The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.
Benjamin Franklin
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Debunking creationism
I just noticed I hadn't talked much about creationism except for a few mentions in which it wasn't the central topic. My apologies. That is about to change.
Yes, it's a nice painting. No, it's not historically accurate
The following is a paper on creationism I wrote some weeks ago for a class. In the English-speaking world (most of it protestant) it's a big issue and it's always useful to know about it.
Yes, I know that the idea that everything was created as it is 6000 years ago is total non-sense. But say that and you will very likely be considered an intolerant by the idiotic creationist who prefers to believe his/her favorite fairy tale. Well, read this carefully and you'll have the basic "weapons" to demonstrate how retarded that is. Hope you enjoy it.
----
On Creationism
It’s impossible to deny the bible’s status as a holy text, and the influence it has over the lives of millions on the planet. What isn’t very hard to do is to deny its historical value, especially regarding its first books, more exactly, the Genesis. However, this has only been done in a recent era, considering the time Christianity and other Abrahamic religions have had. Today we can assert with certain accuracy the Earth’s age in billions of years. However, before scientific advances made that possible, the idea that the world was created in seven days, as is narrated in the Genesis was the official view. This is what we know as Creationism, an idea still widely spread across the United States and other parts of the world.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." In other words, the writings we find in the Genesis (which can be found in both the Bible and the Torah) are myths that will explain the beginning of the world, the human race and the religions that take this view.
Creationism can be divided in two branches, all of them having in common the idea that a supernatural being, God, has intervened in the creation of living beings. These movements are (Scott, 66):
1. Young Earth Creationism: It postulates that the Earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old, a number based in the Usher Chronology, a time-dating technique made by the 17th century Anglican Archbishop of Armagh James Usher, which consisted in adding up the biblical patriarchs ages, TheStar.com reports. Young Earth Creationism rejects evolution and asserts that the Flood of Noah has had great influence on Earth’s geology.
2. Old Earth Creationism: Contrary to Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism accepts the scientific consensus that the Earth is billions of years old. However, it adds the idea of a supernatural being getting involved by denying evolution on different degrees. Old Earth Creationism can be divided in four positions:
2.1 Gap Creationism: It claims that there was a big “gap” between the verses 1 and 2 of the Genesis, meaning that there was a first creation which was destroyed, and then another one that is accounted for in the second verse of the Genesis. Gap creationism was born in the 19th century as a way to accommodate Christianity to the new scientific discoveries.
2.2 Day Age Creationism: Another attempt to adapt the Bible with scientific discoveries, it claims that the days described in the Genesis are actually long periods of time. Therefore, while the Earth still is billions of years, a supernatural being interferes in it and creates living beings.
2.3 Progressive creationism: It accepts scientific findings, such as the Earth's age and the fauna and flora that lived in different eras. However, it claims that such plants and animals were created by God, first simple life forms, and then more complex ones.
2.4 Evolutionary creationism: It accepts the scientific Earth’s age and theory of evolution; however, it claims that evolution was actually directed by a supernatural being.
It is important to note that when talking about a “supernatural being” we are referring not to an unknown being, but to the God of Christianity. Given that creationism bases are found in the Genesis and this is part of the sacred texts, which are inspired by God and therefore, are the truth, they are part of a doctrine that must be followed in order to find salvation.
While creationism and the general idea that the world we know came to be as a result of a superior being’s action have declined since science made possible carbon dating, fossil registry and other evidence, the movement is far from disappearing. Creationism has found its way in the minds of many in churches and even schools under the label of Intelligent Design.
According to the Center for Science and Culture, a creationist think tank, intelligent design claims that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” In other words, while creationism said that living beings came into existence by the works of God, Intelligent Design says that living beings’ existence can only be explained by the works of a designer. While Creationism did base its claims in holy texts, Intelligent Design argues from a scientific point of view that tries to explain the complexity of living beings in order to arrive to the conclusion of a creator.
Obviously, this creator is no other than the same Christian God that creationism used to be based on, as we can see in the Intelligent Design movement statement of faith
Intelligent design is backed up by a number of scholars, or “creation scientists” who claim hold degrees in different areas. However, the National Center for Science Education compiles the scientific community’s statements in which it is made clear that intelligent design is not considered a science. Moreover, the Association for the Advancement of Science calls it a pseudoscience. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.” (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 25)
According to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Intelligent Design proponents posit that the universe, or at least, components of it, has been designed by an “intelligence.” They also claim that they can empirically distinguish intelligent design from design produced through natural processes, which is done through the application of two complementary ideas, Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information (Scott, 123).
1. Irreducible complexity: In his book “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” biochemist and intelligent design proponent Michael Behe explains Irreducible Complexity by saying that “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (Behe, 39) However, Dr. Eugenie Scott explains that “A search of scientific databases, such as PubMed or SciSearch, reveals that scholars have not applied the concept of irreducible complexity or the design inference in researching scientific problems. ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause. Most scientists would reply that unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.”(Scott, 123) In other words, the argument of Irreducible Complexity just an argument from ignorance.
2. Complex Specified Information: It’s an argument proposed by mathematician William Dembski. In his paper “Redesigning Science” he says that "intelligent causation is an irreducible feature of the bio-physical universe, and furthermore that intelligent causation is empirically detectable.” However, Dr, Eugenie Scott explains that such argument “depends on the extent of scientific knowledge of the time, failing to be a reliable predictor of design by intelligence”(Scott, 128)
The disdain the scientific community has for Intelligent Design has not stopped its proponents from pushing its teaching in classrooms as a valid scientific point of view and the fact that many Americans still believe the Earth was created according to the biblical account. According to a Gallup poll made in 2008, 44% of Americans believe that God created human beings in its present form; 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution; and 14% believe that God had no part in the process. In other words, the American people reject in great number a widely agreed scientific position, preferring to cling to their beliefs.
