I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said:
Evolution is a theory
Creation is a fact
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said:
Evolution is a theory
Creation is a fact
There’s a lot of talk around the world, especially at Christmas time, about the baby Jesus. We know about his parents, when and where he was born (though the “when” is a subject of some debate), and who his early friends were (cows, sheep, drummer boy, wise men). We also know a lot about the adult Jesus — his teachings, miracles, and of course his death (and beyond). But there’s twenty-odd years in between that we don’t hear much about.
Jesus must have been a toddler as one point, and he likely had tantrums like any other toddler, though my kids’ tantrums never caused plagues or rivers to turn to blood or anything. How do you give him a bath when he can walk on the bathwater? Gail and I have enough trouble with Nicholas thinking the world revolves around him; what if everyone else believed it did too? I’m guessing he’d win every game of “my dad is better than your dad”.
Here’s a scary thought — what about the teenager Jesus? Turning water into wine would make him popular at high school parties. Did he ever say “I don’t have to listen to you Joseph, you’re not even my real father”?
On the other hand, it would make grocery shopping a lot easier: “We’re out of loaves and fishes. Jesus honey, would you mind… that’s great, thanks.”
Thank you, thank you very much. You’ve been great. I’m here all week.
This is just too funny. What’s the best way to show people what happens when they become Christian and take Jesus into their heart? Why, you electrocute a pickle, of course! Just try to watch this without laughing out loud. I certainly couldn’t.
While looking over the videos for my previous posting on atheism, I saw another video that appeals to “college-educated, intelligent Christians” to use their education and intelligence to scientifically analyze their faith. There are a number of questions asked (your standard “If God loves us all, why do bad things happen to good people?” and “Why are there so many starving children in the world?” as well as a clever one I hadn’t thought of before, but I’ll get back to that one later), and Christians are asked to answer the questions while thinking logically and scientifically. Most of the time, there is no good answer other than your standard “God works in mysterious ways” or “God must have a reason for all the suffering”. However, when you make the initial assumption that God is imaginary and then go through the questions again, suddenly there are answers that make sense. Bad things happen to good people by chance. Children are starving in Africa because they live in a place where it is difficult to grow food and the people and countries are too poor to be able to import enough for everyone — essentially, there is suffering and starvation because not enough is being done to prevent it. The “inescapable” conclusion is that God is imaginary. However, the video isn’t done there. It keeps going and in my opinion, goes too far.
This video attempts to demonstrate by use of logic that God does not exist. (Of course, they have done no such thing here, they’ve just shown that if you assume that God doesn’t exist, all of these particular questions have a logical answer. This isn’t proof of anything.) But the video goes one step further and asks why it is important to do this. They say that it’s important because there are millions (if not billions) of people around the world who believe in God, talk to God, and ask questions of God. If God is imaginary then these people, the vast majority of the world, are all delusional. According to some stats I’ve heard, something like 95% of the world’s population believes in God in one form or another. It’s one thing to say that you believe something different from 95% of the world, but quite another to say that anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe is delusional.
Secondly, by specifically targeting Christians with a college education, the video’s producers imply that anyone without a college degree is too stupid to understand what the video is saying. This is untrue and just a touch insulting.
Finally, the fatal flaw in this video is that it ironically uses exactly the same faulty logic that many creationists do. There are things that happen in the universe that don’t make sense given our current level of scientific knowledge. Creationists frequently point at these questions, saying that because we can’t answer these questions, the underlying scientific assumptions we’ve made must be false, and so God must have done it all. These questions are unanswered simply because we don’t know enough about the universe to answer them all. It’s even possible that human intelligence is simply not capable of understanding some of the intricacies of the universe. This doesn’t mean that what we’ve learned already is untrue. This video says exactly the same thing, but in reverse — here are some questions that we don’t know the answer to, and because the answers we currently have make no sense, the underlying premise behind them must be false. The logic is just as faulty here.
The clever and interesting question I mentioned above was “Why won’t God heal amputees?” You hear about so-called faith healers, who heal the sick with just a touch. But every now and again, you hear about someone whose cancerous tumour mysteriously disappeared, or a blind person who can suddenly see, or some other “miraculous” case of a sick person being healed through prayer. In some of these cases, the medical community is completely baffled, and so many claim this as proof of God’s existence. But there has never once been a case of an amputee miraculously regrowing limbs. Why not? We’ve already got the question of why God would heal some sick people and not others, but now it’s more specific — why will God heal cancer patients and blind people and ignore amputees? Of course, the fact that we don’t know the answer to this question means precisely nothing, but it’s an interesting question nonetheless.
