LOL:”That was out loud.”

Here she goes again with Islam! But I am an equal-opportunity god-botherer basher!

Our friend Pat Condell has been taking a lot of heat lately for being “intolerant” and “Islamophobic” in his most recent YouTube thread of his most recent video.

Here in this video, Pat addresses these accusations and tries to explain himself.

(Ed. note: This video was made several months ago, but people commenting on his most recent video either haven’t watched it, or dismiss it and choose to believe he is simply an Islamophobe.)

Addition: ChuckA and bernarda have posted this link to all of Pat’s videos.
Pat Condell’s video link.

Lately I’ve been lurking over at Bad Archaeology; it’s a pretty new site, so if you’re an armchair (or any kind of) archaeologist or enthusiast, pay them a visit.

One of the longest threads on their forum boards involved a discussion with a sort-of Sitchin supporter (and if you don’t know Sitchin from Adam, check him out), which reminded me of my brief but intense flirtation with the pseudo-scientific theory of paleocontact, or ancient astronauts. Proponents believe, with some variations on the theme, that extraterrestrial beings visited (and may be continuing to visit) Earth and humanity way back when.

The influence these supposed aliens had upon our planet and/or us differs from supporter to supporter, ranging from “they gave early humans the bases on which to develop our present societies” to “they terra-formed the Earth and genetically modified our hominid ancestors so that our species evolved into its present form.” Our off-world overlords are also attributed various motives for doing so, from “sheer scientific experimentation” to “they needed a slave race to mine the planet for them.”

“Evidence” cited for the theory and its many offshoots usually includes interpreting myths as the stories “primitive” peoples told to explain their extraterrestrial encounters as best as their inferior brains could allow them. In other versions, the myths were told by the aliens themselves, recognizing that their unevolved listeners would only understand this communication in narrative form. Most paleocontactists also point to certain archaeological artifacts as proof as well, claiming they represent either technology we’re not even close to understanding yet, or again, our primitive ancestors attempting to depict their seemingly supernatural superiors the only way they could handle.

Not always, but quite often, alien abductions are tied to this theory, particularly the version claiming that off-worlders are still visiting us today for whatever reason (once more, motives abound from “their race is dying and they need human DNA to ensure its continuation” to simply “scientific experimentation because we’re just lab rats to them”).

This theory of creation (sorry, scientists) remains popular today even among those who are not religiously inclined, perhaps because it sounds more “sciencey” than mythological and Biblical accounts. The comments on Bob’s Creation Museum post got me to thinking that if creationism/intelligent design has its own museum, why not paleocontact? There are a lot more writings to reference (the CM just has the Bible) and just think how much fun the displays would be (although I suspect that any depictions of the ancient astronauts would follow Star Trek’s example and simply show human beings with oddly colored skin and facial features, like antennae)! So I Googled ™…

First up is an establishment I should have predicted would already exist: Roswell, New Mexico’s International UFO Museum. If you don’t know the connection between that once-sleepy town and aliens, you might be overwhelmed by the ton of stuff that’s out there on it – and some of it is really out there. But the Museum will guide you through it and expose you to the main work being done on the subject and naturally, make sure you don’t miss the lovely little gift shop. I want the New Mexico Red Chile Pepper Alien Tree Ornament for Xmas 2007!

An institution much more up many of your alleys is the Museum of Hoaxes, with everything from a Historical Wing, where you can check out history’s most infamous flim-flams, to gullibility tests that measure how susceptible you may be to tall tales. Sadly, the MoH seems to take the tack that most evidence of paleocontact is in some way, shape, or form fraudulent, so it must be a low blow to the believers that their most cherished examples (like, say, Roswell) are on display in such a place. However, there’s no gift shop, so I’m moving on…

The Museum of Unnatural Mystery (a.k.a. the UnMuseum) comes up – but alas, like the MoH, no brick-and-mortar building, although its web address tells me it’s out of Pennsylvania (it appears museums are expensive to build; the creationists who funded Ken Ham must really have a whole lotta moolah). It boasts such promising sections as the Hall of UFO Mysteries and A Collection of Odd Archaeology and yes, souvenirs! The tote bag will only set you back $13.99 and announce to the world that you do take aliens seriously.

Now, you would think that fellow alternate-creation-story proponents would support any endeavor endorsing a view of our origins that runs counter to mainstream science, but unfortunately, it appears that Answers in Genesis pooh-poohed uber-paleocontactist von Daniken’s theme park and rejoiced when it closed down (in November 2006, no less; rats, an opportunity missed). Bad form, AiG; bad form. However, the page for the park is still up on von Daniken’s site and states that he plans to open similar facilities around the world, so we may still get a chance to visit a Mystery Park some time in the future!

So there you have it. One slightly-on-the-long-side post introducing you to another True Account of Our Creation that the Evilutionists Don’t Want You to Know About ™. Teach the Controversy!

Sometimes herd mentality can be funny — but most other times it’s, well, not as funny:

Catholic Bishops Instruct Voters

BALTIMORE – Roman Catholic voters and lawmakers must heed church teaching on issues ranging from racism to abortion or risk their eternal salvation, U.S. bishops said Wednesday. [...] “Political choices faced by citizens have an impact on general peace and prosperity and also may affect the individual’s salvation,” the bishops said. “Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being.” [...] They have offered similar guidance to Catholics before every presidential race since 1976. [...] While the 30-plus-page document touches widely on Catholic social justice teaching, the bishops said that fighting abortion should be a priority. [...] “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the bishops said. “It must always be opposed.” [...] The bishops said that voting for a candidate specifically because he or she supports “an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism” amounts to “formal cooperation in grave evil.” In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for “truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences,” according to the statement. The document did not address whether Catholics who violate this guidance should continue to receive Holy Communion. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, who helped draft the document, said the bishops are simply asking Catholics to “examine their consciences.” “When you look at eternal salvation, God is the only judge,” said DiMarzio, of the Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. “All we have the ability to do is to warn people.”