According to Richard Wrangham, a primatologist from Harvard University, “the tendency to accept evolutionary theory is, of course, not just judged on the merits of evolutionary theory, it's judged because it is as seen as being in opposition to religious belief. And religious belief carries with it not just the belief itself in a particular set of facts and ideas, but all of the huge social and political associations. So, in the United States, if you don't believe in evolutionary theory, or if you do believe in evolutionary theory, then it means it's harder for you to commit yourself to a religious group that has huge significance. And so I think the answer to why it is that evolutionary theory is difficult for people in the states to believe is that religious systems are so incredibly prevalent.” In other words, Wrangham argues that the significance of creationism goes beyond the dimensions of myth and doctrine, to a social that involves commitment to one’s group. A person’s social life is another variable that has to be taken into account when deciding to accept or reject creationism as a valid explanation to our origins. This might be a factor in the number of attempts to teach intelligent design as a valid science and how these disputes have been taken to court.
The first account of evolution and creationism confronting each other in a court is the Scopes Trial. In 1925 Tennessee passed the “Butler Act”, which made it unlawful to deny the creation of man as written in the Bible. High School science teacher John Scopes was accused of teaching evolution and the trial was set. In the end, Scopes lost the case and belief in creationism grew. (Scott, 99-103)
By the 60’s few states still had anti-evolution laws. One of them was Arkansas, which saw its In 1965 Susan Epperson argued that the Arkansas antievolution law was unconstitutional because it violated her right to free speech. The trial came out favorable to Epperson, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in 1967. A year later the US Supreme Court deemed the anti-evolution law unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.(Scott, 111)
This aftermath didn’t mean that creationism was taken out of classrooms. In 1981 Arkansas passed a bill that required evolution and creationism to have equal time being taught in schools. According to the Act 590, “to present only evolution in the schools would create a hostile climate for religious students, undermining their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values.” The law was challenged in the McLean vs Arkansas trial, in which the Arkansas ACLU received argued that because creation science was inherently a religious idea, its advocacy would violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Act 590 was declared unconstitutional. (Scott, 114 - 115)
A similar law was passed in Louisiana that sought to give equal time to the teaching of evolution and creationism. However, the law was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1987.
In 2005 a new case regarding creationism (this time presented as Intelligent Design) was brought to the courts in the “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District”. In this case eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, sued the school for reading aloud a statement that argued that since the theory of evolution was just a “theory” it was not a fact, and that Intelligent Design was “an explanation of the origin of life”. After 21 days in trial, it was ruled that “Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
It’s important to notice that the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District based its claims in the “errors” evolutionary theory has, and makes a case trying to explain them by the interference of a supernatural being. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains this creationist methodology as “to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. […] If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Creationism and/or Intelligent Design have not been able to withstand the trials in which it has been put against science and have deemed them as a religious-based position. In a country whose constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” creationism has no place in schools being taught as legitimate science. While there is still a strong support for creationism, it is possible to view the future in a bright light and that science will take its right place in classrooms. As Stephen Hawking said "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Sources:
"Creation scientists and other biographies of interest." Answers in Genesis. 22 Jul. 2010..
"CSC - Top Questions." Center for Science and Culture. 22 Jul. 2010..
"Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design." Gallup.com. 11 May. 2008. 22 Jul.2010..
"Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Disctrict." National Center for Science Education. 20 Dec. 2005. 22 Jul. 2010..
"Statements from Scientific Organizations." NCSE - National Center for Science Education. 22 Jul. 2010..
"The AiG statement of faith." Answers in Genesis. 29 Apr. 2009. 22 Jul. 2010..
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press, 1998.
Borenstein, Jason. "Scientific Experts and the Courts." Professional Ethics Report XIV (2001): 7-8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 22 Jul. 2010.
Dawkins, Richard "Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant." The Times 21 May. 2005. 22 Jul. 2010.
Popplewell, Brett "In the beginning, not too many years ago ...." The Star 27 Oct. 2007. 22 Jul. 2010.
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. National Academy of Sciences, 1999.
Scott, Eugenie C. ""Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists." NCSE - National Center for Science Education. 12 Aug. 2002. 22 Jul. 2010..
Scott, Eugenie. Evolution vs. Creationism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Wrangham, Richard . "Why Many Americans Don’t Believe in Evolution." Big Think. 2 Apr. 2010. 22 Jul. 2010..
----
If you reached this point, congratulations, it was a long paper. If you want something lighter and funnier, you can check these videos, from The Thinking Atheist, and subtitled in Spanish by the team of Traducciones Herejes
Yes, it's a nice painting. No, it's not historically accurateThe following is a paper on creationism I wrote some weeks ago for a class. In the English-speaking world (most of it protestant) it's a big issue and it's always useful to know about it.
Yes, I know that the idea that everything was created as it is 6000 years ago is total non-sense. But say that and you will very likely be considered an intolerant by the idiotic creationist who prefers to believe his/her favorite fairy tale. Well, read this carefully and you'll have the basic "weapons" to demonstrate how retarded that is. Hope you enjoy it.
----
On Creationism
It’s impossible to deny the bible’s status as a holy text, and the influence it has over the lives of millions on the planet. What isn’t very hard to do is to deny its historical value, especially regarding its first books, more exactly, the Genesis. However, this has only been done in a recent era, considering the time Christianity and other Abrahamic religions have had. Today we can assert with certain accuracy the Earth’s age in billions of years. However, before scientific advances made that possible, the idea that the world was created in seven days, as is narrated in the Genesis was the official view. This is what we know as Creationism, an idea still widely spread across the United States and other parts of the world.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." In other words, the writings we find in the Genesis (which can be found in both the Bible and the Torah) are myths that will explain the beginning of the world, the human race and the religions that take this view.
Creationism can be divided in two branches, all of them having in common the idea that a supernatural being, God, has intervened in the creation of living beings. These movements are (Scott, 66):
1. Young Earth Creationism: It postulates that the Earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old, a number based in the Usher Chronology, a time-dating technique made by the 17th century Anglican Archbishop of Armagh James Usher, which consisted in adding up the biblical patriarchs ages, TheStar.com reports. Young Earth Creationism rejects evolution and asserts that the Flood of Noah has had great influence on Earth’s geology.
