He/She/it surely won't, since he might not care, might not be able, or just might not exist, which is the most logical conclusion.
The problem with blasphemy is that it can range from working on Sundays to tackling the Pope (which I have to admit is somehow funny), depending on how deranged people's beliefs are. It depends on the people making that claim that something is blasphemy since God will not come down to Earth to tell us exactly what is an offense to Him/Her/It.
Moreover, if we consider than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God can get offended by anything we human beings do, we are certainly talking about a pretty little, miserable short-sighted being who needs lesser beings to defend Him/Her/It from whatever others do.
Apparently, Allah is terrorized by the West's freedom of speech. Well, that's a
pretty miserable and weak god we have there.
In other words, blasphemy is not about God, could not be about God. It's about His/Her/Its bigoted and intolerant fans, who can't bear have their cherished and nonsensical beliefs mocked, or even, just questioned and criticized, usually with a pretty good reason. This is what happens when faith pretends to be above everything else in a person's life. The more fanatical, the more a "Jesus Freak" a person is, the more God loves them, that's the message religion brings. For Muslims, just change "Jesus" with Allah and there we have a couple of towers coming down.
Now, add to that equation how politically incorrect it is to criticize religion, especially when it's taken as a breaching of someone's "Freedom of religion". Moreover, add the horror and despair that are brought when that religion belongs to some foreign, usually non-white, group of people, since criticizing such belief is "racist" or "xenophobic", and you'll have some retarded legislation against blasphemy.
Both of them would be art (a pretty dick art if you ask me)
but because of the protection Islam has thanks to multiculturalism,
this is what we have
Fortunately there is still hope since the UN, which some years ago supported legislation against "defamation of religion", now sheds away the politically correct crap and notices that freedom of expression can't be thwarted by what is perceived as freedom of religion.
United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of freedom of speech under international law. It says that laws restricting blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights standards.
Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.
Laws against blasphemy or “religious insult” (found throughout the world, including half of all Council of Europe member states) are inherently discriminatory against secularists and religious dissenters. They are discriminatory in that secularists have no legal recourse—nor should they—when the words of believers offend their moral sensibilities, nor can gays take the publishers of Leviticus to court for the spiritual affront to them that it surely is. Skeptics and heterodox believers, on the other hand, do have an Article 18 right to live and speak according to their conscience even when it offends the orthodox.
Believers usually have their "freedom of religion" as a shield to insult gays, non-believers and even other religious groups, but whine and pout when someone dares to point out their hypocrisy and intolerance. The only "but" I could have regarding this issue, is that blasphemy should be made in a tasteful manner. It's different to say "The only church that illuminates is a burning one" than "Fuck Jesus in the ass".
These can be considered blasphemous, but who cares, they are awesome
Fortunately, the tendency is for religious influence in laws and in public to go down. A better world is possible.
In the United States there is a widespread idea that there is an ongoing "war on Christmas" waged by atheists and in general, people who prefer a secular government in which every person has the same rights. As usual, this idea is proposed by the whiny religious right (mainly conservative Christians).
"This is the time of year that the secularists, these atheists, choose to assault our Christianity and our religion," says Jeff Field with the Catholic League. "We decided that we're not going to sit by and let that happen." No turning the other cheek this time.
I don't think anyone believes the myths of Romus and Remulus, or Zeus and Hercules becase, well, those are myths. Yet, many get angry at rational people pointing out that this is also a myth. Just because many people like to believe it's real doesn't change that.
Oh, and atheists have been challenging religious nonsense for years. Where do you think a society that respects human rights comes from?
Some other times, Christians will whine at the secularization of Christmas, represented in "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas", or in the driving away of nativity scenes in public places. They would even make a movie about it:
Conservative Christians like to brag an boast about the constitution, but then tend to forget the establishment clause, which declares that the government can't favor one religion over another, or religion over lack of religion and viceversa. In other words, it can't use our money to put up displays about one religion.
Personally, I have no problem with Christmas and wishing someone else a merry one. Even Richard Dawkins hasn't one. But I'll still might say "Happy Holidays" just for the fun of it.
Of course this won't sit well with many of those want just and only their celebration around, which is why they despise the "Happy Holidays" (which includes everything that is celebrated this season) and prefer "Merry Christmas", which is only one of those celebrations.
