If girls ruled the internet...

7/31/2008 | 3:15 AM | Evolved Rationalist

<----CUTE, AMIRITE? Those totally cute boys (awwwww) at this site know us girls so well, like, the way we do our hair and makeup and nails and how we adore pink and puppies and ponies!!

Boys know that us girls never grow up mentally out of our 8-year-old stage. They know what would happen to, like, that Digg place, where they now talk about really serious business that us girls don't care about because it hurts our brains and we want to just paint our nails PINK.

Digg would be like this when us girls rule the internet, just with more PINK, and more photos of puppies!

Yes, we need two sections on Zac Efron, because all girls know that Zac is like, oh so cute, and, like, if we want to know any of that serious stuff we could always, like, ask a boy.

Hehehe...puppies and ponies!! PINK!!

We also need to look all pretty so that a cute boy would, like, notice us and fall in love with us and look after us while we look after his home.

Girls, I cried when I finally found out...after a few hours of clicking...that the above video is NOT A REAL video! BAWWWWWWWW *sobs, hugs kitty*

We need booooiiiiissssss!! Cute ones, even if they are slightly older, like, Tom Cruise! See how cute Tom Cruise is:

Pwned, Scilons. If you thought that your pathetic website is any match for a bunch of hackers on steroids FIRIN' THEIR LAAAZERS at it, you have obviously not done your research. Oh, the lulz you people provide!

I don't know why I can't get, like, those CUTE photos of him up here without the help of a boy!

But, but, I know why their website didn't work, like, duh! It wasn't PINK enough, so it went down. See the power of PINK?

I should make my blog PINK because PINK is the one true weakness of the Internet Hate Machine. PINK defeats hackers on steroids, like, every single time! Puppies are cute too.

Boys also know that us girls hate their College Humor site because they use it to laugh at us and at our love of PINK, ponies, makeup, cute boys and puppies.

Now, wait a minute. If collegehumor.com doesn't exist, why the fuck would it throw a 404, you idiot?

Server not found =/= HTTP 404.

This guy was apparently too busy laughing at girls to notice his own ignorance. Even so...Internet Explorer?! Are you fucking kidding me? I am burying your article on Digg because not only does it annoy the shit out of me, I also judge you when you use Internet Fucking Explorer; and even then fail miserably at it. You personify epic failure.


Of course us girls looooove Internet Explorer although it isn't PINK enough because it is the only thingy to look at the internet, amirite?

Now that I think of it, why would us girls need the internet anyway? Sure, we would want to make our Myspace pages as PINK as possible, but we like looking after the home more. We would make cute boys happy, and that is what all of us truly and actually want! Cute boys would like me if I quit playing Portal (the cake is delicious and moist, folks) and Half-Life and instead got on Neopets; and instead of laughing at /b/ posts, make them sandwiches in the kitchen. I should listen to boys when they tell me something like this:

No, girls won't rule the internet, because...we won't need the internet when we are making ourselves look nice and pretty for the boys, looking after them and the home. Girls, start young. Learn from the video below, and learn well.


E-mail from a PETA kook

7/30/2008 | 2:17 AM | Evolved Rationalist

(Leaving aside the grammar, don't PETA kooks use spell-check?)

PETA kook:....most animal testing is done on primiates, yet the same evil scientists claim that primiates are our cousins, why such doouble standards, only seen in vivisectors!!!
I see no reason to take a you seriously when the first 'argument' for your side is a lie based on poo pulled out of your PETA-loving ass. Less than 1 in 600 research animals are primates, you despicable liar. You are probably good friends with a load of lying 'cdesign proponentsists', aren't you?
Those vivisectors laugh and clap while primiates scream in pain!!!!
Any evidence for this, you moronic, lying, hypocritical, fraudulent piece of dung? You will only be taken seriously when you start discussing this issue in a rational manner. Till then, I will continue to make fun of your sorry little ass.
It will be better to test medicine on humans instead of on animals that's what PETA is saying...
If all you PETA freaks offer yourselves as substitutes for research animals, I don't see why not. I'm sure all of you would make wonderful lab rats humans, and I'm looking forward to hearing about your brave volunteerism soon. Come on now, practice what you preach!

Experiments conducted on PETA extremists instead of on animals - now, that's something to seriously consider. :-)

He goes on to rant about pigs:
Pigs have been used in evil experiments but there is nothing in common with humans!!!! NONE AT ALL!!!! Name me ONE SAME THING!!! CAN'T RIGHT????? OF COURSE NOTHING LESS THAT I EXPECT FROM YOU EVIL SKANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You always talk about using us as lab rats BUT IF YOU CAN TELL ME ONE THING OF PIG THAT IS THE SAME AS HUMANS DISCOVERED IN RESEARCH I WILL BE A LAB RAT HAHA YOU CANNOT RIGHT????
Sigh. They all resort to caps and exclamation marks in the end.

The kook claimed that I can't answer his brilliant[sic] question, so here goes. Two hormones (oxytocin and vasopressin) found in pig posterior pituitary glands have been used successfully in human patients. Insulin from pig pancreas has been used in humans.....wait, didn't he claim that I would be unable to come up with even one example? My bad.

Oh, oh! He now has to volunteer to be a lab rat or something. (Well, he said it. What an inflatable gasbag of lies he is!)

Nope, nothing here to convince me that anti animal testing goons should be taken seriously. The best use they have for society would be if they truly believe what they preach and volunteer as substitutes for research animals.

Mengele, come back to us! We need you to deal with freaks like the above kook!

On a side note, animals are tasty.



7/28/2008 | 5:26 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Although I don't think that the newfags protestfags people standing around wearing masks actually provide much lulz nowadays help the people trapped in the dangerous Scilon cult, this image of pure desperation is an epic WIN.

This is now my desktop background. Thank you, Scilons.

The Internet 1
Scilons 0

Praise Xenu!

(Documents about OT levels, auditing and other leaked documents can be found on the internet if you know where to look. Have fun.)


"Why are you so angry?"

7/27/2008 | 9:12 AM | Evolved Rationalist

I have heard this question countless times, usually from theists and creationists. I don't deny that the distortion of science by the so-called 'scientific creationists' and IDiots makes me so angry that sometimes I feel like yelling and tearing my hair out. I won't put on a big emotionless facade just for the sake of looking more 'level-headed' for the sake of other people. If speaking the truth and defending reason is considered arrogance in today's increasingly credulous world, so be it. I will not cater to or respect stupidity and superstition. My defense of science and reason is unapologetic, and if there is anyone here who has a problem with that, my advice would be to fuck off. Death threats and stalkers don't work around here.