2. Old Earth Creationism: Contrary to Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism accepts the scientific consensus that the Earth is billions of years old. However, it adds the idea of a supernatural being getting involved by denying evolution on different degrees. Old Earth Creationism can be divided in four positions:
2.1 Gap Creationism: It claims that there was a big “gap” between the verses 1 and 2 of the Genesis, meaning that there was a first creation which was destroyed, and then another one that is accounted for in the second verse of the Genesis. Gap creationism was born in the 19th century as a way to accommodate Christianity to the new scientific discoveries.
2.2 Day Age Creationism: Another attempt to adapt the Bible with scientific discoveries, it claims that the days described in the Genesis are actually long periods of time. Therefore, while the Earth still is billions of years, a supernatural being interferes in it and creates living beings.
2.3 Progressive creationism: It accepts scientific findings, such as the Earth's age and the fauna and flora that lived in different eras. However, it claims that such plants and animals were created by God, first simple life forms, and then more complex ones.
2.4 Evolutionary creationism: It accepts the scientific Earth’s age and theory of evolution; however, it claims that evolution was actually directed by a supernatural being.
It is important to note that when talking about a “supernatural being” we are referring not to an unknown being, but to the God of Christianity. Given that creationism bases are found in the Genesis and this is part of the sacred texts, which are inspired by God and therefore, are the truth, they are part of a doctrine that must be followed in order to find salvation.
While creationism and the general idea that the world we know came to be as a result of a superior being’s action have declined since science made possible carbon dating, fossil registry and other evidence, the movement is far from disappearing. Creationism has found its way in the minds of many in churches and even schools under the label of Intelligent Design.
According to the Center for Science and Culture, a creationist think tank, intelligent design claims that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” In other words, while creationism said that living beings came into existence by the works of God, Intelligent Design says that living beings’ existence can only be explained by the works of a designer. While Creationism did base its claims in holy texts, Intelligent Design argues from a scientific point of view that tries to explain the complexity of living beings in order to arrive to the conclusion of a creator.
Obviously, this creator is no other than the same Christian God that creationism used to be based on, as we can see in the Intelligent Design movement statement of faith
Intelligent design is backed up by a number of scholars, or “creation scientists” who claim hold degrees in different areas. However, the National Center for Science Education compiles the scientific community’s statements in which it is made clear that intelligent design is not considered a science. Moreover, the Association for the Advancement of Science calls it a pseudoscience. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.” (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 25)
According to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Intelligent Design proponents posit that the universe, or at least, components of it, has been designed by an “intelligence.” They also claim that they can empirically distinguish intelligent design from design produced through natural processes, which is done through the application of two complementary ideas, Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information (Scott, 123).
1. Irreducible complexity: In his book “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” biochemist and intelligent design proponent Michael Behe explains Irreducible Complexity by saying that “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (Behe, 39) However, Dr. Eugenie Scott explains that “A search of scientific databases, such as PubMed or SciSearch, reveals that scholars have not applied the concept of irreducible complexity or the design inference in researching scientific problems. ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause. Most scientists would reply that unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.”(Scott, 123) In other words, the argument of Irreducible Complexity just an argument from ignorance.
2. Complex Specified Information: It’s an argument proposed by mathematician William Dembski. In his paper “Redesigning Science” he says that "intelligent causation is an irreducible feature of the bio-physical universe, and furthermore that intelligent causation is empirically detectable.” However, Dr, Eugenie Scott explains that such argument “depends on the extent of scientific knowledge of the time, failing to be a reliable predictor of design by intelligence”(Scott, 128)
The disdain the scientific community has for Intelligent Design has not stopped its proponents from pushing its teaching in classrooms as a valid scientific point of view and the fact that many Americans still believe the Earth was created according to the biblical account. According to a Gallup poll made in 2008, 44% of Americans believe that God created human beings in its present form; 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution; and 14% believe that God had no part in the process. In other words, the American people reject in great number a widely agreed scientific position, preferring to cling to their beliefs.
According to Richard Wrangham, a primatologist from Harvard University, “the tendency to accept evolutionary theory is, of course, not just judged on the merits of evolutionary theory, it's judged because it is as seen as being in opposition to religious belief. And religious belief carries with it not just the belief itself in a particular set of facts and ideas, but all of the huge social and political associations. So, in the United States, if you don't believe in evolutionary theory, or if you do believe in evolutionary theory, then it means it's harder for you to commit yourself to a religious group that has huge significance. And so I think the answer to why it is that evolutionary theory is difficult for people in the states to believe is that religious systems are so incredibly prevalent.” In other words, Wrangham argues that the significance of creationism goes beyond the dimensions of myth and doctrine, to a social that involves commitment to one’s group. A person’s social life is another variable that has to be taken into account when deciding to accept or reject creationism as a valid explanation to our origins. This might be a factor in the number of attempts to teach intelligent design as a valid science and how these disputes have been taken to court.
The first account of evolution and creationism confronting each other in a court is the Scopes Trial. In 1925 Tennessee passed the “Butler Act”, which made it unlawful to deny the creation of man as written in the Bible. High School science teacher John Scopes was accused of teaching evolution and the trial was set. In the end, Scopes lost the case and belief in creationism grew. (Scott, 99-103)
By the 60’s few states still had anti-evolution laws. One of them was Arkansas, which saw its In 1965 Susan Epperson argued that the Arkansas antievolution law was unconstitutional because it violated her right to free speech. The trial came out favorable to Epperson, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in 1967. A year later the US Supreme Court deemed the anti-evolution law unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.(Scott, 111)
This aftermath didn’t mean that creationism was taken out of classrooms. In 1981 Arkansas passed a bill that required evolution and creationism to have equal time being taught in schools. According to the Act 590, “to present only evolution in the schools would create a hostile climate for religious students, undermining their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values.” The law was challenged in the McLean vs Arkansas trial, in which the Arkansas ACLU received argued that because creation science was inherently a religious idea, its advocacy would violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Act 590 was declared unconstitutional. (Scott, 114 - 115)
A similar law was passed in Louisiana that sought to give equal time to the teaching of evolution and creationism. However, the law was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1987.