Finally, if you want a real "War on Christmas" you might prefer atheists to do something like this:
On December 18, Hindu fundamentalists beat two dozen carolers, including young women, and took them to the police station in a Mumbai suburb, charging that by singing Christmas carols they had insulted Hindus.
Two days earlier, Father Thomas Chirattavayalil, who heads a mission parish at a remote village in the central Madhya Pradesh, was attacked at midnight by masked men who left him seriously injured. On December 12, statues of the Virgin Mary, St. John, and St. Mary Magdalene, were found decapitated and disfigured at a church in the Andra Pradesh state.
Well, that's a war con Christmas. The American atheists haven't done anything except exercise their right to free speech and demanded that the constitution be respected in regard of civil liberties. Why? Because that's the logical thing to do if we want a world in which equality is valued.
As the first case to test a school district policy requiring the teaching of "intelligent design," the trial attracted national and international attention. Both plaintiffs and defendants in the case presented expert testimony over six weeks from September 26 through November 4, 2005). On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones issued a sharply-worded ruling in which he held that "intelligent design" was, as the plaintiffs argued, a form of creationism.
The story starts when a couple of not very enlightened people made it to the Dover Board of Education (in Pennsylvania). William ("Bill") Buckingham and Alan Bonsell started to object the current biology book, which featured evolution.. These guys got to include this in the biology curriculum:
Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.
To the uneducated mind this might sound nice and even fair. But for the informed person, this is like equating astrology with astronomy. You put a retarded idea (creationism) at the same place with evolution, as if these were equal.
Also, teachers were required to read a statement containing this:
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Also, they recommended a book with a cute title, "Of Pandas and People", which was just propaganda for creationism. They had to be pandas because, well, the book wasn't directed to people who actually seek knowledge, but those who like to feel good regardless how reality works
And really, who doesn't love a panda? Forget about wolves in sheep clothes. Use pandas
While intelligent design was not being taught, it was being presented as an alternative to evolution. The people who penned this had no idea of the definition of theory in a scientific context as the one used to describe the theory of evolution. If you're trying to prove evolution in the same way you can prove that you prove a math theorem, you won't be able to do so. Just like with most things around the world. As said by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
So, it's very different from the idea creationists have of it, which is of a hunch or a hypothesis.
Anyway, this didn't sit well with some teachers and parents, who filed a lawsuit against the ruling. After a trial that started on September 26 where evidence from both sides (actually only one side presented creditable evidence), on December 20, 2005 the judge reached a decision, which included:
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
And as you know, religion has no place in a science classroom.
Sometimes I still wonder what makes people choose ignorance instead of knowledge. It seems to me that this ignorance makes them feel so happy, so loved, so less vulnerable that they are willing to shut some common sense down, and follow whatever they feel makes them happy. This is the kind of people who prefer to live in a fantasy world and will get angry at those who point out it is such.
The world works the way it works, whether we like it or not. The evidence points out to evolution as a fact, whether we like it or not. And there is no evidence for a god, whether we like it or not. To think otherwise is to lose contact with reality and, to a certain point, lose some respect one would have if one's opinions were based on logic and facts instead of mere fantasy.
Finally, I shall leave you with ZOMGitsCriss' video about evolution. She's as nice to watch as it is to listen to her
In this race there were two candidates that were playing the “God” card. Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, both of them babbling bigotry and nonsense inspired in their belief in loving celestial father. Fortunately, both of them lost the election.
"When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn't just say, 'Well today you're going to run against Harry Reid,'" the tea party favorite said.
It seems that God doesn’t have the power to support the candidates He endorses. That, or Ms. Angle is just deluded and is hearing voices in her head, which apparently, happens to many of those who say God talks to them.
Lovely woman, isn’t her? The typical arrogant fundamentalist who thinks he or she can understand the will of a supernatural being whose existence they can’t prove, and use that “understanding” to further a conservative agenda. Now, after losing, she shuns the media, aparently protecting her ego from being reminded that, well, she lost.
So that was Ms. Angle losing in Nevada. But there was also O’Donnell losing in Delaware. While I didn’t pay much attention to O’Donnell it’s not that I didn’t have material for doing so. First of all, let’s go back in time and remember her views on… well, “self-pleasure”
First of all, you know that when “Savior” and ‘Truth are together in a sentence or phrase, we are approaching a huge pile of manure. This is no exception. “God says…”, “The Bible says…”, “God’s appropriate context”, “pure hearts, not adulterous hearts”, and “lust is committing adultery”. Seriously, not even my grandma, I think. But well, if she wants to have a traumatized sexual life, it’s her problem.
