Worm comes. Worm sees. Worm pwns human. Nastily.

5/31/2008 | 2:52 AM | Evolved Rationalist

No, this isn't a tagline for a (bad) movie. If the stupid army known as the creationists were right all along, let's take a look at another amazing orgasm organism that must have been created by a loving creator.

This creature that sounds like something out of a bad horror movie is none other than the guinea worm (Dracunculus medinensis). If you are a clueless creationist, this creature was designed specially by a loving god to require a human host. For the rest of us who do not have our heads trapped in our anal orifice (known as the asshole in popular speech), such an orgasm (WTF is wrong with me today?) organism is a testament to the sheer ingenuity of evolution.

The female which grows up to lengths measured in meters does so under the human skin, usually in the leg and feet areas. The females remain after mating while the males die off, and the female bodies become swollen due to a huge number of embryos.

Next, the worm's body wall bursts open and causes a terrible allergic reaction (basically, the human will get pwned) and 'fiery' irritation, causing a painful ulcer to develop. This ulcer eventually also ruptures (!) causing even more misery for the human host. Oh, the worm is not dead - far from it. The nasty worm then emerges and starts expelling its offspring.


However, the part that makes me really squeamish is where the poor afflicted individual removes the worm. The most common way of doing so is to carefully wind the worm onto a stick and slowly remove that nasty thing from the wound a bit by bit. Oh, and anaphylactic shock sets in if only a part of the worm is removed, so you better darn well be prepared to work on worm removal for days.


(Yes, I am squeamish. Thanks for asking.)

The humans who get pwned by this nasty wormThose afflicted usually plunge their legs into water to dull the fiery pain. The most ingenious part of the whole story is this: The worm's embryos seek out water as they emerge, are quickly eaten by copepods (the intermediate host); and other human victims are infected as they drink water contaminated with the infected copepods. The "Worm comes. Worm sees. Worm pwns human. Nastily." horror begins all over again with different humans getting pwned.

Isn't evolution simply amazing, albeit in a twisted way sometimes?

Or, it could be that...

God must be causing all this pain to test His children and to prevent the Evolved Rationalist from typing orgasm instead of organism after completing a blog post about this nasty little creature of his! He is so merciful. Amen.

You decide.

*Images are from here and here.

The FAQ page

5/29/2008 | 7:12 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I have set up the FAQ page to answer common and actual questions from my readers. Go over there, check it out; and if you have a question that is not already there, leave a comment here and I'll answer your question on the FAQ page.

Yes, you can ask me anything, even "I'm a stupid, deluded, ignorant and evil creationist. Would you even consider sleeping with me?"

Ask away!

Gerry Rzeppa: Yet another clueless loon

5/27/2008 | 10:00 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Gerry Rzeppa, a creationist loon, sent me an e-mail a while back about his short children's book which he claims refutes Richard Dawkins' arguments. Although I do not think that his book answers anything or makes any coherent points whatsoever, I am reproducing his first e-mail so that my readers could check it out for themselves:

My name is Gerry Rzeppa and I've written a short children's book in answer to the works of Richard Dawkins. Unlike his ponderous tomes, however, mine has lots of pictures, rhymes, and can be read, cover to cover, in ten minutes.
I'm offering the doctor $64,000 of my very own money if he will join me before a live audience to answer a single question about my little poem. I'll read the story aloud and pose the mystery query. He'll answer and walk away with the loot. Simple as that.
You can view the official challenge here:
And you can read my little story by clicking thru from the challenge site or going directly here:
Thank you for your consideration.
We started exchanging a few e-mails, and I was amazed by the breathtaking stupidity and utter theistarded logic he soon started spewing. Here is a sampling:
You also say that "a key objection to the idea of God is that there is no evidence to show that such a deity exists." No evidence? Do you think this email just happened? Or do you think these very words are evidence of something intelligent at the other end of the wire? Why or why not?

Regarding your slogan, "We have the fossils. We win." Are you quite sure? I've seen a lot of fossils and I've never seen anything conclusive. Anything more than speculative, for that matter! Could you, perhaps, email me pictures of the fossils that show a clear metamorphosis between, say, a fish and a bird? No need to include all of the tens of thousands of intermediate forms, of course. But I'll need to see a significant sampling before I'll be ready to concede that "you win."
A metamorphosis from a fish to a bird?! Now I've seen it all - until the next theistarded loon comes along, of course.