In 2005 a new case regarding creationism (this time presented as Intelligent Design) was brought to the courts in the “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District”. In this case eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, sued the school for reading aloud a statement that argued that since the theory of evolution was just a “theory” it was not a fact, and that Intelligent Design was “an explanation of the origin of life”. After 21 days in trial, it was ruled that “Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
It’s important to notice that the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District based its claims in the “errors” evolutionary theory has, and makes a case trying to explain them by the interference of a supernatural being. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains this creationist methodology as “to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. […] If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Creationism and/or Intelligent Design have not been able to withstand the trials in which it has been put against science and have deemed them as a religious-based position. In a country whose constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” creationism has no place in schools being taught as legitimate science. While there is still a strong support for creationism, it is possible to view the future in a bright light and that science will take its right place in classrooms. As Stephen Hawking said "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Sources:
"Creation scientists and other biographies of interest." Answers in Genesis. 22 Jul. 2010.
"CSC - Top Questions." Center for Science and Culture. 22 Jul. 2010.
"Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design." Gallup.com. 11 May. 2008. 22 Jul.2010.
"Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Disctrict." National Center for Science Education. 20 Dec. 2005. 22 Jul. 2010.
"Statements from Scientific Organizations." NCSE - National Center for Science Education. 22 Jul. 2010.
"The AiG statement of faith." Answers in Genesis. 29 Apr. 2009. 22 Jul. 2010.
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press, 1998.
Borenstein, Jason. "Scientific Experts and the Courts." Professional Ethics Report XIV (2001): 7-8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 22 Jul. 2010.
Dawkins, Richard "Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant." The Times 21 May. 2005. 22 Jul. 2010
Popplewell, Brett "In the beginning, not too many years ago ...." The Star 27 Oct. 2007. 22 Jul. 2010
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. National Academy of Sciences, 1999.
Scott, Eugenie C. ""Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists." NCSE - National Center for Science Education. 12 Aug. 2002. 22 Jul. 2010.
Scott, Eugenie. Evolution vs. Creationism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Wrangham, Richard . "Why Many Americans Don’t Believe in Evolution." Big Think. 2 Apr. 2010. 22 Jul. 2010.
----
If you reached this point, congratulations, it was a long paper. If you want something lighter and funnier, you can check these videos, from The Thinking Atheist, and subtitled in Spanish by the team of Traducciones Herejes
Monday, August 16, 2010
Update #3: Su Nombre en Vano in Peruvian blogs contest
We are winning!
What happened with "update #2" well, I didn't write the English version, just the Spanish. If I had, it would have said that there was a blog dedicated to the iPhone that had around 3000 votes. Well, that blog is not anymore in the race.
It doesn't matter really much, since, as long as we are in the three first places, we go to the finals. So, that blog's absence does not mean we automatically win. It just means that we will go to the finals with the most votes.
After that, the judges will choose the winner in the category. If we win, I think it will be a great success regarding the attention the non-believers receive, especially in Perú, where it's not that common that someone stands up to religious authorities and their dogmas.
And if we don't win? Well, we fought well. Maybe this is not what the judges were looking for. But we were there, and showed that it's not necessary to have faith ina higher being to achieve something. I had faith in all of you who gave a vote, I had faith in the community of non-believers that desire to live in a world that appreciates critical thinking.
Anyway thank you all for your votes. The contest will finish in less than a week. You can vote by clicking in THIS LINK. It will take you to a page in which you have put your email address. Then click on the button that says "envienme..." After that, got to your inbox and open the email from "20blogs". There, just click in the confirmation link. Otherwise, the vote will not count.
Anyway, thank you all for your support.
What happened with "update #2" well, I didn't write the English version, just the Spanish. If I had, it would have said that there was a blog dedicated to the iPhone that had around 3000 votes. Well, that blog is not anymore in the race.
It doesn't matter really much, since, as long as we are in the three first places, we go to the finals. So, that blog's absence does not mean we automatically win. It just means that we will go to the finals with the most votes.
After that, the judges will choose the winner in the category. If we win, I think it will be a great success regarding the attention the non-believers receive, especially in Perú, where it's not that common that someone stands up to religious authorities and their dogmas.
And if we don't win? Well, we fought well. Maybe this is not what the judges were looking for. But we were there, and showed that it's not necessary to have faith ina higher being to achieve something. I had faith in all of you who gave a vote, I had faith in the community of non-believers that desire to live in a world that appreciates critical thinking.
Anyway thank you all for your votes. The contest will finish in less than a week. You can vote by clicking in THIS LINK. It will take you to a page in which you have put your email address. Then click on the button that says "envienme..." After that, got to your inbox and open the email from "20blogs". There, just click in the confirmation link. Otherwise, the vote will not count.
Anyway, thank you all for your support.
Actualización #3: Su Nombre en Vano en 20 blogs peruanos
Vamos ganando
Si recuerdan mi post anterior, verán que había un blog sobre el iPhone que tenía más votos que el resto de blogs juntos. No sé si los obtuvo de una forma justa o no. La cosa es que ese blog ya no está en la carrera.
Significa eso que ganamos automáticamente? No. Significa que tenemos más votos que nadie en la categoría y que de todas maneras pasamos a las finales.
¿Y de ahí?
Los jueces elegirán al ganador de entre los tres que tengan más votos. Si ganamos, será un hecho bastante relevante, creo yo, para lo que significan los blogs en el Perú, en donde difícilmente se ve a alguien pararle los machos a la iglesia y a los dogmas religiosos.
¿Y si no ganamos? Pues, ni modo, quizás no es lo que los jueces buscaban. Pero estuvimos allí, y demostramos que no es necesario tener fe en un ser superior, sino que la fe en la comunidad de aquellos que valoramos el pensamiento crítico nos llevó hasta las finales en este concurso.
Gracias a todos por sus votos. El concurso acaba en menos de una semana. Para votar, hagan click en ESTE LINK, dejen su correo electrónico, aprieten el botón, revisen su inbox y confirmen el voto. Gracias a todos.
Si recuerdan mi post anterior, verán que había un blog sobre el iPhone que tenía más votos que el resto de blogs juntos. No sé si los obtuvo de una forma justa o no. La cosa es que ese blog ya no está en la carrera.
Significa eso que ganamos automáticamente? No. Significa que tenemos más votos que nadie en la categoría y que de todas maneras pasamos a las finales.
¿Y de ahí?
