Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Some idiot didn't do his research

Benjamin Wiker, author of the glorified roll of toilet paper '10 Books That Screwed Up The World' has (almost) reached the annals of human stupidity. This pathetic joke of an author apparently had his head up his overlarge ass when he claimed that "Darwin's The Descent of Man proves he intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society".

Yes, he said that Darwin intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society. Seriously.

What the hell has "survival of the fittest", a description of nature, got to do with the false claim that Darwin advocated using it on human society is Wiker's ass anyone's guess. If Wiker had only read Darwin's book and actually understood it, he would have realized that Darwin said no such thing, and those claiming such nonsense have the burden of proof. Since Wiker shows no such proof, the only conclusion here is that he is an ignorant fool, an intellectually lazy dipshit or a common liar. Which is it?

By claiming that Darwin's book is one of the books that screwed up the world, I'll have to assume that Wiker is against all of the benefits that evolutionary theory has brought us, and is preparing to go back to his cave to live an anti-scientific life. Go away and rot in a cave - we won't miss you, asshole.

If you think that this blunder by Wiker was bad enough, look at his description of Mein Kampf on the inside flap:

Hitler's Mein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism
*headdesk*

Did he even read Hitler's fucking book? There was not a single mention of 'Darwin' or 'Darwinism' (whatever that shit is supposed to mean) in the whole book! Evolutionary biology is not 'Darwinism', and I have no idea what this rambling goon means by 'spiritualized Darwinism'. Evolutionary biology has as much to say about spirituality as the theory of gravity; which is nothing at all.

However, here are some interesting quotes from Mein Kampf that shed some light on Hitler's motivations. It wasn't Darwin that led to Hitler's anti-Semitism. It was....
Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the Eternal Creator.

Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. '
It is abundantly clear that Wiker has not done his research. If only he had cared a little about what he was shooting out of his ass, he would have realized that his book was only fit to be used to wipe off his ass-droppings.

What a pity.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Sorry, theistards. Einstein was on our side.

Although theistards have often tried to use Einstein to promote their side, Einstein was in fact no friend of religion. Here are a few quotes that describe what Einstein thought about religion, from a letter that will soon be sold in London:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

"The Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

"As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Awww, poor theistards.

Now, whenever we see theistards claiming that Einstein was on their side, we would know that they are either ignorant, dishonest, or simply deluded dumbfucks for their imaginary sky-daddy.

Disclaimer: This is not an 'argument from authority'. I am not claiming that we should be atheists because Einstein said so. The purpose of this post was to debunk the stupid theist assertion that Einstein was a believer/sympathizer of their credulous cult.

Monday, May 12, 2008

PZ gets it right but Hemant misses the point.

Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant thinks that this post by PZ was in bad taste. Before we take a look at Hemant's post and why I think he misses the point, let's take a look at PZ's original post.

Paul Jones has died. I didn't know him, or even know about him, until his obituary was sent to me, but it's an utterly tragic life story. He was an ordained Baptist minister — there's a waste of a life right there — and his death was ironic and futile. He died of a heart attack, just as he was about to pray with a member of his Upper Room Fellowship. His last word was "Jesus".
This guy apparently used his life to worship and babble about his imaginary sky-daddy and corrupt his flock with the same deluded, ignorant, superstitious lies. Although it may be said that he was truly ignorant and actually believed in that garbage, his life was wasted the way we would say that someone who spends his lifetime chasing and talking to invisible green goblins has wasted his life. The fact that his last word was "Jesus" added a touch of irony to the story.

So far, I see nothing offensive there.
Someday I'm going to die, too, and I hope it is while doing something productive, and that I don't go out with the name of an imaginary being on my lips.
Absolutely true. Who doesn't want to do something more productive with their life than mumbling to an imaginary friend like a schzoid and enticing more gullible people into a zombie cult?
And in particular, it would be nice if my obituary would say something about the good things in my life, rather than babbling on about dedication to a superstition.

It's a shame. Jones might have been a wonderful fellow, but all we strangers know about him is that he was "committed to expanding God's kingdom" — that he had dedicated his life to a lie.

If you were to read the obituary, you would see that the whole page is full of Jesus nonsense. His wife and children are mentioned only at the very end, and the little reference to his business had more Jesus gobbledygook tacked on it.

PZ isn't criticizing the deceased man, and as he clearly states, he might have been a 'wonderful fellow', but when you have an obituary that only talks about how much the deceased man loved an imaginary sky-daddy, all he will be remembered for (at least among the non-religious) is how deluded and ignorant he was and how his whole life was devoted to that ignorance.

From Hemant's post:
Yes, the man died. And yes, he died dedicating his life to something I strongly believe is a lie. That said, becoming a minister doesn’t mean you’re wasting your life. It depends what you do with that title.
Really? Would we say the same thing about someone who is denies the HIV/AIDS connection and spreads his/her false beliefs on the public? Is the reason why Hemant is offended by PZ's post simply because PZ criticized a dead man's religion (which we all know should not be questioned at all cost [sarcasm])?
Are you using it so you have a soapbox to rail against gay marriage, women’s rights, etc? Or are you using it to help your community or inspire other people to do better, bigger things in life?
Even if he did inspire people to do good things, we cannot deny that he was a Baptist minister, and for all the 'good things' he supposedly did in the name of his god, he did spread his false, silly, bigoted, stupid and plain wrong beliefs to his unsuspecting parishioners. Do we have to refrain from criticizing someone's false ideas just because he is dead? How long after his death are we supposed to wait? Five weeks? Five months? Five years? Fifty years?

