Archive for April, 2008

« Older Entries

Natural Selection and Eugenics, part 2

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

A reader called Ashlea has replied to my post Natural Selection and Eugenics with this comment:

I fully believe that what Hitler did WAS Eugenics. And Darwinism is a direct link to this and other things. By eliminating a God and a creator, you really do eliminate the value of human life. If one believe that firstly, he was out on this earth by some cosmic accident, that his life is nothing more than to live and to die, and that after he does there is nothing left, no after life, what value does it have? So of course people are going to look at the "evolution" of people from mud or apes or whatever the case, and they are going to try to "perfect" it. If human life is NO more valuable that the life of an animal, which why would if be if we were once animals, and we have no soul, then what is the harm in picking and choosing and killing??
It has also led to other things, such as euthanasia and abortion. If life is as valueless as Darwinism suggests, then why not just kill of the ones who are "useless"?
What we need to realize is that Yes! We were created by an Intelligent Designer. Look at what trying to prove this wrong has done??? Resulted in the death of Millions of innocent people, people with a purpose in life.

I had started to reply with a comment there, but the reply was getting too long, so… a new post it is. :)

Ashlea: I’m sorry, but you are guilty of several common mistakes there. I’ll try to enumerate them:

I fully believe that what Hitler did WAS Eugenics.

No argument there (although it has been argued by some that the Holocaust wasn’t really done to perfect humanity, but because Hitler envied the Jews.)

And Darwinism is a direct link to this and other things.

Here I can’t agree. Both Dawkins’ quote in my post and my own follow-up to it clearly explained that eugenics is simply an attempt to apply the millennia old selective breeding of animals to humans — which is artificial selection, and has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution (not "Darwinism", but that’s a subject for another post), which is based on natural selection.

By eliminating a GOd and a creator, you really do eliminate the value of human life.

I disagree, and such a thing has never been proved. You’ll note that virtually everyone who says "without God, life is pointless" is a believer… and if they were right, then atheists would be sad, nihilistic, suicidal people who saw no point to anything. That is, of course, not the case at all. In other words: only the people who need an external justification for their lives believe that such an external justification is universally needed. Forgive me for the harsh comparison, but this is like an addict who claims that nobody could ever live happily and healthily without the drug.

Besides, even if you were right, and life were pointless without a god, it would not follow that a god would exist. Something is not more likely to be true simply because the consequences of it being false "would be bad". Please see this entry in my FAQ for more details.

If human life is NO more valuable that the life of an animal, which why would if be if we were once animals, and we have no soul, then what is the harm in picking and choosing and killing??
It has also led to other things, such as euthanasia and abortion. If life is as valueless as Darwinism suggests, then why not just kill of the ones who are "useless"?

Again, you are confusing two separate things. Darwinian evolution describes how things work, now how people ought to behave — and neither Darwin nor modern biologists advocate eugenics (which, again, is artificial selection, and which humanity has performed on animals and plants for ages).

You also imply that human life is only worth anything if we have something known as "souls". This is the old argument: theists claim that a finite life is worthless; I say that its finite quality only makes it more precious, more worthy of being lived to the fullest. And, look — I care for other people even though I don’t believe they have supernatural, immortal "souls"! Isn’t this weird, according to your way of seeing things?

I’d also argue that euthanasia and abortion arise from respect for human life and dignity, not from lack of it, but that’s another story.

To conclude, most of your comment was an appeal to consequences. You didn’t try to show either how evolution doesn’t happen, or how intelligent design does; you just claimed that, if evolution is true, "things would be bad", therefore it must be false, and intelligent design wins "by default". Sorry to say, but that’s not very convincing…

P.S. – I’m glad you didn’t use the "Hitler and Stalin did what they did because they didn’t believe in God, therefore they thought they could do anything" argument. My reply to that one would have been a lot less nice… :)

Posted in evolution, intelligent design | 8 Comments »

"Just a theory"

Sunday, April 27th, 2008

The Intelligent Design proponents make a compelling, and totally legitimate, argument that if a theory has not been proven, then one suggested theory is just as good as another.

