1. Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools

Comment #213687 by BW022 on July 18, 2008 at 7:14 pm

This one is going to end badly.

If you are going to have a religious studies class (even if specific to the Bible) then you had better have down pat. This isn't like studying say Greek or Roman religious writings, since no one is really going to complain if you get some small fact "wrong" since no one really has any personal issue with ancient Greek religions. However, a Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, etc. is going to have a lot to say about which passages are studied, which are not, and how they are presented.

Worse, with ancient religions, you can pretty much treat them as fables. You can just focus objectively on their relationship to culture, art, society, etc. I'd love to know where you are going to get such dispassionate teachers. Presumably every single Bible teacher is going to be a religious person and you bet some and some school boards are going to get off the literary or historical train and preach or accept this stuff as fact. What are you going to do to the first person who laughs at this or says it is stupid? Toss him out of the class?

And of course, you are going to get problems with the selective nature. Only the Bible. Not the Tora, Koran, or Hindu writings. Yes, it might be elective, but obviously by not teaching others... the state is favouring one religion. And certainly all it takes is a few students taking such classes to "rub it in the faces" of those not taking the classes and you have lawsuits.

Perhaps, some of these States really needs an example. Some lawsuit completely bankrupting a school board such that the state has to rent the school from the parents who won the case. Maybe bus the kids an extra fifty miles or something.

2. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210266 by BW022 on July 14, 2008 at 7:27 am

I thought this one was funny...

"The church expected hundreds of teenagers from as far away as Canada"

Any idea what happens when a teenager tries to bring an assault rifle across the Canadian border?

First, in the US it is illegal for a Canadian to take possession of a firearm in the country - it needs to be shipped to Canada by an FFL.

Second, weapons must be registered prior to being shipped into Canada.

Third, it is illegal for ordinary citizens to own assault weapons in Canada. Any rifle with a clip capacity of more than 7 rounds is prohibitted.

Forth, you can't own a firearm in Canada until you are 18.

Fifth, you need to register all firearms in Canada.

etc.

I can't imagine anything more stupid than giving a Canadian teen an assault rifle in the US.

3. Weak US dollar hits papal profits

Comment #209526 by BW022 on July 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Ok... some of the numbers got me thinking.

One quarter of under $80 million came from the US. That is about $20 million. About 24% of Americans are Roman Catholic. The United States has about 300 million people, so 72 million Roman Catholics in the US, or say 15 million families (since they obviously include children in their numbers).

So, each RC adult gives something like 67 cents towards the Vatican each year?

4. Thousands Flock to Revival in Search of Miracles

Comment #208704 by BW022 on July 11, 2008 at 6:55 am

Wow... tens of thousands of people taking their children to see a sex offender?

I'm curious, but why did US immigration let someone with a criminal record of into the US? Lots of folks can't get in due to parking tickets and this guy sexually abused a child?

5. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207151 by BW022 on July 9, 2008 at 8:47 am

So now that the church folks have made such a big stink over it... exactly what was the guy's beef? I mean if he commited such a terrifibly disrespectful act, can't we ask him what his reasons were?

I'm just curious, but I would suspect that his "beef" is likely more than symbolic... as opposed to a symbolic not participating in a symbolic ritual.

6. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203540 by BW022 on July 3, 2008 at 5:47 am

So... the problems are too big for the US government to solve? The US government can put men on the moon, keep a hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq, etc. but it needs religous groups to deliver essential services?

You need to give $500 million to religious partnership to help educate poor children. I mean there is no other organizations which could help educate poor children. Humm... have you heard of schools?

Amazing how other countries get higher educational levels, literacy rates, test scores, etc. though public education, but the US can't do it without the help of churches.

7. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201772 by BW022 on June 30, 2008 at 8:52 am

This guy is just a little nuts.

If a 10km wide space craft arrives from a distant star system and starts howevering over say London. We exchange a few math formuli until will and communicate and determine that they are friendly -- although we knew that because we are still alive.

So... what lunatic would transmit a bible to them or tell them if they don't belief in Jesus they are going to hell?

If you go up to random people in the streets and tell them they are going to hell, most walk away, call the police (if you keep bothering them), or get violent. What possible logic is there in doing this with a civilization which likely has the knowledge to solve the world's energy crisis, cure diseases, extend life expectancy, and provide knowledge we can only dream of -- or on the other hand blow the Earth to bits if they get p-d off enough.