Religion is superstition. God is a myth. Heaven and hell are silly delusions. What the world needs is a good strong dose of reality, not more 'comforting' lies.

An incident that happened recently reminded me yet again of what makes me so angry at anti-science lunatics. I was talking to a Christian and the topic inevitably turned to creation and evolution. The first thing the creationist said about the matter was "Have you visited the drdino.com website?"

I couldn't help it. I burst out laughing, but the creationist seemed oblivious and continued "How about Answers in Genesis?"

At that point, I was actually more amused and frustrated than actually angry, but what really did it was when the creationist said "Are you aware that recent scientific discoveries all point to Christianity and creation?" I could feel my blood boiling and my temper suddenly rising. I do not appreciate being treated like an ignoramus who has to be supposedly 'enlightened' that 'science' points to creationism. Most Christians don't understand that atheists have looked at religion and creationism and rejected it due to lack of evidence. Christians still think that we don't know nuts about creationism, and that we would be saved if we only visit drdino.com or AiG.

So, why am I so angry?

When I look around and see the beauty of the natural world, I think about how humans, with minds endowed by years of evolution and natural selection have finally come to understand the mechanism that has shaped us and carried us to the heights that we as the human race have achieved now. I think about human destiny and how, and if, we are able to carry ourselves into the far future.

Thinking about human destiny often makes me sad. I think about people, in the name of an imaginary god and for the sake of ignorant delusions, try to put a stop to progress and drag the human race back into the darkness of superstition. I think about the dawn of science and how far we have come since the first humans walked the face of the earth, and yet, at that very moment, my thoughts would be always interrupted by the reality of today's world. A world where ignorance, fear, prejudice and anti-science bias are on the rise. A world where people kill themselves and others for a place in a fictional paradise. A world where opposition to reason leads parents to deny medical treatment to children for conditions that science has conquered decades ago. A world where stem-cell research, with its' potential to save millions of lives, is opposed for the sake of religious myths.

Realization often dawns on me, with tears streaming down my face, that all this is merely the tip of the anti-reason iceberg. I know for certain that this is not the world I want my future children to live in.

Yes, this makes me so angry.


Different kooks, same nonsense

7/23/2008 | 7:05 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Creationists often use the refuted claim that Darwin recanted on his deathbed to make rational people realize that the creotards are actually more ignorant than they let on. What they do not realize is that the science of evolution does not have anything to do with Darwin recanting on his deathbed. Science is about evidence, not about what one long-dead person said or may have said.

Recently, I stumbled across a site run by this kook who is a germ-theory denialist. From her site:

Interestingly enough, Louis Pasteur was claimed to have stated on his death bed that Bechampe was right, the terrain (PH) is everything and the germ is nothing.
That goes to show that as dissimilar as different kooks may seem, many of them subscribe to a lot of the same bullshit. It is also no surprise that people who have fallen for one form of stupidity often fall for more stupidity.



But...but...you're breaking Rules 1 & 2!

| 6:29 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Newfag trolls Those who have made this stupid claim after my last post and caused my inbox to overflow with this shit need to get a fucking life or at least lurk moar.

For the last time, get these simple facts through your thick heads:

  1. Rules 1 and 2 only apply to raids. Stop spamming my blog, cancer.
  2. I neither support nor oppose Project Chanology. I simply don't care enough. If they want to dance and yell on the street with silly masks, more power to them.
  3. Anonymous is an idea, not a group.
  4. Where did I ever say that 4chan is my favorite *chan? It isn't.
  5. Stop making fools out of yourselves.
  6. No, I will not link to Enturbulation on my blog.
  7. No, I do not have any sympathy for Alex Wuori.
Thank you, and stop being retarded trolls.


The Internet vs Crazy Scilon (UPDATED)

7/21/2008 | 9:49 PM | Evolved Rationalist



  1. According to Mary the Scientologist, Evolved Rationalist is a supporter/member/fangirl of a criminal hacker gang known as Anonymous.
  2. Mary's e-mail address is [email protected]
  3. Mary has threatened to call the partyvan on Evolved Rationalist if she doesn't apologize to the Church of Scientology.
  4. Evolved Rationalist refuses to apologize to the Co$ cult.
  5. Due to excessive butthurt, Mary contacts the partyvan to whine about Evolved Rationalist.
  6. "I have AVG but my e-mail still got hacked!! Help!"---Mary the Scientologist
  7. "I don't give a flying fuck. GTFO."---Evolved Rationalist
  8. "You are a criminal!"---Mary the Scientologist
  9. "Idiot."---Evolved Rationalist
  10. Mary goes BAWWWWW-ing to the partyvan again.
  11. Mary is ignored by the partyvan and gets pwned.
  12. Lulz.

I have been away from the internet for a few days, and I walked right into a real-time internet drama taking place on this site. For new readers, I will start with a short introduction to this drama.

A Scientologist, Mary, started making stupid comments defending Scientology on this site when I refuted Fox News' idiotic portrayal of Anonymous as HACKERS ON STEROIDS a dangerous hacker gang. Ever since then, she has had a serious, recurring case of butthurt and somehow developed this notion that I am supporting THE INTERNET HATE MACHINE 'the criminal hacker gang known as Anonymous'. Despite being shown that SHE DESERVES TO BE RAIDED BY THE IMAGINARY HACKER GANG FOR THE LULZ there is no evidence for this claim, she has been going BAWWWW on various threads about this issue, and has been providing both anti-lulz and lulz in the process. She once e-mailed me a long tl;dr piece of spam about how Anonymous was oh-so-cruel to Alex Wuori (!), and this told me that she is a brainwashed piece of Scilon shit.

Just when I thought that nothing more that Mary could do would make her more of an epic fail at the internets, she started trolling this thread with comments that I will repost below. This is by far the worst epic fail I have ever seen throughout my time on the internet.

Enjoy the lulz! Here are the comments and the way the drama played (and is playing) out:
You Anonymous hackers can only lie and try to destroy us Scientologists, and Evolved Rationalist is supporting a criminal hacker gang!!
However, I can easily get your real name, Evolved, from a simple search. Stupid Anonymous is a cult hacker gang full of criminals!!!
Hackers busted, and I am calling the FBI!! Here is the information for ER's blog, and she is a criminal for supporting a criminal hacker gang!