Now, her stupidity was confirmed when she failed to understand evolution:
O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –
MAHER: Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!
O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?
A real idiot, isn't her? But well, the US constitution gives its people the freedom to be idiots. But when she tries to run for office and represent a group of people with views like these…
"People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder," she told Wilmington News Journal reporter Victor Greto.
... then we know we are talking about a bigoted person who uses her nonsensical beliefs to support her bigotry. Especially when…
Homosexuality has been considered a normal variation of human sexuality for nearly four decades. The American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association both declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970s.
These are the people who run with a self-proclaimed endorsement from God. Arrogant, callous, deluded, bigoted, manipulative, ignorant, and proud of such ignorance. While this election has been big for conservatives in general, I am please to see these fundamentalists bite the dust. Hopefully one day we won’t even will have to hear about them.
In our search for a civilized and proper society where human right prime over repression, the existence of a secular government is vital. This is the reason that the presence of religion in politics is necessarily associated with an unbalance in society, in which many time we will reach the point where an answer is “Just because” or worse, the non-sensical “Because God says so”
This is why it produces rejection to see a religious authority for or against a political position or figure. And this rejection scales to total disgust when this authority is our despicable Pope Ratzinger
Pope Benedict XVI is telling Brazil's Catholic bishops to speak out against ideologies that justify abortion, only days before a hotly contested presidential election in which the frontrunner has been accused of supporting the decriminalization of abortion.
The pope's words are likely to be read as an affirmation of Brazilian bishops and other religious leaders who have raised their voices in recent weeks against the ruling Labor Party and its frontrunner presidential candidate, Dilma Rousseff.
Rousseff and the Labor Party have publicly endorsed the decriminalization of abortion in Brazil, but during the election Rousseff has backpedaled from her previous stance. She now says that she is "personally against" abortion and even calls it an act of "violence" against women. She has signed a public statement stating her personal opposition to decriminalizing abortion, but has refused to say that she will veto pro-abortion legislation.
Three days ago, Ratzinger jumped in the Brazilian election telling, basically, not to vote for Dilma Rouseff, since she backs abortion rights for women, something Brazil really needs.
However, and as a proof of how incapable God is to do anything through his people (or just, proof that He/She/It doesn’t exist) Rouseff won.
Ms Rousseff won 56 per cent of the valid votes compared with 44 per cent for her opponent, Jose Serra, with 99 per cent of all votes counted.
“I’m very happy. I want to thank all Brazilians for this moment and I promise to honour the trust they have shown me,” Ms Rousseff told reporters in the capital Brasilia in her first public words after the result was announced.
It very relieving to see that fear and ignorance didn’t won in Brazil. But at the same time it’s outrageous to see Ratzinger’s arrogance by trying to hijack an election in a secular country. Ratzinger conveniently forgets the rapes committed by catholic priests and prefers to focus his words against abortion and gay marriage. If there is something God gave him, it’s an infinite capacity for cynicism.
I certainly don't feel the common attachment to my original nationality, given that nationalism seems very irrational to me, considering people take pride on something they didn't do anything to get, which is, being born in some specific part of the world. Yeah, kind of like religion.
Getting my citizenship is more a practical thing. Since the United States have been my home for the last 5 years and will be for many more, it just seems logical to get my nationality. Also, if I'll be living here, I would like to influence in its public policy, even if it is just by voting. I certainly will vote.
Yes, Democrat. I don't abhor the free market economy, but I won't be voting republican, at least not until they stop having candidates who can't tell the age of the Earth correctly.
The ceremony was pretty long, I think the judge arrived late. But it was worthy especially for the moment of the pledge of allegiance. The man who lead us to say it did it like this:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
I was thrilled. I had a big smile in my face and in the end went looking for that guy. I had to thank him for that.
Anyway, today you can count another American Atheist.
At this time, most of us know that there is a fuss all over the US regarding "Park 51", incorrectly named by the unreliable media "Ground Zero Mosque". As many point out, this is an issue that has divided the United States given the "controversy" surrounding it.
By the way, "controversy" goes between quotation signs because it shouldn't be such, especially considering that the US laws protect freedom of religion so that anyone can worship the way they want.