I expect quite the opposite effect of discovering aliens. They would rid the world of religious belief in a generation.

(Aliens) "We don't believe in your God. Would you like nuclear fusion technology?"

(Aliens) "That's nice Mr. Pope, but since we are more advanced than you... why don't you switch to our belief systems?"

(Aliens) "That is nice that you have a million people protesting against our forms of birth control and allowing females to float around unveiled, but if you don't stop threatening us with 'dire' consequences... we'll toss a golf ball into one of your continents at 90% of the speed of light."

8. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196508 by BW022 on June 20, 2008 at 4:33 am

I have to ask, but has anyone actually thought that it might be better to allow the bill to go through?

If lawmakers, school boards, etc. don't really understand what is at stake here, why not allow the logical conscequences of the law to be made clear to all so that (after it is revoked) everyone gets a sober reminder of where this really goes.

First, it would encourage parents to start begin asking question of their childrens teachers and requesting transfers to any teacher who hints at teaching "gaps" or "problems". I doubt most teachers would appreciate a science grilling, let alone personal questions about belief. If this leads to two classes (those teachers promising to teach evolution as per the books and those subjecting it to religious puffery), transfers to another school, parents demanding new science teachers, etc. then good.

The NCSE or some other organization could easily ask create a pledge stating that "I agree there are no issues, problems, or deficiencies in the theory of evolution..." for parents to hand their science teachers are parent teacher conferences.

Second, we know that this will lead to more lawsuits and constitutional challenges. School boards will be open to lawsuits as teachers are now shielded from introducing religion. Why not bankrupt a few school boards and make the state pay for them?

Third, it will lead to other school boards, colleges, medical schools, etc. simply not accepting Lousiana biology credits. Why not make students from the state take special exams to get their credits carried over?

Sometimes the best way to teach people that a stove is hot is to let them put their hands on the burner.

9. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #194766 by BW022 on June 17, 2008 at 8:50 am

So after the locust, plagues, bells, fire from the skies, etc. descend then Jesus is going to come back to Earth? Meanwhile, those who are faithful are going to be sent straight to heaven and this system is going to e-mail friends and family who don't believe in this?

Some obvious flaws here... besides all of it...

What if all this destruction takes out the e-mail servers, computers, power, etc.?

What if there are enough believers working at the power companies going to heaven and the power goes out?

What if I want to stay and talk with Jesus? If he is so great, why would you want to go away when he is coming to Earth?

Why would I need an e-mail to convince me that the end of the world is coming if I can presumably see it and/or talk to Jesus about it? I mean if e-mail is working I assume CNN or 60 Minutes might want to run some pictures of the burning sky or an interview with Mr. Christ.

Why would this nice Jesus guy not show me to heaven?

If you need e-mails to convince folks that they need to belief in God/Jesus then does that mean all the illiterate, children, or folks without e-mail aren't going to heaven? Just because you don't have e-mail or are too young to read, Jesus is sending you to hell?

If humans can setup computer to e-mail folks and this is sufficient to convince them about God/Jesus, then why can't God/Jesus just e-mail, phone, talk, mind-meld, etc. to folks before killing them all? If I was about to mass-murder nine billion people because they didn't belief in me, why not give them an honest chance to believe in me?

Then again, it isn't smart to ask too many questions about religion.

10. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190629 by BW022 on June 9, 2008 at 9:55 am

The first arguement against a logical proof, is to ask the reason why there isn't experimental or mathmatical proof for it?

I don't see any physists using logical proofs to prove the existance of electrons, biologist using logical proof that DNA exists, or astonomers putting forward logical proofs about the existance of blackholes.

So, why can't someone show physical evidence or mathmatical proofs for God?

A logical proof rare proof of existance of anything. They merely proves that either something exists, or your logic is faulty. Given the issues of language, the human brain, the unknown, or deliberate manipulation... the later case is extremely likely. Mathematical and experimental proofs rarely show that your math/experiments are wrong and such things are easily quickly found via repeated experiments and/or future predictions which can be tested.

The other reason why logical arguement (in this case) are obviously wrong is because some 10,000 or so Gods have been invented by mankind over the milenia and worshipped. Appearently, 9,999 of these were wrong, yet billions worshipped them, and of course the same arguements could be applied to each of these.

11. Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Comment #189019 by BW022 on June 5, 2008 at 8:05 am

One thing which is never mentioned and often not considered by lawmakers is that something doesn't have to be right or perfect to be taught.

You don't qualify everything that you teach. You provide the best explanation within the student's ability to understand. In many cases, what you teach is not 100% correct, but only offered within the student's current ability to understand.

For example, imagine teaching Newton's Laws. Well, they are wrong. We know it. We could disprove it by showing that the force affects massless particles (relativity) and we can prove that forces are in fact particles via quantum mechanics/atomic theory.

However, we are dealing with 8th graders here. The won't get relativity until 12th grade (maybe) and quantum mechanics until well into university. We don't stop at each point and go over all the problems, since you need to know a heck of a lot before you can reasonably discuss by Newton's laws break down when dealing with say gravity affecting light.

Same with evolution. Until you go through genetics, cell biology, reproductive biology, etc. how can you start talking about whether X or Y is an issue with evolution? You can't. The students simply don't understand enough to participate in the discussion. So you don't point out issues. You give them the best answer at the time and they go with it until they have to tools to go back and look at specific issues with any specific theory.

12. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187092 by BW022 on June 1, 2008 at 9:31 am

"They want permission not to come to those lectures and sit those exam questions,"

And maybe chemistry students can lobby for permission to not listen to lectures or have exams on atomic theory?

Personally, I'd label everything in biology as "includes evolution" -- genetics, animal biology, human biology, cell biology, etc. Just include lessons such as "Today we are going to compare the human eye to eye of other mammals and learn why humans see in colour." Just list every biology courses as includes evoluation. Same as I'd label every geology course "includes 4.7 billion old Earth" and every physics course as "include 14.7 billion year old universe".

Every chemistry class would begin by a 'review' of elements in stellar theory including how long stars burn. Every physics class would start by calculating proton decay in billions of years. etc.

Let them wander the hallways looking for doors which don't say "includes X".

13. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186344 by BW022 on May 30, 2008 at 7:39 am

Why do they need to "display" the historical documents? Is there something wrong with putting them in a book in the library with all the other historical documents? Is there some reason why students/people need to be reminded of the existance of these documents on a daily basis?

You display art and advertising. I don't know anything visually stunning about the Lord's Prayer or the ten commandments - especially if they aren't historically accurate (as they can't agree even on the wording let alone show the originals)? So... if it isn't art, that sounds like advertising.

14. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184658 by BW022 on May 25, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Animal Science.... you mean biology?

15. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181854 by BW022 on May 18, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Good interview, but I do disagree with Dawkin's statement that Canadian beliefs are somewhere between the US and Europe.

Canadian history, geography, social, and political systems are vastly different than the US - leading to much different religious takes.

First, in Canada you can not get elected with strong religious views. In fact, the common way to torpedo your opponent's campaign is to bring up any religious statements on abortion, gay rights, sex education, etc. which they may have made. Most Canadians are fearful of religious politicians. I doubt an atheist would have any problems getting elected.

Second, over 1.5 million Canadians switched to 'non-religious' in the past ten years. Out of a population of only 30 million with most population growth due to immigration, that is a massive number. By 2012 or so, it will be the second largest 'religion' behind Roman Catholics.

Third, Canada has almost no 'bible belt' like the US. Parts of rural Alberta possibly, but protestant literalists are too few and scattered for most folks to spend their lives in the area. Almost all young folks leave such areas for university, jobs, marriage, etc.

Forth, Canada is extremely liberal and youth heavily reject most religious teachings. Sebastien's take on RC Quebec is correct. Even in the most heavily religious RC province support for gay marriage, abortion rights, condoms in schools, etc. is among the highest in Canada - which is already well into the heavy majority numbers. No politician really considers challenging any of these laws.

Fifth, Canadian educational levels are higher in both primary and post-secondary education. There are few serious discussions about evolution in science classrooms.

Canada would appear as progressive on non-belief as most European countries. Certainly ahead of Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. Likely something close to Britian, France, etc.

16. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180847 by BW022 on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 am

In other words, we have to lie and sugar coat things?