You cannot destroy Scientology, ER. You are busted for good.

Hope you rot in jail!!

Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Created on: 29-Jan-08
Expires on: 29-Jan-09
Last Updated on: 29-Jan-08

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599

Domain servers in listed order:

Mary is personified epic failure and epic lulz all rolled into one. That comment alone was enough to show everyone that she is not to be taken seriously and does not contribute anything to humanity (except for being epic lulz, of course).
All of you are busted. ER, you are finished and you better apologize before I tell the FBI how you support the criminal hacker gang Anonymous.

Idiot Anonymous can't even protect their own boards from getting attacked, a bunch of wannabe hackers sitting in their parents' basement.

Scientology will never be destroyed by a bunch of criminal computer hackers!

After three hours...
Why are there so many hackers here?

TWO HOURS before I report you to the FBI for supporting the Anonymous hacker gang, ER.

Apologize to the CoS!
If your cult can't stand up to a so-called 'gang of computer hackers', it is done for...and that would be a good thing.
I have already contacted the FBI.

She is done for!
We'll get some dox and raid her.

Anon, we have Mary's e-mail.

Start raiding, faggots. What are you people, cancer?

Mary has involved partyvan in this and used partyvan to threaten a /b/rother. Wake up, faggots.

ER has been arrested by the FBI!
You wish, Mary. You wish.
What are you going to do now, ER?
I'm hungry, so I'll be taking Moot's advice.

brb, soup

ER, I'm sure you would have been laughing when Anonymous hacked Scientology websites and took them down, right?

You are a criminal, or a criminal supporter!
DDoS attacks =/= Hacking

However, it was actually pretty funny and I remember laughing.

Xenu, LOL!
I HAVE BEEN HACKED!! I am calling the FBI to report the hackers that hang around on this site, and supported and encouraged by ER!!

She posted my e-mail on here, so she is responsible!

I can't access it and my password no longer works! They sent terrible things to my address book contacts and apparently used it to charge my PayPal account and order some weird shit for me. I don't know what is going on, but I am calling the FBI again!!
My stomach is aching from all the lulz going on here.

However, what I think is the most epic quote of this whole drama so far is this:
I have AVG but my e-mail still got hacked!! HELP someone, at least even if you hate Scientology admit that ER is a criminal!!!
The first thing I was reminded of when I read her comment was this old 7chan meme.

I hate to say this, Mary, but sometimes people are just asking for it.

I reported the latest hack to the FBI, but they don't seem to care, and they are accusing me of harassing the criminal hacker gang supporter Evolved!!!

Scientology is being persecuted by everyone!
Translation: BAWWWWW Scientology BAWWWWWW persecution BAWWWWWW! I can make false reports to partyvan but people cannot criticize Scientology. BAWWWWWWWW I am stupid so I have to blame Anonymous! BAWWWWWWW I should go an hero myself now!!!

Mary tried to act tough but apparently did not understand how the internet works. After nobody took her crap seriously, she had to go to partyvan and rant about hackers. If this isn't an amazing example of failing at the internet, I don't know what is.

Just to watch Mary whine and provide more epic lulz purely for my entertainment, I am including the video below in this post. If you don't understand what this video is about, watch this one first.

The Internet 1
Crazy Scientologist 0



An open challenge to theists

7/19/2008 | 2:15 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Just answer this simple question by leaving a comment:

Can you name a single religion/science controversy where religion has been shown to be right and science shown to be wrong?

(Please do not post repetitive spam or go into a long copy-paste tirade about the love of Jesus in the comments. Act like the reasonable theists I am sure at least some of you are.)


Crackergate: What was the point, anyway?

7/17/2008 | 3:00 PM | Evolved Rationalist

A few days ago, I posted about how I was going to support PZ in the Crackergate (Theistarded, Butthurt and Whiny Catholics) fiasco by indulging in a little sacrilege of my own:

For once in my life, I am really excited about waking up early on a Sunday to attend church. I am more than excited to be able to show my support to PZ my engaging in a little cracker desecration. Most importantly, unlike the student that the theistards harassed into returning the cracker, I will laugh at their faces if death threats start coming in; happy in the knowledge that I have caused a serious case of butthurt among some bigoted theistards.
I received the predictable BAWWWWW responses:
1. Why are you so rude? You should respect religion!
2. Do you think this would convince religious people about atheism?
3. What is the point? What are you trying to accomplish?
4. Why are you deliberately pissing people off?
5. Why don't you let them believe what they want to believe?
Meanwhile, over at the Friendly Atheist site, I noticed this false dichotomy:
Ask yourself: Are you in this to change religious minds or to make religious people angry?
As I don't have the time to respond to every e-mail about this issue, I am going to respond to the above questions in this post, hopefully without it becoming tl;dr. Rest assured that this will be my last post about the Crackergate fiasco unless Donahue...turns into an atheist after realizing that his communion cracker remained a cracker. One can dream, right?

First of all, let it be known that I don't have even an ounce of respect for the theistarded belief that a cracker can magically transform into the flesh of a dead savior god. Atheists who hide behind the mask of 'respecting' this belief are simply doing so because it is religion, and this because a lot of atheists have bought into this stupid notion that religion has to be respected simply by virtue of it being religion. If you still doubt that this is the case, imagine what would happen if someone were to claim that a blade of grass would magically turn into the flesh of a brain-eating sea monster from outer space after a few 'magic' words are muttered in front of it. Such a person would be sent to a psychiatric ward, and rightfully so! Why should something be given a free pass just because the label 'religion' is slapped on it? If this is the case, where are we to draw the line? Who is going to decide what exactly is 'religion' and what is not? If we shut up and avoid addressing religious claims, pretty soon there will be no more lines to draw, and everything, no matter how stupid or harmful, would be acceptable just because someone believes it and we should respect it. When that happens, welcome (back) to the Dark Ages.

The whole point of Crackergate does not have to be an either/or choice between pissing people off and trying to change religious minds. The main purpose of doing publicly visible things is to show Catholics/the religious that atheism is an option, and it would perhaps make moderate Catholics rethink their faith. It is no secret that many religious people have not thought their faiths through and aren't aware that not believing is an option. These people may stop and think "Wait, do I really believe that?" after the fiasco and the BAWWWWW response from their own side, and those are the people we could reach. We may not change religious people who have decided that their faith would trump reason, but it would start people thinking about their beliefs; and even if it does not automatically lead to atheism, getting people to think is always a good thing.

