Nice photo

i-90614e02cd1053a8f3ab97f69e415df4-hitlerloveschristians.jpg
“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life” (‘My New Order’, Adolf Hitler, Proclamation of the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933)

Funny…those words could be taken straight from just about any American religious right web site in 2008, and they’d fit right in.

Last week of classes!

We are entering into the final week of classes here at UMM, when all of the administrative work for me reaches a horrible, cataclysmic crescendo with piles of exams and papers pouring in starting today. This would be a very poor time for a creationist spammer to try to cause trouble, because I’m going to be very pissy for a while, and blood might be spilled.

One cheery bit of news that means I might not be quite as vicious as I would otherwise: I’ve been invited to take a cruise to the Galapagos! Of course I’m going. It will be a fine tonic before I start next year’s classes. And there are actually three cabins still available on the trip, so if you want to join us in an educational jaunt, and if you have a large bucket of disposable cash, you can come with us!

Do you want to play a game?

Yeesh — I don’t think this game is going to take the world by storm. It’s calledCrevoScope, and it’s a “text-based massively multiplayer game”, which somehow is supposed to simulate the evolution-creationism debate, without actually requiring players to learn or know anything. It’s got some weird mechanics which I haven’t puzzled out in any detail at all, but apparently you can acquire “knowledge” by clicking on a “library” link — you don’t actually learn anything, a number for your character goes up — and then you get to go “debate” someone, and somehow the various scores help determine whether you “win” or not. It doesn’t make much sense to me, and I don’t think I’m motivated to put any time into it.

Especially since I took a look at the level of the discussion going on. Would you believe this is an argument someone made in all seriousness to disprove evolution?

Fact 1: History and Science has proven that some native African tribes eat monkeys as a prime source of food. There is bone evidence and filmed and video prof as well. Along with the bones of monkeys are human remains. So the body that science says is prof of evolution is just bones of monkeys that some tribe eat along side there bones.

Fact 2: Evolution teaches all life on earth came from one source. The primordial soup they call it if thats true would we not have DNA of all life on earth even if its a small percentage of it.

Fact 3: Darwin was a man that gave birth to this evolution theory. Were many people in the science community say is fact. Darwin himself have written a science manuscript stating that evolution is not possible just before his death.

I’m always astounded that every time I meet a creationist and hear their argument, they always manage to sink even lower than anything I’d previously heard. That sounds like a logical impossibility, unless perhaps creationist brains are in a universal state of implosion.

An Iron Man open thread

By now, many of you have probably seen the latest super-hero summer blockbuster, so the time is right for opening up a discussion.

I thought it was excellent and loads of fun, although the irony did not escape me that it was about a conscienceless weapons merchant who has an epiphany about the tragic consequences of his industry, and decides to end his contribution to the bloodshed…so he goes home to build a new, super-powerful personal weapons system that allows him to beat up bad guys. Whatever you do, don’t think deeply about this movie! It’s just some good acting, excellent special effects, and a fast-paced series of events wrapped around an unbelievable fantasy premise.

Anyway, beware: I’m not saying anything that isn’t well-known here, but our amoral godless commenters might reveal a few spoilers.

No, not the bats!

I love bats — they’re almost as glamorous as squid. So I am greatly dismayed to learn that there is a virulent bat illness spreading out of the northeast US, a serious die-off that has as one of its symptoms a fungal growth that has led to calling it “white nose syndrome”. Bats are behaving oddly, starving to death, and dropping dead.

Earlier I was complaining about the limited imaginations of television executives, who do such a poor job of translating science to the screen. Here’s a story full of drama and tragedy, with photogenic stars (the bats!) and scientists doing real, serious investigative work to solve a mystery. Wouldn’t that make for great television if done well?

Maybe politicians should just avoid evangelicals and used car salesmen

i-35d5a45607560e28e714f1e1266a1c4e-obama.jpg

Why do they waste their time with these idiots? Barack Obama has been struggling against the guilt-by-association of having been a regular member of a lunatic’s church, this odious little ignorant rat-bag named Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yet at the same time, McCain joyfully accepts endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley…and if Wright is a rat-bag, those two are festering, reeking mountains of putrefying rat-shit. Does the media give a damn? No. They’re also white members of the televangelical racket, and ever since the anti-semitic backwoods babbler Billy Graham was canonized for introducing the appearance of delusional piety into the hypocritical Nixon White House, it’s become the habit to defer to the liars for Jesus who brag about bringing morality to government.

