Redux: An Alternative Spending of the Iraq Money

A couple of years ago I wrote about what could have been done with the money spent on Iraq if it had instead been spent on energy research. Today we learn what the most current cost of the war is and also what the total projected cost will be. Just imagine where we would be as a nation, if we had spent over $600 BILLION on energy research and deployment from 2003 until today and were projecting spending a total of $2.7 TRILLION on energy research over the life of the program.

Just where do you think we would be if we instead of spending this money on a war in Iraq which killed over 4,000 Americans (more than died on 9/11) had spent it on energy research and implementation in our society? We would all be driving vehicles which had a zero carbon footprint, were cheap to operate, were more safe. We would be using electricity generated by zero carbon footprint sources; fusion and fission nuclear power, renewable resources, and our nuclear fuel cycle would be complete (no long term nuclear fuel storage problems).

On top of that, our social issues would be next to zero as well. Every single American would have the best and most thorough health care our children would be the best educated and science would be advanced to almost unimaginable levels. How much is a manned mission to Mars expected to cost, $1 Trillion? Done.

So spend this money on killing 4,000 Americans -- That is sane in the eyes of diehard conservative Republicans. But spending that same amount of money on making this great country a shining star of all that is good -- that is wasteful?? And anyone listens to these people? Instead of our children paying for a great and saving blossoming of science, energy and social salvation (if this pat I have laid out were to have been taken), our children and grandchilden are going to be paying for the deaths of over 4,000 Americans for what?? A halfhearted and despised liberation of Iraq? What sense does that make?

I really do cry when I think about just how wasted this monstruous sum of money has been. And I mourn when I think about how far along we would be as a society if it had been spent as I've outlined.

Evil does not even come close to describing these people who have guided our country for the last 8 years.

Should I bring back Dolly's version of Imagine again? Naw, I've used it too many times already...

Revisiting Ray Comfort

You know it has been a long while since I have mentioned Ray Comfort. I discussed him even before he had his own blog, Comfort Food. Reading his blog one thing becomes clear; simple questions to him beg absurdly simply answers. And more importantly, well-thought-out questions do not exist and thus have no need of answers. This is obvious in the types of "questions" which get asked and answered As anyone who peruses his blog can see. Nothing tough or above the simple strawman is ever addressed, just simple-minded questions and even more simple-minded answers. This leads one to wonder if this simplemindedness is the only level on which Ray Comfort is able to operate. He after all, is the arch-architect of the infamous "banana" argument for creationism. This alone should has disqualified him from and reasoned Christian discourse. But alas, he has hung around like that pesky "common cold" virus.

I have to admit that I am thankful. For if his is the level of Christian apologetics, then reason, logic, fact and reality have a chance in overcoming Christianity. We can all thank our good friend Ray for that.

Let us take for one example of this, this recent post by our good friend Ray, The Faithiest. He opens it by posing a "question" he recieved. One look at this question and you can instantly tell that it is nothing more than an overly simple question asked in hopes of being overly simply answered. And Ray jumps at the chance of making the simple completely over-simplistic:

"Life forms change over time and given enough time they can and did change dramatically. GET OVER IT! No one is ever, ever going to go back to the idea that species were created fully developed at a specific point in time. NEVER. The details of the theory may change but not the framework. There is no faith involved. Move on. Evolution happens." Milo

I cannot say that I know the mind of Milo, but I can say that his representation here is so absurd as to be laughable. Reality is that humanity learns on a daily basis, we know more today than we did yesterday. Thus what we consider to be factual from day to day never changes, how we interpret those facts as we learn more, changes. Faith is the complete absense of fact. A Muslim has faith in their god, as does a Jew in theirs, as does a Christian in theirs. No fact is involved. Consider a man standing atop the tower of Pisa with a stone in his hand. He cannot say to his friend there, that he has faith if he lets go of the stone it will hit the ground, and his friend cannot say that he has faith it will not hit the ground. This is because they are talking about facts of reality, the real physical world. But in terms of religion, there is no reality whatsoever. It is all faith-based. How can one supernatural god based upon some holy book be better or more real than another god based upon some holy book?

Just look for example at the bible: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" [Heb 11:1 NKJV]. Since all of nature can be seen of evidence of it seen, then none of nature can be considered in terms of faith. This includes evolution. We see evolution, we see evidence of evolution in the past, we have mountains of facts not just including fossils, which are all nature and thus not faith-based to back up evolution. We have the natural laws of physics to back up dating and relational chronographies. We have chemistry and bio-chemistry, DNA, embyonosis. All these are natural and fact based; thus outside the "unseen" realm of faith.

But none of that shows up in Ray's post at all.

Here is what we do see in Ray's response:

You have said, "Life forms change over time and given enough time they can and did change dramatically." This is what you believe. Its a statement that is based on faith. You weren’t there when the life forms were created, and you didn't see them change. You don’t know how life began; you simply believe that what you have been told actually did happen. Like it or not, you are a "believer" in the theory of evolution.

How life began is not an issue of evolution at all. Evolution deals only with how life, once it occurred, changed over time. How difficult is it for Creationists to understand this very simple fact. The origin of the chemistry of life is completely different from the origins of the diversity of lifeforms once life came into existence. One is a question of speculation, the origin of life, and one is a question of understanding all the facts of life and how well we understand the process that fits all those facts together. And here I repeat this simple, nay simply simple fact that every day we learn more facts and thus have a better -- more precise -- understanding of how all present species came to be like they are today.

But look more closely at what Ray actually does say. Take this quote, "This is what you believe. Its a statement that is based on faith. You weren’t there when the life forms were created, and you didn't see them change." Could this not also be said about George Washington? Who today could have personally seen George Washington? Thus according to Ray Comfort we can only "believe" in George Washington via "faith". Furthermore, we have witnessed lifeforms change, even change into new species. So not only do we have a flat out lie about not witnessing evolution, but we have either deceit or ignorance when it comes to the value (or lack of value according to Ray) of things we have not seen but can verify in totally natural records.

This is again in stark contrast to the supernatural and unknowable ways of any god, not just God or Jesus. Since the bible was written by humans and is undeniably rooted in specifically historical events, it is also natural not supernatural. Thus even the bible itself is not proof of anything supernatural other than the supernatural desirables of its wholly natural authors.

So again we come up against this whole canard of faith applied to the provable and understandable natural realm when it is defined solely by the unseen, unknowable and supernatural realm of the gods. Even the bible tells us this.

Ray Comfort, then must either be a charlatan or wholly ignorant of both real reality and biblical reality.

And more importantly, this is just an example. His entire philosophy and blog is exactly the same.

Expelled! is Ignored

The anti-science "mock"-umentary and Ben Stein comedy vehicle "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" just opened this weekend. The IMDB unofficial tally (note this is a dynamic page and a week from now the results will change) has the opening weekend take of Expelled at $3.15M. Falling just short of the children's actual comedy, "Horton Hears a Who" which amassed $3.5M.

[Update: Expelled only achieved $2.97M in the final tally. Horton managed $3.51M]

Maybe it is time for all those Christian conspiracy-theorists to just pack it up and go home if they cannot even sell their B.S. propaganda to Christians enough to surpass a bad Dr. Seuss movie.

Oh, and just what did Ben Stein's faux-documentary have to say about Christians who accept evolution (and thus destroy his entire thesis)? ...Why nothing, of course. No interview of Ken Miller at all. Certainly a gaping hole in his whole "believe in God and therefore be expelled from all science" theme. And who is Ken Miller?

Final Update: Check out this review by Alexander J. Sheffrin in the Christian Post. He says:

In an impressive opening weekend, the film debuted at No. 9 at the box office, earning a respectable $3.2 million while only appearing on 1,052 screens.

And now for some quick math.. $3.2M divided by 1,052 screens gives us $3042 per screen over the weekend. Now I am going to be kind here, lets assume just two showings per day for the three days. That means six total showings per screen. Also assume $9 per ticket (person). So divide $3042 by $9 and that that gives you a total of 338 people per screen. Divide that by six showings total per screen and that gives you a total of 57 people per showing. Now does 57 people in a theatre of lets say an average of 200 total seats sound like it could be described as "impressive"?

Atheist Statistics

I really hate to base yet another post on a YouTube video, but...


(Thanks to Dirk Diggler over at Unscrewing The Inscrutable)

Personally, I have to really think on the implications of these types of statistics. For on the one hand it shows that the more you learn about the world, and the universe we live in, the more likely you are to dump God. But on the other it shows, quite starkly, just how right the religious right is in their hatred of education and learning. Keep people stupid and they belive in God, allow them to be educated, and they begin to ignore pre-historic god figures. Facts and reality do not jive with any sort of God-belief at all.

The bible, in its entirety, is my best proof of this. I have spoken at length about the problems, errors, and outright unfactual "facts" found in the bible. I have even written a book about this subject. God kills babies, willfully, and with intent. But today God hates abortion. I guess god hates doctors taking over His role? Oh wait, doctors today heal people of illness, yet in biblical times, it took a prophet of God, or his own Son, to heal the sick... Christians Unite! No longer is abortion the only right-to-life God morality issue, going to the doctor is just as evil. Or something like that.