For all the huffing and puffing that this loon is doing claiming that he has answered Dawkins' objections to the theistarded belief in an imaginary sky-daddy, he is hopelessly ignorant about the basic facts of evolutionary biology. Leaving aside the fact that my imaginary mentally retarded six-year-old half-brother could write better books than this loon, his statement shows us that most creationists don't have the slightest clue as to what they are arguing about.

My extremely polite response:
If we were to claim that 'oh, this looks designed and it could not have evolved, so there is a god', we are not going anywhere because someone else can say that it was 'designed' by the FSM, a unicorn, aliens, Allah, Zeus, Baal, a green goo ball, etc. Anyone can insert their own designer into their perception of design. Isn't this god-of-the-gaps argument also bad theology? There was a time when rain was considered an act of god, but nowadays few people still think that god controls the water cycle. By your own theology, the place for god to hide seems to be shrinking as science marches on.

About the fossils: The theory of evolution does not posit a direct lineage from fish to birds. I think you must have been confused there about how evolution works. As for your argument that fossils are only speculative, you might find it interesting that fossils are only one of the ways that show us that evolution happened. Even without fossils, we could draw evidence from various fields to show that evolution is a fact. We are lucky to have as many fossils as we do, in any case. Even with the abundance of fossils and other lines of evidence, nothing seems to convince creationists.
There you have it folks. This self-aggrandizing and publicity-seeking loon is just like most other creationists. All those inflatable gasbags have on their side are stupidity, misinformation, and lies, and no matter how much they try to pretend otherwise, they merely shoot themselves in the foot time and time again with their inane statements. If creationists keep giving us gems like the above, we have part of our work cut out for us.

Creationists, keep it up. We are loving your theistarded spectacles of stupidity and ignorance, and we are laughing while you loons crash and burn all over the place.

In addition to some remedial science classes, I think Gerry (and a whole bunch of other creationists) need one of these:


Let's talk about...transhumanism

5/25/2008 | 11:54 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I have always been a strong advocate of transhumanism, and if you recall, I once mentioned that the time has come to rethink eugenics in light of modern science. Despite the fact that the post has been misquoted by creationists to claim that I am a neo-Nazi eugenics supporter, I hope I managed to get more than a few people thinking. I believe that the modern application of eugenics would enable the transhumanist vision of the improvement of human capacities through science and modern techonlogy.

Although I am not claiming that all these ‘Top 10 Transhumanist Technologies’ are actually feasible, that post makes interesting reading. Go over there and check it out. I’m also interested in knowing how other people view transhumanism. A utopian fantasy or something scientifically feasible? A mockery of humanity or the improvement of the human condition?

What I have to say to the theistards would undoubtedly ramble about ’scientists playing god’ is this:

Remember the Luddites? Anti-science and anti-progress tendencies will die out in the end. Although this may be slow and people who cling to those tendencies would no doubt go out kicking, screaming and raving like the cavemen they are, history has shown us time and time again that cavemen attitudes will and should die in light of the march of the sciences.

Anti-science tendencies will lead to the inevitable cleansing of the gene pool, and those who resist progress would simply not be able to survive in a world where progress, while slow, is inevitable.

Comment away.

Get it, theistards?

5/24/2008 | 9:58 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The next time you call someone a Christian child, a Muslim child, a Scientologist child, etc, just remember one thing: You are a moron.

Stop the indoctrination of children with religious lies. Stop mentally abusing your child.

A challenge to anti-science nutters and various idiots

5/22/2008 | 10:01 PM | Evolved Rationalist

This is a serious debate, folks!

A buffoon has recently started the all-too-familiar idiotic rambling that 'there are other better ways of knowing than the scientific one'.

Nobody is claiming that science has all the answers. Nevertheless, science has shown to be the most reliable method of investigating how the natural world works.

As some anti-science kooks and woos still disagree, here are some simple questions for those who rant about 'other ways of knowing':

  1. Describe this so-called other method.
  2. Provide evidence that this method works, and is indeed a better method.
Do this and show that you deserve to be taken seriously. Until then, you just deserve to be laughed at, mocked, and mocked again.

Fundie Claim #10: No god, no moral codes

5/20/2008 | 8:42 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: The Bible [or insert other so-called holy books here] is the basis for morality! Without it, there would be no moral codes and everything would be permissible. Without god, people would have no reason to be moral, and Christians are more moral than atheists because we believe in a god. God exists, and the Bible is the true source of morality and we need it as a moral guide.