Los jueces elegirán al ganador de entre los tres que tengan más votos. Si ganamos, será un hecho bastante relevante, creo yo, para lo que significan los blogs en el Perú, en donde difícilmente se ve a alguien pararle los machos a la iglesia y a los dogmas religiosos.
¿Y si no ganamos? Pues, ni modo, quizás no es lo que los jueces buscaban. Pero estuvimos allí, y demostramos que no es necesario tener fe en un ser superior, sino que la fe en la comunidad de aquellos que valoramos el pensamiento crítico nos llevó hasta las finales en este concurso.
Gracias a todos por sus votos. El concurso acaba en menos de una semana. Para votar, hagan click en ESTE LINK, dejen su correo electrónico, aprieten el botón, revisen su inbox y confirmen el voto. Gracias a todos.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Actualización: Su Nombre en Vano en 20 blogs peruanos
Como ya muchos deben saber, este blog está participando en el concurso de 20 blogs peruanos. Sí, ese botón amarillo que ven al costado es por eso.
Antes que nada, quiero agradecer a todos los que de una forma u otra pusieron su grano de arena por este blog. Son muchos, y si intento mencionarlos, me corro el riesgo de olvidarme de alguno. Si bien no hacerlo me apena, me agrada bastante el que una comunidad así de grande exista entre los no creyentes.
En fin. Al grano. ¿Como vamos en el concurso?
Vamos en segundo lugar:
Resaltados están los 3 primeros lugares. En primer lugar y con casi 3000 votos está un blog dedicado al iPhone. Si bien lo primero que se me ocurrió cuando vi sus votos subir tan rápidamente fue "WTF!", creo que es en cierto modo lógico que algo como el iPhone le de a un blog dedicado a este tanta afluencia. Ya algunos me han dicho que se puede tratar de fraude. Tal vez. Pero como dije, cabe la posibilidad de que sean votos legítimos por fans del iPhone (quienes no son pocos) y si es así, es algo respetable.
En segundo lugar y con casi 400 votos, vamos nosotros. Nosotros, porque no solo es Diego, El Mapache, sino todos los que creen que las críticas a los dogmas religiosos son necesarias para una sociedad que se dirija hacia un mejor futuro. Somos ustedes y yo. Somos todos.
Para quienes se preocupan de que "vamos a perder", no es tanto así. Como podrán leer en las bases del concurso, el jurado selecciona a los 3 blogs con más votaciones y de entre ellos elijen al ganador. Este blog definitivamente entra en ese rubro. Y luego de eso, ya queda a decisión del jurado. Solo nos queda... ¿rezar? ja, no. Pero sí esperar que el jurado encuentre en este blog lo que está buscando. Este blog pertenece a un peruano que emigró buscando un futuro mejor, que desde fuera dirige una mirada al mundo con ansias de hacerlo mejor, pero que definitiamente no olvida de dónde vino. "El mundo es mi patria, y hacer el bien es mi religión".
Para acabar, les recuerdo que para votar solo deben hacer click en ESTE link. Se les pedirá su correo electrónico. Una vez que hagan click en el botón de "enviéneme un correo electrónico", revisen su inbox, abran el mail de "20blogs" y den click al link que les envían para confirmar su voto. Si no, el voto no contará.
De antemano, gracias por el apoyo.
Antes que nada, quiero agradecer a todos los que de una forma u otra pusieron su grano de arena por este blog. Son muchos, y si intento mencionarlos, me corro el riesgo de olvidarme de alguno. Si bien no hacerlo me apena, me agrada bastante el que una comunidad así de grande exista entre los no creyentes.
En fin. Al grano. ¿Como vamos en el concurso?
Vamos en segundo lugar:
Resaltados están los 3 primeros lugares. En primer lugar y con casi 3000 votos está un blog dedicado al iPhone. Si bien lo primero que se me ocurrió cuando vi sus votos subir tan rápidamente fue "WTF!", creo que es en cierto modo lógico que algo como el iPhone le de a un blog dedicado a este tanta afluencia. Ya algunos me han dicho que se puede tratar de fraude. Tal vez. Pero como dije, cabe la posibilidad de que sean votos legítimos por fans del iPhone (quienes no son pocos) y si es así, es algo respetable.En segundo lugar y con casi 400 votos, vamos nosotros. Nosotros, porque no solo es Diego, El Mapache, sino todos los que creen que las críticas a los dogmas religiosos son necesarias para una sociedad que se dirija hacia un mejor futuro. Somos ustedes y yo. Somos todos.
Para quienes se preocupan de que "vamos a perder", no es tanto así. Como podrán leer en las bases del concurso, el jurado selecciona a los 3 blogs con más votaciones y de entre ellos elijen al ganador. Este blog definitivamente entra en ese rubro. Y luego de eso, ya queda a decisión del jurado. Solo nos queda... ¿rezar? ja, no. Pero sí esperar que el jurado encuentre en este blog lo que está buscando. Este blog pertenece a un peruano que emigró buscando un futuro mejor, que desde fuera dirige una mirada al mundo con ansias de hacerlo mejor, pero que definitiamente no olvida de dónde vino. "El mundo es mi patria, y hacer el bien es mi religión".
Para acabar, les recuerdo que para votar solo deben hacer click en ESTE link. Se les pedirá su correo electrónico. Una vez que hagan click en el botón de "enviéneme un correo electrónico", revisen su inbox, abran el mail de "20blogs" y den click al link que les envían para confirmar su voto. Si no, el voto no contará.
De antemano, gracias por el apoyo.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Matrimonio gay en California y Argentina. ¿Y el Perú?
Hoy un juez de San Francisco declaró como inconstitucional la Proposición 8, la cual básicamente prohibe a los homosexuales el casarse. Así que no exactamente "California", entendiendo "la gente de California", pero algo es algo.
De igual forma, hace unas semanas, Argentina celebraba la aprobación del matrimonio homosexual
Aparte de la alegría de que ambos lugares ahora reconozcan la igualdad de sus ciudadanos homosexuales con respecto a los héteros, me gustaría resaltar esta parte sobre la decisión del juez Californiano.