And of course, my thanks go out to Rhology. For he has proven beyond all doubt, that fact, proof, education, are all in the eye of the beholder. With Rhology, if it is supernatural it is real and proof in and of itself, and the pittling proof and facts I offer of this world we all know is nothing compared to his causeless god who caused the cause-needing Universe. For with logic like that, I am but a child in a world of doctorates.

I obviously, can only be defeated by a level of knowledge and fact which can possibly claim that even though the bible tells us the value of pi is 3.0, that in reality it is only an approximation because of the imprecise language of the ancient Hebrews, but on every other matter (that is not related to science or mathematics) the Hebrew text is completely and utterly true and factual and the absolute words of God (not word of God).

So we are back to fact and fantasy, education and ignorance, academic and religious. Statistics show that the more one leans to former and less the latter, the more one tends to be atheistic.

All the more reason to make sure all our children are better educated.

This is pretty cool too:


Let us close with Dolly Parton, a Tennessee establishment:

A Bizarre Poker Hand and a Math Puzzle

Ed Brayton shows a YouTube video of a very unusual hand. For fun, I'll include the video as well.


My puzzle is this. Obviously -- do I even need to say that? -- we in Vegas have thousands of video poker machines. If you've never played them then this may be unfamiliar to you. But there are two methods of handing cards based on the cards held out of the five original cards. With each of those methods comes a prababilistic model one can use to establish the probabilities of a winning hand. But the really interesting mathematical question is how to determine which of the two methods is used by the poker machines. Or can it be determined?

First let me briefly describe the game (we'll limit it to straight poker, but joker poker is essentially the same problem but with one wild card added to the deck -- deuces wild is the same as straight poker). You are given five cards, anything including or better than a pair of jacks wins. You can keep any cards dealt or dump all five cards. Replacement cards are then dealt, and you win or lose based on those final five cards. Thus, at most ten cards in play from a deck of 52 (or 53 with the joker). The question is how are those ten cards handled by the machine? The two methods of dealing those cards are:

1) five cards are dealt and then five replacement cards are used based on the number of cards discarded. Thus at most ten cards are in play, and the replacement cards merely move forward in the stack to replace the disdcarded cards. For example the ten cards are numbered (unrelated to their actual value) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. If the player keeps two cards, let's say in position 3 and 5, then cards 6,7,8, move into positions 1,2,4.

2) five cards are dealt and five replacement cards are underneath the five original cards, as if there were actually five stacks of two cards, with the second card hidden underneath the first card. Going back to our example: 1(6),2(7),3(8),4(9),5(10). If the player keeps the same cards, 3 and 5, then cards 6,7,9 are revealed.

Now in case one, it is obvous that it would be impossible for cards 9 and 10 to be revealed, but in case two it would be impossible for cards 8 and 10 to be revealed.

So herein lies the mathematical interest. Which situation would give a player (or the house) a stastical advantage? And more importantly, without knowing how the cards are dealt out, can one determine which method is used, even if no advantage is conferred by either method? Your knowns are what I sketched out above, plus the fact that no hand can be replayed to see if different cards are given out in the exact same situation.

The answer to the first question is faily obvious I would think, it is the second question that makes this puzzle interesting.

Rapture Ready pt II -- Heathen Rapture Debunked

In my last post, I identified a two part series of posts by Wilfred Hahn over at Rapture Ready. I will focus on part II in this post. We have already seen how he ignores fact and reality to twist current world events into "proof" that rapture is imminent. Only he showed that in reality it is nothing more than a self-generated series of events that have no relation to anything supernatural -- i.e. God. In spite of this plain and simple fact, he proceded to expound on his thesis that somehow, someway, nonChristians can see these events and recognize that the coming of Jesus is indeed a certainty in short order. In his opening paragraphs of part II he writes:

Therefore, the simple question we pose is this: If Christians, who supposedly possess the Bible and therefore are without excuse to hear what God says and means, would at least non-Christians have a legitimate excuse for their blindness? The Bible answers this question clearly in the negative. Unbelieving humanity will have no excuse.
While Christians also “have the word of the prophets made more certain” (2 Peter 1:19) the entire rest of the world still remains without excuse. This indictment is even more valid today. Why? The first verified appearance of the prophesied Christ has already occurred. If He “[…] had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.“ (John 15:22) Moreover, God “has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

Any time a fundamentalist Christian uses a Bible quote in their argument, I know that I can easily defeat their argument. For there is not one single quote in the entire Bible that proves anything at all. even the moralistic quotes only show that the Bible writers were aware of moral tenets that others had also learned through non-God-revalatory methods (trial and error). But lets look at this passage from Wilfred.

The first verified appearance of the prophesied Christ has already occurred. If He “[…] had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.“ (John 15:22)
Well then, wouldn't we all be better off if we had never heard anything of God, Jesus or his message, because then we would be free of all guilt! But we know that is false. Even the Bible denies this. For look at the very first book of the Bible. The story of Noah should be enough to prove this false. Innocents who had never heard of God were all summarily killed off, even animals. So this is a lie. It is certainly not a good start to convince non-Christians of the accuracy and supremacy of the Bible. and if this blatant falsehood is protrayed as proof of Jesus, then there is no reason to believe at all. (or maybe telling lies is how proof is given; See Paul in his epistles to the Romans, "For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?" [Romans 3:7 NKJV] )

Moreover, God “has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)
Excuse me, but no proof of anything is not the same as proof of something. Prove that Jesus was raised from the dead first. That is a pretty extraordinary claim, and somebody merely saying it happened is not enough. If it were, then all Christians should be Mormons, since the claim of Joseph Smith should be enough proof that it really happened (The visit by the angel Moroni). Besides we have already seen that the founding Christians, like Paul, were willing to lie to further their evangelical goals, so how can we take a statement by another "Paul" as truth, if it is established that they lie?

So let us continue and examine just what the next five end-times signs Wilfred has lined up to prove to us heathens that the rapture is real.

6. World Energy Supplies

At first you may wonder just what our world energy supplies has to do with rapture and the Bible.. That is an easy one to answer; nothing at all. But, as I am sure you could have guessed by now, the obvious is not what Wilfred wants to discuss:

In recent times, energy prices have been soaring. What could this have to do with the endtimes? It certainly speaks of an eventual end at least of one type — the end of the Oil Age. Our secular observer of this development — whether an energy expert or geopolitical strategist — would agree that oil assuredly will run out some day based upon present-day trends. Moreover, they will also surmise that this will have a destabilizing effect upon the world. But, from the evidence, could they also conclude something more apocalyptic even without reading the Bible?

The answer to his question is: No. Of course everyone agrees that oil will run out. It is a finite quantity after all. But science and almost everyone who is not an insane conservative also knows that new alternatives to oil are possible and should be researched. Science wants to solve the Oil problem -- the energy problem -- by finding new sources of energy, but that requires money. Liberals and heathens want to give them this money, conservatives want to invest in finding new places to drill for oil. ANWR anyone? So no, there is no evidence of "something apocalyptic" coming in terms of energy except that Cheney and Republicans do not want to change from oil. So the problem is the stubbornness of conservatives, not the supply of energy. So, again, conservatives cause the problem and then these end-of-the-world religious nutjobs claim this means something that it does not. What they fail to realize isthat they are only setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Consider these facts: Roughly three-quarters of world oil reserves are found in countries that are either predominantly Islamic or members of the 57-country member Organization of the Islamic Conference. Muslim nations have 3.4 times as much oil per person than the world average and almost 7.7 times as much as major Christian nations — what I call the Top-10-X countries

So what? Oil is found in a region that has also traditionally been Islamic. Let's see what Wilfred says:

These facts and many improbable others relating to the world’s hydrocarbon situation today, beg incredulity and statistical probabilities. Observing all of these improbable facts (For a full list of more than 20, please see the article series in Midnight Call, Final Combustion: Oil, Islam and the Christian West — April to July 2006), a geopolitical analyst today would be alerted to a cosmic time plan that is indeed headed for a flash point.

Improbable? How is it improbable that a valuable resource winds up being discovered in a region that nothing else at all to offer -- thus making that region poor and backward. I would counter with the example of diamonds in South Africa. That region contains many resources other than diamonds, and yet it is still poor. The injection of diamond wealth still did not affect the overall population. And their predominant religion? Christianity. So Wilfred is just chasing a logical fallacy here, trying to equivocate two unrelated facts into one cause and effect.

And that "cosmic time plan"? Well it seems to be that nothing here on earth in terms of resources is infinite and will run out. It is up to humans to either conserve that resource or find alternatives to it when it runs out. Wilfred is an idiot.

7. Populations and Pensions

Can I just skip this with merely the observation that Wilfred is an idiot? No? Ok. I guess it is true that ad hominins do not suffice as logical argument. So the world's population is growing. I can only reiterate that all the world's resources are limited, not just oil. Food and land are limited as well. But increasing the world's population is solely within the religious doctrine of conservative Christianity. Abortion and contraception are bad things to them. They are the ones pushing for a larger population. The problem is of their making. But guess who has the solutions? That's right, the non-Christian heathens, the liberals, and science.

