics , chromosome , chimp , human genome , DNA , youtube ,

The American Voters Comment On The Bush Administration

"For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds; Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." - Willy Spearchucker

republican , democrat , election , youtube , william shakespeare , monkey , monkey ass

Ted Haggard Comes Clean

HYPOCRITE : 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Matthew 7: 3-5 - "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? / Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem," Haggard wrote. "I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life."

Listen to Paul Hipp singing "Meth And Man Ass" (The Huffington Post)

and visit Paul Hipp's blog at myspace

hypocrite , hypocrisy , ted haggard , humor , humour , satire , youtube , paul hipp , huffington post

Watch video of "Meth and Man Ass" on youtube

The Religious Right Aren't, and Scientific Creationism Isn't.

Creationist claim 1: -

"Evolution is a religion. A religion seeks to answer four questions. Here they are.

• 1) Who are we (and what are we worth)?
• 2) Where did we come from?
• 3) Why are we here?
• 4) Where are we going?

Both Christianity and evolution seek to answer these four questions. "

Wrong. Those are the primary intentions of religion.

RELIGION : - "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Let's go through them one by one.

a. BELIEF: - Evolution is NOT a belief. Evolution is a scientific model which describes a biological process where change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, is determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Evolution, as a scientific model, is a continuous process of observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. It is essential that people understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis. Contigent to scientific study is the concept of falsifiabily. The concept of falsifiability is why science is self correcting, and why scientific models, such as the model which supports evolution and natural selection, are not considered absolutes.

b. CAUSE: - Evolution does NOT describe the "cause" of the universe, neither does it claim that the universe is "caused" or "uncaused."

c. NATURE: - Evolution as a scientific model describes biological processes of the natural world.

d. PURPOSE: - Evolution does NOT describe the "purpose" of the universe. It is a scientific model which describes biological processes. Human beings attribute purpose or non-purpose according to either their individual or their collective political, social, cultural or religious contexts.

e. SUPERHUMAN AGENCY : -Evolution does not attempt to describe (a,b,c and d) through belief in a superhuman agency or agencies. Evolution is neutral towards supernatural explanations of the universe because evolution as a scientific model can only describe the natural world. Evolution neither endorses nor disendorses god belief. The existance or non-existance of a god or gods is not in the purview of scientific models.

Evolution as a scientific model provides explanations of the natural world through the continuous processes of observation, measurement, experimentation and testing of the natural world. Whereas theology, (god belief and the study of religions), provide an explanation of the natural world through the various beliefs and religions associated with a supernatural entity and or a supernatural world. Evolution does not attempt to describe (a,b,c,and d) through belief or disbelief in a supernatural agency or agencies and is therefore NOT a religion.

g. Evolution does not not have religious devotional and religious ritual observances.
Devotional: - "Of, relating to, expressive of, or used in devotion, especially of a religious nature."

Evolution neither requires nor demands any religious devotional observance. It is merely a scientific model which explains the natural world. This scientific model is continually assessed and evaluated in the light of new knowledge.

Ritual: - "The prescribed order of a religious ceremony."
Evolution neither requires nor demands any religious ritual obervances. Once again, it is only a scientific model which explains the natural world through the observation of the natural world.

h. MORAL CODE: - Evolution through natural selection does not claim to provide a moral code which governs the conduct of human affairs. Evolution describes what it observes in the natural world. It does not include a moral opinion about that which is observed. Evolution and natural selection as described by Darwin, do not have anything to do with a human sense of morality. They do not have anything to do with morality in the same way that the processes of photosynthesis or gravity have anything to do with morality. They merely examine the processes as they occur in nature. It takes a human agenda to ascribe a morality or immorality to a natural process.

We don't claim that gravity is immoral when a tree falls on a little, fluffy bunny. We don't claim that photosynthesis is immoral because green plants thrive in the presence of sunlight. We don't claim that evolution though natural selection is immoral when certain alleles are not passed on to the next generation. Evolution through natural selection as espoused by Darwin, exists regardless of human intention and deliberation. It is not involved in determining the "worth" or "value" of living organisms according to a preconceived human standard.