Hemant misses PZ’s point that the obituary was so Jesus-saturated that the real individual behind the god-licking was buried, and this is a sad fact by itself. His wife and kids were barely mentioned, but his prayers to his imaginary sky-daddy were considered more important. That, I believe, is the true tragedy - when all the wonderful things an individual has done is forgotten in a god-coated pile, and all that is remembered of this one man is how he died serving an imaginary friend, and how he wasted his whole life living and teaching a lie.

Now, isn't that simply sad?

Sunday, May 11, 2008

"Behold, it was very good."

"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." ---Genesis 1:31

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." ---Romans 1:20

Creationists often claim that the 'beauty of creation' tells us something about the nature of their imaginary sky-daddy god; and that we atheists are 'without excuse' for not believing in god after looking at the world around us. The closet creationists, the ID goons, also claim that such wonderful design in the universe is proof of a designer, which to them is the Christian god.

Now, let us take a look at a beautiful organism that must have been created by god. The evidence for special creation of this organism is so convincing that I am seriously doubting my acceptance of evolution.

This wonderful organism, Cymothoa exigua, simply must have been created by a loving creator! This cute little tongue-eating isopod causes degeneration of the tongue of its host fish, the rose snapper, Lutjanus guttatus, and it then attaches to the remaining tongue stub and floor of the fish's mouth by hook-like pereopods. In this position the isopod acts as a replacement to the fish's missing tongue, and in a marvel of god's sheer ingenuity, gets the first opportunity to devour incoming meals.

Praise god for creating such a wonderful organism! Through this, we see that god loves parasites, is sadistic, might have been on pot, should not be messed around with, and...oh...according to Christians, must be worshipped. If you don't worship this sadistic god, he will damn you to hell, and considering his amazing creations such as the above, this is a threat that we should seriously consider! Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for being a loving and sadistic god at the same time! Praise the Lord for giving us such awesome creatures that helps us marvel at the beauty of his creation!

Praise our Father in heaven, the loving Creator of gruesome organisms! Amen.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

The iPhone rant. Serious business.


"The iPhone would have been the best gadget ever if it was launched sometime back in 2000." --Evolved Rationalist

Okay, I can almost hear your groans and moans about me bringing up the iPhone in this blog. I mean, science bloggers >> tech bloggers, right?

Right?

*snicker*

However, as opposed to the theistards trolling around, this is actually a ‘religious war’ that matters. I’ve had enough of the iPhone fanboys going on and on about how the iPlod iPhone is the best thing that has ever happened to the human race. I’ve had enough of the ‘I have an iPhone so I am better than you’ shit. Nothing personal against iPhone users, but the iShit iPhone simply sucks. Be prepared for a rant - you have been warned.

Why the iPhone sucks:

  • It brings out the worst in some already whacked-out Apple fanboys/fangirls/fantards.
  • Go Symbian!

(Okay, I’ll get serious now. I promise.)

  • 2MP camera. What the hell? With such an awful camera in the so-called ‘gadget of the century’, it would have been better not to include it in the iScam iPhone at all. This would have been sufficient about five years back, but this is simply embarrassing. On top of that, video recording is nonexistent in the iPhone. On the other hand, this is probably the best thing considering the sorry excuse the iPhone has for a camera. To iPhone fantards, my Nokia N95 (with its’ 5MP camera) kicks your sorry iPhone in the ass dreadful touchscreen, thank you very much. Yes, I just said another gadget pwns your iPhone. Deal with it.
  • No MMS. You’ve got to be kidding me.
  • No GPS. Blabber all you want about Google Maps, but GM is a free download.
  • On top of the horrible battery life, there is no way to remove the battery, so forget about getting a spare battery. Once the battery is dead, the phone is dead. Just hope that you’re not in dire need of a phone then and there. *thinks of an iPhone fanboy being hit by an Apple truck*
    [Yes, that’s a joke. I harbor no ill feelings towards people who are willing to spend big money on a pretty but useless gadget.]
  • Slow internet - slower than the dial-up I used when the internet first came into being.
  • No support for Flash websites. Is this a ‘multimedia device'? Seriously?
  • No 3G (At least not yet.)
  • No file organizer. I guess there is simply not much you can do with an iPhone that you feel the need to organize your files.
  • No IM.
  • Only one picture can be attached per e-mail. Multimedia device FAIL.
  • No third party apps. (Refer to above LOLcat.)
  • No ‘copy and paste’. Perfect for ID-iots and the transitional form ‘cdesign proponentsists’ who can’t copy and paste to save their lives.
  • Music and mp3s cannot be used as ringtones. How the fuck is this humanely possible?
  • Nokia N95. Enough said.