But the obvoius is not where Wilfred goes:

What kind of crisis is expected? Not a population explosion as has been feared in recent decades, but rather an implosion. Where it once was feared that the world would soon be overburdened by too many people, world population growth has since slowed dramatically from the peak rates of the 1960s. Demographic experts are already predicting that the world’s population may actually decline 25 to 50 years from now. Crucially, world population trends have moved from one extreme to another in less than one century — a relatively short span on the human timeline.

What?? I don't know what dope this guy is smoking but I want some. We have added almost a billion people since 2000. And what experts are predicting a decline? All I can find is that there are some who think that we have already overtaxed our resources and thus we cannot sustain our current population. But that is an unproven hypothesis. Other --equally as valid -- experts say that the earth can sustain a human population of 10 billion if our resources are properly managed. The problem with their estimate is that it requires liberal leaders willing to exploit new ideas and new resources instead of conservatives who want the same ol' same ol'.

As it stands today, all our problems are fixable, but only if a new, progressive, leadership is in place to push for it. The environment will not survive if tired old conservative ideals are continued. The oceans, our energy, our farmland all will collapse unless new ideas are used. So the conservatives that Christians push to lead us are the source of the problem facing us all as a population. This means Christianity is the problem, not the actual sustainability of our planet. (I realize I am oversimplifying here, it is religion in general, in other regions of the world the religion for the same attitudes is different, but the general attitudes proffered by religion is the same no matter what the religion or where it is.)

8. Geopolitics and Human Conflict

Ah yes, the war and complete nuclear annhilihation argument. We certainly have that power now in this point of human history. It would also be nice if we had cooler heads prevailing when it comes to war. But as always it is the ultra-conservatives who push for war. Liberals always are on the side of peace. Haven't we had this argument now here in the U.S. since 2003 when Bush and his hawks invaded Iraq? I can only guess that Wilfred was hibernating in his religious cavern during this time.

To some, it appears certain that it will be “religious fundamentalism” that brings the world to this state. Or, it could simply be the warlike characteristic of man in an age of advanced weaponry and geopolitics that must lead to such an outcome. Recently, comments about a possible World War III have been popularized in relation to Iran’s purported nuclear build-up. World wars are a modern invention, the first two of which have only occurred in the last 100 years. Whatever the case or the cause for a WW III, the secular analyst must conclude that it could soon hold dire implications for the world.

Well he has me there. I certainly think it will be religious extremism that ends us as a race. Be that religion Christianity or Islam it does not matter. Religion, as a whole, is the most likely source of our demise. That means religion is the evil among us. So how is this an argument for believing that religion is our savior?

Oh, and for what its worth, Wilfred is completely ignorant of actual world history. There have been a number of world wars before WWI and WWII. They just weren't labeled "world war". The Romans, the Huns, they were warring parties that engulfed the entire known world (at theor respective times) in war. Technology changed but that is about all.

9. Environmental Concerns

Haven't we already covered this many times? Does Wilfred not realize that these things are all intimately connected? Oh, that's right the "environment" to the right means nothing more than "glabal warming."

Is the earth wearing out? Despite the fact that there is a contested debate about global warming and various other environmental issues today, the Bible says that the world will run down. “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies.” (Isaiah 51:6) No matter that globalists might want to use such issues as global warming to further their humanist agenda, it is factual that the world is being indelibly changed in our day. Pollution has had an indisputable impact in many ways. Forests are disappearing at a rate that is not sustainable. Fish stocks in the world’s oceans are being gradually depleted. There are a large number of similar developments that are observable in the world, as the wearing out of a garment. Indeed, some effects can be reversed. But all the same, the logical analyst
would still be faced with this question: How long can such trends continue before deeper crises impact the world?

Whoa! What else if left for me to say. I could write something very similar to this to prove Wilfred wrong. "Humanist agenda." Yeah, that is the agenda where we humans want to protect and preserve our world and our environment so that it endures well beyond our own meager lifetimes. It is the religionist agenda that selfishly abuses every single resource we have with no thought for tomorrow or much less a century from now. It is the religionist agenda that craves war and conflict. It is the religionist agenda that sucks up all the wealth from every other sector of humanity. And in answer to Wilfred's question, those trends can only last until religion as a whole is dropped from the human collective. Then things can begin to improve. The end-times that Wilfred envisions is one solely and wholly created by religion. "Humanism" is the only rational and reasonable solution.
10. Technology Signs
One would expect that this would be a diatribe railing against all modern technology which has caused as much harm as good. But you would be wrong. In fact Wilfred goes in the exact opposite direction. His claim is that all our modern technology should be seen as showing even more proof that God created everything. How this fits in with his main thesis -- that these are the top ten things a heathen would recognize as being signs of the end-times is beyond me. This seems to prove the exact opposite..

But there is a paradox in all this. Consider that two thousand years ago Apostle Paul could write this: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
If Paul at that time — pre-technology and pre-modern-science — could deduce that God must exist based upon knowledge about the physical universe known then, why not more so today? That should be the logical conclusion. Yet, modern man has taken the opposite posture. He chooses to worship mankind itself rather that the original Creator of all this know-how in the first place.

I think that today's known human knowledge shows the exact opposite of what he claims. The size and nature of the universe is the exact opposite of what the bible teaches. The age of the universe contradicts what the bible claims. And these are simply facts, we are not even considering the theories which arise from these facts.

Oh and just what knowledge of the universe did Paul possess? That the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that the stars could fall to the earth, that demons caused disease and prayer could cure said disease. There is no knowledge at all in that which could be said to be useful in understanding the universe, or even God, for it was all wrong. If the knowledge used at that time to create a god was wrong then there could have been no god at all, if the knowledge we have today shows there is no god then this is not somehow tristed proof that there really is a god, as Wilfred claims.

From there he has a few closing comments. Here is one:

Christians have even less excuse. There are 2500-year old Bible prophecies that can only take place in an advanced technological age such as today. For example, the statement about the two witness that “for three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial” (Revelation 11:9) has obvious implications. This could only occur as of this last half-century — the era of communications satellites. What nation, language or kindred people’s today would not have access to the internet or television over a 3 and ½ day period?

Could there possibly be any more of a ridiculuous statement? The inclusion of three and a half days proves that the Bible writers knew of satellites and the internet? How absurd is that? I guess the fact that the known world at that time was all contained within a small area, and the other areas, Africa and Asia were considered off-limits and not-essential. (consider this statement regarding Paul: "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia." Here is the quote in context: Acts 16:5-7 [New King James Version]. ) Ignoring huge chunks of the world certainly makes it a smaller place don't you think?

But even more importantly, look at that passage again. What does it have to do at all with all tribes knowing about all other tribes at all? What does it saying about knowing anything at all about everything going on in the world at all? It takes a warped mind to read the internet and satellite communication into that passage.

But I have to say this, and I cannot stress this strongly enough. I have to thank our good friend Wilfred. For he has proven to me that without a doubt Christian thought and the foundations of current Christian thought are fully without any merit or validity at all. Wilfred has done more to strengthen my disbelief than all the atheist writers I have read, combined.

More on Smog -- Our President

In my last post regarding smog and pollution, I referred to nameless "conservative Republicans" as being the source. Today we have a name.. And that name is Bush.

The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken an important part of its new smog requirements after being told at the last minute that President Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents.

I guess this is consistent with the Bush Doctrine: Make you safer by making you less safe (so many of you die and then there's less of you to make safe, making it easier -- or something like that. Yeah, I don't understand it either). Here's how it works:

The memos and documents indicate that EPA officials had wanted to make the public welfare standard more stringent than the health standard, although still not as protective as some scientists had recommended.But the White House insisted on making both standards identical, according to the documents. When EPA officials balked, the issue went to Bush, who sided with his budget office.
The White House defended Bush's action.
"This is not a weakening of regs (regulations) or standards," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday. "But it was an effort to make the standards
consistent. There's no question we have an interest in how federal regs impact communities."
Fratto said the new standards are the "most stringent smog standards in history" and that communities will have a hard time meeting them. He described the area where Bush intervened as 'a technical matter' and said he acted on the advice of the Justice Department.

So I see, the Justice Department and the budget office are making final decisions about public health and science. I guess they all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. ...Not.

Our Wonderful Environment

Don't you just love waking up in the morning and stepping outside to the wonderful aroma of fresh air, flowers and --well-- nature? I sure do. But like so many others --and there are millions of us-- that is not what we actually experience in the morning, or daytime, or evening, for that matter. We get the wonderful smell of pollution. I live in Las Vegas. You may live in Los Angeles, Houston, the Great Smokey Mountains of Tennessee, or wherever. But it is all the same.. A brown cloud that you can see when you move above or beyond it. It just looks disgusting from that distance. But is made even worse when you know that you actually live in and breathe it on a daily basis.

My hometown of Chattanooga, TN is a perfect example of turning the country's most polluted city into its cleanest. It can be done; it has been done. Most importantly, it has to be done, everywhere.