No sé cuantas veces he tenido que explicar esto, pero de verdad, la única base para oponerse a que los homosexuales tengan los mismo derechos que la mayoría de la gente es la intolerancia y el odio, muchas veces basados en creencias religiosas.
¿Qué, creyeron que la cosa no iba por ahí? Considerando el rol que jugó la iglesia mormona en California, y la iglesia católica en Argentina, es imposible negar que las creencias religiosas influyen en el comportamiento de los fieles a la hora de apoyar o negar derechos para el resto.
Y aquí hay que puntualizar que muchos liberales muy políticamente correctos se cuidan mucho de no mencionar las creencias religiosas, bajo el miedo de ser catalogados como intolerantes, a pesar de lo que no se tolera es la intolerancia institucionalizada, oleada y sacramentada. Con razó pues, muchos los consideran cobardes.
Volviendo al tema, la Asociación Psicológica de Estados Unidos (APA por sus siglas en inglés) tiene una postura muy clara al respecto.
Lo cual se traduce como
Y concluyendo que
En otras palabras, los científicos afirman que no hay razón para negarle a los gays el casarse. Afirmación que el juez californiano parece tomar en cuenta para dar su veredicto. Tal vez en Argentina haya pasado algo similar. Tal vez no. Lo que sí es afirmable es que la iglesia católica argentina, sin más conocimiento que sus jurásicas creencias respecto a la homosexualidad, se opuso al matrimonio gay.
Aparentemente, para el arzobispo, los derechos de los homosexuales no entran en lo que es derechos humanos. Pero bueno ¿quién dijo que se necesitaba inteligencia para ser obispo?
En el Perú tenemos a alguien similar, a quien tampoco le interesan mucho los derechos humanos. El cardenal Juan Luis Cipriani:
No sé qué tiene que ver el equipo de futbol argentino en el asunto. Aparentemente, para el cardenal, si Argentina tiene un mal equipo de futbol y no debemos imitar eso, tampoco debemos imitar el que se promulguen leyes en pro de la igualdad de derechos. Bien jalada de los pelos la lógica del cardenal. Pero bueno, ¿quién dijo que para ser cardenal se necesitaba lógica?
A mí me gustaría ver que en Perú se apruebe esta medida. Lo más seguro es que la saque algún congresista con miras a ganar notoriedad, pero creo que si eso va a beneficiar a un sector de la población que es vista por encima del hombro ¿por qué no? Al menos será algo bueno que se hizo por alguien.
La semilla está sembrada. Ya varios peruanos, al menos limeños, no ven a los gays tan mal como lo podrían haber hecho hace 10 o 20 años. Por supuesto no faltan los viejitos que no salen de su ignorancia e intolerancia. Afortunadamente estos morirán dentro de unos años. Ojalá, de causas naturales y sin haber sufrido la discriminación hacia los adultos mayores.
¿Y los conservaduros? Bueno, esperemos que a medida de que haya más educación y los medios pongan al alcance del público estudios serios sobre la naturaleza de la homosexualidad, más gente deje sus dogmas jurásicos y empiecen a pensar por sí mismos y ver lo que la ciencia tiene que ofrecer.
Es por esto que apoyo los movimientos ateos. Porque tiene a la ciencia como a su mejor arma y gracias a esta podemos entendernos mejor a nosotros mismos y de esa forma hacer de este un mejor lugar para vivir. Las religiones difícilmente hacen eso.
Y finalmente, la mejor cristiana de USA nos da una charla sobre lo que verdaderamente es el matrimonio bíblico:
Un juez declara constitucional el matrimonio gay en California
Un juzgado federal de Estados Unidos ha declarado hoy ilegal la Proposición Ocho, que fue aprobada en referéndum hace dos años e ilegalizó el matrimonio homosexual en California. De este modo, abre el camino a la legalización, de nuevo, de las uniones entre personas del mismo sexo en ese Estado, donde ya se casaron unas 18.000 parejas en los meses en los que fue legal en 2008.
De igual forma, hace unas semanas, Argentina celebraba la aprobación del matrimonio homosexual
Argentina: matrimonio gay, del dicho al hechoEn una ceremonia cargada de emociones, la presidenta argentina Cristina Fernández de Kirchner promulgó este miércoles la llamada ley del matrimonio gay, que convierte a Argentina en el primer país de América Latina que permite el casamiento entre personas del mismo sexo.
"Hoy somos una sociedad un poco mas igualitaria que la semana pasada", celebró la jefa de estado, ante un auditorio colmado de muchos de los representantes de la comunidad homosexual y diversos grupos civiles y políticos que apoyaron la medida, y que recibieron a la mandataria al coro de "¡igualdad, igualdad, igualdad!".
Aparte de la alegría de que ambos lugares ahora reconozcan la igualdad de sus ciudadanos homosexuales con respecto a los héteros, me gustaría resaltar esta parte sobre la decisión del juez Californiano.
El juez estimó que un referéndum no puede denegar a los gays y lesbianas el derecho a casarse. "No existe base racional para el hecho de que la Proposición Ocho pueda apartar a un grupo de mujeres y hombres gays denegándoles licencias de matrimonio", escribió el juez Vaughn Walker en su sentencia. "De hecho, hay evidencias de que la Proposición Ocho establecería en la constitución de California que las parejas de sexos opuestos son superiores a las del mismo sexo".
No sé cuantas veces he tenido que explicar esto, pero de verdad, la única base para oponerse a que los homosexuales tengan los mismo derechos que la mayoría de la gente es la intolerancia y el odio, muchas veces basados en creencias religiosas.
¿Qué, creyeron que la cosa no iba por ahí? Considerando el rol que jugó la iglesia mormona en California, y la iglesia católica en Argentina, es imposible negar que las creencias religiosas influyen en el comportamiento de los fieles a la hora de apoyar o negar derechos para el resto.
Y aquí hay que puntualizar que muchos liberales muy políticamente correctos se cuidan mucho de no mencionar las creencias religiosas, bajo el miedo de ser catalogados como intolerantes, a pesar de lo que no se tolera es la intolerancia institucionalizada, oleada y sacramentada. Con razó pues, muchos los consideran cobardes.
Volviendo al tema, la Asociación Psicológica de Estados Unidos (APA por sus siglas en inglés) tiene una postura muy clara al respecto.