Nevertheless, for those who have already bought an iPhone and are currently regretting it, there is still one thing the iPhone does perfectly. See, at least I'm good enough to admit that the iPhone is good for something! Watch the video below:


*Richard Dawkins has an iPhone. Sad but true.*

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Nazi scientists are amazing

Okay, creationists. You win. I've come out of the Nazi Darwinist closet.

Nazi scientists are apparently freaking awesome! Mmm....eugenics.



Hat tip to Phil Plait.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

LOLBehe


"Here's something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts." [Michael Behe, The Edge of Behe's Scientific Competency Evolution]

Behe is a Roman Catholic. Apparently, he thinks that a god that intentionally designed malaria is a god worth worshipping. Also, recall that the purpose of the ID movement is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life". In the IDiots' own words, we should take moral and cultural lessons from the so-called designer that created malaria and caused countless deaths around the globe.

Behe, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Check out this video where Behe makes another classic statement: "My kids don't go to public schools, what do I care?"



Based on this awesome revelation, I must assume that the ID side pisses in their pants whenever Behe is allowed to speak (read as "shoot himself in the foot").

Why the fight for reason matters




Superstition and the idiotic backers of it
seek to drive us back to the Dark Ages. If theocratic theistards were in charge of the world, rest assured that the age of book burnings and scientists being burnt at the stake would be very much a reality. Are you going to just apathetically stand by and let it happen? Are you going to sit on your couch and bum around while the lunatic nutjobs that pollute society seek to destroy knowledge because it contradicts their cherished, delusional world views? Are you going to let those demented morons destroy science because of their religious delusions, while you rant about how science must never ever be seen to be anti-religion? Are you going to respect and tiptoe around superstitious nonsense for no reason at all? Are you foolish enough to be a cowardly appeaser and let the superstitious nutjobs step on you head?

For the sake of humanity, I hope not.

Monday, May 5, 2008

New blog tagline

What do you think, folks? Like it? Hate it? Want to hear me scream 'Oh Gould!'?

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

This is why I call them theistards

From here [misspellings as in the original]:

I just think science gives satan more opportunities to decieve people when they think logicaly for too long, and once the seed of a lie is planted, it grows until somthing contradicts it.

The only science we need is the explanations of the Bible, we don't need to go to the moon, we don't need anything but God and his word.
More theistard goodness from the same thread:
[Question] Ah, so all scientists will eventually become religious? (And what 'god' are you talking about? The christian god? The muslim god? The gods or the Romans? Or perhaps the gods of the Aboriginals of Australia?)

[Theistard's response] There is only one God. And yes, all scientists will become religious. There will come a time when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is God. Some will confess it in joy, and others in shame and degradation.
Folks, there you have it. This is why I call those ignorant and deluded goons theistards.

If you would like to know why I am not an appeaser, click here.

Friday, May 2, 2008

IDiots fail to comprehend the issue

With enemies like these, who needs friends? --Evolved Rationalist on creationists.

The closet YECs over at Uncommonly Dense are pissing in their pants over this article in Nature:

A religious group has had its application to offer Master of Science degrees rejected by Texas authorities. The Institute for Creation Research— which backs a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation of Earth in six days — was seeking a certificate to grant online degrees in science education in Texas (see Nature 451, 1030; 2008). But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously last week not to grant the institute’s request, following the recommendation of Raymund Paredes, the state’s commissioner of higher education.
Okay, so far so good. The Institute for Certified Retards (ICR) is a young-earth religious Babble-thumping ministry who tries to push unscientific, discredited bullshit on the public, and their application to infect the education system with their lies was rightfully rejected. What the IDiotic goon over at UD said next made me almost bash my head on the desk in frustration:
Religious belief is not science? Does Paredes feel that “religious” people can’t teach adequate science? He’s right, “religious belief is not science,” but should creationists be barred from teaching/offering degrees because of their beliefs? EXPELLED!
Talk about missing the point completely. Now, IDiot, you got it right when you admitted that religious belief is not science. What you don't seem to get is that nobody, not even those 'evil Darwinists' you goons keep raving about think that religious people can't teach science. Where the fuck did you even get that idea? The ICR was not barred from offering degrees because they were affiliated with Christianity. They were not expelled. They were flunked because their degrees did not meet the requirements of the board. Again, they wanted to teach bullshit and offer degrees in bullshit, but their bullshit is not science and does not meet the requirements of the education board, so their bullshit was flunked out of the scientific arena. Is that really so hard to understand?

What happened to the ICR was exactly what would have happened if the Flat Earth Society started offering degrees in flat-earthism, or Scientologists started offering degrees in Xenu-science. 'Creation science' or 'intelligent design' or whatever the fuck they want to call it this time is not science and does not belong in science classrooms.

No matter how much the IDiots choose to lie about this issue, the simple fact is that nobody was barred from teaching science because of their religion. ICR was not allowed to offer degrees not because their members were Christians, but because they were teaching bullshit. We don't see devout religious people like Kenneth Miller getting expelled from their positions, do we?

If you think that episode of IDiotic failure is bad enough, the comments bring out the closet YEC IDiots who fit comfortably under the IDiotic 'big tent'. Scroll through the comments, and you will see blatant fundie Babble-thumping, god worshipping, YEC arguments and a truckload of massive fail.