Well, the issue has divided not just the US, but also many atheists have had a say on this. Unfortunately, a lack of belief in God does not mean necessarily a clear and objective view of the world. As an example of this, Pat Condell
For the non-believer who is eager to pick up his weapons and go on an unholy war against religion, this is music to the ears. However, to the one who sits and think thing thoroughly without letting his own anger and fear take over, there is usually a problem. The Amazing Atheist has that position:
First of all, I'm no fan of neither of them. I've seen a couple of Condell's videos and seemed boring to me. Sorry, an old man in front of a camera in not very appealing to me. His message is not bad, but not appealing enough. Regarding The Amazing Atheist, well, it's the first time I've seen one of his videos and, I have to say that a chubby guy walking towards a camera is also not very appealing.
So, having stated that I'm no fan of any of them, I don't see hard to agree with The Amazing Atheist. First of all, because it's a rational position. They both despise Islam, but while Condell extends the wrongdoings of some extremists to all its adherents, The Amazing Atheist recognizes their right to do as they want, as it is stated in the US constitution.
Condell calls a Slippery Slope by stating that a "mosque" (which is not a mosque) will be present in the Ground Zero Area (actually, two blocks away from the site). Political correctness can also be a problem, but it shouldn't be when there is a law backing the "politically correct" action. Then there is just bigotry.
Both of them agree that such act is in bad taste, but while Condell pretends that just "bad taste" is enough reason to prohibit the construction of the building, The Amazing Atheist recognizes that, despite their assholery, it's their right.
Condell also says that such a violent religion like Islam is not capable of providing spiritual relief. I think most of us non-belivers can say the same thing about most religions, if not all. The problem is, there are many who do find it, and while some of them might do abhorrent acts based on it, those who don't shouldn't be punished for them.
I could keep comparing both videos, but won't do that, they are there for you to see. What I would like to do is point out one last thing. The Amazing Atheist says that Condell is a one-issue voter. He doesn't give much explanation, but I understand that Condell (and many others) will take the "anti-religious" position, no matter what. No matter what liberties are at stake, and no matter what rights are being taken away.
Just like those who were happy and saw no problem on the Patriot Act being enforced and taking one step towards a police state.
I do like my right to be a non-believer. I also like my right to be able to say it. That is what I intent to protect and stand for. Not just whatever agrees with my own ideas, but the right that enables me to have those ideas and not hide them. Condell doesn't seem to understand that.
Someone who does understand and makes me very happy she does, is ZOMGitsCriss. It's just delightful to see such a beautiful woman with a strong opinion on such a hard topic, and yet, keeping them within the realm of the reasonable.
Certainly, to see her is much better than the other two
I don't know why this is even an issue in the US and the western world. Church and state don't mix well together. Religion often regards unquestionable faith as a virtue, and a state that has the power to enforce such unquestionability from its citizens is no more than a totalitarian state. It's that easy.
Yet, we can't stop hearing from conservatives who want to "put God back in the schools, in the courts and in the government", as if that were a good thing. That's one of the dangers of the religious thinking, which portrays itself as a source of good and nothing else, even when spouting anti-scientific views or bigoted and discriminatory attitudes.
Want God in the state, and religion to be used to convert this in a "Christian nation"? Take a look at Iran and how they deal with that:
The Iranian government says it will restrict the number of students admitted to humanities programs at universities, RFE/RL's Radio Farda reports.
It follows criticism of humanities studies last year by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He called the humanities a field of study that "promotes skepticism and doubt in religious principles and beliefs," and that it was worrying that almost two-thirds of university students in Iran were seeking degrees in the humanities.
That is what religious leaders fear the most: Education. The more educated the people is, the less power the churches have. It's that easy.
Imagine if fucking Pat Robertson were the president of the US. That's what the Iranians have to deal with
The Ayatollah is correct in one thing: humanities promotes skepticism and doubt in religious principles and beliefs. Those who study that need to view the world from an objective point of view, something very hard to do when having one's mind bound by outdated religious beliefs.
That Ayatollah and other religious leaders must be scared shitless of losing their power. Imagine that, people getting an education and challenging what they have been taught. That's dangerous!
Now, you might say that something like that would never happen in the western world. You may want to think that such disregard for education is something that only Islam can have. Yes, Islam can get very unscientific and totalitarian, and its adherents are more likely to go crazy for any reason. But Christianity is not very different. In 1925, Tennessee passed the “Butler Act”, which made it unlawful to deny the creation of man as written in the Bible. The law remained there until 1967, when it was challenged by the ACLU, an organization that the religious right dislikes a lot. Guess why.