Take gravity, for example: the force of attraction between massive particles. We know a great deal about the properties of gravity, yet we know nothing about the cause of the force itself. Why are particles attracted to one another? If we review the literature, we find a lot of material dealing with the properties of gravity, but very little dealing with the underlying cause of this attraction. Until we have a proven answer to this question, it seems irresponsible to instruct students in what is, ultimately, just a theory. However, if we must discuss the theory of gravity at all, then it’s reasonable that all suggested theories should be given equal time, since none have been proven or disproven. Therefore, I formally submit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind this strange and often misunderstood force.

What if it is He, pushing us down with His Noodly Appendages, that causes this force? He is invisible, remember, and is undetectable by current instruments, so in theory it is possible. And the fact that the gravitational powers of the Spaghetti Monster haven’t been disproven makes it all the more likely to be true. We can only guess as to His motives, but it’s logical to assume that if He is going to such trouble, there is a good reason. It could be that He doesn’t want us floating off earth into space, or maybe just that He enjoys touching us — we may never know.

– Bobby Henderson, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Posted in humor, intelligent design | 3 Comments »

Just when you think they can’t sink any lower…

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

… they put up a sign like this:

obamaosama

From the article:

Pastor Byrd says the sign is not meant to be racial or political but rather to make people think.  “His name is so close to Osama I have a feeling he might be Islamic therefore he doesn’t recognize Christ,” Pastor Byrd said.

and:

Pastor Byrd told News Channel 7 he would ask his congregation to vote on whether to keep the sign.  They voted unanimously to keep the sign up Sunday night.

Jonesville Church of God does not have any African American members.

You know what really infuriates me about this? Not that these assholes do this, but that it works. A good percentage of Americans probably “have a feeling” that Obama might be a Muslim, simply because of his name. How stupid can you get?

(via Friendly Atheist)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in bigotry, christianity, politics, racism, stupidity | 5 Comments »

U.S. Elections and Pokémon

Monday, April 21st, 2008

uselections-pokemon

Apparently it’s from Fark. Funny, especially if you know the Pokémon games. :)

It begins with “You encountered McCain!”. If you catch it in the middle, just force a refresh of the page to see it from the beginning.

Posted in humor, politics, video games | 5 Comments »

Natural Selection and Eugenics

Monday, April 21st, 2008

Richard Dawkins has posted an open reply to a letter from a Jew deceived by Expelled, who believed the propaganda movie’s absurd claims without any fact checking. I suggest you read Dawkins’ reply in full, of course, but the subject of this post is this part in particular:

Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin’s great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realize that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: “natural selection”, the “survival of the fittest”. Hitler didn’t apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler’s eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

This, in retrospect, is obvious, but I hadn’t seen it explained so succinctly and clearly before. Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution! Animal (and even plant) breeders have known about selective breeding for millennia (indeed, I think it’s even mentioned in the Christian Bible), ages before Darwin or the concept of the evolution of species. Anyone who breeds dogs, horses, birds, etc. knows perfectly well that you can cross specimens with particular characteristics to achieve desired results (say, a new hair or plumage color, or a bigger or smaller animal, or one with other specific characteristics). This can be seen as artificial selection.

Darwin’s new idea was: what if something like this also happens in nature, without intervention? And what if that is how the species in the world today have came to be? In other words: evolution, by natural selection.

Eugenics (the attempt to “perfect” the human race according to one’s beliefs or preferences) has nothing to do with natural selection. It’s simply an attempt to apply the ages old selective breeding of animals to humans.

Of course, I’m not even considering blaming animal breeders from thousands of years ago for the Holocaust. That would simply be ridiculous. But blaming something completely unrelated (Darwinian evolution) for it is even more ridiculous. Eugenics is a disgusting distortion of selective breeding (which is itself blameless for eugenics); it’s completely unrelated to evolution / natural selection.