Fundie theistards who believe that there is no reason to be moral unless god exists have weaker morals than atheists who act morally without the fear of hellfire and damnation. The truly scary thing is that theistards who use this claim are actually admitting that without their faith in a sky-daddy, they would be running around the streets killing people, committing crimes and going (even more) batshit crazy. Considering the fact that most people are theistards, doesn't thinking about this send chills up your spine?

Theistards, if you need to delude yourselves about an imaginary sky-daddy and an imaginary hell to behave morally and to prevent yourself from killing others or raping children, I suggest that you check yourself into a mental institution at once.


Religion appeals to cowards and the intellectually lazy because it frees them from the burden of actually thinking for themselves. They choose to remain in a state of moral retardation, and are more than willing to hand over their depraved minds to pulpit-pounders. Bible-thumping Christians might object to this description by wailing “The Bible!! Bibleeeee!! The Bible is the source for my morality, and the Bible is the word of the LORD GOD because it says so!! Praise Jesus!!”

Idiot fundies, please take some time to consider what I’ve been saying time and time again: Christians have no confidence in mapping the course of their lives, choosing instead to take their imaginary sky-god’s orders, whose so-called Word is interpreted by – guess who – mortal men! In the end, Christians who so hate worldly opinions on how to live their lives, come back to square one by relying on humans to interpret the screamingly inconsistent scripture.

This is why Christians cannot even agree among themselves what’s moral in the cases of, for example, homosexuality, divorce, abortion, birth control and euthanasia. If god was so clear about morals, why is there such confusion? Wouldn’t the solution to these dilemmas be clear-cut and written plainly in the Bible? Why don’t they just ask god what to do, since they claim that god is the basis of morality? The blunt truth is that these Christians are simply back at square one. In the end, they are still relying on fellow men, if not themselves, in making moral judgments. More often then not, their moral judgments will be seriously warped due to the twisting and cherry picking of scripture to support a particular view. The additional fact that the Bible can be used to support nearly every point of view doesn’t make things any easier either.

Now, the most important question: Even if there really is no basis for morality if god doesn’t exist, and even if atheism did lead to atheists turning into infant-murderers, how does this have any bearing on the real question of the existence of god? All these philosophical skirmishes do not bear any weight on the issue of the Christian god’s, or any other god’s existence.

Christians, are you really that arrogant, deluded, and stupid to think that before your idiotic cult infected the world, or before the Bible, there was never any moral codes in place? Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi which was secular? Are you theistards going to instead close your eyes and avoid dealing with the facts again, just as you have closed your eyes and shut your brains in the face of anything that could ever make you doubt your moronic beliefs all these years?

How ID undermines Christian doctrine

5/19/2008 | 12:30 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. [The Wedge Strategy]

Despite their religious motivations, what the IDists don't seem to realize is that ID actually damages Christian doctrine and makes it easier for atheists to undermine their religion.

God-of-the-gaps (Behe/Dembski)

Michael Behe’s version of intelligent design posits a god that tinkers now and then with his creation to design “irreducibly complex” structures such as the bacterial flagellum and the human eye. The idea that god is a tinkering mechanic does not hold water in light of the Biblical doctrine that god is actively involved in the world at all times. Behe's theology is one where god resides in the gaps of human knowledge, and that god can and should retreat every time a scientific discovery is made. Behe is claiming that the study of nature by material beings would somehow destroy faith in a god, and asserts that science is superior to religious faith.

Behe's creator is one who lies back for long periods of time, merely appearing to design one complex structure or another. The extension of William Paley’s idea of a watch requiring a watchmaker and design requiring a designer does not work in the case of Behe’s arguments, as his criteria for detecting design is merely what has not been explained by science at the time.

Behe has placed his religion in conflict with science as his argument leads to using ignorance as a reason for belief in god. This god-of-the-gaps theology ultimately undermines religion by shrinking the role of god as science marches on, and affirms the notion that religion has been disproven by the mechanisms and tools of science. When you look for god in things that science has not explained or what you think science has not explained, all you get into is a big pile of trouble.

God as a tinkering mechanic (Johnson)

Philip Johnson posits a god or an ‘intelligent designer’ which intervenes at specific moments in history to create organisms separately without any evolutionary history whatsoever. While traditional Biblical creationists claim that the earth has to be younger than 10,000 years old, Johnson accepts an old earth but rejects the common ancestry of all life due to what he claims are gaps in the fossil record.