The simple truth is that it is not possible to prove that God does not exist. There’s always the possibility that He’s out there somewhere, fudging test results to keep Himself hidden. Why would He do this? I dunno, but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t have a good reason. It is, and will always be, a matter of faith. I have written on numerous occasions before that I am an atheist. But I don’t think that people who are not atheists are all delusional or stupid, we simply believe different things. I’m a Jays fan, but I don’t think that Yankees fans are stupid, we just believe different things — neither one of us is wrong. Well, I guess either God exists or He doesn’t, so either atheists or theists are wrong, but since we don’t (and probably can’t) know which group is wrong, it doesn’t really matter.
I’ve read two interesting and somewhat related posts in the last couple of days, one on Boing Boing and the other on Slashdot. The first was about how scientists have now actually witnessed evolution in a lab. Scientists have been watching some E. coli bacteria in a lab for twenty years, through over 44,000 generations. They have noticed that around the 31,500th generation, some of the bacteria suddenly gained an ability that E. coli generally doesn’t have (something about metabolising citrate — I won’t even pretend that I understand the details). They managed to “replay” the evolution using saved samples of the bacteria, and found that something happened about 10,000 generations earlier that allowed this mutation to take place. The quote at the end: “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.“
The other is a old video of some nutbag explaining to former actor and current evangelist Kirk Cameron why the banana is “the atheist’s nightmare” because “it is so perfectly suited to the human hand” and therefore must have been designed by God. This is just too funny. Here is another funny video saying that peanut butter proves that evolution is false, because:
Wow, got me convinced. If that ain’t scientific proof, I don’t know what is. Oh wait, a couple of quick questions — has anyone ever examined every jar of peanut butter ever created for any microscopic form of life that was spontaneously created? Because we know that if evolution is true, then the form of life that might be spontaneously created from matter and energy would be a single cell. Evolution does not say that you might open a jar of peanut butter to find a chihuahua or a platypus inside. Also, peanut butter has been around for about a hundred years, while the universe is billions of years old. Have we waited long enough to say that it’s definitely not going to happen? Not to mention the obvious point that even if evolution is true, the possibility of this happening inside a jar of peanut butter is so low that the fact that you haven’t seen it happen is not proof that it can’t.
Speaking as an atheist, I can honestly say I have never had a nightmare involving either bananas or peanut butter. I ate a banana just the other day and quite enjoyed it. Cut one up, pour a little milk on it and sprinkle a touch of sugar, quite a nice little snack. I had an English muffin with peanut butter tonight when I got home from baseball. And ironically combining both nightmares, I used to love peanut butter and banana sandwiches when I was a kid.
Well, folks, here it is — the encyclopedia you’ve been waiting for if you’re afraid of the truth and want to live in your own little everything-is-wonderful world. It’s called Conservapedia.com, “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”. I don’t even know where to start with this one. It’s wikipedia except they abandoned the Neutral Point of View concept, and decide to write everything from a conservative Christian point of view (which is fine), but then treat that point of view as fact (which is not). Its criticisms of Wikipedia are funny — a Wikipedia article can present all kinds of facts about something like homosexuality, but because it doesn’t explicitly say “Homosexuality is immoral” or “wrong” or “an abomination”, they view this as an endorsement and therefore Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Because you are allowed to describe years and time periods using BCE/CE in place of BC/AD, Wikipedia has an anti-religious bias. Because you are allowed to use British English rather than American English on pages about British topics, Wikipedia has an anti-American bias.
The articles use all kinds of faulty logic — how can evolution be true if smart people like Archimedes, Aristotle, and Isaac Newton didn’t propose such a theory? Plus, Hitler believed in evolution. A quote even hints that Hitler’s evolutionary beliefs caused him to believe that Germans were superior to other races, and that Jews were to be segregated. Ergo, if you believe in evolution, you are evil. Also, atheism is obviously evil because Stalin, Lenin, and Karl Marx were atheists. And of course, the old standby, “If science cannot currently conclusively prove something, it must be false” (eg. evolution, the Big Bang, a genetic basis for homosexuality). Yup, definitely trustworthy.