The logic of this kills me:

“You are facing ETERNAL DAMNATION if do the wrong thing, i.e., anything other than what WE tell you to do.

“But, you know, in the end, just examine your conscience.”

Nah, that’s not fear mongering at all…

I don’t know how many of you saw this last night, but it was a great documentary. My husband and I watched the whole two hours of it. We found it amusing by the attempts of the IDers to try to prove that ID is a “scientific theory” with absolutely ZERO evidence except for their assumptions based on some ancient texts. It was proven in this court case that ID is just “religion in disguise”. There is a discussion thread going on about it over at Panda’s Thumb.

Here is the link to the NOVA site where you can watch the whole documentary if you haven’t seen it yet. NOVA Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Edit:The Judge Speaks

The 2005 trial of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. was the latest major bout in a long-standing legal battle over the teaching of evolution in U.S. public schools. The crux of the case was Dover’s newly implemented policy requiring biology teachers to read to students a disclaimer purporting that “gaps” exist in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and moreover, that there is an alternative scientific explanation called intelligent design (ID). The disclaimer suggested that students learn more about ID through a book called Of Pandas and People, 60 copies of which were available in the school library. (To read the statement in full, see Board vs. Teachers.)

Was Dover’s ID policy a covert way to introduce religion into a public school, and therefore in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? That is what Dover parent Tammy Kitzmiller and her co-plaintiffs claimed. Following six weeks of testimony from some of the country’s leading biologists, as well as arguments from the nation’s most ardent supporters of intelligent design, Judge John Jones issued a 139-page ruling on the case.

ID is not science
After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while intelligent design arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

ID is the progeny of creationism
The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover’s ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.

Evolutionary theory is not antithetical to religion
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design 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.

The disclaimer Dover wanted read to students is flawed
The disclaimer written by the Dover School Board singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.

The goal of the ID movement is to foment a revolution
Intelligent design, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’ as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce intelligent design to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, intelligent design’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not intelligent design itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the intelligent-design movement is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.

It is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution
We do not question that many of the leading advocates of intelligent design have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that intelligent design should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

LINK: Magical invocation for rain

As most of us know, the state of Georgia has been experiencing a terrible drought, and once again the religious fundamentalists believe their god is “testing” them or giving them some sort of sadistic tap on the shoulder because they are not paying enough attention to him. They automatically believe that anything that happens that they have no control over is some sort of test or punishment from some invisible overlord in another dimension who is capable of keeping track of billions and billions of people, choosing which ones he is going to allow to have plenty of money, good health and prosperity, happiness, etc. and which ones he is going to deprive, condemn, torment mentally or emotionally, inflict with poverty, illness, and all around dick with every minute of every day just to “get their attention”. The thing is that these catastrophes happen where people ARE giving their sky daddy full attention.

The governor of Georgia has resorted to desperate measures in the form of religious incantations and invoking their “personal god” ON THE STEPS OF A GOVERNMENT BUILDING.

The prayer happened, and it was protested by only a small group of about 20 people. 250 showed up to participate in the magical invocation for rain. Why not also organize a Native American rain dance, call a Voodoo queen to cast a few spells to ward off demons, call Penn & Teller to come up with some sort of magic trick? It’s all going to end in the same results. . . Mother Nature cannot be manipulated. It’s disturbing that so many people in the year 2007 still regress to magical, wishful thinking and rituals when things are not going their way, or when things happen beyond their control.

If praying to an imaginary friend makes them feel like they are doing something, it is their right to do so…however, government officials or anyone else should not be using Capitol steps as a religious pulpit. Period.

Blech.

Went through some job ads in Philosophy (I was bored), and I came across this one:

College is seeking candidates for a full-time position in philosophy beginning in Fall 2008. Field of specialization is open. Teaching load is 12 hours per semester. Qualifications include a Ph.D. in philosophy, a display of sound scholarship, evidence of superior teaching ability, and an unwavering commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and the inspired Word of God. Review of applications will begin immediately. [...] The classical Christian liberal arts – wed to a strong biblical foundation – is at the heart of the College’s educational philosophy. [...] Candidates should be evangelical Christians, in hearty agreement with the College’s Biblical Foundations Statement, and familiar with the college’s Mission and Vision statements.

Dude, WTF?

An (extremely) old friend of mine once said, “If you’re a believer, you shouldn’t be at the front of a Philosophy class.” Considering the content and method of Philosophy, I still think that makes perfect sense. You want to teach that stuff? Fine. Just teach it in theology or something. Just put it someplace else.

And when anyone can find an evangelical that has “a display of sound scholarship” in Philosophy journals, please let me know immediately.

Another h/t to Pharyngula…

If you haven’t seen this yet, it’s quite incredible…

Don’t know about anyone else…

But I had no idea just how many of us there were…

Makes me all warm-n-fuzzy…

Thank you, World Wide Web…

(Now if I can just get my government out of my ass, then we’d have something…)