But that wasn't the last we heard from creationism in schools, or, in other words, religious views imposed in state affairs (such as education). Earlier this year the Texas Board of Education approved the motion to study "all sides" of the theories regarding how we came to be. That puts creationism side-by-side with evolution. To the simple-minded, that might sound fair. But not for scientists, who actually know that creationism is no more than junk-science, compared to the theory of evolution.
The nutjob at the left and all of those who think like him have no idea what they are talking about.
That is the kind of crazy shit we get when we put "God" (actually, its fans) in power. Iran, that's what we get. I'm sorry for the Iranian people who really want to get and education and understand the world, but, your religious government sucks. Seriously.
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. .
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
"There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability. So whenever we talk about government and government's role, government's role is to protect life and that's what our Founding Father said, that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
[...]
"I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade."
As easy as that. If you get raped, just have the baby. It is an opportunity, as much as having lemons is an opportunity to make lemonade. Seriously, can someone in their right mind get more cynical than this? She almost makes it sound as if rape were a good thing.
Angle, who is a republican (what else?) candidate for congress, talks of her own heart-warming experience. Good for you, and for the victim of rape who had to receive your advise. But that is it. Personal experience is hardly useful, given the huge amount of "personal experiences" several people can have. That is a bit of a problem in the United States: people are overrated. They tend to think that their opinions are valid for everyone else. Someone needs to stand up and say "I'm sorry, but that is bullshit."
Women who get abortion don't do it because they like to get them. It is already a hard decision, and in the case of rape, a hard decision after a traumatic experience. If we as a society cannot stop that, the least we can do is to provide all the tools and methods available for the victims.
Finally, the God's plan. I usually tend to mock on this because of the nonsensical nature of the plan. I already explain that a God that plans for a rape to happen is a huge asshole. But in the hypothetical case that it had a plan, would we know? Seriously, how would people know that God has a plan, and furthermore, what that plan is? Exactly, no one knows.
But, wait, there are some who know, or at least claim to know. Religious people, especially religious and conservative leaders. They will tell us what God plan is, a plan that usually suits their intolerant, homophobic and misogynistic agenda. These people will brag to the four winds that the know God's plan and consider themselves real, true believers. What a bunch.
I don't know if there is a God or not. But if there is, and he is all those people say about him, I prefer hell.
Don't you love it when you get to see mainstream Christian's true colors? Don't you feel good to see that those who brag about loving the neighbor are just as, or even more bigoted than the average person? Isn't it reassuring that we are in the right path?
So, some days ago, this billboard was put up:
Pretty nice, I have to say. An excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance before the "Under God" was added during the 50s. Very harmless, also, much less than the original ad that inspired the campaign.
Of course, this won't please Christians or other believers. It's not designed to do that. But I think that no matter how displeasing something is, I don't have the right to deface it or vandalize it, just because I don't like. Apparently someone doesn't think the same. After a few days, the billboard looked like this:
Very nice. So, if you don't like what it says, just scrawl something on it, it will make the message right. Because, well, God will be pleased that someone is committing crimes to defend Him from those who don't believe in it.
Now, someone could argue that such reasoning is just something I made up in my "atheist mind" to bad mouth "real christians". I'm sorry to tell you, but, no.
While vandalism should not be condoned, these recent events shed light on what some Americans will do when they feel that their freedom of speech is threatened. An atheist spokesman in North Carolina said their message is needed to “let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”
Yet he failed to mention the concerted effort of atheist groups to stop religious Americans from freely exercising their religion. Not content with having the freedom themselves to worship or not as they see fit, militant atheists increasingly seek to shackle the beliefs of their fellow citizens through their own distorted interpretation of “separation of church and state.”
It is perhaps not surprising that some of those fellow citizens object.
So, what we have is a "yes but no" attitude that puts the blame on atheists for making efforts in speaking up. Maybe we should just stay at home and not speak of our non-belief. If we were to follow that reasoning, then I think we can go to that creationist museum and burn it down. Or go to someone who says evolution is not real and kick the crap out of him, because, well, he was asking for it.
But I'm not like that. Maybe the creationists, in their belief that their god created everything, and that such belief must be imposed by reason or force, will do it.