If you want to be reminded yet again about why ID should not be taught in science classrooms, take a look at this comment by Salvador Cordova:
I personally hope the YEC enterprise succeeds. But there are some days the problems for the hypothesis seem insurmountable. I have tried to persist. I hope God will help with evidential discoveries, especially in cosmology and plausible mechanisms for accelerated decay…
Wow. Just wow. That's IDiot science for you, folks. He admits that there are terrible problems with YEC, but he is trudging along because of his literal belief in the Bible and hopes and prays that god will help find evidence for YEC. After failing to get any evidence for his YEC idiocy, all he can do now is to babble for his imaginary sky daddy to miraculously make it all fall into place. If the IDiots had their way, scientists would be praying instead of making medical discoveries and we would hurtle back to the Dark Ages and .....

*shudder*

This is why ID is not science, was not science, and never will be science.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Ben Stein takes the failboat on a ride

All Stein manages to show in Expelled is that he is as ignorant of history as he is of science. Before the trolls start whining like the bunch of deluded morons that they are, I am not claiming that Christianity was the reason for the Holocaust. I am just pointing out the obvious fact that Stein epically fails when he claims that 'Darwinism' is a root cause of Nazism and that Hitler used 'Darwinist' theories as a justification for exterminating millions of people.

Now, let's all sit back and wait for the trolls to start screaming about how I am a Nazi in 3, 2, 1...

New Anti-$cientology Carnival

Go over to The Frame Problem and support the CarnivUL of the Fraudless, a new anti-$cientology carnival. Considering how dangerous and evil the whole money-making cult is, this new carnival really needs your support!

In which I embrace my inner nerd

Science: It wins, bitches! (With apologies to xkcd.)

[Click to enlarge]

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Awesome Bad vandals! Bad!

I know I should not be encouraging the Wikipedia vandals, but sometimes the vandals are so goddamn right that it is almost impossible not to let out a little cheer when they hit the nail on the head. I was doing some reading on Scientology when I happened to click on a link to the Wikipedia article for the famous fraud L. Ron Hubbard. That was when I saw this:


[click to enlarge]

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (March 13, 1911January 24, 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was the founder of the Church of Scientology, as well as the author of Dianetics and the body of works comprising Scientology doctrine.[2] He was also an author in numerous speculative fiction genres for the pulp magazines[3] and, later in life, returned to science fiction.[4][5][6] He also caused the death of hundreds of people who were stupid enough to buy into his gobbledygooksmack cult. [From Wikipedia]

*snicker* *giggle*

Uh, bad vandals! Xenu will smite thee for thy mockery!

Monday, April 28, 2008

Expelled Review II: A scientific perspective

On Friday, I decided to kill off a few of my brain cells to watch Expelled so my readers didn't have to. After reading my friend's review of the movie from a film making perspective, I am sure you must be curious as to what the great Evolved Rationalist this evolution geek thinks about the blatant anti-science lies promoted in the movie. Oh, there were four other people watching the movie with us. *snicker*

Before watching the movie, I expected to be so angry by the end of it that some people were afraid that I would end up going on a rampage and killing every creationist in sight. I expected to intersperse my bouts of hot rage at the IDiots with some laughs at the utter stupidity of Ben Stein (BS) et al. I expected to be saddened by how fundamentalist religious beliefs had warped creationist minds. I expected to be disgusted at the credulous creationists who would flock to the movie just to feed their pathetic delusions. With all those expectations, it was a good idea for me to watch the movie with an atheist friend. However, I simply did not expect the movie to be so goddamn boring. Not even Stein's nasal drone could have prepared me for the utter failure of the movie to make me either get really angry or start laughing hysterically.

The movie starts with Stein in his idiotic sneakers rambling about freedom and portraying himself as a great crusader for the cause of freedom in the face of persecution. He apparently failed to get the memo that lecturing to a crowd of extras about how the establishment is suppressing ID is not the way science works at all. He also failed to get the memo that ID is not about religion, droning on and on about how 'Darwinists' are persecuting ID and putting "science in a little box where it can't possibly touch god". Oops, Stein - you scored an own goal there for us 'evil Darwinists'. You have proven that your side is all about religion, and you have nicely exposed the lies that your side has been peddling all along. Thank you for that little favor there, Stein.

To maximize the sensationalist nature of the crocumentary, scenes of Nazi death camps, gas chambers and tortured/dead Jews were badly inserted in the middle of ramblings about Darwinist persecution. Ben, how dare you disrespect millions of Jews that were murdered in the Holocaust by using their suffering to promote your theocratic, fundamentalist, quasi-political, lying, right-wing, theistarded agenda? How dare you compare the killing of millions of people with some ID hacks being criticized by the scientific community for not providing evidence for their assertions? How dare you claim that ID being flunked is tantamount to a new Holocaust? How dare you even think of using the Holocaust as a tool to prop up your lying agenda? How could you, Stein? Don't you have any measure of shame?