But what happens if conservatives are in charge and a state wants to clean itself up? You get this. Chattanooga is a perfect example of where progressive ideals lead to cleaner air, water, land and a stronger economy. But conservatives will have none of that. Its the status quo or no quo. Even the most casual look into the automotive industry shows just how screwed up the conservative mind is. Toyota turned an environmentally sound idea into a very successful and profitable product; the Toyota Prius. But the Big Three fought it. It was the same tired business model for them. And what happened? They got left behind and were faced with playing that most infamous of games, Catch-up. But it was easier for them to lobby the government to prevent any changes in their business practices than to make the changes that were inevitable (and that they are now doing to catch up with Toyota). Unfortunately for all of us, they had a willing ally: The conservative Republican machine.

So we see that things can change for the better if progressive ideas are used to help the environment, it can be good for people like we see in Chattanooga, it can be better in products like cars, and it can be better in other areas as well, like energy. In all areas of the environment and the economy, prosperity can occur if change and new ideas are allowed to reign. We see solid, concrete evidence all around us every day.

Only one thing stands in the way of real and massive economic growth, real and sustainable environmental protection, and a more widespread sense of health and prosperity. That is conservatism.

Just how many times have very prominent conservative writers or pundits publicly derided "global warming"? How many times have they fought against any sort of environmental stewardship at all?

All this makes me wonder why.. Why do conservatives fight against any sort of environmental responsibility even if it means better economic growth and better general populational health? Do they fear that what happened with Chattanooga and Toyota might just happen with all other cities and car companies? Do they fear that it may spread to all other industries as well?

I don't know. I could never pretend to understand the idea that things are best the way they are and could never ever be improved upon by using new ideas.

The question then becomes why is conservatism beholden to old ideas which cause such obvious problems? That question, I think, is easily answered. Those who hold the most to be gained by changing nothing are the ones who guide conservative principles. The best proof of this is the area of conservatism I discuss the most, conservative Christianity. But that is a tangent I won't go into here.

So, the moral of the story is simple, if you want cleaner air, vote against any and all conservatives, no matter what their political party.

Literature: Conservative and Liberal

PZ Myers has a great post up which should make anyone with an I.Q. greater than two digits stand up and take notice. In it he is humorously (well, not so much, as it is serious) commenting on the recent debate over over the books written by an atheist, Philip Pullman. The first of the trilogy, has now been made into a movie, "The Golden Compass."



Anyway, it seems that conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, want to simply ban books that they don't want anyone to read. Their current attack is preventing children to read books which may challenge the conservative's viewpoints. But we all know they also want to prevent adults from the same -- They want to prevent adults from viewing pornography, for example.



Is this really effective? Simply eliminating from public access books and material which they do not want be publicly known... But more importantly, how does the left handle books and material they do not want on the shelves, for public consumption?? The liberals of this world all have one thing in common, they will allow public access to all information, books, materials, etc. Their limit has to deal with only one thing: Delivering factual accuraccy to our children. Liberals only want to limit the direct teaching of anti-factual ideas, or at best, fact-less ideas. However, liberals do not support restricting access to books which support those same ideas. The perfect example is Intelligent Design. No liberal has suggested that the book, "Of Pandas and People" be eliminated from libraries despite it being full of factual inaccuracies. But teaching that same dreck to students should be completely eliminated from school science curricula.

I guess the simplest way to put the difference is this: Conservatives, especially conservative Christians, think that removing access to all books they don't like and preventing individual choice is the best route whereas liberals think that teaching only fact based classes and allowing access to non-factual hogwash for everyone is best.

And oddly enough this again boils down to whether or not one lives in a reality-based community, like liberals; or some fantasy land, like conservatives.

This is why FOX News is not known for science

Polonium - 210. The poison that killed the Russian Spy, Alexander Litvinenko. (see most recent CNN news story here.) It seems the FOX News has put their crack science guy on the trail of polonium-210. And so now we have the "fair and balanced" reporting on this isotope:

All it took was a simple Google search — “buy polonium 210 online” – and there, right at the top of my results, was a link to United Nuclear, a nifty little mail-order company in Sandia Park, NM, which I guess makes this desert crossroads the Mail-Order Nukes Capital of the World[.]

[...]

Now, to be fair, United Nuclear’s owner, physicist Bob Lazar, goes to great lengths on the site to explain why the amounts of Polonium-210 — and other radioactive materials — are not hazardous.

“The amount of Polonium-210, as well as any of the isotopes we sell, is an ‘exempt quantity’ amount,” Lazar’s Web site says. “These quantities of radioactive material are not hazardous – this is why they are permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to be sold to the general public without any sort of license.”

For the record, let me just say that I am a Health Physicist and a former Radiation Safety Officer. I know a thing or two about not just radioactive materials, but their regulation as well. So please allow me to say some things about exempt quantities. First did any of you know that virtually all of you are in possession of exempt quantities of nuclear-reactor-produced radioactive materials already?

Yes, it is true. You all have a smoke detector in your homes. Those smoke detectors all operate because of an exempt quantity of Americium - 241. And yes, there is no naturally mined or occurring amounts of Americium anywhere on this planet. Every single smoke detector in existence uses a radioactive material only produced via nuclear reactions from a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator.

Second, did any of you know that all exempt quantities found in radioactive sources like those sold by United Nuclear or found in your smoke detector are also "sealed sources" This means that the material is contained in a matrix that prevents it from escaping and getting loose in the environment. The Polonium sources referred to by uber-scientist George Kindel are also sealed sources. Those sources are completely harmless and are used in many science labs in universities and high schools around the country and world to teach students about the nature of radioactive decay. They are also used in laboratories of businesses for any number of purposes, such as instrument calibration. All those medical scanners like CT, PET, PET/CT X-ray machines, flouroscopes, etc. All have to be regularly calibrated, and the are done using any number of sealed sources. In addition, any radiation detection equipment used at nuclear power plants, and anti-terrorism units around the country also are calibrated using sealed sources.

Now before I continue, I feel it is necessary to define briefly what an exempt sourse is. An exempt source is one that contains only a very small amount of a radioactive material. There are also "general license" sources which contain larger quantities of radioactive materials, but can be used by anyone with a license to possess them for the general porposes outlined in the license. Next are more powerful sources, those are "specific license" sources. And they can only be used under very strict guidance, and require special handling procedures. These are the sources that contain the most radioactive material in them. They are also the ones most likely to be found in uses like gauging pipe thickness, or calibrating medical scanners.

The complete silliness of George Kindel's article should now be plain for everyone to see. He's basically mocking smoke detectors here.

But he's not done yet, he gets even sillier...

He’s right. Polonium-210 is so common, traces of it are found in everything from cigarettes —I hear another class-action lawsuit brewing — to the stuff you use to make sure your pants don’t cling to your socks.

It also makes you wonder that if this dead former KGB spy, Victor Litvinenko, and his wife Marina, and a mysterious Italian nuclear expert named Mario Scaramella all were poisoned by it — Litvinenko fatally — then someone’s spending a lot of money on Polonium-210, or has access to a lot of nuclear materials.

I just don't know what to make of him at this point. Surely he's joking entirely. In which case, I did not know that FOX News had become the conservative Comedy Central.

I certainly am not laughing because I happen to be well-educated when it comes to radioactive materials and radiation detection, so I know just how silly he is being. But to anyone not familiar with this would easily be fooled into thinking he was serious. Making a joke out of this is not funny, especially if the rubes who believe him don't know it is a big fat joke and think he's serious.

Of course the person who poisoned Litvinenko got it from some larger stockpile of Po-210 and not by buying a million dollars worth of exempt quantity sources.

I am reminded of that line by Dan Akroyd in Spies Like Us, "We mock what we do not understand."

Ken Ham Video Edition, Part 'e'

[Note: I initially wrote this two months back, in the time since, AiG has released new videos. I have not yet reviewed them, but I cannot imagine they are any better than those I have already reviewed. Otherwise, this material is reasonably up to date..]

The two latest parts of Ken Ham's video series that have been released are focused on human races, and racism. He decides to define races in a rather interesting way (I'll explain why its interesting later). He decides that races are defined by characteristics -- skin color, eye shape, etc. Then he goes on to say that there are no races, all humans are one race -- the descendants of Adam and Eve (and more precisely, descendants of Noah). He uses genetics in a strange way to prove his point.

Ham's genetics theory consists of the Tower of Babel story, and some guesswork about Adam and Eve. First Ham guesses that Adam and Eve were brown, having genes for both white and black skin. He then mentions Noah and that we are all actually his descendants. Then comes the reason for different races (although he does not accept the idea of race, he says we are all one race -- more on that later). His explanation for black, white, brown and yellow is Babel. It scattered the once unified race all over the planet, and due to environmental pressures, the different 'races' emerged. He then goes on to say that current genetic knowledge backs up his interpretation and contradicts evolution. The only problem is that he is wrong. His lecture presentation makes much sense when one refuses to go beyond his limited set of facts and simplistic explanation. Which of course is exactly what he is counting on when it comes to his Christian audiences.

So lets move beyond Ham's little mythological tale, and point out some other facts that everyone is aware of and which resoundingly defeat Ham's fantasy. He goes on at length to show that skin color is due to gene selection based on environmental pressures. He uses africans as an example; due to the heat and intense sunlight, the extra pigmentation was useful protection, so the light skin genes were bred out, leaving only dark skin genes, thus black people. He then says that they only lost information, not gained. This explanation is only half true, and leads to his totally false conclusion.

