1. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #186015 by FitzRoy on May 29, 2008 at 11:00 am

Bobby Jindal is an extremely bright individual, and he certainly knows better. He is not, as some here have suggested, a fool.

Jindal is, first and foremost, a politician. He has sold out to the Religious Right. Sadly, he is too firmly entrenched with them now to change direction.

2. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124524 by FitzRoy on February 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm

If any reader knows of an idea that has a larger explanation ratio than Darwin's, let's hear it.

Newton's Second Law F = ma is perhaps the only serious contender.

Any physicists out there care to remark on which of these two principles they would choose as having the greater "explanation ratio"?

If you ever have the opportunity, try to visit Westminster Abbey in London. Darwin's grave and Newton's lie only a few yards from one another. It is humbling to simultaneously stand so close to the remains of the greatest physical scientist and the greatest biological scientist the world has ever seen.

3. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #111668 by FitzRoy on January 15, 2008 at 11:42 am

Feynman succinctly put it this way:

"The stage is too big for the drama."

A longer version:

"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different plants, and all these atoms with all their motions and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil--which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama. So I believe it's not the right picture."

Richard Feynman, Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Path, p. 426

4. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100894 by FitzRoy on December 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

- First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What could be more precious than the rights that are guaranteed in the United States by the First Amendment? Where would our country be today, if would-be theocrats were not restrained by the Enlightenment values of the First Amendment?

We should be profoundly grateful that Ms. Coulter's speech is protected by the First Amendment. As is yours. And mine. At least, if we live in the United States.

Prohibitions against "Hate Speech," however well intentioned, are fundamentally misguided. The appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech.

5. Believe it or not

Comment #97521 by FitzRoy on December 12, 2007 at 8:40 am

For strategic reasons, we should choose our fights carefully.

We might win the battle but lose the war by challenging such things as the display of a nativity scene on public property, or the use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

As for a name to call ourselves, I rather like "Freethinker."

6. Tropical fish can live for months out of water

Comment #89609 by FitzRoy on November 21, 2007 at 8:46 am

Wouldn't a typical creationist remark go something like this:

"Yes, but it's still a fish. No one has seen it sprout legs and turn into a salamander, have they?"

7. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63494 by FitzRoy on August 14, 2007 at 2:16 pm

The notion is "Not even wrong," akin to Bertrand Russell's teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars.

But, hypothetically, if it were true . . . then what reason would there be to assume that the laws of physics in the "meta-universe" would be the same as ours?

And, if the laws of physics were different -- perhaps radically so, perhaps beyond anything we can even imagine -- then would not all the assumptions about computers, processing power, etc. in the "meta-universe" go out the window?

8. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11525 by FitzRoy on December 5, 2006 at 9:36 am

I wish to register a complaint.

> > > We're closin' for lunch.

Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this butterfly what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

> > > Oh yes, the, uh, the Large Blue . . . What's, uh . . . What's wrong with it?

I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

> > > No, no, 'e's uh, . . . he's resting..

Look, matey, I know a dead Lepidopteran when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

> > > No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable insect, the Large Blue, idn'it, ay?
> > > Beautiful plumage!

The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead!

> > > No no no no, no, no! 'E's resting!