We have to say that nothing in science prevents belief in religion, while trying to teach the scientific method? We need to discuss reason, logic, and evidence and then pretent that nothing bad with happen to religious beliefs even if they apply logic to say Jesus walking on water or Mohammad riding a flying horse, or Mormons discussing ancient Jewish cities in North America?

Has it every occured to these folks that if you follow the sciencific method, you need to reject religion? They are completely unprovable and in many cases disprovable.

Why is it sciences job to sugar coat the truth such that folks can accept it? If American's want to reject science and go live like Quakers while the rest of the world continues into the 21st century so? If it takes Canadians to find a cure for cancer, the French to discover fusion, the Germans to discover an AIDs cure, or the Japanese to discover rice crops that mature in three days... so? If the rest of the world is willing to buy into science without sugar coating it as "not harming your religion" and America isn't so?

17. God seekers go public

Comment #179378 by BW022 on May 13, 2008 at 7:23 am

In science extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even the general public now requires more than normal evidence when folks make claims such as cold fusion, cures for X, etc. Ordinary folks didn't really buy relativity and atomic theory until the atomic bomb was set off. Most folks didn't really get how much biologists understood about genetics until we sequenced the human genome.

So how big of a discovery does one think scientific proof of God would need to be before anyone will scientifically accept it? Perhaps praying makes Higgs particles appear and disappear?

Do they think that real scientists won't shred any weaker evidence in seconds? Do they think scientists won't point out that in science you have to prove the positive and that disproving other ideas doesn't make yours any more valid? Don't they understand that that in science (or court) your background, sources of funding, previous claims, secrecy, sources of publications, lack of peer reviews, etc. are all going to be dragged over the coals?

Do they honestly think that more selective quoting from science papers is going to get them through the next Dover trial? That teachers, parents, and school boards who aren't already in Jesus-land are going to buy any of this when a real scientists -- with real accomplishments -- call this stuff nonsense? Do they really think they can find some unknown process and claim God is doing it, in which the real scientists won't figure it out in a few months or else be able to say "And how does that prove God did it?"

18. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179214 by BW022 on May 12, 2008 at 10:23 pm

You want to pray to God for lower gas prices?

Perhaps a low dollar, war in Iraq, decrease in fuel efficiency of vehicles, population growth due to lack of birth control, problems with Venezula, energy pact with Canada, Katrina refinery destruction, etc. might have something to do with the fact that gas is expensive? And of course, the fact that gas is cheaper in the US than even energy producing countries doesn't seem to factor in?

Leaving aside the fact that there is no God... even if there was, what kind of lunatic would rain oil down on the US so that they can use it to poison the planet with hydrocarbons? I guess they think God would give drug addicts crack if they prayed for it?

If God really would consider granting prayers... why not pray that scientists would discover nuclear fusion? If God could answer prayers, why would anyone wish for cheaper oil prices?

Imagine how much these folks could get done if they actually got off their rears and did something? How about buying and giving away compact florent light bumbs at malls? How about buying SmartCars? How about a letter writing campaign for public transit? Organizing a car pool? How about educating yourself about the source of gas, the amount of reserves, production numbers, population growth, etc.?

Nope... spend your time praying.

I suppose a third alternative is that there was a God who was doing well, but after listening to thousands of years of human praying for the most stupid things -- death to my enemies, make me king, give me a child, give me virgins, etc. and finally cheaper oil prices -- he killed himself to avoid having to listen to such nonsense.

19. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179046 by BW022 on May 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm

My problem with all of this, is that ultimately it isn't up to the US governments commitee on Bioethics to decide the question.

If they ban say stem cell usage... and Canada finds a treatment to say regenerate spinal columns... how long will that law last? Are they going to arrest every person with a spinal cord injury who goes to Canada for treatment?

Same with abortion. It isn't up to the State. Even if they outlaw it, women will go to another state or country to get medical treatment. It doesn't matter what this commission says, each individual will ultimately make their own decision. Same with genetically modified foods, eating meat, wearing furs, banning evolution in the schools, etc.

Folks aren't going to sit by and watch their kid sit in a wheelchair if the only thing between him walking is the Mexican border and some "ethics" committee ruling.

At best, the other "ethics" issue is why poor people (unable to get healthcare elsewhere in the world) have to suffer and those with money get to live.

20. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178273 by BW022 on May 11, 2008 at 4:12 am

Sorry, but I don't buy that the in fighting has anything to do with "the influence of atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins..."

Anyone accepting Dawkins approach to treating religion (i.e. common sense proof used in believing in anything else), would have no choice but to simply leave the church. I don't buy that within a year, Dawkins has managed to convince 400 out of 1200 deeply religious people to apply this approach to their leaders, and yet not their belief in their religion itself.

Sorry... this one is obvious. The religious leaders are having a problem with some disgruntled parisoners. Some type of internal in fighting with leaders being replaced over organ music, which side of the cup to drink, and other silly things. The leaders then blame some outside group in hopes of smearing opposition with the "atheist" label and to cover up their own failings. The first rule of getting someone to overlook your own failings is to blame someone else.

Don't get me wrong... I'd love to think that Dawkins could get one third of religious folks to question their beliefs. However, in that case, I'd expect the story to read that 400 folks left the religion, not that 400 people read Dawkins, saw light, and decided to spent time and effort replacing their priest because they thought that God demanded organ music in church instead of guitars.

21. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177747 by BW022 on May 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm

I think Mr. Dawkins might have done better by providing a concrete example of how belief is used to justify real world actions and why evidence of believe is necessary.

If you asked a politician why she wants to say put condoms in high schools, she might respond with teen pregnancy statistics, AIDs transmition rates, etc. showing that this helps save lives. When you ask a priest, you get "No. Because God doesn't want it."

In other words, proof of belief is necessary to judge which believes lead to helpful actions and which lead to harmful actions.

22. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177121 by BW022 on May 8, 2008 at 3:38 pm

What nonsense. I mean, I can accept some form of hyberbole but...

"... indeed everything I am, comes from how others have lived out their faith in Britain."

You mean nothing that you are has anything to do with non-faith? You couldn't have learned to read and write from a secular teacher? You have never learned anything from someone that didn't have to do with they way they lived out their faith? You mean the doctor who delivered you, the bus driver who reminded you of your stop, the guy who held the door open for you at the supermarket, etc. were all reciting the Lord's Prayer? You didn't learn anything from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Aesop? Nothing from Ghandi, David Suzuki, Rushdie, etc.?

I'm not seeing the humility here. I may dislike religion, but I'm not so ignorant to assume that they have taught me nothing.

23. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176107 by BW022 on May 6, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Well... I guess evolution is history? Rather distant and unwritten history, but still history? :)

24. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175903 by BW022 on May 6, 2008 at 8:19 am

Does anyone wonder what the Islamic reaction would be if the vast majority of western folks just stopped saying that Islam is a peaceful religion? Say...

A few tens of millions people marched world-wide in support of the Danish cartoonists. Millions of letters of support came in. Thousands of newspapers across the west ran them. Exciles where routinely interviewed nationally and invited to speak at massive public venues. "Moderate" Islamists were routinely quoted on national newspapers with any evasive or bogus answers. Western leaders started saying that if Islam can't withstand critism, cartoons, or the occational irreverant comment, then there was no use for it in western societies and they would protect free speach. If newspapers ran critical articles without self-censorship. etc., etc.

Could Islam continue such threats against individuals? And would they have any meaning or effect? Would they continue with it, knowing that five minutes after making such a threat, newspapers would re-run the article with the threats added?

Would there not then be a real issue with moderate and semi-extremists calling for attacks on entire populations? It is one thing to call for say a journalists death, but what if that person is marching with 50,000 other people in say Times Square? Do you call for attacks on New York? Besides that fact such groups would immediately be classified as terrorists organizations, it would appear to be an escalation that they wouldn't likely be able to withstand.

25. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174831 by BW022 on May 3, 2008 at 3:51 pm

So what... I know it is a massive waste of time, but why not let them? This can't go far.

If individual teachers are shielded from teaching nonsense oppositions to theories, then

a) Teachers "protest" by sending students home with sylabuses informing them of their intent to teach stork theory to oppose sex education, ether theory instead of electomagnatism, flat-earth theory in geography, etc. Parents and school boards can't do anything. About 2 weeks of that an the laws will be overtuned.

b) Parents start demanding to know the views of their children's teachers and demand transfers when their teacher starts teaching nonsense. You'll have either a two-tier'd public education system or folks with sense will move to private schools or to states which don't have such laws.

c) Universities, other schools, businesses, etc. will stop accepting course credits from such schools. Teachers will leave to other states or private schools. Businesses will start highering out of state folks or relocating.

d) The legal fall out of a), b), and c) will kill such laws.