I am all for allowing people to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, as stupid as those beliefs may be. However, that doesn't mean we should simply shut up and avoid questioning and pointing out the fallacies of such beliefs. If they have a right to believe something, why shouldn't we have the right to disagree with their beliefs and make our voices heard? I am perfectly free to call them theistards for believing in absurdly stupid ideas, and they are perfectly free to believe whatever they want.

Notice that the Catholics are making a claim that can be tested with what we know from modern science. They are claiming that the cracker will become the body of Jesus, not in some vague wishy-washy spiritual sense but in an actual physical sense. Such a claim is easily tested; the Catholics have a right to believe in it despite evidence to the contrary, and we have the right to disbelieve in it and demand evidence instead. Why should the religious be given a free pass to believe in something while we are labelled rude, angry and militant just for taking the opposite stand and demanding evidence? Something doesn't seem right here.

Crackergate was not about merely pissing people off or as a way to convince the religious that their beliefs are false. It was a way to make the very important but often neglected point that religious ideas should not and will not be given a free pass in society, and that atheists are not going to be content with sitting quietly while religious people bash us and force us to go on the defensive. We are taking our ideas to the public square, and being loud and visible is the only way to stand up and be counted among the credulous, religious masses. It does our side no favors to shut up about our views, and worst of all, for appeasers to tell non-appeasers to shut up because we are 'making atheists look bad'. Appeasers should of course be allowed to appease all they want, but they have no right to tell us to shut up and follow whatever they say and do because they claim to know what is best for atheism. If I wanted to be told to shut up and follow other people who supposedly know 'what is beast for the cause', I would have gone looking for a religion.

Leave the dogma to the other side. We reasonable people have a job to do and we are not shutting up any longer.


(Yet) More on why I love my readers

7/16/2008 | 10:18 PM | Evolved Rationalist

A reader who comments here using the pseudonym 'sciencefreak' sent me this gift:

I realized that it would look a lot better if I actually wore it:

Thanks for the fantabulous gift, sciencefreak!

Remember, science makes me horny. Talk nerdy to me.


The end of Darwinism

| 3:08 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Whenever creationists rant about how their latest piece of pseudo-scientific thinking has overthrown 'Darwinism' and rant about how I am an evil, Nazi-supporting 'Darwinist', I often link to a post titled 'I am not a Darwinist'. Most creationists don't seem to get it, as seen in a (deliberate?) comment by Dave Scot about me being a 'Darwinist' on another post where I explicitly state that I am not a Darwinist.

However, what irritates me to no end is when people on our side use the term 'Darwinist' and 'Darwinism', thus playing right into the creationists' hands. (Yes, Dawkins, Dennett et al. I mean you.)

Although this point has been done to death on this site, it is worth mentioning again and again and again (Christislord12, Creationist and Murf - pay attention before sounding like jackasses!).

Olivia Judson puts it nicely:

I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.
Darwin was an amazing man, and the principal founder of evolutionary biology. But his was the first major statement on the subject, not the last. Calling evolutionary biology “Darwinism,” and evolution by natural selection “Darwinian” evolution, is like calling aeronautical engineering “Wrightism,” and fixed-wing aircraft “Wrightian” planes, after those pioneers of fixed-wing flight, the Wright brothers. The best tribute we could give Darwin is to call him the founder — and leave it at that.
Hear, hear!

*Yeah, we all know Darwin is awesome, but Stephen Jay Gould is pretty darn awesome too. Awesome enough for me to scream 'Oh Gould!' in bed. Go check this site out.


Commenters, please take note

7/15/2008 | 4:45 PM | Evolved Rationalist

From my comment policy:

I have a pretty liberal comment policy where basically anything (even the most stupid of the stupid) goes. I do not moderate/delete comments unless it involves obvious spam. Comment away, and if you show yourself to be a deluded dumbfuck, I reserve the right to mock you mercilessly.

I have often been asked why I don't delete some of the more idiotic, theistarded and mind-numbingly stupid comments here, and my answer is that I leave the comments as they are so that people can see how stupid the theistards/ignoramuses actually are. Nothing makes the other side sound more stupid than what comes out of their fucktarded asses.

However, for some reason, the comments over the past few days have become so idiotic and fucktarded that they have somehow descended to a whole new level of stupid never seen before on this blog. While comment threads usually contain a few stupid comments, the level of trolling, dumbfuckery and disruption in the last few comment threads have become so bad that it has drowned out any intellectual discussion whatsoever. The problem doesn't seem to be the stupid per se, but the fact that there are some fucktarded trolls who post (spam) the same tiresome tripe over and over again on multiple, often unrelated threads.

Take for example Mary, the local Scilon Scientologist troll. Ever since my post on Anonymous a few weeks ago, she has been spamming nearly every comment thread with rants about how I am an SP who is supporting the 'criminal hacker gang Anonymous'. Although her idiotic tripe had been refuted by multiple people countless times, she continued posting and reposting the same shit all over the place, sometimes over ten times in the same comment thread. She probably wants to give the impression that people are not able to answer her questions, and has dragged herself from the status of lulz-provider to anti-lulz in the process.

Although I tolerate stupid comments, I have made it blatantly clear I don't tolerate spam. Mary, 'Creationist', and a few other commenters have been repetitively spamming comment threads with their fucktarded junk, and I have no choice but to delete their spam to preserve the ability of more intelligent commenters to have an actual discussion.

Commenters, you are welcome to make stupid comments or to disagree with me - however, don't spam this blog with the same fucked-up comment over and over and over and over again. Although I am not going to moderate comments or start banning people, I am going to start deleting obvious spam.

Spamming dipshits, you have been warned.


I love you, /b/

7/14/2008 | 6:52 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Most importantly,


DaveScot makes sense for once

| 2:06 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Readers of this blog probably know by now that I often read Dembski's Uncommonly Dense site for the lulz to laugh at the utter ignorance and stupidity rampant on the ID side. Most people already know that the IDiots often try to link evolutionary theory (which they stupidly call 'Darwinism') to Hitler, the Holocaust and Nazism. EXPELLED, the IDiotic mockumentary that flopped big time, used this intellectually dishonest scare tactic to emotionally manipulate the audience.