Johnson's view is based on the idea that god is a magician who interferes sporadically in the natural world. However, if we were to look at traditional Christian doctrine, it is theologically inconsistent because god is said to be always active in the natural world. Johnson’s ideas not only rests on a misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium and the nature of the fossil record, but also lends a disservice to his god by casting doubt on the supposed creator’s competence.

When we look at the vast number of species that have gone extinct, we wonder why Johnson sees a necessity for an all-powerful god to perform “failed experiments” in the course of creation. Explaining design that gives an appearance of evolution and the necessity of extinction cannot be tested, disproven or investigated, and would contradict the nature of god that is revealed in his own Bible.

As we have seen, ID fails as a science and as a theological standpoint. Therefore, ID is an epic failure.

Fundie Claim #9: You can't prove that there is no god!

5/18/2008 | 12:30 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie: In order to be certain that God doesn’t exist, you have to have the ability to be 100% certain. A human can’t be 100% certain about anything. You cannot prove that god does not exist, so there is a god!

Most theists fail to realize that asking atheists for proof of atheism is the same thing as asking for proof that dragons, the FSM, fairies or goblins don’t exist. It is absurd to be asked to prove a negative. As Carl Sagan famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The (in this case, Christian) theist claim that there is a personal, omnipotent, creator, redeemer deity out there watching over us is certainly an extraordinary claim, but so far no evidence has been forthcoming (extraordinary or otherwise). There is simply no evidence for this retarded, infantile, ignorant belief in a mythical, invisible sky-daddy imaginary friend.

Atheism, not theism, is the default position. The burdens of proof lies on the side making the positive claim, no matter how much theists try to avoid this simple fact. Although no atheist has ever claimed that the non-existence of god is the ultimate Truth with a capital T, what we know about the natural world make the existence of a god (let alone a personal god) highly improbable, if not impossible. The improbability of such a god is great enough to deem the odds of Christian doctrine being true are close to zero.

I am always willing to change my mind on the basis of evidence. As theists haven’t provided any, there is no reason for me to prostrate myself in front of an altar to speak like a schizoid to an imaginary god. I'll save that for the theistards.

Maybe we should do what Josef Mengele did...

5/17/2008 | 5:55 PM | Evolved Rationalist

...but this time to the anti-animal testing fanatics.

Okay, I can almost see some humorless trolls just waiting to jump out of the woodwork and accuse me of being a Nazi. Before they do, let me add that I don't actually think that we should take a group of people and perform so-called 'scientific experiments' on them for reasons that are anything other than scientific. However, anti-animal testing fanatics who hypocritically use the products of animal research deserve nothing better than to be caged, shoved into labs and have experiments performed on them instead of on the animals. Since they are so against animal testing yet happily reap the benefits of it, I say we should use them as a substitute for lab animals. That would remove some hypocritical morons from the gene pool while saving a few animals in the process.

On the other hand, the goons who are against animal testing and refuse to use any products/medication that may have been tested on animals, they are at least practicing what they preach and are honest about voluntarily helping remove themselves from the gene pool. Kudos to them!

Nick Anthis recently posted a great video on the basic facts of animal research, and I am reposting it here as it is something you won't regret watching. Anti-animal testing idiots, watch this video and learn how not to make straw man arguments about how 'vivisectors' are evil and should be killed because they senselessly abuse animals and are sadistic and waaaaaahhhhh!!.

Fundie Claim #8: Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus

5/16/2008 | 4:44 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Fundie (Yes, Rick Warren, this means you): Christianity is not like other religions because it is a personal relationship with Jesus. Christianity teaches that Christians will have a personal relationship with Jesus in a process of 'falling in love with him'.

Here comes the fun part: I am going to refute Warren's (and the fundie cult's) assertion using the Bible itself.

There are various passages that speak of how one is required to repent of sins and believe that Jesus was resurrected and is the only way to the Father to be saved. The act of believing in Jesus is a far cry away from actually having a personal relationship with Jesus, and here we shall see that nowhere in the Bible is there such a mandate for this personal relationship delusion. As far as the Bible is concerned, this doctrine is simply made up by evangelical Christian theologians.

Let us now take a look at John 15: 1-13.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here, we can see that being a Christian involves a vague spiritual union with Jesus, but nowhere in there is the ‘personal relationship’ which is much touted by modern Christianity even seen. Warren’s “carrying on a continual conversation with Jesus” seems ridiculous in light of scripture. The Bible does not even say anything remotely like what Warren claims, yet he sums up Christian worship as having this very relationship (which is notably absent from the Bible)!