One reason it is half true (and there are many, but require biology and/or genetics courses to explain) is that he only focuses on one trait, skin color. But there are many different traits which distinguish the races. Hair color, eye color, eye shape to name just a few (there are also other less visible traits as well, blood disorders, susceptibility to disease, and other genetic traits). When you look at his linkage of environment to genetics in only the context of skin color, it makes sense (but still inaccurate). But the moment you link these other traits as well, say skin color, hair color and eye shape to environmental factors, reality sets in, and the errors of his theory become clear. Environmental pressures cannot explain why blacks have dark eyes or dark hair, it cannot explain why asians have narrow eyes and dark hair and it cannot explain why whites have either dark or light hair and dark or light hair. Bringing in seperation of populations due to distance further disproves Ham's case, not bolstering it. The reason is that Ham wants to claim that genetic information is only lost, never gained, and his mechanism for loss can only be environment, or distance. It cannot be cultural preference either because, for example, in Ham's view no one would have narrow eyes, so preferring narrow eyes would never result in a race with narrow eyes. So now we have solid proof that Ken Ham's theory of genetics fails to explain all the facts we know about humans, race, genetics, environmental pressure selection, and other methods of selection. Since his theory only moderately fits one special case, but falls apart completely when generalized, and evolution explains everything in the general case, and the specific case Ham chose to focus on, evolution must then be the truth, and Ham's creationism the fantasy.

Evolution better fits the facts and is the whole truth -- as opposed to Ham's half truth because:
1. Ham is correct, environment does play a role in genetic selection, but not the only role.
2. Evolution uses, in addition to environmental factors, geographic factors (seperation) and time as well (not to mention mutation and selection).
3. Time and geography give rise to traits that can't or didn't occur due to environmental pressures. These would in essence, add information to the genetic code
4. Ham's premise is that environmental factors only select between present genes, his 'loss of information' but evolution has a second method, mutated and replicated genes can be selected for based on environmental pressures, an 'addition of information'

Facts and worldviews
One interesting aspect of differing worldviews is how one sees facts. Science views facts as little pieces of the truth, not themselves interpreted, rather guideposts to interpreting the truth. Young earth creationists, on the other hand, already possess the 'Truth' (the bible story) and strive to interpret the facts themselves. The difference is profound. Science presumes the truth is unknown initially, and works toward uncovering it by finding the facts that compose it. YECs by virtue of already 'knowing' the truth actually have no need for learning the facts (which is why no research is done by them -- I will discuss this in more detail later). They are left trying to re-explain the facts to fit their worldviews.

The re-interpretation of facts is quite interesting in itself. That is what we are going to consider today. As an example, let us consider the theories (interpretations of the truth) of geocentrism versus heliocentrism. We will limit ourselves to three facts; the motion of the sun across the sky, the motion of the visible planets, and the rotation of the esrth itself. Representing science, I will use Carl Sagan, and for YECs, Ken Ham.

End Note:
When I spoke of no YECs doing science, I was not saying so in an absolute sense. There are many who are in the science fields. What I was referring to were those who could potentially make discoveries which contradict biblical teachings only. Since the bible is silent on the characteristic spectral lines of isotopes, you will find scientists in that field of physics, whereas the radioactive decay of ultra-long lived isotopes like uranium and thorium suggest an old universe, you won't find many YECs doing research in radioactive decay theory. Ironically, even in fields where they disagree, like astro physics, where they dispute the constancy of the speed of light (a fundamental constant in physics) over time, they refuse to conduct any research to back up their wild assertions on these fundamental constants. This shows my initial statement to be true, that YECs do not do any science contrary to the bible and consider science to be nothing but assertions and interpretations. They are satisfied with simply saying something, and not seeing it as necessary to back it up with proof.

Finally, the "part 'e'" in the title is a reference to a mathematical quantity, the base of the natural logarithm. It was simply another little joke in a long line of little inside jokes.

More Creationist Gold - Ken Ham Edition

Maybe I am wrong after all, and there is a god(dess)... Because only a supernatural entity could lay such a cornocopia of creationism goofiness in one spot at my feet. I am -- of course! -- referring to Ken Ham's videos made available to the public for free. He releases a new 15 minute video every week. This week's video is "Do Animals Evolve? Part II"

But upon viewing it, I found it lacking, he fails to tie up any of the points he made from part I; choosing instead to rail on about races and humanity. So, instead I will focus on the incomplete part I of the series in this post.

It is chock full of such typical creationist junk talking points that it is hard to narrow down, but I will focus on his use of the words "kind" and "Information", and talk some about mutation and natural selection. One thing is obvious from the outset; that no meaningful definitions of these words have ever been given by creationists, especially Ken Ham. They use words like "kind" to mean just about anything they want based solely on the circumstances required at the time. We shall see this laid bare for all to see; well except for boobies, beaver, and weanus.

Ken Ham, and YECs at large, all use the term "kind" to delineate between different types of animals. They do this because the Bible uses that term. The problem is that neither the YECs nor the Bible ever explains just what a "kind" is. Thus, you hear them refer to the "dog" kind as we do in in this video. But what does that mean? The only clue given in the Bible is a reference to being able to breed "after its own kind." But that presents a real problem for creationists, for example, there cannot be a "primate" kind, since chimps and apes cannot interbreed, thus they are each in their own kind. There cannot be a "snake" kind for the same reason. Furthermore, when you look at the "dog" kind that Ken Ham refers to, you see that he does not define "kind" in that way at all. The reason is he includes domesticated dogs, dingos, wolves all in the same kind. A wolf can no more breed with a dingo than a mountain lion can. So it becomes clear that "kind" cannot be defined by breeding ability as Ken claims. This means that, Ken can make the claim to a "primate" kind, and a "snake" kind and a "dog" kind without ever explaining what it is that distinguishes them. He does this because there can be no way to generalize what it means to be a kind. Is there only one "bacteria" kind or thousands?

We have some tantalizing clues from the Bible that shows just how far into the land of make-believe Ken Ham wanders. Genesis specifically says that Noah brought aboard doves and raven. It does not say the "bird" kind. Thus there must be a more specific meaning to kind than dog, cat, snake, pachyderm, etc. That, has the real disasterous effect on Ham's belief that the ark was real, because by this narrowing down of "kind" there becomes too many "kinds" of animals to have fit on the ark, and survived a year in sealed-off capitivty. But getting into an explanation of just how absurd Noah's ark really is, is far beyond the scope of this post.

The same is true for his use of the word "information." What does he define it to mean? It cannont mean what everyone else defines it as, since he says there is no increase of information -- ever -- without intelligent assistance. That means that when hydrogen fuses to form helium, neutrons, and gammas, there is a loss of information. This is simply wrong. Just consider the helium atom alone, and you quickly see that there is a huge increase of information. There are vastly more excited states of the electronic shell configuration than found in hydrogen, as also in the nucleus. The structure of the helium atom is more complex than the hydrogen atom, requiring an increase of information. Even if you consider the total information contained in the four hydrogen atoms before they fuse together into one helium atoms there is still an increase of information.

Information can even be increased in ways that we do not grasp. For example, a random letter generator, using radioactive decay intervals to determine the letter produced (1 ns = A, 2 ns = F, 3 ns = M, 4 ns = B, etc.) A string of information is produced, e.g. "AGKLTIDNVYOIDJCVMHYRIODCKFHGRJY" That looks like meaningless garble to us, but to some device capable of understanding it, it could be quite meaningful, if could be the translation of "To be, or not to be. That is the question." So, generating new information occurs all the time, all around us, and without our knowledge or consent. Not recognizing it is the fault of our intelligence, not the lack of its existence. Our understanding the meaning of information does not preclude unrecognizable or even random information. Yet for Ken Ham, if we do not see it as containing something recognizable, then it is not information.

Information is created and lost all the time. Consider a very pitted and jagged rock. Describing its surface would constitute a very large amouont of information. But throw that rock in a river ,and years later, it will be very smooth and featureless. That same rock could be said to have lost information. But consider the origin of that same rock, it was once liquid magma, with virtually no surface information. Then it got spit out of a volcano, cooled and crystalized, gaining huge amounts of information. Thus we can even go so far as to see a cycle of information gain and loss. It is only the confusing and altering the meanign of the word information that creationists can get the result they want; that being no new information. They change the definition of information whenever it suits them, so that they can exclude whatever they find necessary, then later sneak the definition back in when they need to explain something else. It is this shiftiness that proves their argument has no merit whatsoever.