From my review of EXPELLED:

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.
However, over on Uncommonly Dense, DaveScot (sometimes known as DaveTard due to his cretinshit stupidity) has been making the point that ID should not be playing up the imaginary Darwin/Hitler connection. Recently, he posted something that could very well have been something written by someone from the pro-science side:
Science has left the building once the Nazi card gets played. As far as science is concerned it doesn’t matter if Hitler and Darwin were the same person. The only thing that matters is whether his theories can stand up to scientific scrutiny.It’s a crying shame that people just can’t seem to drop this obsession with Darwin and Nazis.
Wow. This, coming from an IDiot? I don't think William "BillDumb" Dembski and the Disco Institute hacks that make money writing shit rolls of toilet paper poop books on the 'OMG Darwinism leads to Nazism so science leads to killing people OMG lick Jesus's ass!' tripe would be too happy about this.

Remember, folks: What makes this so interesting to watch is that DaveScot is a global warming denialist who thinks that DCA cures cancer in addition to being an IDiot; yet he sees through the IDiocy of the Darwin/Hitler nonsense so easily. Even this little bit of sanity coming from him is a good thing. However, if you were to go to the site and read the rest of his post, he goes back to being the usual DaveTard once he starts babbling about how the IDiots should concentrate on how math and physics destroy evolution.

Yeah, 'lol wut' was my reaction to the rest of his post too. I guess we can't expect too much from DaveTard. After all, he is just another IDiot posting on Uncommonly Dense.


Butthurt Catholics + Crackers = BAWWW!!!

7/12/2008 | 7:38 PM | Evolved Rationalist

While we are on the subject of death threats and the theistarded lunacy of the moronic institution known as religion, let us all thank Bill Donohue and his fucktarded supporters for proving once again that religion is actually more fucktarded than one could ever imagine.

If you have been living under a rock and have no idea about what the anti-Semitic bigot and professional retard Donohue did this time, I'll make a long story short: A student attends Mass, and instead of eating the cracker that Catholic theistards think is the flesh of zombie Jesus, walks away with it. Butthurt Catholics decide that this warrants drama, and calls this a hate crime. Donohue, in his typical BAWWWWWW-style reaction, calls for the expulsion of the student. The student returned the cracker after receiving death threats from pious Catholics who do not trust their zombie god enough to defend himself.

PZ blogs about the incident and calls for more cracker desecrating fun, and Donohue decides to go BAWWWWWWW again and started a mass e-mail campaign to get PZ fired from his job. Notice that PZ didn't do anything except exercise his freedom of speech by blogging about this retarded incident on his private blog. PZ soon started getting the usual death threats from Catholics with a cannibal fetish.


This is the 21st century, folks. People are trying to ruin someone's life and send death threats over a cracker. The very same assholes who whine about being persecuted and 'Expelled' are the very same people calling for the expulsion of a student from a college and the firing of PZ from his job for expressing an opinion. Merely attacking an idea is touted as being 'beyond a hate crime', and people who choose not to quietly bow down and let themselves be stepped on by religious idiots are being hounded, harassed, threatened and vilified.

All this just for a goddamn cracker, which was the property of the student once the priest gave it to him. Jesus H. Fucking Christ, Catholics. Are you all just a bunch of whining idiots?

Theistarded Catholics, don't give me that fuckshit about how Donohue doesn't represent all of you morons. Where are all the so-called 'moderate Catholics' speaking out against Donohue's vile campaign to ruin other people's lives? Where the fuck are they? Don't use that usual sidestepping tactic on me when your side is clearly as equally bigoted as Donohue or too cowardly/fucktarded to say anything.

You don't have to agree with PZ's post or the student's action, but nothing justifies the systematic attempt to ruin lives or threaten someone just because some religious goons are offended. You are free to practice your own religion, as dumb as it may be, but why should everyone else be forced to bow down to your dogma and refrain from disagreeing with you? The idiotic notion that religion should be publicly shielded from criticism is what lies beneath this latest drama, and this idiotic notion was also what led to the widespread riots over the Danish cartoons. The theistardation may be different but the dumbfuckery remains the same.

The way people should react to this latest bout of religious idiocy is not by being a spineless appeaser, shutting up or bowing down to the Catholic cult. What needs to be done is for rational people to finally stop being spineless pushovers and start speaking out against this regress back to the Dark Ages. People need to heed PZ's call to commit cracker sacrilege not for the purpose of offending the theistards, but as a signal that religious goons can no longer use intimidation and foolish threats to prevent people from questioning their dogma. This stupidity has to stop, and stopping religious dumbfuckery would have gone a lot better if a large percentage of the atheist community weren't such spineless pushovers, appeasers or maybe even closet theistards. Enough is enough.

Oh, I have another reason to thank Donohue. As a result of his actions over the past few days, I am now motivated to actually get up early on a Sunday (tomorrow) morning, and...somehow, I have this strange yearning to attend a Catholic mass. If I do manage to get my hands on a zombie Jesus cracker, rest assured that it would not be in any condition to be 'returned to the church due to BAWWWWWW reactions from Donohue et al'. Also, rest assured that I have been the target of enough death threats to know better than to be manipulated by internet tough guys.

For once in my life, I am really excited about waking up early on a Sunday to attend church. I am more than excited to be able to show my support to PZ my engaging in a little cracker desecration. Most importantly, unlike the student that the theistards harassed into returning the cracker, I will laugh at their faces if death threats start coming in; happy in the knowledge that I have caused a serious case of butthurt among some bigoted theistards.

Bring it on, assholes. I am not afraid of your drama-inducing tactics.


A theistard wants to rape me for Jesus!

7/10/2008 | 6:36 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Some theistards just don't like me, and apparently think that they should demonstrate their Christian love by raping and killing me for Jesus. From an e-mail:

You are a scumbag and a lowlife. If I ever see you on the street I will smash your face in, rape you and kill you like you deserve. How dare you make fun of religion when you are even more fundamentalist than the people you mock and curse? What gives you the right to mock and curse God? You deserve to die and I will smash your brains in! I know your real name and I know who you are and what you look like so I can easily put an end to your worthless life. I hope someone kills you or you die soon before you can lead more of God's children to hell! Go serve your master Satan, just don't cause others to sin! God hates your mockery and you will burn and we Christians will laugh at you from heaven!! You are the most vile and arrogant scumbag I've seen and your blog shows your depravity.

