Quote of the Day

I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition ‘of new powers and attributes and forces,’ or of any ‘principle of improvement, except in so far as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. . . I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.

- Charles Darwin

God’s Divine Plan

Wonder what happened to “The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker”? Well, he went and got himself a number of angels with which to discuss his plans to sacrifice himself to himself to end all blood sacrifice. His angels didn’t really feel that idea, though, and suggested… You know what? Just watch the whole thing yourselves.

[youtube]zOfjkl-3SNE[/youtube]

I’ve been asking for answers to these questions for years now. If I’d know they where right there on Youtube, I wouldn’t have bothered all those Christians about it.

Salvation

When Langston was twelve years old, he was saved. His aunt assumed this meant Langston had seen Jesus, but for Langston himself it was a bit different.

My aunt told me that when you were saved you saw a light, and something happened to you inside! And Jesus came into your life! And God was with you from then on! She said you could see and hear and feel Jesus in your soul. I believed her. I had heard a great many old people say the same thing and it seemed to me they ought to know. So I sat there calmly in the hot, crowded church, waiting for Jesus to come to me.

The whole essay can be found here, and I recommend it greatly.

The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker

[youtube]IVbnciQYMiM#[/youtube]

From now on, I expect all theists who don’t consider themselves lazy to refer to their chosen deity as “The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker and that causes and directs the events that we can’t otherwise explain and doesn’t need to have been made and is the one thing from which you can ask for things that no human can give and without whom we can’t be fully happy and is unlimited by all the laws of physics and never began and will never finish and is invisible but actually everywhere at once and who is so perfect that even if he killed millions of people including babies he’d still be perfect and who could even make a virgin pregnant if he wanted to“, and nothing else.

If there’s a garden, doesn’t that imply a gardener?

This interesting little story makes it abundantly clear what the differences are between believers and skeptics.

Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, ‘It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.’ The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The sceptic doesn’t agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all.

The Parable of the Invisible Gardener was originally told by British philosopher John Wisdom. It highlights the lack of necessity of falsifiability in believer’s minds, and how faith can be adapted to explain away any and all problems that threaten one’s own theories. Where skeptics must, often against their will, accept fact, someone who takes something on faith must not. They can simply decide to believe whatever they want, regardless of proof or evidence.

Open-mindedness

[youtube]T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]

Quote of the Day

Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.

- Adam Smith (1723-90) Scottish economist. The Wealth of Nations, 1776.

A Skeptical Dissent from Steve

Sometimes you hear about all the scientists who supposedly don’t agree with what the theory of evolution suggests, and you think “hmm… If there are plenty of really smart people who doubt evolution, maybe I should too?” Sure, why not? I mean, we trust these people with everything else, so when they doubt something, they probably have really good reason to.

Enter “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism“, a petition signed by over 700 scientists who disagree with the popular position that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best, or even the only possible, theory. Wow, that sounds serious. Over a period of several years, scientists from all over the world have expressed their opinion on evolution, “a theory in crisis” ((“Evolution: A Theory In Crisis” by Michael Denton)). Now, what are the rest of us going to think, those of us who trust that scientists do support evolution?

Well, there’s always “A Scientific Support for Darwinism“, a counter-petition signed by 7733 scientists in only four days, as opposed to the 700 dissenters over a period of several years. Or, if you like a challenge, “Project Steve“. Project Steve lists only those who support evolution and are named Steve, Stephanie or any foreign variation of the name. Even with those limits, they have 1080 signatories as of March 26th, 2009.

Not content with that, there’s also the fact that both the supporter petition and the Steve project contain a higher ratio of biologists than the creationist counter-part. Of course, everyone is allowed their opinion. However, if you want to present your opinion as fact, you better be sure you know what you’re talking about.

So the next time someone tells you that there’s great controversy regarding the theory of evolution, or that there are many scientists who don’t agree with Darwin’s original theory, be skeptical. Be skeptical of those who try to refute science with religion. Be skeptical of those who don’t draw conclusions from evidence, but seek evidence in support of the conclusions. Be skeptical of those who claim to be skeptical, but really aren’t.

To end things, I don’t suggest that we accept the theory of evolution simply because a majority say so, but the numbers are there to interpret anyway: 700 dissenters, of which many aren’t even active in fields relevant to evolution, versus 955,300 biologists in the United States alone ((A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism: Expertise relevance)), who presumably all support the theory of evolution.

Good News, Everyone!

Good news, everyone! Texan school kids won’t be forced to consider “alternatives” as if they are equally valid compared to established, actually scientific, theories.

Yes, the scientific method encourages questioning and skepticism, but for a whole other reason than proposed by Creationism/ID supporters. Those people have already reached their conclusion beforehand, and they’re actually also telling you not to question that conclusion. Instead, they question the scientific conclusion, as well as the methods used, in order to validate their own, unquestioned, hypothesis. This isn’t scientific, and this is why Intelligent Design isn’t science.

Evolution is not “just a theory”. Creationism and Intelligent Design, however, are.

Quote(s) of the Day

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also add that some things are more nearly certain than others.

- Bertrand Russel, “Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?

I had to make this a double, this one was just too good to pass up.

If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.

- Tom Peters