Artifical selection, eugenics, social darwinism, and selective breeding attempt to use the information learned through the study of evolution and natural selection in order to intentionally and deliberately bring to fruition a human political, religious, cultural or social goal. That is, they are models of human political, social, economic or cultural intentionality. In this way they are diametrically opposed to evolution through natural selection.

To assume, or to claim that people who accept evolution and natural selection also accept whatever is done in the name of artifical selection, eugenics, social darwinism, or selective breeding is either naively disingenuous or blatantly obfuscatory.

Creationist claim: 2

"Evolution says that we are all animals, just advanced amoebas that got washed up on some beach, and we are worth nothing to any one. Christianity says that we were created by Almighty God, and thus we are worth more than anything else in this universe."

Evolution does claim that from a biological perspective we are animals. Biologically we are members of the Animalia Kingdom.

PRIMARY DEFINITION OF ANIMAL : - "any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. (This primary definition demonstrates that biologically human beings are animals.)

Biblically, the word "animal" was used in a way that made distinctions between humans and other organisms. These differences are usually concerned with the belief in a human soul which is capable of transcending physical death or a human purpose which is superior to that of other creatures. Therefore the secondary definition of animal is the one which some religious people prefer.

SECONDARY DEFINITION OF ANIMAL: - "any such living thing other than a human being."

Evolution does NOT claim that human animals are without value. It also doesn't claim that we have a soul or that we don't have a soul. Whether or not human beings have a soul is outside the purview of evolution. Evolution also doesn't claim that there is a god or that there isn't a god. Whether or not there is a god/gods is outside the parameters of evolution. It is outside the study of evolution because evolution oberves, describes and examines the natural world, not a supernatural one or a metaphysical one.

Creationist claim 3: -

"Evolution says (if you believe the big bang) that we are the result of a cosmic explosion. I’m not sure what the latest hypothesis is, but I’m sure that it is just as full of holes as all the others were."

Evolution is not the "big bang" the "little bang" or the "medium sized bang." Biological evolution through natural selection is not cosmology. Cosmology involves the study of the origins of the universe. The universe in cosmological terms, is the finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist. Some scientists hypothesize that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse. There are various disciplines associated with cosmology. Some of these include:

• a. Physical cosmology which studies the universe through physics and astrophysics.
• b. Metaphysical cosmology which studies the universe through philosophy and metaphysics.
• c. Religious cosmology which attempts to explain the universe through scripture, and religious dogma.
• d. Esoteric cosmology which attempts to explain the universe through esoteric and occult teachings.

Creationist Claim 4: -

"Evolution says that we have no purpose, and we might as well have fun and do whatever we want. “If it feels good, do it.” And why not, if there are no absolutes, than morality is relative."

Once again, evolution through natural selection does not define a human purpose in the same way that gravity does not define a human purpose, or the second law of thermo-dynamics does not define a human purpose. Natural selection occurs despite human intention or a human attributed purpose. Evolution through natural selection does not prescribe fun, boredom, morality, immorality, Nindendo games or clubbing until 3am in the morning. Natural selection occurs despite our opinion of it.

Creationist claim 5: -

"Evolution says that when we die, we will be buried and get recycled into an earthworm or a plant."

Once again, evolution does not describe, or observe what may or may not happen after death from a religious point of view. Science cannot observe the departure of souls from the physical body. If anything happens outside of the natural realm of death, neither evolution, nor science (as far as I am aware), have any valid, verifiable or consistent method for testing these religious claims.

Evolution and god belief are not mutually exclusive. Many people accept evolution and believe in a god or gods at the same time. Many people who believe in a god or gods consider evolution to be one of god's mechanisms. I don't have any massive objections to them doing this except that they are committing a logical fallacy in doing so.

It is an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and goes something like this.

1. My god/gods created everything.
2. Evolution through natural selection exists.
3. Therefore my god/gods created natural selection.

