Dumbass Quote Of Note - Kenneth Smith

"While denying the Plaintiff’s accurate scientific mathematical system of genetic variations that proves evolution is a religion, it will benefit our government economically and efficiently increase our judicial and law enforcement departments in many ways." - Kenneth Smith

Satan And Evolution

According to Sun Myung Moon "The theory of evolution is a satanic theory".

Here is more from Sun Myung Moon:

The theory of evolution is declining and Father absolutely rejects it. Because in order to advance, there must be give and take between plus and minus. There is no way a lower creation, like an amoeba can advance to a higher level.

There are two types of bird which seem exactly the same. They are the same size and have the same bone structure, only their color is a little different. Lets say these two birds get married. Can they lay eggs? It is not possible. Even though they look so similar, they are different types. God made a division of the seed between species. He protects each one with absolute clarity. The theory of evolution is a satanic theory. Father emphasizes that love proceeds multiplication in heading toward the destiny of the love of God. Without the love of God no creature could exist on the face of the earth.

Father already said evolution was wrong. Another argument going on these days is also wrong. People are asking the question, which came first-concept or reality? This is another thing Father is teaching the Korean audiences. For example, when the eye was created, did it know that sunlight would exist? No, it was made by some Will to see the sunlight. Who had that knowledge? The eye itself? No. This same "somebody" knew an eyelash would be needed to keep dust out of the eye and also that tears would be necessary to keep the eyes from drying out. The creator had the concept of how all parts would fit together in the whole. This shows that concept was first. Father's conclusion is that God exists.

I have no idea what he means when he talks about the "give and take between plus and minus". I didn't know that birds got married. Perhaps if the two birds had sex one of them might lay an egg. Because "Father" knows absolutely nothing about evolution he concludes that God exists.

TalkOrigins has a response to Sun Myung Moon:

1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.
3. Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.
4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.
5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.
6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.
7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

I agree with TalkOrigins. I also think that Jerry Coyne and Greg Graffin think the same way. Morals come from people because of evolutionary biology, not gods or the Bible. It is in our own self-interest to survive. If everyone was totally "evil" we would wipe out the human race, or so much of it that the only humans left would always be trying to kill one another. This is not a very useful model for existence. Having sex and babies and caring for and cooperating with one another is what keeps the human race from going extinct. In other words moral behaviour benefits the continuation of the species.

"Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral." I think this is worth repeating. Religions foment bigotry. Many religious people do not want to contemplate this.

"Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others" is a wonderful expression. It so perfectly describes the religious, especially how the religious feel and think about atheists. I realize that this how the religious view atheists, especially the atheists that they label as militant. I do not believe that this view is correct. Atheists simply don't believe in any gods. Nothing more and nothing less. Some may be immoral, some may have differing political views and so on. But there are other labels for those things. Some atheists argue very vigorously about their lack of belief. I don't know of any who believe that someone who believes in a god is evil and immoral and should and will be condemned to eternal hellfire. The same cannot be said of theists.

One Reason Why I Am Anti-Religion

In the jargon of the blogosphere, PZ Myers nails it.

From Will we ever stop running away from the source of the problem? by PZ Myers:

This story about the struggles of a high school biology teacher in Florida is depressing. David Campbell, the teacher, is a hero — but it's the kind of hero sent off to suffer and fail in a misplaced struggle, who dutifully falls in battle, a victim of bad leadership and poor strategy. It's the same old tactics the educational bureaucracy has been pushing for 50 years or more: tip-toe gently about the subject of religion, never challenge the idiocy students bring into the classroom with them, always strain to allow them to accommodate science to their personal superstitions…which means pretending that science doesn't directly contradict their cherished myths. It doesn't work and has never worked, and the problem gets worse and worse every year.

Throughout the story, the teacher is striving to be respectful to religion (he's an Anglican himself) while the students are being arrogant dumbasses who refuse to listen to this evolution stuff. There is a villain here, but the article doesn't point a finger directly, nor does David Campbell place the blame: but the willfully anti-science students are victims of church and dogma. It's gotten so bad that it's not just parents and students who are opposing good science education, it's some of the teachers themselves. One of Campbell's fellow biology teachers is busily inculcating students with stupidity, too.