Next, he interviews people who were supposedly expelled or persecuted for supporting ID. He touts the case of Michael Egnor as an example of this great 'Darwinist' persecution that rivals what Hitler did to the Jews. Now, get ready for this - all that happened to Egnor was that some people criticized him on the internet. Yes, let me repeat myself if this does not shock you enough: Egnor was criticized on the internet. This is one of the examples of 'Darwinist' persecution of ID that threatens the very idea of freedom and is comparable to the Holocaust. Egnor was the very same medical doctor (!) who remarked that one of the reasons evolution is false is because 'brain tumors don't evolve to make better brains'. Come on now, Egnor, how could you make such ignorant statements and then get all whiny about being 'persecuted' when you are called out on your fallacy? If you can't take the heat, get the fuck out of the scientific ring. If you can't handle criticism, shut the fuck up. Since some creationists have criticized me on the internet; according to Stein, I am the victim of creationist persecution. A sword cuts both ways, IDiots.

Stein also lies about how Richard Sternberg's life was nearly destroyed after he was fired from the Smithsonian for supporting ID. However, the truth is a lot less sensational than what the IDiots claim. Sternberg was never employed by the Smithsonian. He was an unpaid research associate and he still has full access to research facilities at the museum. As I don't want to continue beating a dead horse, the real stories about the so-called 'academics' who were expelled for supporting ID can be found here.

Stein continues his nonsense with interviews from the usual kooks - Dembski, Johnson, Berlinski, Marks, etc. They trotted out the usual nonsense "The cell is complex, so there is a designer! Design is a scientific theory!! It can be proven!! We just want to be heard!! This is a war of worldviews!! We are being persecuted! Waaaaaaah!!" All this is incredibly boring as we have been hearing those goons say the same thing for years without a shred of evidence to back up their claims. Those IDiots were given the chance of their lifetimes in a courtroom in Dover, their leading light William "BillDumb" Dembksi was too cowardly to testify, Michael Behe claimed that ID is as scientific as astrology, they bombed in court and their case was shown to be one of "breathtaking inanity". They had their chance and they failed.

Can we move on now, IDiots? Some of us like our brains nice and functioning, thank you very much.

The best part was when the IDiots he interviewed stressed that ID was not about religion, while Stein simply ranted in the next scene about how god was being kicked out of science by 'Darwinist' persecutors. Those IDiots can't even get their stories straight, and yet we are supposed to believe that they are doing doing real science? In my opinion, I really don't think that insulting the intelligence of one's audience is a good idea, but then again, it is the ID lying crowd we are talking about here.

Stein goes on to demonstrate his ignorance by delightfully blabbering about how 'Darwinists' still cling to 'Darwinism' despite the fact that nobody knows how life actually arose. Apart from the simple fact that the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life and that abiogenesis is a separate field of study, Stein invokes the tired old god-of-the-gaps argument to claim that since we don't know everything about a particular scientific issue, GODDIDIT! Apparently, the 'science' that the IDiots so badly want recognition for is their inane tendency to yell GODDIDIT instead of doing some actual scientific research.

The part where I wanted to slam my head against the wall was when Stein made fun of panspermia and asked "Is this really more plausible than God?", killing any pretensions of ID being non-religious and again demonstrating his utter ignorance of the issue he claims to be so passionate about. Unless those 'aliens' or whatever was seeding life on earth evolved through evolutionary processes, panspermia is actually ID. The fact that nobody seemed to realize that the idea of an intelligence seeding life on earth belongs on the ID side is apparently because everyone in their camp only sees ID in terms of special creation by the Christian god.

I was curious about the ID creationists' excitement over Richard Dawkins supposedly admitting that ID is possible. What actually happened in the movie was nothing at all like what the kooks over at Uncommonly Dense want you to believe. Stein asked Dawkins to imagine a scenario in which ID could be possible, and Dawkins replied by saying that an intelligence could have started life on earth. Now, for you deluded dumbfucks who think that this is some sort of staggering admission, Dawkins mentioned this possibility because Stein asked him to! He was merely answering Stein's question, not advocating ID. Furthermore, Dawkins goes on to say that the intelligence itself must have evolved elsewhere through evolutionary processes. However, Stein deliberately ignores this, choosing instead to spew his lie about how Dawkins accepts ID as long as the Designer is not god. Fuck you, Stein, for being a shameless liar. I would really like to tell Stein where he should shove his head, but I don't think it would make a difference at this point.

The part of the whole truckload of epic fail that was Expelled which truly made me angry was when Stein walked around concentration camps trying to look upset while blaming and trying not to blame 'Darwinism' for the Holocaust at the same time. He utters inanities about how he is not claiming that 'Darwinism' lead to Nazism, but Darwinism was the root cause of Nazi ideas. Stein ignores the widely-known historical fact that anti-Semitic ideas were around long before Darwin and that there were ideas about the extermination of Jews even before Hitler. (Check out Martin Luther's rantings against the Jews, for one). Stein then stupidly claimed that 'Darwinism' led to eugenics without realizing that artificial selection has been around since the dawn of agriculture. Oh noes!! Agriculture caused Nazism and the Holocaust! Ban agriculture!! Stein then threw in more right-wing propaganda with stupid remarks about how Planned Parenthood, abortion and stem-cell research are modern-day eugenic practices. Pandering to the fundie base probably never looked so good.

Stein also completely misses the point that even if evolution led to Nazism or that Hitler admired Darwin, the scientific validity of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the consequences of accepting the theory. Epic fail, Stein.

