Here’s more pernicious ignorance that we have to deal with: this is Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, benighted hate-monger, babbling lies.
Well, there is one part that is accurate, when she states that “We’re not teaching facts and knowledge any more, we’re teaching indoctrination”, which is exactly right … at least in reference to her remarks.
(via Pam’s House Blend)
I am reminded of the whole host of intellectual failings of creationists: it’s not just that they reject modern science, but many of them tend to be brain-damaged peckerwoods who are also incapable of viewing literature and art without squawking in horror, unless maybe it’s a tasteless photorealistic airbrushed Aryan Jesus, or perhaps some cookie-cutter landscape from a hack like Kincade. For a truly sickening example, just look at Ray Comfort’s latest blog entry. He’s reacting to a documentary of Gustav Klimt, which describes his work as “sensuous” and “obsessed with women”, which are all marks of Satan in Comfort’s book. He ends his recitation of the description of the eroticism in Klimt’s paintings with this:
If you too enjoy gazing at the naked female form, you don’t have to go to New York to see similar works. You can find them scrawled on the walls of most public rest rooms.
I know there are lots of good artists around, but they generally don’t scribble on restroom walls. Does this look like something you’d find on a bathroom stall?
Does this make you think of pornography?
Here’s a gallery of art by Gustav Klimt. There’s a good reason he’s a famous painter — this is wonderful stuff. Ray Comfort, two-bit rednecked ignoramus that he is, sees none of it, and is so freaking dishonest that he doesn’t dare show his readers any of Klimt’s actual work … so instead he does his own crude rendition of “The Kiss” to illustrate his screed, and just so you don’t miss his point, he crudely slathers wicked words all over it.
I think you might find Comfort’s work in a seedy, filthy restroom somewhere, but not Klimt’s.
Just so you don’t think this battle is all about nothing but esoteric arguments over details of the interpretation of rarefied biological data, I can’t imagine a clearer example of the broader field of the struggle. This is a war over all of Western culture. What do you want? Klimt or Comfort? Science or lies?
We’ve got some new additions to the Deadly Sins, the ones that will get you consigned straight to hell as soon as you die.
“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos,” he said.
Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few”.
He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended “the dignity and rights of women”, and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the “human and institutional fragility of the Church”.
The mass media had “blown up” the issue “to discredit the Church”, but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it.
The article also mentions using contraception is a mortal sin.
It’s a strange list. There are a couple that are common practices of the Catholic church itself, the excessive accumulation of wealth and pedophilia (and isn’t that just the cutest little disclaimer? The church is “taking steps to deal with it” — which usually means hushing it up and sending the offending priest off to virgin hunting grounds). Does the Vatican really haven any credibility when an old guy in silk robes encrusted with jewels declares the virtues of poverty?
The dictum against polluting the environment is a good one, but awfully vague. Is he promoting a zero-carbon footprint? Is he arguing against nuclear power? Should we stop exhaling carbon dioxide? Similarly, the prohibition against drugs isn’t very specific — are all pharmacists going to hell now?
Declaring that meddling in the fate of embryos is also terribly broad, suggesting that all developmental biologists are also going to hell. This is one mean and nasty pope, I think — he has me damned on several counts!
And I’m sorry, but it is not defending the dignity and rights of women to deny them family planning. It also contradicts any sincere desire to improve the livability of the planet to argue that people are not allowed to take simple action to limit their fecundity.
But of course this is all an exercise in empty rhetoric. The pope does not have any better knowledge of the mind of any god than I do, and does not know anything about the actual fate of human souls after death. It is a bit presumptuous to be declaring that there is an immortal omnipotent being who will torture you for eternity for putting a condom on, don’t you think?
In case you haven’t noticed, we’re having problems all across scienceblogs. Few of us can post at all, and those who can are reporting errors all over (I will be amazed if this post makes it through). You are also unable to comment.
The crack team of Seed technical experts are delving deep into the guts of the software as I write this, butchering gremlins as they go. No word yet on when we’ll be able to post again.
Thank you to everyone who noticed that yesterday I was one day older than the day before! And a special thanks to Bora for collecting all the various links together in one place.
Now I do have to remind you all, though, that we’re all aging at exactly the same rate (unless you have access to a spaceship that travels at a significant fraction of the speed of light), and all I’ve got is a head start on many of you, and a bit of a delay relative to some of you. So don’t go getting cocky, you young whippersnappers — you’ll be here someday, too.
This excerpt reveals a surprising fact: it is clearly a Canadian conspiracy. I knew we shouldn’t trust those guys.
Now the odious Vox Day is ranting about how the discovery of dark matter and dark energy refute “rational materialist philosophy,” because somehow it ties into the inapplicability of naturalism to “justice, equality, and freedom”. Phil Plait quite rightly slams him back.
I have to give Blake Stacey the prize for the most succinct rebuttal, however.
I don’t understand how people can use the discoveries of science to argue that science is broken. It’s bass ackwards, that’s what it is.
Not surprising, though; Theodore Beale aka Vox Day is a notorious loon, well known for making the most absurd claims as if they were just ordinary common sense.
So a guy gets a little older, and what happens? All these people try to draw attention to my age, largely with a collection of photoshopped pictures of yours truly. Don’t they know I’m funny-looking enough that no photoshop is necessary?
By the way, I got a nice present from my family: a new, ergonomic Cephalopod Throne. You’ll be reassured to know that now, when I fling thunderbolts of furious vituperation about the web, I shall be doing so with excellent posture.
A reader brought to my attention this outrageously dishonest mangling of a quote by that creationist, Casey Luskin. He writes:
In January, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on this debate, declaring that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,”1 because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter“2 it. As an undergraduate and graduate student taking multiple courses covering evolutionary biology at the University of California San Diego, that is what I was told as well. My science courses rarely, if ever, allowed students to seriously entertain the possibility that Darwin’s theory might be fundamentally flawed.
First rule of reading creationist literature: never trust an ellipsis. They always leave something significant out to change the meaning. Second rule of reading creationist literature: if they don’t use an ellipsis, they’re still going to distort a quote. Basically, you can’t trust anything these guys say. Luskin is claiming to be quoting something from the National Academy of Sciences booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism. How honest is his scholarship?
The first part of the quote is from page 52, near the end of the book. Here it is in context:
1There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes.
Where do you think we’ll find the second half of his quote? Page 53, maybe? Page 54? No. You’ll have to thumb backwards through the book, to a place near the beginning: page 16.
2Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).
So what Casey Luskin has done is to flip through the book and manufacture quotes by splicing together clauses from scattered sentences. Students who tried to pull this kind of unethical crap in a term paper would get an automatic “F” from me…yet Luskin reportedly has a law degree.
Aren’t journalists supposed to have some kind of ethical standards about this sort of thing? Do they simply suspend any regard for reasonable journalistic values when some right-wing think-tank like the Discovery Institute mails in some PR pablum?