And yet, someone who refuses to sit quietly as these nutjobs rave, who refuses to endorse the lie of religion, who does not suffer through the weekly tedium of sitting in a pew to listen mutely to a know-nothing air his ignorance to a flock of sheep, cannot possibly be elected to the presidency. Meanwhile, if the press is antagonistic towards you, they will cheerfully take some stupid sermon you listened to and blame you for its contents (and if they don’t want to trouble your march to election, they’ll quietly ignore it). It’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.

So why not just Kobiyashi Maru your way out of the whole corrupt situation and stop pandering to the churchies all together? That’s my advice to the candidates right now. You’re screwed no matter which way you jump, so you might as well take the rational route and announce that you’re washing your hands of the whole wretched lot of preachin’ scalliwags, whose faith-based advice doesn’t belong in government anyway. Be bold! Be free of gods, or at the very least, free of god-bothering liars.

(By the way, if you don’t know how vile Hagee and Parsley are, Revere has video clips.)

Let’s not forget Hillary Clinton. She’s entangled with a far right-wing fellowship of fascists.

Charles Darwin watches television

And he is dismayed at the absence of science. Charles Darwin’s blog reviews a week’s worth of programming, and finds a near total lack of any kind of science. The one exception, sort of, are the police procedurals.

Not a single factual science programme on any of the channels available to everyone who has a television. However in the dramatic presentations it is clear what science is for: it is to help the police elucidate which American has killed which other American. It is also clear who becomes a scientist: people of eccentric appearance and manner with peculiarly arranged hair. They inhabit extremely modern, uncluttered and strangely lit laboratories, there is usually only one of them and he or she possesses an extraordinary range of scientific specialities and skills. They are sessile, but propel themselves on chairs which swivel and have small wheels, often making verbal ejaculations as they do.

It’s a growing genre, I fear: there are all these shows like Bones and the multitude of CSI spinoffs that portray this utterly bogus version of science as an enterprise that is all exceptionally well-funded, laden with glittering chrome and well-coifed and made up people, and everything is directly results-driven: like Chuck says, it’s all about catching the bad guy. It’s also very magical, that the wizards of the crime lab push a few buttons and get The Answer with impossible speed, and everyone bows down and accepts the authority of these faux scientists.

It’s a peeve of mine, too, so I’m pleased to see that Darwin and I share an opinion.

The question now is about how to get Hollywood and the television industry to portray science both accurately and as an intrinsically interesting process. Too often the media veer between two equally false portrayals: it’s either 1) a talking head reciting formulas at a camera, or 2) that boring science stuff is jettisoned for soap operas and crime set in a lab. At least the nature programs come a little closer to the idea, but even there they rarely couple the charismatic animals behaving wildly with the science that the observers are trying to work out.

Radio reminder

It’s almost time for another episode of Atheists Talk on Air America! Tune in at 9am Central to hear the notorious Greg Laden; he’s going to be talking about academic freedom bills…ferociously and profusely. Lois Schadewald will also be on to talk about studies of pseudoscience. Mike Haubrich has more details.

You can listen to AM 950 KTNF; it will ask for a Minnesota zip code to listen direct. If you can’t catch it then, subscribe via iTunes or RSS.

That gay religion

Sometimes, I am extremely annoyed with the principle of separation of church and state — it leads to absurdities, like this recent court decision that a gay student support group was was using unconstitutional tactics — it was using materials that mentioned that some religions are more tolerant of homosexuality than others. This is, apparently, an endorsement of particular religions and therefore violates church-state separation.

Well, yeah, it is — for specific subjects, like gay rights, science education, and pacifism, some religions clearly are better than others — yet because we have to mindlessly avoid any perception of preference for one over another at any official level, the more enlightened faiths must be lumped with the dumbest, vilest, crudest kinds of religions, and you are not allowed to distinguish between them. I’ve said it before: church-state separation is a principle that protects and privileges religious belief in the United States, and furthermore as we can see here, it isolates pathological, dangerous beliefs from valid criticism.

This decision could be of some concern for future court battles over creationism, too, because science support organizations clearly do have a preference for some kinds of religions over others, and actually do promote certain doctrines over others. This is a fight driven by religious ignorance by the creationists, so of course we’ve got to engage them on the wrongness of their stupid claims about science … but if they wrap those up in the protective mantle of their holy and sacred religious beliefs, this decision says criticism is violating their religious protection. Will we have to worry that someone in the court system will take seriously the claim that teaching that the evidence says the earth is 4½ billion years old amounts to belittling religions that preach that the earth is 6000 years old, and favoring those that are agnostic on the age of the earth?

At least I can take comfort in the fact that the Pharyngula strategy is still safely on the side of the constitution: I don’t favor any religion at all, I despise ’em all equally.