You talk about your fans and do you think your fans will protect you when I see you on the street? You're obviously a pathetic science nerd who cannot fight to save your life and I will send you straight to hell while you deserve. The only people who like you are science nerds who think that they are too smart for God, and you idiots will never win a physical fight with me! Hahahah! Where is your science now, scumbag? Keep worshiping Satan, you will meet him in hell HAHAHAHA!!

I hope to Jesus you repent before you burn in hell with Darwin, or someone kills you! I would gladly do the deed.
Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

There you have it, folks. A hypocritical theistard who calls me a fundamentalist proceeds to describe how he wants to rape me and smash my brains in for God. Apparently disagreeing with fundie lies makes me as fundamentalist as someone who proclaims that he would like to kill someone who dares to disagree with him. Add that to his snarky internet tough guy remark about science nerds who cannot fight, his delusion that atheists worship Satan and the general hypocrisy of his whole raving screed...and you basically get a typical theistarded lunatic in a nutshell.

In his fucked-up mind, rape, violence and murder for Jesus is perfectly okay but criticizing religion is a no-no. If that is what religion is all about, I'd rather burn in hell with Darwin than play harps in heaven for eternity with scumbags like our theistard here. With all the scientists who are apparently burning in hell, I'm sure they would have come up with air-conditioning by now. ;)

Appeasers, we should bow down to religious nuts like him and avoid offending their moronic sensibilities, right? We should let them step all over us and turn into squeaking mice when religious nuts threaten violence, right? As far as spineless appeasers are concerned, they lie down with their theistard bedfellows and be done with it.

Oh, and thanks for the display of Christian love, theistard. Thanks for being a failure at convincing us that your religion has anything valuable to it. When you resorted to violence to spread your lies and to avoid criticism, you made us understand that you can't take the heat and that your faith is not as strong as you would like us to believe. Now, you are more than welcome to fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw. You will not be missed. (shrug)


Well, somebody has to do it...

| 5:35 PM | Evolved Rationalist

You would think that the most common risks associated with working as an elephant handler revolves around the possibility of getting impaled or stepped on. However, the video below shows that the job brings more interesting risks than what one might normally assume:

I doubt that this would make a good video for recruiting elephant handlers.


Recycling YEC arguments has never been so easy!

7/08/2008 | 6:20 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I have often maintained that one of the most obvious characteristics of the IDiot known as William "BillDumb" Dembski is his ability to shock us over and over again with his stupidity, ignorance, lies and his ability to get instantly butthurt when he is rightfully laughed at. This time, BillDumb (who often spews half-baked nonsense about bacterial flagella and irreducible complexity out of his ass to hide the fact that his IDiocy is actually plain old rehashed cretinism) has come up with a few questions that would shatter the very foundations of evolutionary biology if only people were allowed to ask these questions (or so he claims). The best part of it all is that his questions are being taken seriously by the scientific community the folks over at World Net Daily. Isn't this amazing?

Here are
BillDumb's WND-approved paradigm-shattering questions:

Explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian Explosion.

Describe in detail how evolution made complex biological structures such as the human eye.

Explain how evolutionary theory solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.

You have got to be kidding me. After his vacuous talk about information theory, specified complexity and shit ad infinitum were proven to be nothing more than ass-droppings by the scientific community, BillDumb did what every self-respecting IDiot would do: Rehash standard YEC arguments that have been refuted decades ago and hope the theistarded church base wouldn't notice.

His stupid question about the Cambrian Explosion is the consolidated pile of dung that
YEC ministries like AiG and ICR have been whining about for ages:
"Creationists have long pointed out the problem for evolution theory, namely that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors." ---Carl Weiland, AiG, March 1994

"In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of
multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don't even have any possible ancestors to propose." ---John Morris, Dr John's Q&A, June 1, 1989
Uh, BillDumb, what exactly are the new challenges to evolutionary theory that IDiocy claims to provide? Are you aware, Wee Little Butthurt Dembski, that your silly question was refuted ages ago? Although ID is vehemently anti-scientific, do try to keep up to prevent us rational folk from laughing at your stupidity.

Next, the evolution of the eye. Sometimes stupidity isn't even funny. Sometimes it just gets old and
"When one understands how the photons of light are transformed into electrical energy in the retina, and the need for a massive blood supply, the marvelous design of the eye becomes apparent. For instance, the receptors respond to just one photon of light—the smallest unit of light! There is no “bad design,” just a faulty understanding (or, perhaps, faulty presupposition) on the part of the evolutionists. The eye has been wonderfully designed." ---Robert Mitchell, AiG, 2005
Aww...poor BillDumb. You had to clobber some arguments from your YEC bedfellows again, didn't you? Did you really think your IDiocy would work on people who don't have their heads up their asses?

The famous DNA and proteins claim is another standard YEC lie.
"As seen, it is absolutely impossible for DNA and proteins, which can by no means form randomly, to be left uncontrolled to form life following their own formations." ---Henry Morris (ICR), Scientific Creationism, 1985
BillDumb, you get an F- for originality again.

If this keeps up, BillDumb's quest for IDiocy to transform science and culture will forever remain in the realm of fantasy along with his imaginary god.

For BillDumb, it isn't just today - it is his usual state. Thanks for proving my point again, Billy!


Fundie bigot claims that women deserve domestic abuse

7/07/2008 | 12:24 AM | Evolved Rationalist

You know your theistarded beliefs are messed up when a professor of Christard theology is able to say something like this without rightful outrage:

One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.
Where are the so-called 'religious hypocrites moderates' slamming his fucktarded, twisted view that women who refuse to be used as a doormat deserve being abused by her husband? Where are the moderate Christians when a respected (ugh!) theologian at a major seminary basically tells women that they are asking for abuse if they don't submit to their husbands, shut up and remain pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen? Where are they? Christards, don't give me the usual nonsense about him not representing your particular brand of retarded religion. If that were the case, there would be 'moderate' Christians coming out against his misogynistic, vile views. There are none.

This fucktard is actually saying that women not only should be treated like slaves and doormats, but that women who refuse to be slaves to their fundie husbands are asking for it if they get abused - because we all know that men cannot help it. Since men cannot help but abuse their wives when they step out of their fundie patriarchy ordained roles, women should shut up and grovel at their husbands feet or pay the price.