But there is more. Remember Mike Huckabee? The pastor who was running for president and won the republican (what else?) primaries in the redneck states? Well, this is what he said:
If people want to spend their money to tell everyone they don’t believe in God, the joy, beauty, and incredible greatness of America is that we let them do it and don’t shoot them for it… What I would hope is that people who believe, as I do, in the power of Jesus Christ like I do would put 10 billboards for every one like that.
Would it have been to fucking hard to say the vandalism shouldn't have happened? Wouldn't it have been gentlemanly to say so, even if one doesn't think so? Does this fucktard needs so desperately to appeal to his followers that he just passes the issue away and instead, hopes for something that already happens? Because, go along the road (especially in the South) and you will see much more church billboards and Jesus billboards, not to mention those put on the side of trucks.
And finally, from World Nut Daily, a columnist praises the vandalism saying it is her kind of vandalism:
Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I'll let it slide. Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot. When asked about the vandalism, William Warren, the spokesman for Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics, said, "It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation." Hmm. That's interesting, because the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics felt its only recourse was to deliberately insult those who understand the importance of "Under God."
So, and excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance is insulting? Is this girl serious? Really, you can recite the Pledge as much as you want, but to tell others how to do it by vandalizing a piece of freedom of speech is just overstepping boundaries. If you want, go put your own billboard, with "Under God" in big letters. But do you really want to vandalize it?
I don't know if would be capable to just "let it slip" if I saw someone who supported this kind of vandalism being beaten or raped. I think I appreciate humanity too much to do that without, at least, being outraged.
However, Christians, mainstream christians, christians who have lots of followers and who brag about their being so righteous would. Thank you guys. Thank you for making us non-believers understand that as much as others thing we are assholes, we can't get to your God-inspired assholery.
Thanks to the Friendly Atheist, who have been following the case.
A majority of people in Britain associate Islam with terrorism and the repression of women, a poll has shown.
The survey coincided with the launch of an advertising campaign aimed at combating negative perceptions of Muslims.
In the online poll of 2,152 UK adults, 58% of people said they associated Islam with extremism and 50% associated the world religion with terrorism.
The poll also found that 69% believe Islam encourages the repression of women.
It was organized as part of the Inspired By Muhammad campaign that will see adverts featuring pictures of Muslim professionals including TV presenter and Islam convert Kristiane Backer on the London Underground, bus stops and taxis.
Organizer the Exploring Islam Foundation said the campaign aims to highlight the Prophet Mohamed's teachings to Muslims on the importance of the environment, gender equality and social justice.
For one, this is a good campaign that aims to bring out the moderate Muslims and try to erase the image of the mad jihadist with a bomb strapped to his back. And I say "try", because it will take more than that to make that image go away.
The title of the article comes out as if it were a surprise to the readers that Islam is related with terrorism, violence and misogyny. First of all, we have to admit that there are extremists everywhere, and that no philosophy or belief is totally safe. But the problem with Islam is that it seems as if in Muslim societies, this extremism were not shunned, but condoned.
What about the Christian fundies who shoot down doctors? We can argue that’s just one of them, all the others being annoying in different levels, but more or less civilized. However, when it comes to Islam, English people might have it pretty easy relating it to terrorism and everything bad when they see this images:
Seriously, when you have a group of people demonstrating on the streets, being angry about a cartoon, or a so-called "offense", threatening with making their backwards laws the rule of the country/world, it's not just nonsensical to tolerate that, but also suicidal.
This is where liberalism fails. And just to be clear, I'm referring to the kind of liberalism that argues that every culture and human group has to be accepted, along with their practices and customs. Western society has had its flaws during the past, but along with those flaws came the idea of social justice, tolerance and human rights that most of the world share. To allow a human group that rejects and shuns those ideals is not moving forward under the idea that by allowing that culture, we are being more progressive and tolerant. On the contrary, it's moving backwards by allowing not a own group, but a foreign one hijack those ideals.
The problem is not the color of their skin, or the beards they have, or the clothes they wear. It's the divinely-inspired idea that their religion-filled culture must prevail anywhere over any other. Some Muslims might and will adapt into a society that cherishes liberal values, that's wonderful. But it is not enough.
Northern Ireland's born-again Christian culture minister has called on the Ulster Museum to put on exhibits reflecting the view that the world was made by God only several thousand years ago.
Nelson McCausland, who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel, has written to the museum's board of trustees urging them to reflect creationist and intelligent design theories of the universe's origins.