And, when you should know better than to say such an absurdity (as some filmmakers do), it’s also a dangerous, evil lie.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in definitions, evolution | 12 Comments »

How to link to a site without supporting it

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

This is something many readers have probably known about for ages, but since this blog may appeal to non-technical people, this may still be of help to some.

Reading Planet Atheism, from time to time I see someone mentioning an “enemy” site (say, one by creationists, or liars… but I had no need to say it twice), and saying something such as “I’d link to that site / page / article, but I don’t want to support it.”

While this is perfectly understandable, it may also be counterproductive not to direct your readers to what you’re talking about. In other words, what you probably want is to show your current readers that page, but not “support” it, in terms of having a permanent link to it which will be picked up by search engines such as Google. To search engines, a link is akin to a “vote of confidence”; indeed, a huge part of search engine optimization is getting other sites to link to yours.

So, what if you don’t want to promote a site, but still want to show it to your readers? Easy: you use the rel="nofollow" parameter.

A normal link goes like this:

<a href="http://www.wayofthemind.org/">Way of the Mind</a>

While a link you don’t want search engines to pick up as a vote of confidence goes like this:

<a href="http://www.expelledthemovie.com/" rel="nofollow">Creationist anti-science dishonest ad-hitlerum propaganda</a>

See the difference? With the second method, you can show a site to your readers, but not improve its ranking in search engines.

Of course, if your site is hugely popular (think Pharyngula), the simple fact that your “army” of readers visits that site may be seen as “promotion”… but, then again, if you’re pointing out a site filled with wrong claims, attacks, lies, and so on, your regular readers are unlikely to turn into regular visitors of that site (unless they want a good laugh, of course).

Tags:
Posted in blogging, way of the mind (site) | Comments Off

Hitchens on Religion, Dogs and Cats

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

If we stay with animal analogies for a moment, owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will draw the conclusion that they are god. (Cats may sometimes share the cold entrails of a kill with you, but this is just what a god might do if he was in a good mood.) Religion, then, partakes of equal elements of the canine and the feline. It exacts maximum servility and abjection, requiring you to regard yourself as conceived and born in sin and owing a duty to a stern creator. But in return, it places you at the center of the universe and assures you that you are the personal object of a heavenly plan.

– Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist (introduction)

Posted in books, quotes, religion | 3 Comments »

Denial of Evolution and "the word of God"

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

If you’ve ever debated creationists, you’ve probably heard a version of this argument:

Scientists say evolution is true and the Earth is old, but they’re only human and fallible. Between them and God’s word (the Bible), I’d trust God any day.

But how do they know the Bible is God’s word?

An incredible large number of believers will say something like, “well, it says so right in there! Would God lie?”. Sorry to say this, but that is such a ridiculously stupid argument that I can have no respect for you as an human being afterwards. Do realize how idiotic it is to say that something must be true simply because it says so? Would you believe a murder suspect with a lot of evidence against him to be innocent, as long as he said “I didn’t do it, and I’m telling the truth“? If you believe that, then, well, (inspiring music) know henceforth that this blog is the very word of the High God, the more-supreme-than-supreme being who created all human gods, including yours (after all, nothing can exist without being created, so someone must have created Yahweh and so on, right? The High God did it. Ignore the obvious implication.). Therefore, you must believe everything written here, since these are not just my words, but the words of the High God himself. The High God wants you to send me a billion dollars. You doubt it? Are you calling the High God himself a liar?

A slightly smaller number of believers will reply with something much like “I feel in my heart that this is the word of God. When I read it, it touches my soul in a way that no mortal words ever could.”

Well, what if you’re mistaken?

What, you believe you can’t be? Do you consider yourself infallible? Perfect? Incapable of error about something like this? Are you claiming that, just because you “feel” something, those feelings must be true, with no possibility of your being just mistaken or deluded?