Animals do adapt to their environments, Ms. Yancey tells her students, but evolution alone can hardly account for the appearance of wholly different life forms. She leaves it up to them to draw their own conclusions. But when pressed, she tells them, "I think God did it."

Mr. Campbell was well aware of her opinion. "I don't think we have this great massive change over time where we go from fish to amphibians, from monkeys to man," she once told him. "We see lizards with different-shaped tails, we don't see blizzards—the lizard bird."

That that woman is a public school science teacher is an indictment of the educational system in this country. We can tell right away what has made her stupid, though: I think God did it. She's been infected with religion.

Read the rest here.

Religion, by definition, stomps on the smoldering embers of critical, factual thinking of the youngest among us until the embers are dead. It is not always possible to ignite them again, and most of those among us spend their lives in the dark. They become “sheep” following some of the most insane “shepherds” the world has to offer.

Why does this trouble me? Because I must live in this world with them. They undermine our educational system, as PZ Myers points out. Also, they are responsible for violent leaders like George W. Bush coming to power. How many atheists do you suppose voted for Bush? My guess would be none.

Religion is a dangerous disease.

A Conversation Between An Evolutionist And A Creationist

From Evolution VS Creationism: LET THIS BE OUR FINAL BATTLE by Bryan J. Ibeas:

Some of the people bring up valid questions about the burden of proof, etc. And they are quite right in their assertion that some evolutionists can be quite dogmatic and narrow-minded. But the vast majority of the arguments from the creationist side follow this pattern:

Creationist: Please present me with persuasive evidence for evolution.

Evolutionist: Okay. Happy to help! Here's this, this, this, that, this, and also this. And that. And this. And read this too, it's very good. And that. And this. And that.

Creationist: I read something by another scientist that all of those things you brought up were wrong.

Evolutionist: I know what you're talking about, and in fact it's been proven by this and this and this (ad nauseum) that the scientist you're referring to is mistaken and also an idiot.

Creationist: You still haven't given me persuasive evidence for evolution.

Evolutionist: I already sent you about a million things.

Creationsist: I have no interest in actually examining/do not understand any of the evidence you have shown me, therefore in my eyes it is not valid. Please send me something valid.

Evolutionist: WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME???!!!

Ugh.

The Truth Shall Not Be Expelled

From Creation, Power and Violence by Blake Stacey:

Yet today, even in a country which prides itself on a long list of freedoms, speaking the plain, factual truth of the world is a sure way to win oneself ire, derision and abuse.

Both history and current events teach us that forces of prejudice and inequity oppose the dissemination of truth to certain sectors of society.

The plain truth I’m talking about is the biological principle of evolution. The single most powerful idea in biology, this discovery has withstood decades of criticism to emerge triumphant as one of the most well-checked propositions in human history. Learn about evolution, and you can go to work on diseases, or help find out where species both living and extinct fit into the family tree of life. You can understand the living world, and help preserve human life within it.

Open your mouth about evolution around the wrong people, though, and you can find yourself harassed, ejected from your job and even beaten in the street.

Read the rest here, and you will find a long list of people who have been harassed for speaking the truth. I wonder if Ben Stein cares about their rights.

Science And Morality

From Ben Stein and Darwin: Truth is what matters by Mark C. Chu-Carroll:

People will always find ways to justify horrible things. Just look at the headlines here in the US over the last week about torture. We'll find ways of justifying the things we want to justify. But justifications don't change facts. Evolution is a theory that does an amazing job of describing a piece of the world. Whether it's used to justify something evil doesn't change that. If it's true, it's true. And no amount of ranting about the horrible things that it supposedly motivated can change that. In the end, the truth is the truth. Evolution is true - whether Hitler, or the Janjaweed in Sudan, or eugenicists in America choose to use it to justify their actions doesn't change that. It's still true.

The whole Darwin-to-Hitler link in Stein's wretched little movie is a totally meaningless exercise. It's a line of pure and utter bullshit, and even if we were to accept it as absolute truth, it would be irrelevant. Truth and morality are two different things.