I come from a very poor South-American country which education is not great, so I may consider that the number in my country might not be different. But here we a re talking about the United States of America, the land of the free and the brave. I guess it doesn't say "of the well educated."
Norther Ireland, being part of the United Kingdom, doesn't sound like a poor country with serious education problems. Yet, it manages to have idiots like McCausland trying to push his myth-based ideas in public. Is this a joke? Is this guy a "culture minister"?
Really, I have no problems with whatever you want to believe. Praise to whoever you want, wear whatever you want (unless it's a matter of public security), put whatever you want around your neck, stop eating whatever you want. Really. But pushing beliefs that have no scientific support in public policy is total stupidity. Are these people THAT willing to believe in their myths so that they can get to compromise public education?
Nice painting. Really. It belongs in a church, or in an art gallery, or maybe in an art museum. But NEVER in am exhibition about natural history, contrasting it to evolution.
Imagine I come to you and tell you that men came out from the Titicaca Lake (located between Peru and Bolivia). That Manco Capac and Mama Ocllo (man and woman) came out from the lake and were sent by their father, the Sun God to found an empire. Imagine I tell you I truly believe this, as a fact.
It's exactly the same sensation I get when someone tells me that "God created man in six days, just thousands of years ago". Pure bullshit.
Remember that movie in which a group of cannibals killed a group of friends who were around? Well, nowadays we have our own massacre in Texas. This time, the victims were the textbooks to be used in schools, and the cannibals that slashed them, the members of the Texas Board of Education.
After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
In other words: 1. Capitalism is great, Amurricah is numbah 1!!! 2. The Founding fathers had no intention of making this a country with religious freedom 3. They were also republicans, the same kind of republicans we have today kissing big businesses asses and screwing the poor
I won’t say much about 1 and 3 (even though I should, but I’m pretty sure there are many out there who will do it better than me). But number 2 is important and must be addressed.
First of all, why is Texas so important when it comes to education and textbooks?
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks.
Which means that the editors will do what they need to do to sell to the biggest buyer. And the rest? Well, fuck the rest, Texas is bigger.
And also, more stupid:
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
First of all, it’s not a great idea to elect the board of education. When it comes to education, those who should be in charge are educators, the highest of the highest, meaning scientists, psychologists, mathematicians, linguists, etc. Not random guys that will represent the people. When it comes to policies it’s nice to represent the people, actually, it’s the best we have. But when it comes to education, people just don’t know. As a whole, they don’t know. Especially when these people will prefer to believe their favorite myth book than actual science.
This also apply when those nutjobs don’t want their bibles out of the state-given education:
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
I just found it, in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No establishment of religion, as simple as that. If the founding father had meant this to be a “christian nation” the first amendment would have read something like this:
“The Congress of the United States of America, by the power given by the Almighty God and His Only Son Jesus Christ establishes that our country in God will not prohibit free exercise of religion as meant to honor our dear Lord; will not abridge the freedom of speech, as our Lord has given us the power to speak out, or of the press, or of the people to assemble, especially in order to pray to our Lord or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Remember that at that time there was no ACLU, or American Atheists, or Freedom From Religion Foundation, or U.N. If they had wanted to make of this a Christian Nation no one would have stopped them. But they didn’t. They clearly wrote down “No establishment of religion”. Is it that hard to understand?
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”
It was defeated on a party-line vote.
After the vote, Ms. Knight said, “The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda.”
Is it that bad that the government has a neutral stand regarding to religion, giving to all of them the same rights, in other words, giving equality to them?
To the normal mind, no. But to the religious zealots who are in power (and this also applies to the catholic church) it’s very important to keep the power, even if that means inequality right in our faces.
That seems pretty un-American to me. Yet those conservatives are the ones that claim to be “patriotic” and “all American”.
I bet the conservatives would be up in arms and forming Tea Parties if the Democrats had cut out some historical figure. But that’s what the conservatives just did:
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
Oh come on. So these people just erase part of history, just erase part of a great idea so that their favorite myths book isn't displaced from education? What was I thinking when coming to this country and thinking I wound find a place in which knowledge and science and social liberties were cherished and respected? There is still so much work to do. Conservative ideas might have really good things to offer, but since they come usually entangled with such unscientific views and hypocritical positions, it is just hard to take them seriously.
Finally, Professor Eugenie Scott explains how Creationism is still crazy after all these years. Also she explains what is the position scientists have regarding this issue. She also talks about the influence Texas has.