This is where we wander into mutation and natural selection. And where Ken Ham makes his most dishonest claims. Considering that he does no more than simply shrugs off the idea of mutation as nothing but a loss of information (again, whatever he means by that term), and then moves on. He apparently accepts natural selection though. I guess he could no longer ignore the proof of it, as even natural selection was at one time denied (and still is) in some creationist circles. He mangles the meaning of mutations so much as to make it wholly unrecognizable in biological science. Mutations are never positive or negative when they crop up, as this would most often lead to them being selected out of the given population. They most often occur as completely neutral in their effect. They create no ready change in the biology of the organism. For example, a mutation can affect one amino acid in one protein, and that change has minimal or no effect on the function of that protein. It is only when that protein is coopted by another set of genes that the mutation shows an effect' It can make it bond with another molecule easier, for example. Mutations can also involve copying. A gene or set of genes can become copied within a chromosome, and have no effect on the function of the chromosome, until a mutation occurs and makes this duplicate gene(s) perform some other function. That is an increase of information, and one that happens quite frequently. We have observed this occur not just in the lab, but in nature as well. We have witnessed an increase of information.

This effect of mutation is then fed into natural selection. The frequency of the copied/mutated gene(s) spreads throughout a localized population, if it benefits the population in some way (makes it better suited to its environment). This makes the local population just a little different than the same species in other locations. The catch is, those other locations are undergoing similar mutation/selection chyanges as well. As the accumulation of these tiny differences increases, soon a threshold is passed where members from the species from different populations either can no longer interbreed, or no longer are willing to. This point is where speciation occurs. It is not something that is never seen, or only took place millions of years ago, it happens all the time, and still occurs today. Spreading untruths about this process is what people like Ken Ham do best.

But lets look for a moment at Ken Ham's version of natural selection. He says some proto-"dog" kind was aboard the ark. It bred and spread, creating seperate populations where selection took over, and created new "dog" breeds. He claims this was all a loss of information. That the proto-"dogs" aboard the ark were front-loaded with all the genetic information for all types of dog and wolf and dingo, etc. That as they spread out, each type lost the information of the other types, and thus lost the ability to interbreed. This makes perfect sense doesn't it? Not really. Because it ignores reality, what we see and know to be true. We have seen many instances where bacteria gain information, for example, the ability to digest nylon. They did not possess the genetic information prior to the existence of nylon, and suddenly today they have it. It is a gain of information, it is a new feature of bacteria where none existed before.

Now I won't even go into how Ken was simply deceiving his audience when he said that the proto-"dog" kind contained all the information and each new type of "dog" that came about did so as a loss of information. This would mean that there can be no novel information in one species that didn't exist in its parent species. The problem is that this is the exact opposite of what we see in real life. Again, this contradicts mutation/copying/selection that we know to occur. Ken Ham can only be right if he ignores the facts. It is not a matter of interpretation of the facts, because he simply denies they exist.

[Note: in part II, Ham does mention some of this. He discusses bacteria and resistance, but again falls back on the tired and wrong, "only a loss of information". But his examples are so distorted that anyone with any biology knowledge can quickly and easily prove him wrong. The closest he gets to saying something accurate, is when he says that bacteria with resistance survive, and those without it don't. But that isn't even half the story. I am sorry but explaining this fully is way beyond my capabilities, I would suggest reading a real biology text (not Creationist You-can-be-a-doctorate-in-biology-in-15-minutes-by-watching-my-video garbage). But for a quick fix, the truth can always be found at talk.origins. For example here, and here.]

Perspectives: Science and Scientism

Science is a beautiful endeavor. It strives to solve the mysteries of the Universe one fact at a time. This comes in a number of different flavors; physics, biology, cosmology, chemistry, even pure mathematics. Science does not, however, even touch on the mysteries of life ("Why are we here," "What is the meanig of life"). Because of this we have such things as philosophy and theology; although those human schools long predate science. Since those schools of intellectual thought are mutually exclusive, there should never be any conflict between them. This is not what we witness to be true though. We see theology fighting science in biology (evolution and creationism), physics (age of the universe), chemistry ('violation' of the second law of thermodynamics) and cosmology (big bang and the origin of the universe). Because science sets as its goal understanding how these things work, by finding facts and generating theories on the mechanics of the universe, it treads onto theological grounds. Facts generally work against theology. This encroachment is scientism.

To state it bluntly, I think theology is a total waste of human effort. Why concentrate on understanding a nonexistent god? It is like creating a new field of human intellectualism, Santology; the study of Santa Claus. Philosophy, on the other hand, is quite useful to humanity, it is ethics and temperment. Philosophy can be the 'brakes' of technology; the offspring of science. This is scientism, the application of science to the human condition.

Now that we have sketched out a brief idea of science and scientism, let's look at their importance to humanity. First some counter-perspective from an ardent YEC Christian, our old friend Ray Comfort. He appeared on the Hellbound Alleee radio show (thanks to Brent Rasmussen of UTI) and explained how atheists don't really exist. He was approaching science from a theological point of view and messed up how atheists really think (our friend, scientism).

Ray's argument was one of anti-reductionism, horribly mangled of course. His claim was that the only way to be a true atheist is to know everything (omniscience). This is one of the classic intuitive arguments made by Christians, in that it sounds correct, but as soon as one thinks about it, it is completely wrong. His claim that the only way to know that there is no God is know everything can be proven false by many methods. For example, you don't have to know everything to know that Frankenstein's Monster does not exist. This is the idea that it is impossible to prove a negative. But that is not always true. If the proof can be changed to proving a positive, based on a limited data set, then it can be done. This is saying that one can acquire a set of facts which makes something impossible. We can say here that the 'science' of reanimating dead tissues contradicts known biological and physical principles. In this example, one has the fact that electricity does not animate dead cells. Also, the medical technology of the time period could not reconnect nerve cells of severed body parts. Thus based on these two facts alone, the monster could not have been a reality (this is ignoring the obvious that Frankenstein was a work of fiction by Mary Shelley).

A second method is less rigorous, but equally as effective. Instead of knowing everything, one can know only a limited set of facts, and rule out certain possibilities based on them being highly improbable. In our current case, we can say that based on what we know, nothing supernatural has even be shown to occur. An example of this is UFO sightings. The only evidence that alien life forms have visited Earth is anecdotal. There has been no known physical evidence of their existence. In this situation, the only proof is eyewitness accounts. But this alone is very shakey proof. The reason is that it relies solely on the witnesses being able to accurately interpret what they are experiencing. Colored lights moving in the sky can resemble a UFO to an observer, but it would only be an actual UFO if that observer knew for certain that there was no other explanation. In other words, if the witness could provably rule out natural phenomena such as lightning, aurora borealis, and manmade phenomena such as planes, balloons, etc. But this situation can never be the case because there would always be some previously unconsidered possibility the the witness was unaware of. Because there can always be an explanation of something that the witnesses cannot account for, or even that the people who hear the witnesses' story cannot account for, then the truth would always be tenative. This goes double for miracles and supernatural gods. Centuries, or even millenia, ago, some natural event would have been construed as a miracle, but when judged against today's science, it is trivially explainable. (The sun rising in the east and setting in the west is a perfect example -- it is today know to be due to the Earth's rotation, but then was attributed to the actions of the gods.) So, simply invoking eyewitness testimony as proof of God really provides us with nothing evidenciary. Applying this to proving God, what we learn is that nothing has been offered as proof of the existence of God other than eyewitness testimony, and that everything once attributed to miraculous intervention of God has been explained through naturalistic processes. Thus one can make the claim based on this data set, that there is no God -- even though the data is incomplete. the rebuttal to this is the last bastion of religion -- the "God of the Gaps" theory.

Now it is time to invoke science and scientism.

Science provides the data set -- facts about our universe. Science takes those facts and creates theories as to how the universe operates. We have theories of gravity, relativism, germ and infection, planetary motion, and evolution. Those are all worked out based on the facts we observe and demonstrate in labs. They are theories because they fit all known data best. These theories constitute the nature of the universe. Scientism takes these theories and extends them into the philosophical. Why are these theories important to humanity? Does understanding how the universe works shed any light onto our existence, purpose, and future? Does knowing the universe give any meaning or purpose to life? Can it guide morality?

All those questions can be answered and can benefit humanity. We can get clues to human morality through science -- we can extend life, happiness through beneficial application of science knowledge. WE can do this as well as the opposite, develop nuclear weapons that can kill everything, dangerous germs, and even control emotion and sexuality through chemistry. How we use that is guided through scientism and philosophy. This is based on one simple premise. that preserving humanity and the environment we depend on is the ultimate 'good' and destroying that is the ultimate 'evil'. that is, aiding civilization is the moral goal. Science and scientism are not the sole means of doing this, thus we have philosophy, but in this scientific era, they are certainly a crucial, make that indispensible, realm of philosophy.

Thus science does not have to be cold and calculating, it is also warm and enlightening of the human condition. It can play a role in the 'meaning' of life.

This effect, rather this encroachment into the world of meaning by science is the threat to theology that is most feared by theists. Those who are willing to make their belief in God more abstract, less involved can make this transition easier. This is why liberal Christians see no problem with science. It also explains the threat that conservative Christians perceive. The more rigid your view of theology is, the less able you are to let science take over certain aspects. Again, my favorite example is the delicate balance of creationism to the need of Jesus' death and resurrection. Without a young Earth and a literal original sin, their religion crumbles, their Bible becomes a myth rather than a history book. Thus they fight science and its subsequent scientism fiercely. If God becomes aquaint notion that is no longer possible via science, then their entire worldview dissolves.