This fallacy, which is just shoehorning scientific knowledge or information into an already held religious belief, is a popular fallacy with some religious people. It is a way to rationalize new information so that it doesn't conflict with already held religious beliefs.

Some religions, however, are not compatible with evolution. These religions include the more fundamental versions of christianity and islam. New earth creationists and bible and quran literalists also find it difficult to reconcile scientific knowledge with their inflexible religious dogma.

"Evolution does not require the nonexistance of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistance of God more than they fear God Himself." - Keith Doyle (talk.origins posting)

New York Dolls - "Dance Like A Monkey"

evolution , religious right , creationism , scientific creationism , science , religion , dance like a monkey , new york dolls , youtube , cosmology , natural selection , big bang

All Things Bright And Beautiful And The Noble Lie

Plato - Greek Philosopher

"All Things Bright And Beautiful" is a song that many people know from Sunday School or from church. The poem was written by an irish woman, Cecil Frances Alexander in the mid 1800s.

The first verse goes like this:

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

Many people are familiar with most of the verses of this favourite hymn. They are not so familiar with this particular verse which has been omitted in modern times.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

From: "All Things Bright And Beautiful"

Oh dear, god made people deliberately poor and deliberately rich? And he ordered their estate? "Estate" in this sense doesn't refer to land but to a person's social status or rank. So, god made some people poor and some people rich and he ordered that this would be their social status, rank or class in life. A song with a verse like that in it was probably enough to set off a revolution or two. Maybe the Russian Revolution(1917) for argument's sake.

Those of you are slightly familiar with Plato's 'Republic' might now guess where I am going with this. Plato was a greek philosopher (427BCE–347 BCE), who wrote two seminal works. "Seminal" as in - highly original and influencing the development of future events not "seminal" as in - relating to semen. (Though in retrospect, the "semen reference" is also pertinent).

These two major works are 'The Republic' and 'The Laws.' 'The Republic' contains virtually the entire universe of Plato's philosophy. So if you want to find out why, and how Plato thought the world should be organized, you read 'The Republic.'

In 'The Republic', Plato describes a city whose inhabitants were organized into categories:

• 1. The Rulers
• 2. Auxiliaries
• 3. Farmers etc.

The Rulers, Plato said, would be chosen from the military elite (called Guardians) because they were good at shepherding and caring for the interest of the community. The Auxiliaries would be Guardians in training. The Rulers, Plato said, must tell the people of the city "The Noble Lie" - that the categories of Rulers, Auxiliaries, Farmers, etc. was NOT due to circumstances within the people's control, upbringing, or education, but because of god's intervention. God, the Noble Lie went, had put gold, silver, and iron into each person’s soul, and those metals determined where a person's station was in life was. (Naughty, naughty Plato - *smack *smack.)

The Lie is necessary, Plato argued, in order to keep a stable social structure. In Plato’s mind, The Noble Lie is a religious lie that’s fed to the masses to keep them under control and happy with their situation in life. Plato did not believe most people were smart enough to look after their own and society’s best interest. The few smart people of the world needed to lead the rest of the flock, and The Noble Lie was designed for that purpose.

Now I suppose you see where the verse from "All Things Bright And Beautiful" fits in. It appears to mirror the philosophy in Plato's Republic. The people must be told that their position in life, their estate, was preordained by god. This Noble Lie keeps the masses subservient and obedient, so their betters can get on with ruling the world as they see fit.

Now those of you, the scarce few of you, who have received a good "liberal education" probably know about the Noble Lie, Plato and god's gold, silver and iron class structure, but with "liberalism" such a dirty word these days, it would be fair to guess that the majority of people do not.

How many people live in a matrix woven by Plato's noble lie? Millions, I guess. It enables kings, queens, emperors, presidents and prime ministers to rule unhindered, in the main by the masses. The mass of believers are too busy believing that it is god's will that they have cancer or diabetes. Or that it is a god's will that they are poor or ignorant. This, they are led to believe, is for the good of their eternal souls. Implicit in this belief is the assumption that by accepting these circumstances, they will be rewarded in heaven for their earthly suffering.