Ultimately, even if they get their little "religious utopias" it won't help. Even if parents allow it, folks else where will just stop accepting accidemic credentials.

26. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173454 by BW022 on April 30, 2008 at 7:27 pm

I wonder if Richard gets tired of answering the *same* questions?

Let's see... Darwin leads to Stalin and Hitler... check. You need faith to believe in evolution... check. You are being insulting to religious people... check.

I love the guy who is trying to 'educate' Richard Dawkins on the biology of the bacterial flagellum? Some guy... you mean Micheal Behe? Forty gears... you mean proteins? etc. It is amazing that you are talking to a world class biologist and you don't even invoke junior high-school research skills in looking up a Wikipedia article on the subject before asking the question?

Anyway... thanks to Mr. Dawkins for his perseverance.

27. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #171089 by BW022 on April 28, 2008 at 9:59 am

Anyone notice that the ERV blogs are down?

Some of the best research and commentary on the Expelled lawsuits suddenly goes down? Article after article about the copyright issues, lawsuits, etc. just happens to go down now? Funny that Expelled is trying to argue that ideas are being surpressed by scientists.

28. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165579 by BW022 on April 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm

I read the article and the response and the one thing which I couldn't get my head around was how Mr. J could not know some basic facts about the rise of the Hitler, the Nazis, and the lead-up to WWII?

One would expect someone with family background involving the Holocast would have some idea of the social, ethnic, and racial background of Germany in the 1930s. WWII is a pretty common subject in history classes in most western nations.

Personally, I don't blame Expelled for Mr. J false beliefs, I blame his school system, parents, etc. for not giving him a reasonable background in one of the most important events of the previous century. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of this, should be saying "Hey, wait a second?" upon seeing Expelled.

Yes... false facts are common, there are folks who deny the entire Holocast. But at what point are individuals to blame for believing stupidity? At some point, I've got to say that anyone with a "moderate" education wouldn't by this non-sense, and even more would know that it is non-sense and could tell others.

My response would have been to rent the "World at War", pick up a high school history book, etc.

29. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163707 by BW022 on April 18, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Hey... they left out the copyright notice in the video!

"All animation and music copyright 2008 Storks, Inc. Except if we get caught."

30. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161364 by BW022 on April 15, 2008 at 8:05 am

What a poorly written article. Normally you can rely on mainstream British newspapers to be at least well-written.

However, I guess his main point is that if Dawkins somehow gets rid of religion (specifically Christianity) that there won't be any great new Christian works of art?

Obviously, he can't mean that Dawkins would destroy Christian inspired art... anyone reading Dawkins works knows that he enjoys religious music, railed against the Taliban's destruction of the Budhist statues, and that he supports teaching of religious art, history, etc. outside the science classrooms.

I guess my first issue with the premise that ending religion (even if possible) ends religious art is that this has not been true of previous religions which have fallen by the wayside. It has been nearly 1,600 years since we worshipped the Greek gods and yet we see their art, architecture, literature, etc. entwined throughout our culture. We still see folks sculpting or building public buildings in classic Greek/Roman styles. We invoke Greek gods to invoke love, beauty, hate, death, etc. We do the same for hundreds of other religions which have long since died out.

My second issue is that religion seems far more likely to end up destroying good art, history, science, etc. than atheism. Think of how much Greek or Roman art, history, culture, teaching, etc. that the Christians destroyed during the dark ages? Think of how many Christian works the Islamic folks are destroying today? Look at the Christian flap about say Harry Potter or the Golden Compass? Atheists have no reason to destroy works as they are not offended by such forms of art, history, music, etc.

My third issue is that Christianity itself limits the exploration of other forms of art, history, literature, etc. Yes, without say Christianity you wouldn't have wonderful high arches, stained glass windows, and great crosses in say Denver. However, with Christian churches we will never see a wonderful open Greek temples with massive statues in Denver. We won't see a Myan inspired pyramid or a Budhist inspired zen park in Denver either. In other words, the existance of religion surpresses many forms of art, history, architecture, etc. in some attempt to protect the "true" religion from even mentioning other religions, given them credit, etc.

31. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159541 by BW022 on April 12, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Raiko,

"I think he means the producers did it without the lawyers."

Obvious. No lawyer in the world would actually advise someone to do this. Heck, even us non-lawyers could figure this one out. However, the fact that Dembski has said this publicly would appear fairly damming to any defense. If the producers claim they didn't discuss this with their lawyers, the obvious come-back is... "If you didn't discuss this with a lawyer, then how did you determine that you weren't 'exposed' to a legal finding of copyright violation?"

At best, the judge or jury would be p'd at the Premise folks dragging everyone through a lawsuit for their benefit (i.e. publicity). I suspect there are laws against using the courts for such purposes.


"or it really speaks for the lawyers being cunning because if there's a trial, the lawyers will get money... if that's what counts for them."

Not likely. First, it is likely to be another group of laywers (i.e. trial lawyers). Second, if they actually gave this advice, they might end up on the hook for part of the judgement. Third, it sounds like a fraud against the court - not good for lawyers. Forth, it is unlikely their lawyers would get any good publicity out of this. Who would hire someone who is give advice such as "try inviting a copyright lawsuit by closely copying such materials". Even if they successfully defended themselves, it would cost their client millions. It is highly unlikely that anyone could rule that any XVIVO lawsuit against them was frivilous if it came out that the Premise lawyers 'invited' the lawsuit.

32. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159489 by BW022 on April 12, 2008 at 9:53 am

Dembski's blog post is amazing.

Dembski - "Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business."

I think Dembski said something similiar about the Dover ID team and a bottle of spirits?


Dembski - "I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging (...), but different enough so that they are unexposed."

Let me get this straight... they are such good lawyers that the intentionally recommended that their clients try to make something look like someone elses in order to get sued for the publicity?

Perhaps the defense strategy is to setup their legal department as incompetent and you hope to turn around and sue them after they lose?


Dembski - "And let's not forget that Ben Stein is himself an attorney, who was first in his Yale graduating class."

LOL. I'm sure that XVIVO folks are just shaking in their boots.


Can't wait to see the PBS special on "Exposed On Trail". Ben Stein taking over the cross examination, "Well... are you are aren't you a Nazi?" followed by the killer defense... "Well... it only looks like there video because we wanted them to sue us." Perhaps Mr. Dembski might wish to actually show up for this trial?

33. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158917 by BW022 on April 11, 2008 at 7:06 am

To DavidJGrossman:

First, I would think that there are legal reasons why you can't allow someone to use your works for long periods of time and then later claim that they were violating copyright.

Second, XVIVO is a business. While others might have reasons to see the film look bad in order to blunt their message, that isn't XVIVOs issue. They want to stop folks from profiting off their works and to ensure that others do not try it.

Third, creationists will spin any outcome into a conspiracy against them. Court trials, school board meetings, film reviews, etc. are all somebody afraid of their ideas and trying to cover up the truth. Whether they spin XVIVOs copyright shouldn't affect XVIVO (or we) approach the issue. Creationists could certainly 'spin' it even if XVIVO didn't stop them -- i.e. "See they are afraid that the publicity will show that ID is right." or "You know we didn't steal it, otherwise you would have sued us months ago."

XVIVO should just to the right thing and not worry about what hay the other side makes out of it. If the film is delayed, isn't released, is released as is and needs to be sued, etc. let the creationists spin it anyway they like. In the end, the public will get the facts -- YouTube, the press, transcripts from the lawsuit, etc. Maybe PBS will run a "Making of Expelled" documentary?

34. CEAI Action Alert for Science Teachers

Comment #155339 by BW022 on April 4, 2008 at 10:55 am

Schools teach "facts". They teach that 1 1=2. They teach that Hilter was the leader of Nazi Germany. They teach that gravity is a force which pulls objects towards the center of mass. They teach that cows eat grass. Etc.

Teachers do not have any right to teach what they want, to not teach what they are paid to teach, or to be given a free forum to express opinions. This isn't free speech �quot; it is paid speech. Same as a Sunday school teacher is not free to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, etc. when being paid to teach about Christianity.