V. By Denying Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry, the State Reinforces and Perpetuates the Stigma Historically Associated with Homosexuality.
As explained in Section III.A above, same-sex committed relationships do not differ from heterosexual committed relationships in their essential emotional qualities and their capacity for long-term commitment. As explained in Section IV.B above, they also do not differ in the context they provide for rearing healthy and well-adjusted children. The State’s concurrence with these conclusions is evidenced in its domestic partnership and second-parent adoption statutes. Thus, amici conclude that the reason for according same-sex relationships a different legal status than heterosexual relationships is ultimately the fact that the relationship is homosexual rather than heterosexual. This differentiation based on sexual orientation is an expression of stigma.
Lo cual se traduce como
V. Al negarle a las parejas del mismo sexo el derecho al matrimonio, el estado refuerza y perpetú el estigma historicamente asociado a la homosexualidad
Tal como se explicó en la sección III.A más arriba, los compromisos del mismo sexo no difieren de los compromisos heterosexuales en sus cualidades emocionales esenciales y en su capacidad de comprometerse por largo tiempo. Tal como se explicó en la sección IV.B más arriba, tampoco difieren en el contexto de proveer un ambiente saludable y bien ajustado para los hijos. La concurrencia del estado en estas exclusiones es evidenciada en sus estatutos sobre convivencia doméstica y adopción por parte de un segundo progenitor. Por lo tanto, amici concluye que la razón por la que las relaciones del mismo sexo tengan un estatus legal distinto a las relaciones heterosexuales es en definitiva por el hecho de que se trata de una relación homosexual en lugar de heterosexual. Esta diferenciación hecha en base a la orientación sexual es una expresión de estigma.
Y concluyendo que
There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.
No existe base científica para distinguir entre parejas del mismo sexo y parejas heterosexuales con respecto a sus derechos legales, obligaciones, beneficios y responsabilidades conferidas por el matrimonio civil.
En otras palabras, los científicos afirman que no hay razón para negarle a los gays el casarse. Afirmación que el juez californiano parece tomar en cuenta para dar su veredicto. Tal vez en Argentina haya pasado algo similar. Tal vez no. Lo que sí es afirmable es que la iglesia católica argentina, sin más conocimiento que sus jurásicas creencias respecto a la homosexualidad, se opuso al matrimonio gay.
Gobierno argentino atropella derecho natural con "matrimonio" homosexual
El Arzobispo Emérito de Resistencia, Mons. Carmelo Giaquinta, señaló en su reflexión del fin de semana que el gobierno de Argentina pese a haber hecho de la "defensa de sus derechos humanos su bandera", no ha sido capaz de "percibir que la ley de matrimonio civil entre personas homosexuales atropella inútilmente" el derecho natural.
Aparentemente, para el arzobispo, los derechos de los homosexuales no entran en lo que es derechos humanos. Pero bueno ¿quién dijo que se necesitaba inteligencia para ser obispo?
En el Perú tenemos a alguien similar, a quien tampoco le interesan mucho los derechos humanos. El cardenal Juan Luis Cipriani:
Cardenal Cipriani pidió no imitar en el Perú aprobación de matrimonio homosexual como lo hizo ArgentinaEl cardenal Juan Luis Cipriani instó a los peruanos no imitar a los argentinos en la aprobación del matrimonio homosexual , pues consideró que esa unión debe ser natural, entre un hombre y una mujer.
“Argentina tiene un mal equipo de fútbol y un muy mal entrenador como (Diego) Maradona. Yo creo que no hay que imitar esas partes de Argentina, creo yo que el matrimonio es una institución natural de hombre y mujer complementarios para toda la vida”, comentó.
Asimismo, sostuvo que hay asuntos más importantes en el país y alertó que “dejarnos arrastrar por un mundo que hoy no piensa es muy peligroso”.
No sé qué tiene que ver el equipo de futbol argentino en el asunto. Aparentemente, para el cardenal, si Argentina tiene un mal equipo de futbol y no debemos imitar eso, tampoco debemos imitar el que se promulguen leyes en pro de la igualdad de derechos. Bien jalada de los pelos la lógica del cardenal. Pero bueno, ¿quién dijo que para ser cardenal se necesitaba lógica?
A mí me gustaría ver que en Perú se apruebe esta medida. Lo más seguro es que la saque algún congresista con miras a ganar notoriedad, pero creo que si eso va a beneficiar a un sector de la población que es vista por encima del hombro ¿por qué no? Al menos será algo bueno que se hizo por alguien.
La semilla está sembrada. Ya varios peruanos, al menos limeños, no ven a los gays tan mal como lo podrían haber hecho hace 10 o 20 años. Por supuesto no faltan los viejitos que no salen de su ignorancia e intolerancia. Afortunadamente estos morirán dentro de unos años. Ojalá, de causas naturales y sin haber sufrido la discriminación hacia los adultos mayores.
¿Y los conservaduros? Bueno, esperemos que a medida de que haya más educación y los medios pongan al alcance del público estudios serios sobre la naturaleza de la homosexualidad, más gente deje sus dogmas jurásicos y empiecen a pensar por sí mismos y ver lo que la ciencia tiene que ofrecer.
Es por esto que apoyo los movimientos ateos. Porque tiene a la ciencia como a su mejor arma y gracias a esta podemos entendernos mejor a nosotros mismos y de esa forma hacer de este un mejor lugar para vivir. Las religiones difícilmente hacen eso.
Y finalmente, la mejor cristiana de USA nos da una charla sobre lo que verdaderamente es el matrimonio bíblico:
California says NO to bigotry, intolerance, and h8. Teh Gay can marry
Well, not exactly. It's not "California" meaning "the people of California" but actually a judge declaring that Proposition 8, which prohibited gays of getting married, unconstitutional
To most rational people, it's pretty obvious that Proposition 8 and any law that takes away rights from a certain group of people violates equal protection and due process. In fact, it violates equality, a value that has had to be fought and defended through the years, whether we are talking about natives, blacks, latinos or Japaneses.