Now, why was that verse in "All Things Bright And Beautiful" ommitted in recent times? Maybe it was ommitted because it was counter-productive to the intention. If the intention was/is to keep people, ignorant, subservient and obedient to their masters, it is best if the intention is not blasted at them through a bullhorn or sung to them repeatedly in a hymn. Tellng people they are to accept their lot in life in order to preserve the social order, just might start a revolution or something.

Mind you, it has a kind of delicious irony about it if people are encouraged to sing such a verse and brainwash themselves into subservience at the same time. Mission Accomplished.

"The aim of liberal education is to create persons who have the ability and the disposition to try to reach agreements on matters of fact, theory, and actions through rational discussions." - Andrew Chrucky

plato , noble lie , noble , lie , republic , the republic , all things bright and beautiful , hymns , liberalism , liberal education

Natural Selection VS Artificial Selection

Many people seem to have difficulty in understanding the differences in these terms. These terms are NOT interchangeable in meaning. They are NOT synonymous.

• 1. Evolution
• 2. Natural selection
• 3. Artifical selection
• 4. Selective breeding
• 5.Survival of the fittest
• 6. Eugenics
• 7. Social darwinism

1. Evolution describes a biological process where change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, is determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years.

2. Natural selection describes a biological process by which individual organisms with unfavorable traits are less likely to survive and reproduce than those with favorable traits. Natural selection works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in adaptations and speciation. Natural selection is the "engine" of evolution.

3. Artificial selection describes the deliberate human manipulation of a biological process. It is driven by a human agenda. It is the process where intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions will encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. It was originally defined by Charles Darwin in contrast to the process of natural selection, in which the differential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival and reproductive ability in the natural habitat of the organism. Artifial selection is the OPPOSITE of natural selection.

4. Selective breeding also describes a biological process with a human agenda where the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions will encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. Selective breeding is a form of artifical selection. It is a process where human beings use their knowledge of bloodline, strain and inbreeding to facilitate the weeding-out of undesired characteristics and the fixation of desired traits in domesticated animals. Inbreeding and linebreeding are controversial aspects of artificial selection, but have been practiced for centuries.

5. "Survival of the fittest" describes a social philosophy which attempts to explain human social progress. It was coined by Herbert Spencer. Spencer tried to draw parallels to his ideas of economics, politics and sociology with Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" used in this way, is not a biological term describing the process of natural selection, but a sociological term used in an attempt to explain social, political and cultural changes.

6. Eugenics describes a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of human intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.

7. Social Darwinism describes a social philosophy which claims that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation), competition between individuals or groups in human societies drives social evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is the "engine" of Social Darwinism.

Artifical selection, selective breeding, eugenics and social darwinism are models of human political, social, economic or cultural intentionality. Human beings have opinions on what constitute favourable genetic traits and sometimes they use scientific knowledge in order to create outcomes which suit their political, social or cultural desires. In other words, they attempt to predetermine according to their own prejudices or biases traits or behaviours which they deem to be favourable.

Natural selection does not have a predetermined human opinion concerning that which is a favourable trait. Mutations may be favourable or unfavourable depending on the environment. Nor does natural selection have a predetermined human opinion about what constitutes a favourable or an unfavourable trait, or a moral or an immoral trait, characteristic or behaviour. Natural selection occurs without a human preconceived idea of the end result. In other words, natural selection does not occur because humans wish or will it to occur. It occurs outside of human intentionality. It occurs in the same way that the planets rotate regardless of our intentionality, gravity occurs outside of our intentionality, and photosynthesis occurs outside of our intentionality.

Scientific processes, like natural selection, are morally, politically, culturally and economically neutral. Human beings are not. No one assumes that gravity occurs because of human intent. It is evidenced regardless of our intent. Likewise, the description of a natural process like natural selection, does NOT include a human moral, political, social, economic or cultural opinion about that process NOR about the result of that process.