Fuck you, asshole. This is exactly why we hear cases of battered women refusing to leave their husbands. When misogynistic bastards like you use religion to claim that women deserve what they get because they are going against your imaginary sky-daddy's orders, you heap a whole lot of extra guilt that forces women to either stay in an abusive marriage or risk the fires of hell. Religion is not only fucktarded, but also dangerous when it feeds ideas like these into the minds of brainwashed victims that they are useless pieces of meat that their husbands should treat as slaves, baby-machines and quiet, submissive fuckholes.

Notice that this theistard thinks that men who are dissatisfied with their wives have only two options - beat her silly or be a yes-man. As he thinks that women are pieces of meat without minds of their own, husbands simply sitting down and talking to their wives about marital issues is an unthinkable act. After all, his book of holy lies already told him that women are merely property, and should just obey their husbands or risk being beaten to a pulp in this world and thrown into hell in the next.

Again, fuck you, theistarded asshole. A strong woman freaks you out because you have a small penis an inferiority complex due to your fucked-up brain, right?
Ware also touched on a verse from First Timothy saying that women "shall be saved in childbearing," by noting that the word translated as "saved" always refers to eternal salvation.

"It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God's ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as--for the most part, generally this is true--as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man's position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men," Ware said. "Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God's design for her as a woman."
Yes, to him women are baby-churning machines who need to accept that as their sole purpose in life because some old book says so. To be a 'True Christian', a woman has to forgo her personal ambitions to be a slave to her husband and to her theistarded beliefs. See how this antiquated belief system heaps on the self guilt when a woman even thinks of having a mind and an identity of her own? What else do you expect from a holy book written by males 2000 years ago? The fact that millions of women actually believe in this shit shows the power of religious brainwashing. Christianity is nothing more than a cult based on a book written by primitive sheep-herders who believed that the earth was flat. Christards, deal with it.
Ware offered 10 reasons "for affirming male headship in the created order." They include that man was created first and that woman was created "out of" Adam in order to be his "helper." Even though the woman sinned first, Ware said, God came to Adam and held him primarily responsible for failure to exercise his God-given authority.
A good science education would have made him aware of the fact that creationism is a myth and an anti-scientific pile of dung. It is obvious that theistards are so afraid of evolution because they know it would shatter the very foundation of their beliefs, and that is a no-no if they want to keep their sheep nice and brainwashed in their idiotic zombie cult. Science is their enemy, and they know it.

If you are not disgusted enough by this, here is more of what these lunatics actually believe:
Phillips says it's a waste of money to invest in an expensive college education for daughters.

"It seems very pragmatic," Kunsman said in her lecture. "Why pour a lot of resources when you've got 10 kids and sons to train? You don't want to train your daughter in quantum physics."
In case you did not notice, the theistard saying that women should not be educated is a woman.

Kunsman, please fuck yourself with your Holy Buy-Bull for being a disgrace to women everywhere. Thank you.
Phillips says in his own words: "We do not need MORE female Christian lawyers, doctors or artists, but MORE godly women raising MORE godly children who will fill the earth and subdue it to the glory of God. And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?"
"Women have been liberated right out of the genuine freedom they enjoyed for centuries to oversee the home, rear the children, and pursue personal creativity; they have been brainwashed to believe that the absence of a titled, payroll occupation enslaves a woman to failure, boredom, and imprisonment within the confines of home," Dorothy Patterson wrote.
Brainwashed, you say?

I rest my case.


Sausage and eggs for breakfast, anyone?

7/06/2008 | 12:42 AM | Evolved Rationalist

The video below shows a close-up of jet engines being stress tested by firing poultry into them to simulate a bird strike.

I'm hungry.


On atheists dating theists

7/04/2008 | 11:49 PM | Evolved Rationalist

I have often been asked if I would consider dating a theistard, and my answer has always been a firm no. I am not desperate enough to date someone who is deluded or ignorant enough to think that there is an invisible sky-daddy watching people masturbate. Despite the fact that the theistard in question might be a smart and nice person, there is no way I could ever imagine being in a relationship with someone who has a completely different way of looking at the world. Someone who talks to an imaginary friend would inadvertently have different ways of doing things, and I usually tend to disagree with the ways of a theistard. To put it plainly, relationships are complicated enough without having to deal with that shit. If you don't mind dating a theistard, fine, but I wouldn't consider it.

Sorry, theistards.

Most importantly, how could I be with someone who doesn't understand why I moan about evolution and scream 'Oh Gould!' instead of 'Oh god!' in bed? That would be terrible!

Recently, I received an e-mail from a reader about this very issue:

I am and atheist and I recently became a fan of your blog after accidentally stumbling upon it while studying for my finals (I am too easily distracted). Anyways, I am dating this one girl who is very smart and funny. However, she does believe in God and has been trying to "save me" ever since the second date when the topic was accidentally touched. How do I get her to stop without offending her and still allow ourselves to maintain our beliefs and relationship?
A theist who is already trying to "save souls" on the second date would certainly set some alarms off - however, if you are comfortable with dating someone who thinks you need to be saved, more power to you. If you want her to stop, just say so, and perhaps agree to disagree on this issue. If she can't handle the fact that you want her to stop being all preachy or is offended by the notion that she should not be pushing her religion on people who are clearly not interested, perhaps you would be better off without her. Be frank with her and if it does not turn out, at least you would have nipped the problem in the bud before the religion issue causes the relationship to go sour later down the road (which would obviously be more difficult). If two people can't be forthcoming and honest about their personal views on something important even this early in the relationship, imagine how things would be in the future. You don't have to turn into an evangelical atheist and try to de-convert her, but sometimes you need to put your foot down and say "No thank you, I do not want to be saved." if you want to have any hope of preserving the relationship and your sanity at the same time.

(I don't think anyone would be hiring me to write advice columns anytime soon.)


Christians, need help keeping your faith?

7/02/2008 | 9:28 PM | Evolved Rationalist

It's easy! Just follow this simple step:
Theistards, awww...poor creatures. I am misrepresenting your views and I am persecuting your zombie cult - NOT! Look at what the fine fundies over at Answers in Genesis are teaching you at the Creation Museum:

Human Reason is portrayed as the enemy and God’s Word as the ultimate truth. Descartes represents Human Reason, with his quote “I think, therefore I am”. Christians claim that there is no need to use our brains, as God says “I am that I am”. The scientific knowledge of centuries (human reason) on the left, and a silly book of Bronze Age mythology (what they claim is God's Word) on the right.