The movie ends with scenes of people tearing down the Berlin Wall and Stein basically comparing himself to great defenders of freedom and claiming that Big Science has erected a wall to keep god out, just like the Berlin Wall tried to keep ideas out, and that the fight to bring god into science is like bringing down the Berlin Wall, and that Stein cannot do it on his own, so he needs sheep to follow and bray after him, yada, yada, yada...

Thick on the propaganda, vacuous on the science - just like the whole big tent of Intelligent Design. As expected, Expelled fails to tell us exactly why ID qualifies as science. All Stein talks about is how ID is being persecuted, but we never see any of the so-called evidence that the 'Darwinists' are suppressing. If Stein is so passionate about freedom of ideas and the defence of truth, why not put the evidence on the table?

Could it be simply because there is no scientific validity to ID and that the only thing keeping them afloat is their spin machine? Could it be that we 'evil Darwinists' were right all along? Scary thought, isn't it, Stein?

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Darwin >> Stein


From here. Self-explanatory, if you ask me.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Expelled Review I

Yesterday, I decided to finally watch the Expelled crocumentary with an atheist friend to see what all the fuss was about. Below is my friend's review of the movie from a film-making perspective. My review will be posted later, so don't worry about me deserting this blog. Expelled was too boring even to be made into a laugh-fest, and I would recommend that you do not waste your time watching this theistarded shitshow. ---Evolved Rationalist

Well, technically...
By John Ray

Cinematically, Expelled gets off to a lovely start. First-time director Nathan Frankowski chooses a nice, rich level of contrast and uses it to create some sparkling opening shots of our nation’s capitol. Those who knew what they were in for when they walked into the theater (presumably, most of the film’s so-far few attendees) were given an artistic visual rough outline of where the film was going. By the time we see Ben Stein taking a deep breath, looking indeed like “the little investigative journalist that could” in his trademark adorable little sneakers, the audience is practically eager to believe whatever he has to say.

Then he starts talking and the effect is ruined.

Suddenly, one can’t help but notice that the number of elaborate camera moves – from behind as well as in front of the stage – reveal that his whole opening spiel is farcically stilted, completely staged. And all of a sudden, as Ben Stein does his best to sound like he has emotions and can still write a speech like he used to for Richard Nixon (neither of which he accomplishes), those shots of Washington aren’t aesthetically striking anymore; they’re insulting. They’re being used to help along a clunky narrative that immediately seeks to package core American values into a cheesy, cardboard retooling akin to your high school commencement in its blandness and rhetorical uselessness. And, of course, there is ‘the enemy within’ implied in every word. The lifted 50s-style propaganda clips interspersed throughout are almost fitting. Almost.

It goes without saying that Ben Stein’s voice is only amenable to listening to in a comedic context, where his nasally drone is limited to either the “Anyone? Anyone?” we all know so well or the deliberately silly role of disinterested know-it-all in Win Ben Stein’s Money. You cannot listen to Ben Stein speak for more than two sentences consecutively without becoming uncomfortable. Never mind that he has evidently lost the ability to pronounce syllables correctly, sliding over them lazily so that “whatever” becomes “whever” and so on. All bad narrators are guilty of rushing their lines; Stein was a uniquely poor choice in that he is incapable, incipient speech impediment or no, of talking in a way that makes you want to listen.

And boy does he talk.

Ben Stein’s turgid drone drags us through an hour of repetitive, hollow sob stories interspersed with Ben Stein doing his worst to sound surprised at every tragic tale of persecution. Frequenters to this blog already know that none of their sob stories are true, but in a cinematic context, that’s almost beside the point.

Before the interviews get going, we get a clip of the dark, scary Richard Dawkins, staged in a poorly-lit study of some kind where his only visible features are a Gollum-esque glow in his eyes and the hairs on his upper lip. But before one can even smirk along with Frankowski’s ability to use lighting as a narrative tool, the camera – which starts to stagger with increasing frequency between shots, suddenly making us feel like we’re in an episode of 24 – cuts to the interviews of Stein’s cohorts, where it’s pretty much the same thing. Everyone, good guy or no, is either under-lit or, in the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, so overexposed he’s unwatchable, even though he’s about the only articulate subject they could find – aside from some French academic, whose opinions are so dry and baseless that he appears to be about the only person on earth who’d be comfortable having a conversation with Ben Stein. In fact this is so apparent that Stein actively goads him on, turning his own narrative role from that of the inquisitive newbie into the chubby-cheeked master of ceremonies.

Frankly the best interview shot was of atheist Daniel Dennett, standing against a large column in what was almost a dark, washed-out replication of that beautiful Charles Darwin photograph many know so well. Oops!

The interviews are the bulk of the message – yes, six played-up sob stories are meant to indict every place of biology research on earth – and expose yet another technical flaw with the movie. Someone didn’t edit things properly because the quality and timbre of the interviewees’ microphones tend to jump at random moments. It takes only a second to readjust your ears, a reflex that viewers of Expelled now wish they lacked, but in the mean time it makes one wonder if the production company handed over the sound editing to the interns or something along those lines.