For example: - The scientific description of the process of photosynthesis does not include the human opinion that green plants are better, so therefore we should wipe out all the plants which are not green. Photosynthesis merely describes the process whereby sugar is synthesized in the presence of light, carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen as a waste product. It takes a human driven agenda to decide that by interfering with the process of photosynthesis, we could kill off all the green plants.

Similarly, the scientific decription of the process of natural selection, does not include the human opinion that Aryans are better, so therefore we should wipe out all the people who are not Aryan. It takes a human driven agenda based in a political, social, cultural, or religious intention to do that. Artificial selection is the engine of human intention; not natural selection.

Natural selection is NOT eugenics, artifical selection, or selective breeding. It is the process described by darwin which is demonstrated by the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes.

Mankind deliberately tinkering with genetic information is not an example of natural selection as described by Darwin. It is an example of artificial selection, whereby genes are selected for characteristics not based upon a naturally occuring selection process. Certainly, neither eugenics, nor artifical selection, fit the description of evolution and natural selection espoused by Darwin.

That mankind can produce a cloned animal, is NOT an example of natural selection. It is an example of man using genetic knowledge to predetermine a desired result. That mankind can use a system of eugenics against those who they arbitarily consider "unfit"; is also NOT an example of natural selection. It is an example of the use of genetic knowledge in order to prejudicially determine "fitness."

These observed natural processes, like natural selection and photosynthesis are impartial or neutral to human needs, desires and wants. Observed natural processes have no human agenda unless human beings attempt to ascribe, or create one for it.

How human beings interpret, apply and use information is controversial and is potentially much more controversial than the information itself.

"Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed." ~Thomas Henry Huxley

LINKS:

Social Darwinism

The Complete Works Of Charles Darwin Online

Genetic Inheritance By Paramutation

evolution , natural selection , artificial selection , eugenics, selective breeding , social darwinism , survival of the fittest , science , darwin , agenda

The Gods Must Be Crazy And The Gods Must Be Male

Female Fertility Goddess

If you are male and of a sensitive disposition, look away now. Guess what happened in 1843? A guy named Martin Berry discovered that human conception occurs when the sperm enters the ovum. What?? I hear you say. Yeah, amazing isn't it. Before this time people weren't too sure how babies developed in women. They used to believe that the male contributed ALL the necessary ingredients to create life. Until 1843 this was considered true until Berry showed that both the male and female each contribute half the material needed to create life.

The ovum (female egg) had been discovered a few years earlier in 1827 by Prussian-Estonian embryologist Dr. Karl Ernst von Baer. So, prior to this there was a lack of knowledge that the female contributed anything to the creation of life except a space to "grow a baby." Male sperm had been discovered in 1677 by a student of Antonij van Leeuwenhoek, but people have always been aware that the male could deposit fluid during ejaculation. They just hadn't seen the wriggly sperm yet. We have only known for a very short period of human history that human conception requires a female egg and male sperm, which goes a long way to explaining why many men in present history couldn't find a clitoris without a detailed map and directions. It goes a long way towards explaining many other aspects of our cultures as well.

I find the historical context of this biological information extremely interesting. I suggest that this lack of knowledge for thousands of years directly influenced many of our modern social/cultural and religious beliefs. In the dim, dark past of ancient civilizations, women were revered as goddesses. The goddesses were symbolically fertile, representing growth, spring and new life. Some of the ancient neolithic sculptures of "fertility goddesses" traditionally depict a robust, female form with a swollen belly of life. It is of little wonder that birth and renewal of life was seen to be miraculous, mysterious, incomprehensible AND female. The female form was worshipped as the creator of new life. People would pray to their female fertility goddesses to grant them a good harvest, a strong and plentiful herd of animals, and the conditions environmentally which would allow for these abundances. Thousands of different goddess cults were created over the centuries in her honour.