This is exactly why they only have as their weapon to destroy science intuition. And with this intuition comes a prerequisite ignorance of the reality of science. Because intuition fails quickly in the face of fact. What seemed intuitive, that the only way to prove there is no God is to know everything, is easily dismissed when all known facts and theory is placed up against it. Intuition fails when fact prevails.

Beauty and the elegance of the universe remain even when the myth of gods are eliminated. This is because we as humans have the capacity to perceive the beauty in and of itself. Meaning comes from the ability of appreciation. As individuals grasp this, their theology falls away like Linus' baby blanket.


Inspired by the WSJ column of Kevin Shapiro.

AiG response -- and my response to it

Please note: I edited out all the irrelevant comments from my original email, leaving only those that the "Answers Department" replied to, or that I thought they ignored, but which should have responded to (in other words, all the snark is right out.)
My original comment is labeled in black, Aig in red, and my response in green.

For a complete copy of my original letter, see here.

[Jeffperado:] I was wondering why the authors chose to attack the NYT article instead of the actual science articles (there were two) in Nature. You criticized the (NYT) article for using "cautionary" words, and the NYT for being the secular press.

[Aig:] I couldn't find anywhere in our article where we criticized the NYT for being secular. What we criticized them for was the fact that since they were a secular press, they should not be so biased in favor of the evolutionists' point of view.

[Response:] Actually, your comment is somewhat true, you do, in fact, use "secular" as a codeword. But the fact remains that the accusation is apparent in the original AiG article. I guess I should rephrase it to say that you use "secular" to suggest to your readers that it is not being fair to creationist thought. In other words, the use of "secular" means to your readers that it is anti-Christian, and all your readers recognize this immediately. But secular to all others means unbiased by generally accepted principles of the press. For example, you would never see the Washington Post (or the NY Post for that matter) refer to the NYT as being "secular" Thus it has a secondary meaning picked up by your readers, and that is what I was referring to.

Point two: You still refused to acknowledge that the authors refused to attack the actual science articles at all, choosing to attack the NYT article instead. Real science (and real scientists) would have used as their basis the actual Nature articles. Thus, again, AiG is not science, rather propaganda.

[Jeffperado:] It should have been obvious to both Dr. David Menton and Mark Looy that the NYT had to use cautionary terms because it is 'secular'; that is the NYT has creationist readers as well as reality-based readers, so it has to cater to those creationist readers by including such cautious' terms.

[Aig:] So where in the NYT article did they 'cater to ... creationist readers'? They are simply using the cautionary words of the evolutionary scientists themselves, which we point out should alert people to the fact that their arguments for the proof of 'missing links' is anything but watertight.

[Response:] Let me clear up a point here. In real science, everything known is "cautionary" The theory of gravity is cautionary. We have the "law of gravity" (simplified as F=MG here on Earth) but it is still cautionary, as Einstein proved that gravity can be affected by other forces, and thus is not constant everywhere and everytime in space. Quantum Mechanics is "cautionary" in that there is a probabilistic nature to it. Then getting into more advanced physics, it is even more "cautionary". The point is thus, our knowledge and our theories are based on what we know to be fact. But since we do not know every single last fact in the universe, we must be "cautionary". But being "cautionary" does not equate to being wrong. It means we have the best explanation given what we know.

You should know this by now: Every time real science uncovers a "missing link" two new gaps are created, making necessary two new "missing links". This should make creationists very happy! So you should be proclaiming the now new existence of TWO missing links where there used to be just one!

[Jeffperado:] So why attack science,

[Aig:] Where did we attack science?

[Response:] Again, what I am saying: The NYT is not science. The NYT is popular press. Using the NYT to "prove" the actual science performed on these fossils is wrong, it is attacking science. If you want to show your point is correct from a science standpoint. DO NOT use the NYT, rather use the actual two Nature articles. That is how you attacked science, by proxy.

[Jeffperado:] Why not use the articles of the actual scientists who made the claims?
I would venture a guess that the reason is that the scientists didn't use those 'cautionary' terms that you built the majority of your response around.

[Aig:] Evolutionary scientists use these and other cautionary words all the time, but most people do not know how to interpret them (i.e. evolution is just a big guess!). See the link below, which was highlighted as a link in our article.
Obviously you did not follow it to see what it had to say.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0326fineprint.asp

[Response:] This is true. Real science does use tenative terms when discussing new breakthroughs. But to call that "cautionary" is improper. It is like calling a child a "short" adult. The child is not an adult, and it is typical height for its age. Science uses tenative terms because more knowledge is out there yet to be discovered. That does not mean it is "cautionary" which is suggestive of likely being wrong.

[Jeffperado:] No matter what your reasoning was, it is dishonest and deceptive to your readers.

[Aig:] Where is the deception and dishonesty?

[Response:] The deception is that you did not answer even one single question. You answered with responses that were not the subject of my questions. That dodginess is what I call deception. The dishonesty is that you say things that you either know to be untrue, or are simply unaware of the real truth, either way, it is dishonest. I will prove this throughout this response to your response. But the best example of AiG's deceptiveness is using the NYT in place of the real Nature articles to attack the credibility of the discovery.


[Jeffperado:] [I]t is easy to pick on the NYT, but you seemed to ignore the real challenge the actual science articles.

[Aig:] Can you provide us with some good examples of pro-creationist writing in the NYT to balance their evolutionary reporting?

[Response:]
NYT 1
NYT 2
NYT 3
NYT 4
NYT 5

This was just a quick google of "creationism" and "intelligent design" at the NYT. And again, it is easy for you to pick on the NYT, but that is not the heart of the science is it? This is precisely why AiG was being deceptive -- they were passing off the NYT as the actual science.


[Jeffperado:] Then out of the blue, the authors wrote: "For the moment, we can confidently state that evolutionists have no examples of mutations or evolutionary processes that can lead to an increase in genetic information[...]" What does genetics have to do with the paleontological facts? No one claimed there was an 'increase in information' concerning this fossil.

[Aig:] I quote from the NYT article: "other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind." In order for one kind of creature to become another kind, new genetic information would have to be added to its gene pool, which has never been demonstrated.

[Response:] Here is a perfect example of the AiG being dishonest. The article does not speak of "information" or of "genetic information" at all. That quote is a quote referring to creationism. It is NOT a quote discussing the actual genetic information contained in the fossil at all. The fact that genetics was involved in the original creature is completely irrelevant. No one, not a real scientist or a creationist, would dispute that the original creature was based on genetic information. But the truth is, and what you are obscuring is that the fossil itself, and the study of it, had nothing to do with genetics or any sort of "information increase" at all. It was purely, 100%, a study of macroscopic feature preserved. Surely even the "scientists" at AiG would recognize that there was exactly zero genetic material in the fossil, and there were exactly zero molecules or atoms in the fossil that were present in the living creature. Thus no matter how you word it, this was not a study about information increase. Again I will say that the genetic and microscopic study of how this creature came to be will take years and has not yet even begun. Thus to even bring the topic up now is purely meant to confuse your readers.


[Jeffperado:] The evidence being discussed was macroscopic in nature, while genetics are molecular in nature,

[Aig:] Again you are showing your ignorance of the nature of biological change. Please tell me how macroscopic changes would come about without first having changes at the molecular level.

[Response:] Again, you are mixing apples with oranges. THERE WAS NOT ONE MOLECULE OF DNA OR ANYTHING OF THE ORIGINAL LIVING CREATURE FOUND. Thus there was no study done at all of genetics in this creature. All that was studied were the features found. Again, I will say this: Of course the living specimen was a product of genetics, but that was not the focus of the science article. There was no genetic material present, so no science of that was possible. So, again, everything you argued was merely smoke and mirrors.


[Jeffperado:] My question to the authors is what you think the definition of 'transitional' is, if it doesn't mean intermediary, possessing some features of fish and land animals, but not all the features of either? How do you define transitional then?

[Response:] Since AiG chose not to comment, I take it that they had nothing to say in their defense.

[Jeffperado:] My question is what research? The AiG, ICR, or any creationist 'researchers' are free to examine the fossils, but the truth is no creationist actually ever does any research at all. A thorough examination of the AiG q&a, and creationism journal turns up zero research. You never do any research. All that does appear are articles disputing what scientists claim, and that is not research. It is commentary, pure and simple.

[Response:] No comment from AiG. The reason is it is true; AiG does no original research.


[Jeffperado:] In this very article you make the claim of species being static, or only 'losing information' (whatever that means). Yet where is any research by even one creationist scientist investigating what the mechanism that acts as a 'stop sign' to prevent microevolutionary (variation within a species) changes from adding up to a macroevolutionary (a new species evolving from an old species) change? Surely if you claim to accept that small evolutionary changes occur within a species, then you could develop a research program that determines what mechanism prevents those changes from creating a new species... Is it a genetic 'stop sign' or something else? Do some actual research, and not just critiquing real research and calling that 'research' and you might gain some respect from real scientists.

[Aig:] Obviously you are unaware of the new scientific information that creationist PhD scientists have just published. See the link:
http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-3-112

Please read this voluminous peer-reviewed book before criticizing creation scientists any further.