Nor do students have any right to hear every possible theory. We pass on knowledge by given students the best answer �quot; based on their ability to understand. We do not teach students about the Indian five elements theory of light, the Greek Hellenistic theory of light, the optical theory of light, the 'plenum' theory, the ether theory, relativistic light, and then finally quantum theory. We just skip to quantum theory. The entire point of passing on knowledge is to go straight to the best answer/explanation such that each individual in the next generation need not go through all the time and effort of figuring out what the previous generation already has.

Nor do we allow students, teachers, or the public to decide which theory is correct or the best. Lay people do not understand the science behind such theories, they do not have time to look at it, nor are their 'opinions' or those of the majority likely to be correct. You let folks who understand the science, who spend most of their lives on the subject, who have massive resources to direct towards studying it, etc. Scientists, peer-reviews, journals, industry processes, etc. over decades are far more likely do come up with the right or best answer than a student who might spend a few hours on the subject, a teacher who might spend a few weeks on it, or a parent who may have only vaguely covered it twenty years ago.

I can just see the creationist public school system… "Ok students… Last week we voted to cover the ether theory of light. This week let's look at our vote on who was the first president of the United States. We have six votes for George Washington, three votes for George Bush, and twenty seven votes for Jesus. Tomorrow we will vote on whether gravity is caused by Lagrangian density or a series of massless, 2-spin, virtual particles known as gravitons. We only have a week, so please read up on your differential equations and spatial math."

35. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155289 by BW022 on April 4, 2008 at 9:56 am

One thing which always puzzles me about these type of cults... why is hiding in a cave supposed to protect you from the 'end of the world'?

Any event capable of ending the world, or even the majority of the humans on the planet, isn't going to spare those folks living in a cave. A meteor, nuclear war, mass disease, world-wide flood, atmosphere blowing away, etc. capable of killing billions isn't likely to spare folks living in a cave. Even if you survived the initial effects, what use would it be to come out into a world without plants or animals, covered in nuclear winter, full of radiation, etc.? Do they think the dinasaurs 65 million years ago died out because there were no caves?

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151749 by BW022 on March 29, 2008 at 10:00 am

I'm curious if anyone has an idea of the likelihood that this film will actually be seen by anyone?

Their web-site says that they are hoping to have it running in 250 theatres â€" and even that sounded wishful. Considering that there are 35,000 or so theatres in the US alone that pretty much says that there isn't much chance any major chain or distribution company is going to be showing this. If it is as poor as it seems, that seems to rule out it coming in any sort of general release. They are already trying to get folks to campaign for places to run the film and paying folks to attend even limited showings.

TV seems equally unlikely. Documentaries are pretty hard to get on TV unless they have a lot of entertainment value (say Moore's films) or are really good documentaries on PBS. I can't see ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. seeing this as a ratings winner and I can't see PBS putting on a documentary with such poor standards. I suspect all would be worried about how easily someone might be offended (trivializing the holocaust, children seeing fairly obvious propaganda, etc.) and how easily one could run a story on the background of the film â€" tricking folks into interviews, it's religious ties, the makers of the film, PZ Myers being expelled, and rather obvious untruths in the story â€" which would probably be more entertaining and make them look stupid for running it.

DVD market is also reasonably tough. Maybe they can get it into stores or video rental places, but I'm just not seeing this. Blockbuster just isn't going to see the appeal to the 'folks outraged by the expulsion of ID proponents from universities' segment of the population. At least Moore's films cover subjects which lots of people care about.

So, does anyone suspect that any mass audience is going to even get the chance to see this film? Is it just likely to be some film passed around Christian 'underground' videos, YouTube clips, or Christian satellite networks?

37. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151437 by BW022 on March 28, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Talk about sad.

Yet the aweful fact is that the parents are not evil. They do believe that prayer was going to heal their sick child. And if you belief that God can hear your prayers, he is all powerful, and he is all good, then you why would you call a doctor?

Religious people can not get it. I'm sure that most religious folks don't really buy that God listens to prayers -- nearly all would rush their child to the doctor. But, they can't understand why it is dangerous for them to pretend that it does -- teach prayer, go through the motions, include it in their holy books, celebrate praying, speak as if they do belief it, talk about miracles, etc. They just don't get that some poor idiot won't get that they are pretending and that they really don't trust prayer...

and little girls will keep dying.