Here are some “trustworthy” “facts” that I learned from Conservapedia:
Obviously there are going to be articles that have incorrect facts on them; I’m sure you could go through Wikipedia and find plenty of incorrect information. However, the article on homosexuality has thirty-five sections, 290 references, and at least two thousand edits. It’s not like someone added some incorrect or misleading information — many people have. The virginity page doesn’t even mention sex, but to give an accurate description of what virginity is would require actually discussing sex, and we can’t have that, now can we? In order to “protect” people from a description of sex (and come on people, this can be done without an explicit description of how it is performed), they choose to publish something that is patently untrue. And I’m supposed to take this site seriously?
The Conservapedia article on Wikipedia is also particularly “trustworthy”. The following quotes all take place within the opening two paragraphs of the article:
There’s even a page on how Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia. One of the 16 listed reasons is: “We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.” This is laughable, since Conservapedia not only allows but encourages conservative censorship of liberal facts, though I suppose they are up-front about it. Also, they treat the Bible and biblical scholars as a source of “facts” and conveniently ignore scientists whose findings don’t agree with their agenda.
Do I want my kids perusing Wikipedia? To be honest, no. There are indeed explicit and disturbing pictures on some pages, as well as explicit descriptions of things that an 8-year-old and a 5-year-old really do not need to have described to them. However, Conservapedia, while family-friendly, presents opinions as facts, and tries to spin homophobia, general intolerance, and anything that disagrees with their beliefs (however misguided) as “faith”. Faith has as much to do with hating gay people as Islam has to do with murdering Americans. A few extremist crackpots ruin it for the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, and similarly, the people who created this site are simply Christian extremists teaching hate and masquerading it as faith. I won’t let my kids anywhere near this site until they are old enough to be able to distinguish facts from bullshit presented as facts.
A few scattered things…
In the past couple of years, I’ve actually hoped that the Leafs wouldn’t make the playoffs, so that this would send a clear signal to the Leafs’ management that serious changes needed to be made, not just little tweaks here and there. They’ve missed the playoffs two years running now, but nothing really significant has been done, so this year, I’m hoping the Leafs miss the playoffs again so that management is replaced. Ferguson has done a lousy job of building this team, so he needs to be sent packing. I’m hoping that Tannenbaum et al have noticed the dramatic changes in the Raptors after they went out and got Bryan Colangelo (last year’s NBA Executive of the Year); maybe that will force them to rethink the Leafs’ situation. Rather than just getting some guy to run the Leafs, they need to go out and get the guy — someone with a proven track record who is not afraid to blow the team up and rebuild. I have no idea who the guy is (would Lou Lamoriello ever leave New Jersey?), but Ferguson just ain’t getting the job done.
Wil Wheaton has a new book out called “The Happiest Days of our Lives”, which is a collection of some of his best blog entries, and talking about the best blog entries on Wil’s blog is really saying something. I ordered the book a few weeks ago, and shortly after, Wil (I call him “Wil” like he’s a friend of mine) complained that the Canadian orders had to be processed by hand, and he was doing it himself (Monolith Press, who’s publishing the book, is Wil’s own publishing company). Lo and behold, my book arrived last week, and the envelope had a customs sticker on it signed by Wil himself. It’s not an autographed book, but pretty close…
When I first got my iPod, I spent a month putting all my music on it, and as an afterthought, I subscribed to a couple of podcasts. Since then, I’ve found that my main use for the iPod is listening to these podcasts on my way to and from work every day. I don’t know how I’d manage this if I didn’t have a 45-minute-each-way commute. Since you asked (lookin’ at you, CaHwyGuy), here are my podcasts:
I have also downloaded, listened to, and enjoyed a couple of audiobooks from audible.com. So far, I have only listened to audiobooks from guys named Stephen: Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” and Colbert’s “I Am America (And So Can You)”. Just the title of that second one is enough to make me giggle, and the rest of the book is also very funny; I literally laughed out loud on numerous occasions while listening to it.
I found this on Boing Boing, and could not stop laughing. Author John Scalzi has written a review of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which is a museum that promotes “young Earth” creationism, i.e. the Bible is literally true, and the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days about 6000 years ago. The other things that these young Earth creationists also believe are mind-boggling:
The whole creationist thing seems to come from the dizzying logic that “the Bible must be true because it’s the word of God. How do we know it’s the word of God? It says so in the Bible.” It’s best explained by this.