[Response:] I am familiar with creationist "peer reviewing" it is nothing more than proof-reading. I have read it all before, and I will read this as well. But there will be nothing new in it, as every new creationist book or article is simply rehashing old and widely debunked creationist arguments. I can guess right now what it contains: peppered moths, Piltdown Man hoax etc., no evidence of transitional fossils (even though even the authors here admit this find is a transitional fossil), information increase not possible, and basically just retelling Henry Morris throughout with just a fresh coat of paint.

P.S. However, if you care to send me a complimentary copy of this book, I will be happy to read it, and will even return it with notes on how it deceives and is dishonest.

Grandfather Paradox and the First Cause

Last time we looked at time travel and the grandfather paradox. We decided that by applying rules which we knew to be true and using some logic we could fix the problem causing the paradox. We did this by breaking up the timeline into two independent components, a chronoligical component and a cause-effect component, then by placing all times and events in sequence according to the rules we determined we worked out a solution that fixed the looping of time for both the main timeline, and the timeline of our traveler.

Before continuing, I would like to revisit Hefe's personal timeline very quickly and try to clarify why it doesn't loop back any more. If we were to instead of looking at chronological time, consider only biological time, that internal timeclock that all organisms possess. Hefe, even though he travels through time is always aging, his clock is always moving forward due to his internal metabolism. Days pass for him regardless what year he is visiting. He gets tired, hungry; his heart beats in rhythm.

Time is always moving only in one direction for him, towards old age. This is true no matter what. If that "master" timeline that we discussed is compared to Hefe's biorhythms we see then why it is considered absolute.

Anyway....

So why did I bring all this up about the grandfather paradox; well it certainly isn't because I, or anyone else I know of, is planning any time travel soon that's for sure. So it must be important for metaphysical reasons, not scientific ones. Science just plays a role in understanding it.

In my dealings with debating Christians I often run up against arguments from personal incredulity or intuition, a logical fallacy that is very hard to deal with in short order. The reason is clear, one can quickly in a few phrases make an argument that sounds logical or seems intuitively correct on its surface. But to defeat the argument is very difficult, involving many facts and a difficult logical path. Time travel is the perfect example, that being why I chose it. It is easy to set up the paradox; If I go back in time to kill my grandfather before he met my grandmother, then I would never be born, if I was never born, then I couldn't go back and kill my grandfather....

Yet it is quite difficult to explain how time really operates; It took that entire post, and even then it is a complicated and rather incomplete explanation. You see the problem, and consequently why it is a very effective method of spreading misperception. How many people would read the grandfather paradox and think it through to see its flaw (cause must precede effect).

One of the most intriguing arguments, from my perspective is the argument concerning "First Cause", of the Universe and of God. The most concise defense of this is by my favorite target, Jonathon Sarfati of the Answers in Genesis Ministry. His piece entitled, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" is a perfect example of this type of fallacy (and a number of others). We will look at two claims he makes that deal directly with what we have learned up to this point about time and cause and effect.

Sarfati opens up with:

[If God created the universe, then who created God?]
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning. 1
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
[emphasis in original -- see article for footnotes]

There are actually three fallacies here:
The first is his explanation of why the question is invalid. He is wrong, it is quite valid, and he is dodging by saying "by definition" God does not have a cause. The problem is that the definition is just supposition, and not a statement of fact. How can one go about proving it as a fact? They cannot, it is a matter of belief, the definition is a restatement of belief. For example, if I said, "The sky is the color ffopty" and I define ffopty to be the same color as the sky. Then, by Sarfati's logic I am not only correct, but irrefutably so. Because I defined it as such, and that definition was a product of my desire to do so, certainly no based on any factual evidence it is so. One can, by comparison, define blue to be the wavelength of light at 480 nanometers, and then measure the wavelength of the ambient light outside, it would be roughly 480 nanometers (with a number of other wavelengths thrown in as well). That is factual. My arbitrary definition of ffopty is based only on what I want it to be, and is useless for evaluating the sky's color. An arbitrary definition is useless as a logical point.

The second fallacy is equivocation. On what basis can one compare God and the Universe? One is supposedly purely supernatural, and the other has only ever been observed to be purely natural. What makes cause and effect follow the same rules for both, giving Sarfati the "easy out" of turning the tables and arguing about the cause of the Universe.

The third fallacy is the very cause and effect in time that we have been contemplating, in the form of his three points above (see the original article to see how he explains it).

But like I said, we will only look at two claims here, the easy one (the first), and the hard one (the third). The second one is not really interesting for our purposes, and usually one we can let slide -- for the sake of stimulating debate.

Claim one:
"But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical"
Sarfati defines God as being "uncreated", and thus asking the question is illogical. But is it really? Suppose I was a very bright scientist and I created a time machine -- I'd do it with some style and make it out of a two seater DeLorean. I would travel back and pick up someone like Plato, who was well aware of Greek Mythology, come back to the present and set him up in a debate with Sarfati, discussing this very issue. I would assign Plato to defend Zeus, the king of the gods. Of course the very first thing Plato would say is that Zeus, by definition, is the king of the gods, therefore there is no other god greater than he, and by extension God cannot be greater than Zeus. Sarfati could respond by saying that God is uncreated, by definition, and thus has to be greater than Zeus and by extension created Zeus, as he is the creator of all. It is the recently resurfaced "My God is bigger than your God" argument that we've seen on occasion coming from Christian 'leaders' regarding Allah, the Islamic God.

That little debate demonstrates nicely why defining something by belief means nothing, how is one to decide which is true, Zues is the greater god, or God is, if both by their very definitions are the very best gods. Of course, there are any number of ways to demonstrate just how absurd the argument made by Sarfati really is. It simply boils down to that he is only trying to convince the already converted. For example, one could counter that uncreated is not the same as uncaused. A cue ball hitting the 8 ball did not create the 8 ball, but it certainly caused the 8 ball to move. This of course works to your favor, in that almost always the Sarfati types will counter with, "But God is also by definition uncaused". By regressing this cat and mouse definition game back, eventually they will back themselves into a contradiction not unlike the "God is Omnipotent and Omniscient" contradiction -- it is not possible to be both. (That contradiction is an excercise for you the reader, but think of this example: imagine a super accurate map of the entire world, one so detailed that it includes a complete image of itself on the map, but that map also includes all details, which includes a complete map of itself, including a map of itself.....) Thanks go out to Dan Barker and his book, "Losing Faith in Faith" for proposing this type of rebuttal.

Claim two:
Let us now attack his argument about the universe being caused. First, does the universe have a beginning? You bet it does! Was it caused? Yes. But so what? Really, so what? Everything in the natural universe has a beginning and a cause, why should the universe be any different. Sarfati goes on at length discussing cause and effect and trying to turn my position (and others who claim the universe has a natural cause) into one of being that what we're really saying is the universe does not have a cause. I have already admitted to agreeing to his point three (although his argument of three points is really nothing but a giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but we'll save that for another time). So his entire defense falls flat, for the simple reason is that there is a huge pool of possible explanations for the cause of the universe -- of which we cannot cover them all, but let's look at one possibility. He mentions one fact that should pique our curiosity. He claims (rightly) that time actually began at the Big Bang. Aha! Time! That sounds familiar... We have looked at cause and effect and time -- it is the grandfather paradox! Since we have already conquered that one, it should be straightforward to "expand" that one out to encompass all of time.

All we have to do here is show a possible, plausible cause to the universe, it doesn't at this point have to be how it actually occurred. The reason is simple. Sarfati, and others, posit it simply, that the only possible cause has to be God, as there clearly has to be a cause, and there are no alternatives. (There actually are alternatives, many of them.) But we can have some fun and still be well within the realm of science and possibilities.

We have already decided that the paradox would not loop infinitely, that it would all happen once, and only once, although some events would (could) happen multiple times out of chronological sequence but in cause-effect sequence. So let us take as a scientific given that time began at the big bang, we shall also take the latest scientific theory about the end of time and the universe as well, the big fade. It is a complicated theory, but simply, everything in the universe will eventually drift so far apart that the temperature of the universe and everything in it will drop to absolute zero and just blink out. What if this event triggers a time travel 'event' like our time traveller, hefe, going back in time to kill his grandfather, only this event was to travel back in time and 'cause' the big bang. Thus the reason for the universe's existence is its demise, the grandfather paradox to the extreme.

I'm not advocating this as how it really happened, merely putting forward a wild theory that could be true. Since it is an alternative and not impossible, then Sarfati's argument that there is only one possible cause is disproven, and debate over.

Maybe some time in the future, I will discuss some of the more likely causes of the universe that have much more scientific and factual grounding than being merely 'possible'. But only if I have enough time.....

Bonus fun:
if you managed to get through Sarfati's tangled mess, you came across this gem in his explanation of cause and effect:
"I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work [...] If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research."
Care to venture which logical fallacy this is? Answer here.

I just wonder if he would do it if proven wrong? (Of course what he was arguing was a non sequitur fallacy, so his PhD is safe; although the University that issued his doctorate should consider revoking it on the grounds that no one so misinformed deserves a PhD -- oops I just committed an ad hominem attack)

I hope you enjoyed this, and happy logical thinking!