Next comes John 10:1-16, in which Jesus says that his sheep recognize his voice, while those not of his flock turn a deaf ear:

1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

These verses again have nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus and talking to him on a daily basis. These verses simply depict the reception and rejection of the gospel, where the non-believers are likened to Satan’s flock as opposed to the Christians of Jesus’ flock. Let’s take a look at John 10:14 in particular, as most Christians will pull out this verse haphazardly to save their precious doctrine. What this verse really means is that Jesus’ followers will be able to distinguish him from the false teachings and teachers that were earlier mentioned in John 10:8. It has nothing to do with the personal relationship that Warren so desires.

Fundies will usually point out Revelation 3:20 next. Is this the saving grace for Warren’s assertions?

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Sadly (at least for Warren and his fundie followers), it falls short yet again. By itself, the verse sounds promising. It shows not only Jesus talking with you, but also eating with you! Christians, please don’t wet and poop in your pants due to misplaced excitement. When put in context, the verse is contained in John’s letters to the seven churches, and the letters are regarding the events of the End Times, not a personal relationship with Jesus.

But, what about the whole context of the letter to Laodicea? Doesn’t the whole letter hint at a personal relationship with Jesus? Am I the one now following Warren’s cue at taking Bible verses out of context? Well, let’s take a look at the scripture:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

What this letter really says is that Jesus is calling on those within the city, hoping that they will hear him so that they can be led to salvation. These events will take place just before the End Times, and all this has clearly nothing to do with having cozy personal conversations with Jesus. The supper that Jesus promises is not some one-on-one Warren-like meeting, but the Marriage Supper of the Lamb at the End Times:

Revelation 19: 7-9:

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. 9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Even further on, in Revelation 19: 17-21, Jesus is not even hinting at wanting a personal relationship with Christians at all. He is merely inviting his flock to witness and indulge in the slaughter of the non-believers and the beast:

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

I have clearly shown that these gory details are nothing like Warren’s “falling in love with Jesus” and conversing daily with Christ. Even better still, I am relying solely on the *Bible (albeit without Warren’s back-and-forth hopping using about 15 translations) to show that Warren’s whole premise of “real Christian worship” is not founded upon anything in the Bible. There is simply no basis in scripture for claiming that Christianity entails having a personal relationship with Jesus, therefore, one of the most popular Christian slogans has been refuted (using the Bible itself!).

* All verses taken from the King James Version

New look!

5/15/2008 | 11:58 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I'm sure regular readers would have noticed that the site looks.....different. In case you were wondering, the person who made it all possible is Jason Gulledge (who must be the most awesome computer geek ever). He was patient enough to sit through my constant overexcited squealing during every step of the process and to tolerate my silly little ideas (yes, like how the 'comments' link should read 'peer reviews' and how the Blogger favicon should be nuked and replaced with the Scarlet A....) and this makes him super awesome in my books. Go check out his site, and also check out Thank God for Atheists, where he is one of the contributors.

In short, an actual (and super awesome) web developer did this for free because he is awesome! (Did I say awesome?) Praise Jason!

Okay, okay, I have stopped fawning now. Seriously.

Tell me what you think about the new look. Comment away!

Some idiot didn't do his research

5/14/2008 | 3:50 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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

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.

Sorry, theistards. Einstein was on our side.

5/13/2008 | 11:32 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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.

PZ gets it right but Hemant misses the point.

5/12/2008 | 10:35 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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?

"Behold, it was very good."

5/11/2008 | 6:04 AM | Evolved Rationalist

"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.

The iPhone rant. Serious business.

5/08/2008 | 10:52 PM | Evolved Rationalist

"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.


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.*

Nazi scientists are amazing

5/07/2008 | 9:40 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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.


5/06/2008 | 4:45 PM | Evolved Rationalist

"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

| 1:21 AM | Evolved Rationalist

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.

New blog tagline

5/05/2008 | 7:47 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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

Tell me what you think in the comments.

This is why I call them theistards

5/03/2008 | 10:28 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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.

IDiots fail to comprehend the issue

5/02/2008 | 3:20 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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 .....


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

Ben Stein takes the failboat on a ride

5/01/2008 | 11:56 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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

| 11:42 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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

| 6:55 PM | Evolved Rationalist

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

[Click to enlarge]