And, of course, there are the absurd splices of b-roll footage spaced between almost every sentence. Someone talking about being “bullied” leads in to a black and white take of someone being bullied. In my time in the visual arts I had not heard this referred to as a “Lord Privy Seal,” but now that I have, I find it extremely apt. Richard Dawkinsreview already covered this hysterical bit of terrible directing in detail so I won’t bother here. It can’t be stated enough how much this effect will have you laughing throughout this film, when you aren’t bored to tears at least.

There’s one final basic lesson most people learn in their first semester of film school that Frankowski evidently never got: nobody wants to watch a movie about a guy walking. Every new interview requires at least five minutes of Ben Stein getting there, meandering along at a pace to match his voice, slow and dull.

By the time it gets to the Nazi propaganda, you’re only slightly surprised by it. At this point, after so many absurd directorial choices, technical gaffes, caricatured interviews, and cheesy narrative wearing a transparent mask of outrage, you feel so much like you’re watching the latest version of Loose Change that a conspiracy theory blown so comically out of proportion is by this point merely expected. Evolutionary biology equals Social Darwinism and understanding evolution is a “necessary condition for Nazism.” You don’t say. The framing of these claims is so bad that they don’t even scratch the surface of a credible criticism of mainstream science; they work against the movie’s intentions.

You only start to feel insulted when Ben Stein decides that the Holocaust is his “personal” reason for “investigating” evolution, and trust me, you feel really insulted. No, Ben Stein, your movie is not a personal crusade on behalf of your lost ancestors. No, Ben Stein, periodically putting your head in your hands while walking around Dachau at inappropriate points in a conversation does not endear you to an audience that you’ve already openly belittled, bored, and been dishonest with. NO, Ben Stein, you’re not poignantly reflecting on the dangers of pseudoscientific dogma. You, sir, are whoring out the horrific tragedies of the Holocaust in the name of your pet political agenda. I hope this is the first and last time the words “prostitute” and “Holocaust” can ever be associated by the same sentence, but so long as Intelligent Design marketers have seats to fill, that prospect seems dim.

For fill seats they have not. This movie was a box office failure, which would just be rather fitting along the same pattern as every other aspect of the production. The overt attempt to rap up the movie by comparing curmudgeonly skeptics like Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins to Nazi experimenters and deliberate enforcers of a religious dogma of ‘scientism’ will put half the audience in hysterics. The other half of the audience will just sit there quietly scratching their heads and wondering to themselves if they’re really meant to believe this crap. When I saw this movie, that “half” of the audience, rounding, was four people. It was a fitting show, for the only way to meet deafening stupidity is with a deafening silence so that the words can be heard loud and clear, the better to be mocked, ridiculed, and recognized for the sham that they represent.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Spineless appeasers or closet theistard sympathizers?

The whole appeaser/non-appeaser skirmish (or more appropriately, the latest of what seems to be a series of never-ending flame wars) has emerged again. Even after a whole lot of arm-wrangling, the appeasers have nothing more to say than their usual whine: "Militant atheists (atheists who are not cowardly appeasers) are doing more harm than good!! They need to shut up and let the appeasers do (and frame) whatever they want to! Be good pussies in front of the oh-so-holy religious believers! Do anything to keep them happy, do anything -- except tell the truth!! SHUT UP and let us deal with it because we know better than you and we know this because we know and SHUT UP, okay?!"

Whatever did we do to deserve the title militant? We are not burning down churches, murdering the religious or blowing ourselves up. All we're doing is exercising our human right to free speech and pointing out that there is no logical basis for the unusual respect accorded to religion in society. By dismissing atheists who call a spade a spade as 'militant' or 'fundamentalist', the appeasers are behaving as dogmatically as their religious bedfellows.

And by this, I do mean bedfellows. By shutting up and pandering to superstition, the appeasers are making it outrageously easy for the religious to walk all over them in the path of pushing their beliefs on everyone else. The cowardly appeasers and their commitment to keeping religion immune to criticism would surely be welcomed by none other than the religious themselves, even if the appeasers are currently too deluded to realize that they are being used. After all, what else do you expect from a bunch of spineless pushovers?

The cowardly appeasers further claim that atheists have to respect religious beliefs and not question the validity of superstition. In other words, the appeasers are encouraging the so-called politically correct notion that religion deserves a higher level of respect compared to any other institution in society. In fact, the appeasers are not doing anything to defend reason in the face of superstition. They are merely reinforcing the fallacy that religion has to be respected no matter what. How can the appeasers claim that they are on the side of reason when they are not doing anything about the fact that superstition is often readily shielded from criticism by the unwritten rules of society? Not only are they doing nothing, they are actually actively contributing to the furtherance of this rot.

I have often wondered if appeasers are actually closet theists trying to shut atheists up. At the rate their stupidity is going, who knows?

Even if the appeasers want to shut up and lie about frame the facts so that the religious won't start foaming more than they already do, what makes them think that the religious will follow suit by shutting up and getting their irrational hands off scientific matters? No matter how much the appeasers try to avoid stepping on religious toes, the fact is, religious believers want nothing more than to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. If the recent state of affairs regarding creationism and climate change are any indicator, it is clear that the religious will have none of this pushover business. They are bulldozing ahead with their anti-science quest, and are we going to be pushovers and let them walk all over us to reach their goal? Are we going to bow down, appease them and let them destroy everything that we stand for? Are we really that cowardly? Are we really that deluded, blind and stupid? Are we really going to be the spineless cowards known as appeasers? God Science forbid!