Keep it up, theistards. Be consistent, reject science, get off the internet, go back to your caves and slowly but surely remove yourselves from the gene pool.

Christians (and all religious nuts for that matter) delight in ignorance, revel in lies, wallow in denial, and writhe in hopeless ruts just for the sake of an imaginary god. Spineless appeasers, do really expect us non-appeasers to just sit down and watch superstitious lies slowly destroy science? Are we really supposed to just shut up and be nice because we might offend some deluded, ignorant, anti-science theistards? Do you want kids to be taught that we should not trust human reason as we should stop thinking and believe in "God's Word"? Do you want theistards to ruin science because human reason, and thus, science is evil?

The choice is yours, appeasers. You decide. Grow a spine while you are at it.


I agree with Behe, not Miller

7/01/2008 | 2:53 AM | Evolved Rationalist

Today I am going to commit an act of ultimate heresy. I fully expect to be burnt at the stake by the evil Darwinian Inquisition for stepping out of line - but for the sake of the truth, this is the way it has to be. I am going to support Michael Behe, famed self-contradicting IDiot, incompetent biochemist, Dover bungler and pseudo-scientific hack over Kenneth Miller, theistic evolutionist and star of the Dover trial.

First, let me point out that Miller is fully free to believe that his god set evolution in motion and that evolution somehow leads one closer to god. I am also free to argue that his position is inconsistent as best and completely muddled at worst. Often, theistic evolutionists claim that evolution is compatible with religion without realizing that their view crumbles once you get into the finer details of it. As for those who have successfully compartmentalized science and religions belief so that they do not conflict, I have the utmost pity at the amount of wrangling they would have to have done to arrive at their position.

Before cretinous theistards start taking my words out of context again, let me stress the point I have been making time and time again. The scientific theory of evolution itself (like the theory of gravitation) does not posit that there is no god. However, my view is that the fact of evolution cannot be reconciled with traditional theistic beliefs unless some serious compartmentalization or redefinition of terms are brought into the picture.

Back to the Behe vs Miller debate: At Behe's Amazon blog, where comments are obviously disabled, he (again) admits that the Designer is the Christian god. Old news, folks. However, the point that I agree with is this:

Ironically, Miller is an intelligent design proponent when it comes to cosmology, but is contemptuous of people who see design extending further into nature than he does.
Behe is actually right on target for this one. If you have read Finding Darwin's God, I am sure you would have noticed that Miller is inconsistent in his rejection of the argument from design. In the first part of the book, he offers a brilliant smack-down of the usual IDiot arguments, but in the second half of the book, he weirdly turns around and claims that the universe was fine-tuned to allow evolution and this restated design argument somehow points to the existence of a god. He first claims that we should not look for god in the 'gaps' of our understanding of evolution, but somehow claims to see god in the 'gaps' in our understanding of cosmology. This was the first contradiction I noticed when I read his book, and I am surprised that not many theistic evolutionists seemed to have called him out on it (correct me if I am wrong).

In Chapter 6 of Finding Darwin's God, Miller goes as far as to argue that since we do not know exactly how certain aspects of human nature such as language and consciousness evolved, this somehow points to the existence of a god, or at the very least, a way of disproving atheism. The leap from Chapter 5 where he dismantles Behe's ramblings about irreducible complexity to Chapter 6 where is restates the god-of-the-gaps argument in scientific sounding language was a jarring shock when I read the book. This goes to show that religion can, and often does warp rational and scientific thinking no matter how hard someone tries to compartmentalize them.

In Chapter 8, he goes on and on about how the universe seems fine-tuned for life, and how the chances of certain physical constants ending up the way there are is slim enough to be near impossible, and that since we can be certain that the current explanations are the correct one, we might as well take the other side of the coin and believe that God did it. (If any of you think that I am deliberately misrepresenting Miller's views, please read the chapter for yourself and call me out on any 'misrepresentations' by leaving a comment.)

Here is a direct quote from page 232:
The traditional alternative, of course, is God. Even as we use experimental science and mathematical logic to reveal the laws and structure of the universe, a series of important questions will always remain, including the source of those laws and the reason for there being a universe in the first place.
Why on earth does Miller think that science would not be able to give an answer to those questions? By closing off these avenues of scientific inquiry and claiming that they have to be in the realm of religion, Miller is doing what every ID creationist does: Claiming that since science does not have a definite answer for X right away, X will never be solved by science, and therefore X shows us that god the designer exists. Behe has hit the nail on the head - when it comes to cosmology, Miller's view is indistinguishable from the views of the IDiots.
Nonetheless, if we once thought we had been dealt nothing more than a typical cosmic hand, a selection of cards with arbitrary values, determined at random in the dust and chaos of the big bang, then we have some serious explaining to do.
Well, that is exactly what science is supposed to be doing and is doing - explaining the natural world. What Miller spent this chapter doing is telling us about how impossible the odds of the universe existing with the current set of physical constants is, science does not have an answer to this yet, and for some reason never will, and so there is a god. Doesn't this sound exactly like what Behe and Dembski shoot out of their rear end concerning the bacterial flagellum?

On page 251, Miller continues to sound exactly like an IDiot:
Once He had fixed the physical nature of the universe, once He had ensured that the constants of nature would create a chemistry and physics that allowed for life, God would then have gone about the process of producing creatures....
A god tinkering with the physical constants, intelligently designing the universe to sustain life, creating the whole universe with humans, on this tiny insignificant planet on the grand scheme of things to worship him....something does not sound right here. Why do I feel like I am reading one of Dembski's god-saturated ID books all of a sudden? Behe has been shown to be right once again - Miller is an ID creationist (at least by the look of what he has written in his own book) when it comes to fields apart from his own. When it involves evolutionary biology, he soundly and rightfully criticizes the IDiots and exposes their nonsensical arguments for what they are. However, Miller is a typical ID creationist when it comes to cosmology.

Although I would readily admit that Miller has contributed a lot in helping some Christians embrace evolution, these glaring inconsistencies have to be addressed, especially when they are so blatantly clear to those on the IDiot side of the fence and even more so when the theistic evolutionist side seems to be strangely silent.