And then, within a relatively short period of time, the goddesses began to be replaced with the worship of male gods. In certain cultures male and female gods were worshipped at the same time in history, but goddesses eventually fell from favour and the onslaught of the male gods began. What caused this noticeable change from goddess worship to god worship? People have always created gods/goddesses to explain what was, to them, the inexplicable and to seek counselling and favour; but why such a noticeable shift from the female to the male? Sometime, in the dim, dark past, (yes, that sort of past again), I think that people began to put two and two together. They began to recognize that women, the revered creators of life, did NOT create life unless they had BEEN WITH A MAN.

It was obvious to most, I guess, that men during sexual climax, ejaculated a fluid. This fluid if deposited inside the female resulted in the creation of a new life. The penny dropped, though not completely accurately. Over a period of time, men began to see THEMSELVES as the creators of life. In fact, as they had evidence of their contribution, (ejaculation), it was not difficult for them to claim that THEY contributed ALL that was necessary for the creation of life.

What does this mean? What it means is that men were able to claim the superior position economically, politically and religiously based upon the evidence of ejaculation and the belief that this ejaculate was solely responsible for the creation of new life. Woman was viewed as "the vessel" or the "soil" in which men deposited "his seed". Her contribution was seen as the carrier of the life which the male created. Women were considered "barren" like lifeless soil if they did not "bear fruit" (conceive); because afterall, there was evidence of male ejaculation. He was doing his part, so it must be that HER body was incapable of producing life, just as barren ground was considered incapable of producing plants.

This helps to explain why during the time that the hebrews were busy writing the "old testament" that the role of women was never going to be considered as important as that of men. Why women for thousands of years were NEVER going to be seen to be as important as men. Why women rarely would be in positions of power, unless that power was primarily at the behest of a close male who already had assumed power.

It also helps to explain the concept of the "miraculous virgin birth". Even though societies saw that the male deposited life into the woman, they remembered back to when they BELIEVED that women could create life without male contribution. This of course, was seen as something quite special but the "virgin mother" could not be given the credit as she was in past times. This would upset the already defined patriarchal hierarchy. Life, if it had NOT been implanted by mortal man, must have been implanted by a supernatural male. That is, one who was capable of creating life without the necessity of existing as a mortal male.

It helps to explain why the jewish covenant with god was a foreskin. Afterall, god must be male as males create life, so what is more appropriate than a bit of penis skin to symbolize this creative life-giving power. (All males who have been ritually circumcised as part of a cultural belief system, may cross their legs at this time.)

It helps to explain why cults developed around penis worship; just as cults had developed previously around the swollen stomach of the pregnant female. It explains why, throughout history, systems of government and religion have been predominately the domain of men.

It helps to explain why ancestry has primarily been traced through the male line. Those kids are all HIS seed. She was ONLY the vessel. It helps to explain why most religions up to the present day are male dominated political organizations. In reality, it may only have been about an incorrect premise. The incorrect premise was "penis power". "Penis power" was based on the mistaken belief that the male was SOLELY responsible for the creation of life. The claim that males contained all the ingredients of life in their penis, and therefore THEY were the creators of life, might just be the basis of male dominated culture.

Afterall, the gods MUST be male if males are considered the creators of life. It took until 1843 for a scientist to show that "penis power" and possibly all the human cultural dynamics based upon it, was just an unsupportable claim, lacking in evidence and veracity. But by then, men, who have notoriously short memories anyway, had forgotten how and why they had created their crazy, male gods in the first place. And unfortunately, so had most women.

LINKS:

• PHALLIC WORSHIP
• Priapus Worship - A Short Account of Penis/Phallus Worship
• More on the Priapeia
• Phallic Saints
• History of Sex/Ancient Greece

"All personal, psychological, social, and institutionalized domination on this earth can be traced back to its source: the phallic identities of men." - Andrea Dworkin

Please enjoy this version of "Spiirit In The Sky" brought to you by the goddess Kali :)

god , gods , goddess , goddesses , godess , gods must be crazy , fertility , worship , patriarchy , male god , circumcision , covenant , religion , create , creator