I wish this were a Poe

But it seems to be serious. You have to read Christians AGAINST Cartoons — it claims that most cartoons are part of an anti-Christian campaign, and that they promote unwholesome values (like, say, a sense of humor). You will learn that Dora the Explorer promotes SATANISM and COMMUNISM, and that she has a TALKING GOAT (nudge, nudge). Hello Kitty leads children into Egyptian paganism. Adult Swim Sin is nothing but pornography and perversion. As for Spongebob Squarepants…Heads of the BEAST Ridden by the Mother of HARLOTS!!! Abomination of the Earth!!!

Man, now I have a real itch to turn on Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network.

Zombies defend Christmas!

That’s all I can imagine: this imaginary conflict has gotten so stupid that it must be mindless undead droning out their need for brains who are still fighting it (oh, hi, Bill O’Reilly!). The latest instance is one of these always-affronted religion organizations that has made a Naughty and Nice List, to “make sure that Christmas does not get secularized or censored from its essence, namely the birth of Jesus Christ”. On the naughty list: Disney, because their online store is called the “holiday shop”. On the nice list: Best Buy, because Jesus wants a new digital camera they use the word “Christmas” in their commercials. These are all, of course, stores selling stuff. I had no idea that the swiping of the credit card had become a sacred rite, holy to Jesus Christ.

I’m rather fed up with the pointless inanity, especially since most of the godless I know will be celebrating this Christmas. Here’s a suggestion. Maybe all of us atheists need to point out that “holiday” is derived from “holy day”, and retire aghast to our fainting couches at this religious taint to the season, moaning, “Oh, Br’er Jebusite, please don’t use that word holiday on me”. Then they’ll get all smug and satisfied when some store acknowledges that it is a generic holiday, and they’ll all shut up.

Faith hurts

Since a Wall Street Journal editorialist has denounced secularism as the source of all of society’s ills, it’s only fair to get another opinion. Like, say, of a social scientist who has actually done a comparative study of different nations, looking for correlations between religiosity and superior moral values or stability or whatever. Surely, faith-based societies will have some virtues, won’t they?

Uh-oh. The results don’t look good for believers.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.

Some of the problems that the religious most strenuously deplore are ones that are exacerbated by the beliefs they advocate.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Now to be fair, these aren’t causal relationships, and this is only a study of correlations, so religion might not be directly responsible — you aren’t likely to catch gonorrhea by going to church. But with the state of American religion, you are very likely to catch a kind of pernicious ignorance by going to church, and that disability might make it more likely that you will make bad decisions with unfortunate consequences that will add to the roster of dismaying statistics.

There probably isn’t

Recently, we’ve been mocking the sad little website of the Rev. Cockshaw, which had the title “There probably is!” (referring, of course, to a deity). Now someone has done the obvious and grabbed the url for There Probably Isn’t!. So go ahead, post your stories of deconversion there.

I’m feeling a bit sorry for Cockshaw. His efforts got steamrollered rather easily, and now they’re being reversed. Good work!

Enduring damage

The Bush administration will leave us with another legacy: unqualified Republican ideologues receiving appointments in various institutions, including scientific organizations, as their ship of state sinks. The rats are scuttling overboard, and are being rewarded with captaincies on any available vessel. An article in the Washington post discusses the trend. I thought these were striking examples.

In one recent example, Todd Harding — a 30-year-old political appointee at the Energy Department — applied for and won a post this month at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There, he told colleagues in a Nov. 12 e-mail, he will work on “space-based science using satellites for geostationary and meteorological data.” Harding earned a bachelor’s degree in government from Kentucky’s Centre College, where he also chaired the Kentucky Federation of College Republicans.

And in mid-July, Jeffrey T. Salmon, who has a doctorate in world politics and was a speechwriter for Vice President Cheney when he served as defense secretary, had been selected as deputy director for resource management in the Energy Department’s Office of Science. In that position, he oversees decisions on its grants and budget.

One of the best changes Obama could make in our government is to inspire a culture of competence. It looks like his ability to do that has just gotten much harder.

Casey Luskin writes a revealing letter

A while back, two ladies visited the Discovery Institute, and wrote about their experiences afterwards. They admittedly did so under false pretenses, acting as if they were fellow travelers in creationism, but they did get interesting and amusing responses from the inhabitants.

They tried to do it again. They wrote a letter and were entirely upfront about their motives this time, and asked to have a real conversation about Intelligent Design creationism.

Casey Luskin wrote back. It would have been entirely understandable if he’d simply turned them down, but no … instead, he writes a long letter in which he stirs himself to defend the DI in a rambling reply that offers fascinating insight into how these people see themselves. Number one: they are civil. That seems to be all that matters. Never mind that they are calling almost every biologist in the world corrupt and deceitful; ignore the fact that they are a propaganda organization trying to poison the educational system of our country; it is entirely irrelevant that they are ignorant of biology yet want to dictate how all of science should be taught; they think they are being very, very nice. And Casey Luskin, of course, has been nothing but sweetness and generosity, a poor soul who has been rebuffed by the “Darwinist community”, and who gets called mean names.

Then he makes demands. He’s willing to meet and talk if:

  1. The ladies apologize for their previous attitudes towards the DI.

  2. They edit all of their past posts about their visit to the DI to add a disclaimer, saying that they were sorry, that they were naughty, and urging everyone else to be nice to the DI.

  3. They make a new series of blog posts that call all those other “Darwinist” blogs on the carpet.

  4. They cease saying mean things about all creationists henceforth.

Awww, doesn’t that sound exactly like someone who wants to kiss and make up? Although I’m actually thinking the whole thing makes him sound like a whiny, pretentious pipsqueak.

Ooops, there I go again. I just violated the “culture of civility” in which Casey takes such peculiarly unself-aware pride. I am chastened, and need to revise my approach, I think. I therefore offer to get together and discuss reconciliation with the creationists if:

  1. Casey Luskin immediately apologizes for the Institute’s meddling in school boards around the country.

  2. They edit all of their PR pieces at Evolution News & Views to include a disclaimer, saying that they were sorry, they really don’t know what they’re talking about, and they ought not to be peddling such nonsense.

  3. They make a new series of blog posts at EN&V that tell all the ID blogs that they shouldn’t be pushing propaganda anymore, and that their ought to be some actual science done for ID before they make further demands to change the culture to suit their ideology.

  4. They cease saying stupid things about biology henceforth.

I think that’s fair.

He’ll probably turn me down. That’s OK. The poor guy has just added to his own mythos with an obliviously pathetic email that adds pitiful whiner to his accomplishments as a credentialist toady and scientific ignoramus; maybe he’ll learn his lesson, and realize that sometimes he needs to shut up, crawl into a corner, and lick his wounds.

(By the way, the two ladies will be on the Skepticality podcast in a week or two. I’ll have to catch that one for sure.)

Come on down

I’ll be spending my day at this symposium, “Understanding evolution: the legacy of Darwin”, most of today. It’s about to start, so I’m not going to say much before I focus on the lectures, but it is open to the public, so if you’re in the Penn neighborhood, come on down to Claudia Cohen hall, room G17 (which we have since learned is the famous old surgical demonstration auditorium), and listen in. I’ll report later on the contents of the talks.