This whole business is not about people believing in utter garbage like creationism, a fatherless haploid walking on water and bringing dead people back to life, the Flintstones as natural history, the angel Moroni and some golden plates, chopping off penises due to lust or even mumbling like schizophrenics every night to an imaginary god. The true problem is when these beliefs are shoved down the throats of society. There seriously is a problem when the religious use their blind faith as excuses to brainwash little girls to blow themselves up for a fictional paradise, to destroy science education and take us back to the caves, to encourage (and deceive) people into choosing faith healing over modern medicine, to oppose potentially live-saving research due to imaginary sky-daddy ethical concerns, or to deny climate change as after all, god gave us this planet to do as we please. Religion is threatening the every foundations of our society and if left unchecked, it will destroy science, the very thing that will take humanity to the edges of what was once thought to be unachievable miracles. Why should we encourage the malignant tumour of religion? Why, appeasers? Because you people are a bunch of spineless pushovers? Because you appeasers are a bunch of theistard-enablers who seem to be acting more and more like theistards as the days go by?

Contrary to what appeasers think, this is not about one issue or another. It is not about young earth creationism, ID, evolution, climate change, stem cell research, marijuana or the latest hot-button issue. These are merely battles in the course of the real war -- the war between rationalism and superstition. In this war, only one side will be the winner. There is no room for appeasers, and the superstitious, at least, will have none of this cowardly garbage. They may be ignorant, deluded, liars or plain kooks, but they are certainly not cowards, and that is more than I can say for the appeasers. Remember, no change has ever been achieved by shutting up and bowing down to oppressive institutions. If we fail to make our voices heard, superstition has already won. What would have happened if the abolitionists had not made their voices heard at the time? Remember what happened in history when people shut up - and how they got trampled on? If you do not want that to happen to rationalism, you might want to avoid drinking the appeaser Kool-Aid.

Appeasers, try as you might to lie about frame the fact that science is a threat to religious beliefs, be assured that the religious will be able to see right through it. No amount of spinning is going to get around the fact that a rational worldview does not allow room for superstition unless there is some serious compartmentalization going on. Religious myths may be stupid, but their adherents not necessarily are. In fact, I've met fundies who are perfectly intelligent in other aspects apart from their infantile religious beliefs. I am not denying this, but the appeasers seem oblivious to this fact and still think that being spin doctors will do the trick. It won't work, and when the whole thing blows up in their faces and they are exposed for the liars they really are, don't say that we 'militant' atheists didn't warn you. Rest assured, if (which is very likely) and when the appeasers are exposed, nobody religious would trust science, let alone touch it with a ten foot pole. I wouldn't blame them, and the appeasers will be left with egg on their faces for acting just like a lying theistard gasbag.

Appeasers, please stop acting like your religious fundie friends and stop shoving your appeaser views down our throats. Stop this loaded branding of us as 'militant' when all we did was to speak up and exercise our rights. Stop claiming without a shred of evidence that we are hurting science. Stop claiming that Richard Dawkins (or whoever you have a bone to pick with these days) is doing more harm than good without proposing an alternative method to get atheism and rationalism out in the open. What have you appeasers done to get atheism in the mainstream compared to those 'militant' atheists? We are not forcing you appeasers to agree with us, but making silly claims and wild assumptions certainly doesn't help rationalism.

We should all shut up and let the appeasers do what is 'good' for science, you say, appeaser? Well, fuck off and shove a brick up your ass, because whoever gave you the right to speak for me and for all the other non-appeaser atheists? Whoever made you the oh-so-untouchable spokesperson for science? Whoever gave you the right to ask others to shut up, while claiming that your way is the only true way? Come to think of it, you appeasing lunatics sound just like a religious cult where people are expected to shut up and listen to you unquestioningly. Sorry, your theistard-emulating tactics don't work on rational people, so you fail miserably.

Are you appeasers sure that you are not closet theistards or theistard sympathizers? I have my doubts sometimes, and frankly, I don't think I should be blamed for it.

(Oh, and Mooney and Nisbet...you were given more than enough time to provide evidence that your idiotic framing self-publicity-seeking message actually worked. All it has done is increase your popularity and give you assholes cheap publicity, but the time has come to put up or shut up. Just because you claim to be on the side of science does not mean that we have no right to ask you to back up your claims with hard evidence.)

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

In which I join the ranks of Dawkins and Harris...

I have a flea!

(In case you don’t quite get the reference, read this first.)

Created Rationalist’ now has a blog titled ‘Created and Rational’. He is a theistic evolutionist and a former fundie YEC (thank science for small favors), and although a theist, sees through the lies and stupidity of cretinshit ministries like AiG and ICR. He still has a lot more to learn, but leaving YEC was a step in the right direction for him.

I am pleased that I can now brag that I’m just like Dawkins! Just like Dawkins, you see! Just like Daaaawwwwkkkkinns! Till I break his bookselling records someday, I’m just like Dawkins!!

:-)

*shameless bragging*