Here I want to emphasize the "rational basis" part. Exactly, there is nothing rational about denying gays (or any other human groups) the same rights others enjoy. The only basis under such position is takes is irrational. And, yes, I'm talking in great part about religion.
What? you thought this had nothing to do with religion? Even with the Mormons backing up Prop 8 from the beginning? Even with the religious right always portraying gays, in the best of cases, as sick people, and in the worst, as demon possessed? Come on, someone needs to point this out. Most politically-correct liberals will try to avoid touch the religion string, fearing being called "intolerant of others beliefs". Well, that's one reason so many people regard liberals as pussies.
Well, going back to the issue. Since there is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage, there should be rational basis to approve, right? Well, according to the American Psychological Association:
This is the conclusion of a document used in courts and issued by the APA. If you want, you can read the whole document, which is written in an English easy enough for the average person to understand. Of course, bigotry and intolerance makes it more difficult to understand these documents more than any flaw in the educational system or a bad English an immigrant could have.
If you don't want to look through the whole document, you can check the APA section on Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.
Be warned, what you will read is something you will likely hear from most liberals. Conservatives (I mean, social conservatives, a.k.a. Christian Right) will dismiss that saying that it's just liberals talking. Even if it's coming from the most prestigious association of psychologists, this is, scientists who have made all the research possible on the issue before making a statement.
But, when has it been a problem for conservatives to dismiss scientific knowledge when it goes against their own faith-based bigotry?
Now, there is another issue that bigo... I mean, Prop 8 supporters are making the case about. Prop 8 was put in the ballot some time ago, meaning that the people could choose whether to approve it or not. By declaring it unconstitutional, the judge is dismissing the 7 million votes that were in favor of Prop 8.
That seems to be a big problem in the US, the idea that "Teh govament" is taking away "the people's rights", in this casse, by forsaking the opinion of a big chunk of the Californian population.
The problem is that here we have the opinion of a lot of people against what scientists say is normal. You see the difference? Those who oppose gay marriage are either ignorant about what science says about it, or even knowing it, they cling to their bigotry, again, in many cases supported by religious ideas. In other words, we either have ignorant or stupid people voting against it.
I praise the fact that a judge had the bravery to oppose them and say that "according to the evidence, THIS is right and this is what should be done".
That's why I support atheism. Because it uses science as its main weapon, and thanks to scientific advancement we can actually know about ourselves, about humanity and then take the steps necessary to make this a better world.
Here a short video from CNN:
So, yeah, as you heard, this is going to be appealed. The war for equality is not over. Finalmente, y por si queda alguien que quiera argumentar que la homosexualidad es inmoral según la biblia, pues este video explica lo que realmente es "moral" según la biblia.
Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California
In a long-awaited ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker says the ban on same-sex marriage violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The decision is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
To most rational people, it's pretty obvious that Proposition 8 and any law that takes away rights from a certain group of people violates equal protection and due process. In fact, it violates equality, a value that has had to be fought and defended through the years, whether we are talking about natives, blacks, latinos or Japaneses.
Walker cited extensive trial evidence to support his finding that there was not even a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. Higher courts defer to trial judges on issues of fact, but still could determine that Walker was wrong on the law.
Here I want to emphasize the "rational basis" part. Exactly, there is nothing rational about denying gays (or any other human groups) the same rights others enjoy. The only basis under such position is takes is irrational. And, yes, I'm talking in great part about religion.
What? you thought this had nothing to do with religion? Even with the Mormons backing up Prop 8 from the beginning? Even with the religious right always portraying gays, in the best of cases, as sick people, and in the worst, as demon possessed? Come on, someone needs to point this out. Most politically-correct liberals will try to avoid touch the religion string, fearing being called "intolerant of others beliefs". Well, that's one reason so many people regard liberals as pussies.
Well, going back to the issue. Since there is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage, there should be rational basis to approve, right? Well, according to the American Psychological Association:
There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.
This is the conclusion of a document used in courts and issued by the APA. If you want, you can read the whole document, which is written in an English easy enough for the average person to understand. Of course, bigotry and intolerance makes it more difficult to understand these documents more than any flaw in the educational system or a bad English an immigrant could have.
If you don't want to look through the whole document, you can check the APA section on Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.
Be warned, what you will read is something you will likely hear from most liberals. Conservatives (I mean, social conservatives, a.k.a. Christian Right) will dismiss that saying that it's just liberals talking. Even if it's coming from the most prestigious association of psychologists, this is, scientists who have made all the research possible on the issue before making a statement.
But, when has it been a problem for conservatives to dismiss scientific knowledge when it goes against their own faith-based bigotry?
Now, there is another issue that bigo... I mean, Prop 8 supporters are making the case about. Prop 8 was put in the ballot some time ago, meaning that the people could choose whether to approve it or not. By declaring it unconstitutional, the judge is dismissing the 7 million votes that were in favor of Prop 8.
That seems to be a big problem in the US, the idea that "Teh govament" is taking away "the people's rights", in this casse, by forsaking the opinion of a big chunk of the Californian population.
The problem is that here we have the opinion of a lot of people against what scientists say is normal. You see the difference? Those who oppose gay marriage are either ignorant about what science says about it, or even knowing it, they cling to their bigotry, again, in many cases supported by religious ideas. In other words, we either have ignorant or stupid people voting against it.
I praise the fact that a judge had the bravery to oppose them and say that "according to the evidence, THIS is right and this is what should be done".
That's why I support atheism. Because it uses science as its main weapon, and thanks to scientific advancement we can actually know about ourselves, about humanity and then take the steps necessary to make this a better world.
Here a short video from CNN:
So, yeah, as you heard, this is going to be appealed. The war for equality is not over. Finalmente, y por si queda alguien que quiera argumentar que la homosexualidad es inmoral según la biblia, pues este video explica lo que realmente es "moral" según la biblia.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Man asks Jesus for cure, Jesus says "fuck off"
After the long and thoughtful post from yesterday, this came as another way to view the effects of prayer.
Looks like prayer doesn't just don't work, but also pisses Jesus off. "Not happy with you epilepsy? Well, take this, broken bones."
Looks like prayer doesn't just don't work, but also pisses Jesus off. "Not happy with you epilepsy? Well, take this, broken bones."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)