Then what about all the other people out there who feel things completely different than you? How do you know you’re right and they’re wrong? How can you be sure your feelings are 100% trustworthy, but those of other people are not?

Most people would agree that claiming “I can’t possibly be wrong; I am incapable of error” is the epitome of arrogance. Then why is it that nobody is called on it when the subject is the belief that a book (written thousands of years ago) must be the word of a god? Or that the feelings in your heart must be justified (even though that is not valid for other people’s feelings)?

Admit it: there’s no way to be sure that the Bible is divinely inspired, other than one of the two: dumb circular logic you wouldn’t accept for anything else, or the belief that you’re infallible about something.

More on this: The Aura of Infallibility, on Daylight Atheism

Posted in bible, creationism, evolution, religion | 5 Comments »

Expelled Exposed

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

The new Expelled Exposed site is up. Until yesterday, it was just a collection of links, but now it’s a “full” site, addressing the lies from the Expelled propaganda film. I’d recommend everyone read it.

Expelled Exposed

Posted in creationism, evolution, science | 2 Comments »

101 Atheist Quotes

Monday, April 14th, 2008

From The Atheist Blogger. I knew less than half of them, and there are many gems in there.

Some of my favorites:

If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. – Isaac Asimov

I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence. – Doug McLeod

Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going? – Anonymous

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. – Susan B. Anthony

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. – Christopher Hitchens

It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible. – George W. Foote

And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. – Bertrand Russell

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. – Robert A Heinlein

He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave. – William Drummond

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived. – Isaac Asimov

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. – Sam Harris

I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’. – Mike Fuhrman

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. – Frater Ravus

Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation was not available, he created one. – Jim Crawford

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. – Richard Dawkins

If we expect God to subscribe to one religion at the exclusion of all the others, then we should expect damnation as a matter of chance. This should give Christians pause when expounding their religious beliefs, but it does not. – Sam Harris

Posted in atheism, quotes | 3 Comments »

Monique Davis’ "apology" – double standards, anyone?

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Alonzo Fyfe is completely right.

Rep. Monique Davis apologized to Rob Sherman, the atheist she told to “get out of that seat” because he “believes in destroying”, which she equates with being an atheist, who has no right to go to court in “the land of Lincoln where people believe in God”. She apologized to him, personally, for insulting him — personally. As if she had just insulted him, instead of atheists in general. As if no bigotry was involved.

Alonzo compares it with Mel Gibson’s outburst against a Jewish policeman.

Did Gibson apologize just to the cop for insulting him personally? No, nor could he have done just that. He apologized to the Jewish people in general. He wasn’t just insulting that cop, he was accusing Jews of causing wars and being responsible for a number of evils in the world. That was not just rudeness, that was bigotry.

Why should Davis’ outburst be treated differently? Why should people be satisfied with a personal apology for rudeness? She showed as much bigotry to all atheists as Mel Gibson did to all Jews. Do atheists have less rights? Have we bought into their propaganda so much that we’re willing to be reviled and demonized, and not do a damn thing about it? In which way are atheists morally inferior to Jews, or to any other group? Why should this kind of bigotry be excused, when it wouldn’t be if the target was any other?

Not to mention that Davis is not an actor, but an elected official. She has a much bigger responsibility for her actions than Gibson.

Read the comments on Alonzo’s post as well, where he gives suggestions on whom to contact in order to demand a real apology (or resignation) from Davis. As Alonzo says, and I said before, complaining to Davis is useless: the fact that the people she sees as the most obscenely evil  in the world criticize her actions only confirms their “righteousness” in her mind.

Posted in atheism, bigotry, fanaticism | 1 Comment »

Acupuncture: $25; Sham acupuncture: $30

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Sham acupuncture

Source: Cectic

Heh. :)

Posted in humor, mysticism | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries