Facts, Interpretation and Truth

"Please tell the McCain/Palin Campaign (preferably politely) why teaching creationism in our public schools around America is superstitious and is not in our nation's best interests." Quantum Flux.

"...I would also add in closing that the comment about creationism being superstitious and not good for our country is ridiculous." The Maid

My last post sparked off two fascinating topics of discussion - abortion and creationism. I quickly wanted to touch upon the topic of creationism - and the concept of teaching it in American public schools.

Just to surprise everybody, I'll admit that I think creationism should be taught in every public school in America - but only EVER in Religious Studies class.

It's an important Christian concept and a major part of Christian theology. I totally support children being taught the basis of 'what Christians believe.' (Likewise, I think children would do well to learn the basic concepts of Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.)

What I do not believe in is teaching creationism as an 'alternative' to the currently accepted scientific theory on the creation of the earth. That's just wrong. Creationism is not a 'scientific theory.' It's fantasy.

Christians often argue that creationism is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution because the theory of evolution isn't complete. It has holes in - questions that still aren't answered.

How did the universe begin? How did life start of planet earth? There are theories, like 'the Big Bang' that answer this, but they're just theories (even though they're supported by very convincing scientific evidence.)

However, unlike creationism, there are parts of the evolution system that aren't theoretical. They're facts. Cold, hard, immutable, inarguable facts. These facts don't just help support the theory of evolution - they also prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the creationist doctrine is wrong.

To teach creationism as 'science' is to teach science that is wrong. It's a lie. In fact, it's bordering on child abuse. It's like teachings kids that the world is flat, or that 2 + 2 = 36.

Creationism says that God created the world six thousand years ago. Scientific fact proves that the world was forged between 100 and 150 million years before that. [Yo! Militant Ginger, you dumbass! Your dad points out that the Earth was formed 5 BILLION years ago. Geeze. Try using Wikipedia some time - Editorial Bear.]

Creationism says that God created Adam and Eve six thousand years ago. Scientific fact proves that man was walking the African plains two hundred thousand years earlier.

Creationism says that God created each type of animal (including man) individually. Scientific fact shows the evolution of fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals and those mammals (eventually) into man.

It's laid out in front of us like a jigsaw puzzle. To argue against these facts is like saying the sky isn't blue, or water isn't wet.

What fundamentalist Christians have lost sight of, in their battle to get creationist fantasy taught as scientific theory, is that God can still exist in Darwin's world.

Fourteen billion years ago, the universe got created in what scientists call 'the big bang.' Why? How? Nobody knows - and the suggestion that a 'higher power' deliberately created the universe makes as much sense (if not more) than the idea that it just happened randomly.

How did life arrive on Earth? Why didn't it appear anywhere else? One popular school of thought is that life arrived on Earth from outer space (a theory called Panspermia .) It would be just as credible to suggest that 'God' created life.

How come mankind was the only animal to develop language, art, science, music and technology? Atheists think it's just coincidence. Doesn't it makes more sense to believe that a 'higher power' guided us and helped shape the society that humanity has become?

The fact is, science and God can coexist quite happily. Christians can live in reality, yet still believe in a higher power. The two are not mutually exclusive.

What the religious right need to do is adopt scientific methods into their religion - and accept that time, fact and circumstance can help their beliefs evolve just like science does.

After all, even the most fundamentalist Christian wouldn't argue that the world is flat (although that was established Christian 'fact' four hundred years ago.) If religion has evolved enough to shed itself of that stupid, outdated and ignorant belief, why can't it do the same for creationism?

After all, according to the Bible, Jesus had an important message for his followers to spread and it sure as hell wasn't 'My Dad created the Earth in six days...'

Is New Earth Creationism as bad as Holocaust Denial?

DID THIS POST GO TOO FAR?: Maybe 'alternative theories' aren't so bad after all. If you get your knickers in a twist because of this post, read this follow up.

Two revisionist movements have been gaining alarming strength over the last few decades - and they share worrying similarities.

Their agendas are very different, but their origins, methodology and outlook run parallel to each other. New Earth Creationists and Holocaust Deniers.

Thirty or forty years ago, Creationism and Holocaust Denial were both fringe lunacy - the domain of idiots and fundamentalists who received well-deserved scorn and the contempt of mainstream society.

Flash forward four decades: A New Earth Creationist just ran in the Presidential Primaries, while representatives from 30 countries attended a two day conference in Tehran to "Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust."


What the hell is going on? When did the arena of whackjobs, nutcases, idiots and bigots start spreading into civilised society?

Crazy, crazy people...

Let me introduce you to the Holocaust Deniers - people who believe that the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler's Nazi regime never took place.

They started out as rednecks and skinheads - 'white pride' idiots who made up conspiracies about how Jews controlled America. They denied that the holocaust ever taken place - and argued that it was all a 'Zionist conspiracy' to demonise Germany.

For the most part, these people were derided and ignored - as were their crackpot theories. However, over the course of the past couple of decades, a movement in the Middle East cropped up that mirrored and gave weight to their denial of the Holocaust.

The governments of fundamentalist Islamic countries like Iran and Syria started publishing statements denying the holocaust, arguing that "the so-called Holocaust is an alleged and invented story, with no basis."

With the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, this movement has grown. Recently, Iranian President Ahmadinejad declared:

"The Zionists have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream!"

On December 11th 2006, Ahmadinejad hosted a conference for representatives from 30 countries, under the title "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust."

What began as a disgusting delusion, maintained by only by the most contemptible of lunatics, has now become a 'legitimate' revisionist movement. So popular has the denial of the Holocaust become that some religious schools in Great Britain have even stopped teaching Holocaust History in class, for risk of 'offending' their Muslim students.

Creationist Cretins

Now let me introduce you to a similar group of crackpots - the New Earth Creationists. People who believe that the Earth was created in exact, literal accordance with the Bible: 6,000 or so years ago.

Like Holocaust Denial, modern society was largely free of New Earth Creationists thirty or forty years ago. New Earth Creationism had never been a particularly convincing theory - even Saint Augustine, the 4th century Bishop of Hippo, argued that the creation story was allegorical.

Yet towards the end of the 20th century, a revival movement started, with Christian fundamentalists across America uniting behind the idea that fossils, geology, history and astronomy were all wrong about the age of the Earth.

They argued that 'The Great Flood' (of Noah's Ark) swished around the geological strata and made it appear older than it was - leading creationist Henry Morris to declare "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"

The development of the Internet gave an even greater voice to these fundamentalist Christians, leading to the development of websites like Ken Ham's 'Answers in Genesis' and the popularity of homeschooling with a 'Christian curriculum' which neatly avoids theologically troubling (i.e. scientifically accurate) concepts like evolution.

The result? And entire generation of kids and young adults brainwashed into believing the fictional fantasy that is New Earth Creationism.

Similarities

On the surface of it, the similarities between New Earth Creationists and Holocaust Deniers might not seem obvious - but they're there. Consider:

Both movements step from religious fundamentalism.

It's no coincidence that the popularity of Holocaust Denial and New Earth Creationism match the explosion of fundamentalist religious movements - which seek 'wisdom' from religious documents like the Koran or the Bible.

Like it or not, fundamentalism Islam and evangelical Christianity share an alarming number of similarities - not least of which is a stubborn insistence of finding answers in old books, rather than science, history and fact.

Both theories are just wishful thinking.

The Islamic fundamentalists really want to believe the Holocaust never happened, because then residents of the state of Israel would stop having the moral authority to aggressively defend their existence. [How dare they! - Editorial Bear]

New Earth Creationists, on the other hand, really want to believe the Bible is true, so it gives them divine justification for hating gay people, shooting abortion doctors and banning people from having sex. Ever.

Both theories ignore mountains of evidence.

The reason Holocaust Denial was such a derided movement forty years ago was because there were thousands of concentration camp survivors around to tell them they were talking crap.

As they died out, it opened the window to 'suggest' that the genocide had never even occurred. After all, there was nobody left around to argue about it.

That still left thousands of documents, photos and the camps themselves to prove than the Holocaust was real (plus that fact that six million Jews mysteriously vanished between 1933/1945.) Nevertheless, Holocaust Deniers claim that the evidence was faked, the numbers made up and the eyewitness testimony is a lie.

As for New Earth Creationists? Well, they use similar methodology to defend their position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Despite the fact that radiometric dating, ice-core data and even the rings on trees prove that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, they stubbornly refuse to accept it. As Creationist Henry Morris argued: "When science & the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."

Both New Earth Creationism and Holocaust Denial rely on shameless, stubborn, stoic refusal to accept any and all evidence disproving their beliefs.

Both theories rely on disinformation, brainwashing, manipulation and outright lies to further their cause.

Holocaust Denial has graduated from lunacy to 'revisionist history' by misrepresenting evidence, denying the facts and brainwashing the ignorant.

Across the Middle East, for example, schools and television stations declare that the Holocaust was a hoax - so poor, ignorant children grow up believing that to be the truth. They simply don't know any better.

Likewise, New Earth Creationists rely on homeschooling to fatten their ranks - with unscrupulous hacks like Andrew Schlafly and Ken Ham creating misleading home school curriculums that teach theories like New Earth Creationism as if it was a scientific fact.

In scientific debates, Creationists lie, bully and manipulate in order to make their silly stance sound more believable. Interviews with notable skeptics like Richard Dawkins have to be brutally edited to discredit them, quotes have to be taken out of context to support the theory and in the absence of all other options, Creationists are more than willing to out-and-out make stuff up.

Both theories are just plain wrong. Holocaust Denial and New Earth Creationism share one overriding similarity - both 'theories' are complete rubbish.

The Holocaust did occur. During Hitler's reign, six million Jewish people - and an equal number of gypsies, homosexuals, communists and other 'social undesirables,' were taken off to camps in central Europe and exterminated in gas chambers.

We know this has happened because people survived to tell of it: Concentration camp inmates themselves, along with the American and Allied soldiers who 'liberated' those camps.

Likewise, a mountain of irrefutable evidence proves that the earth is four and a half billions years old - and that life evolved from single-celled organisms into the current menagerie of mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and bacteria.

The Bible is not an infallible, literal history of the world. It's just a book. Or, at a push, a reasonably effective paperweight.

Are New Earth Creationists as bad as Holocaust Deniers?

On the face of it, of course not.

Holocaust Deniers are trying to deny the systematic extermination of six million people.

Not only does that defame the memory of those who have died, it's a slap in the face for the people who survived - and their descendants.

Most terrifying of all, by trying to eliminate the Holocaust from society's collective memory, it leaves the world vulnerable to letting it happen all over again.

As for New Earth Creationists - all they want to do is believe their silly little fairy tale about the world being sixty centuries old.

On the surface, it doesn't do anybody any harm. In fact, I recently spoke to a brilliant, dynamic young lady who just happened to be a New Earth Creationist - and she said: "I don't care what others believe, so long as I'm allowed to believe what I want to."

Advocates of New Earth Creationism aren't really fighting for anything more than the right to believe what they want to - even if that believe is idiotic, irrational and founded in fantasy.

But nevertheless, I find the similarities between the two groups troubling. Advocates of Holocaust Denial and New Earth Creationism are fighting for different things using the same troubling methods.

The Evolution of Evolution

Back in April, I wrote a couple of posts about Evolution - since I continue to be astonished that there's a movement in America that refuses to accept Darwin's theory and still believes in 'Creationism' (as in, God invented it all over the course of a week.)

No, that's not the astonishing part. The fact that this movement hasn't been ridiculed into non-existence yet is the bit that boggles my mind!

One of the reasons 'Creationism' is still bantered about is because seemingly intelligent, reasonable people advocate it - such as blog friend and commentator CK.

Back in April, he had a few dissenting opinions on my appraisal of evolution - arguing that intelligent design was clearly a better theory since there were 'missing links' that had so far eluded scientists and prevented them from pinning down evolution as anything more than a theory.

As CK said: 'Intelligent Design: No need to see a fish turn to a bird, if a bird was designed as a bird and a fish as a fish. Animals adapt and evolve... but they don't change what animal they are in the process.'

He argued that God invented birds and birds, fish as fish and the rest of the animals started off as what they were and any 'evolution' that has occurred has been purely incidental.

It's a pretty logical argument, which makes sense since CK is a pretty logical guy. The flaw is that these 'missing links' DO continue to be discovered - reinforcing Darwin's theory and punching holes in the idea of Creationism.

In fact, last Thursday saw the discovery of the most convincing 'missing link' discovered yet. 'Ventastega' is a 100 million year old fish with tiny legs - currently the oldest discovered four-legged animal and concrete proof that the four legged mammals of today started their evolutionary journey as fish.

That's what is so comforting about theories like evolution. They start from the assumption that we don't know all the answers - but the more we find out, the more the facts back our theories. Creationism is the opposite - it stems from a belief that we DO know all the answers (or, at least, the Bible does) and it must be infuriating for 'believers' to see their doctrine hammered by reality each time a new fossil is unearthed.

Darwin's Legacy

CK left a comment on this post and pointed out that debating Creationist Doctrine's Ku Klux Klan roots is all well and good - but Darwin's Theory of Evolution didn't exactly bring out the best in some people, either.

In fact, the idea of 'survival of the fittest' inspired many proponents of Darwin's theories to suggest that the human race itself could be 'improved' by directly manipulating the evolutionary process.

Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, discovered that statistics suggested a congenitally deaf person was more likely to parent a deaf child than somebody with normal hearing. Therefore, theoretically, if the deaf didn't procreate, deafness could be eliminated from the human race. It was thinking like that which was the beginning of Eugenics.

Eugenics was such a popular theory that even Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, advocated it. In 1907, he supported Indiana becoming the first of thirty states to introduce compulsory sterilization of 'inferior' human specimens. Other states, like Connecticut, had already brought in legislation barring the "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.

By 1945, over 60,000 Americans had been forcibly sterilized to avoid 'polluting the gene pool' with their 'inferior' genes.

Although forced sterilizations continued until 1963, for the most part they stopped in 1945. This is when America was forced to come to terms with the legacy of their experimentation into eugenics.

During the Nuremberg trials, when top-ranking Nazi officers were placed on trial for the shocking and inhumane crimes they committed during World War Two, the issue of eugenics was raised. The Nazis had forcibly sterilized over 450,000 people - many for the genetic 'crime' of being Jewish.

Hitler himself had written: "I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

That was a bitter pill for the American government to swallow. That realisation pretty much ended the experiment into 'social eugenics.'

And not a moment too soon, because eugenics is a quack science.

Some of the basic theories, like Alexander Graham Bell's observation that deafness could be 'bred out' of the human race, sound convincing, but the theory of 'racial purity' flirted with by early American eugenicists (and embraced by the Nazis) is more likely to produce genetic abnormalities than 'cure' them.

For example, observant Ashkenazi Jews tend to marry within their own community (for social reasons) and as a result, have a much higher rate of certain hereditary diseases (such as Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Canavan's disease and Goucher's disease.) This illustrates that 'racial purity' promotes a less diverse (and therefore less healthy) gene pool.

Most dog breeders have known this for centuries - it's well established that mongrel dogs tend to be healthier than 'pure breeds' and closely bred types of dogs often suffer problems because of their limited gene pool. The effort to breed the 'perfect' Bulldog, for example, results in many animals who have trouble breathing because their noses are so squished.

Eugenics simply misinterprets the theory of evolution. Darwin suggested that 'natural selection' favoured animals who varied in a 'manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life.' His whole theory celebrates genetic variety, while eugenics itself tries to eliminate it.

But in any event, CK was absolutely right when he pointed out that Darwin's theory of evolution has probably had a far more devastating effect on the United States than proponents of the Doctrine of Creationism. That's because Darwin's theory is based in fact - and fact is always infinitely more dangerous than fantasy.

That's the major difference between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Creationism.

The modern Doctrine of Creationism was the child of the fundamentalist movement (many of whom were documented members of the Ku Klux Klan.) It was based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Eugenics, on the other had, was created by manipulating a scientifically sound theory. The reason eugenics was such a popular lie - embraced by governments and people alike - was because it was based in fact.

When it comes to eugenics, I think this quote is appropriate:

"The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." George Christoph Lichtenberg.

When it comes to the Doctrine of Creationism, the classics are always the best:

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what a man wishes, he believes to be true." Demosthenes.

Darwin Versus God

My continued research into the rich history of the United States has reached the brink of the Great Depression, and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states.

Steve Wiegand's book on the history of America touched on a subject very close to my heart - the uniquely American obsession with doctrine of creationism.

"The Ku Klux Klan's greatest influence," Wiegand writes, "developed in small and mid-sized cities and in rural areas, and the repressive attitudes it catered to were also quick to embrace 'fundamentalism,' or the idea that everything in the Bible was literally true."

"In 1925, the Klan succeeded in passing a law in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools."

Now I don't think Monsieur Wiegand was suggesting a link between modern proponents of creationist theory and the Ku Klux Klan. However, as in all things, it's important to look at the origin of one's beliefs and the legacy they carry.

Most modern supporters of the doctrine of creationism are God-fearing Americans. Good people who love their families and are passionate in their beliefs. The fact that they believe in Creationism - that the world was created 6,000 years ago despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary - does not reflect on their good spirit and kind hearts.

Yet the fact remains, incontrovertible, that the modern creationist movement was forged at least in part in the fires of racism. It was the Ku Klux Klan, rejecting logic, science and reason, who helped give birth to modern creationist doctrine and fought to give it the legitimacy of the Tennessee state legislature.

Modern creationists, even if they're good hearted, patriotic and tolerant of other people's beliefs, should remain aware of their doctrine's sordid history. Their efforts to further the medieval thinking of 'Creationist Doctrine' is furthering the work of some of the 20th century's most despicable men.

Factual Discrepencies

One of my biggest criticisms of those crazy conservatives is that they refuse to admit when they're wrong - whether it's debating the theory of evolution or whether or not being 'gay' is a liberal conspiracy.

But that being said, it would be totally hypocritical of me to not admit when I'd made a booboo. Like the one I made on Monday, when I complained bitterly about the wretched misinformation site Conservapedia misrepresenting the verdict of a 1986 Oxford University Debate featuring 'Darwin's Rottweiler,' professor Richard Dawkins.

The debate was The Huxley Memorial Debate, a celebration of the 1860 debate between the Bishop of Oxford and Thomas Henry Huxley - debating the theory of evolution.

The 1986 rematch featured widely discredited creationist Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith debating with Richard Dawkins over the hypothesis "That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution."

After three hours of debate, the motion was defeated and Richard Dawkins clearly won the debate - but things get fuzzy when people try to work out by how much.

The actual records of the debate from Oxford University have inexplicably gone missing, which means it's pretty tricky to get an accurate gauge of the margins to which Dawkins won the debate. Wilder-Smith claims that 'a third - almost one half - of those attending supported creationism' while the American Association for the Advancement of Science only adds to the confusion by recording 198 votes in favour of Professor Dawkins and only l 5 supporting creationism.

The letter 'l' followed by the number 5. On Monday, I had misread this as '15.'

Because of this typo, I can't really accuse the likes of Conservapedia of misrepresenting the number of 'aye' votes because the AAAS clearly didn't record them accurately.

However, I'm also loath to believe Wilder-Smith's claims that 'almost half' of those attending the debate voted in support of creationism. After all Wilder-Smith was a pathological liar (proven by his involvement in a scam to forge dinosaur and human tracks at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park - in order to support the theory than man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time.)

Fortunately, the correct answer was easy enough to find - on Professor Dawkin's own website.

The adamant atheist provides his own take on the voting - admitting that a significant number of people supported the creationists (far more than the 15 I'd surmised) and then provides MP3 recordings of the debate itself, which clearly feature the votes being counted and 115 'ayes' being acknowledged.

Finally, to support Dawkin's account of the debate, the actual number of voters was estimated to be around 300. If the AAAS had been correct - and only 15 had supported the creationist motion - around 100 voters would have abstained (which is unlikely.)

Therefore, I have to hold up my hands and admit I was wrong.

This doesn't mean I support Conservapedia. I still think they're a wretched mine of misinformation. Their entry on Richard Dawkins, for example, has a single paragraph on the man's belief and background and pages of discussion over whether or not he's a 'real' Oxford Professor (since he's on the Oxford University payroll, listed as a professor, I'd say the answer was 'yes.')

Discrediting Dawkins seems far more important to Conservapedia clowns than actually writing an encyclopedia entry on him.

The Great Debate: "Should ‘Intelligent Design’ be taught in public schools?"

Today is the third of a series of cross-blog debates with conservative blogger Mike Waters; who enjoys the challenge of a gentlemanly discussion. Go and read Mike's opinion over on his blog; and be sure to comment on what you read! Today's topic is of interest because of the controversial story that perhaps life on Earth didn't even develop on this planet at all!

In the mean time, here's my two cents:

Should ‘Intelligent Design’ be taught in public schools?

Let’s get something straight. There is no such thing as ‘Intelligent Design.’

So-called Intelligent Design is essentially Creationism – the belief that the planet Earth, and all life upon it, was created as described in the old testament of the Bible.

The only difference between the two is that teaching Creation Theory in school was made illegal in 1987 (in Edwards v. Aguillard and other court rulings) because it fundamentally violated the principle of Separation of Church and State.

Following that ruling, unscrupulous fundamentalists repackaged Creationism in a shiny new pseudo-scientific format and have, ever since, been trying to get it taught in schools.

Nevertheless, it remains every bit as unconstitutional as the curriculum that sparked Edwards v. Aguillard back in 1987.

But for the sake of argument, let’s dig a little bit deeper into why Intelligent Design/Creation Theory should be kept out of public schools:

• It’s unconstitutional: Intelligent Design/Creation Theory stem from a Judeo-Christian interpretation of creation. Therefore, teaching it in schools paid for by the taxpayer, and established by the government, is ‘establishment of religion.’ Namely, it’s establishment of Judeo-Christian monotheism that violates the 1st Amendment rights of anybody who is not Judeo-Christian. Buddhists, Hindis, Native Americans and atheists all believe that life came about differently; so if you force their kids to study one particular religious viewpoint (in accordance with the first chapter of the Old Testament) you’re “prohibiting the free exercise” of other religious or non-religious viewpoints.
• It’s unscientific: Intelligent Design/Creation Theory is not based on any form of evidence whatsoever. You can argue the ‘theory’ that life was created by a single ‘Intelligent Designer’ but that’s no more provable or unprovable than arguing it was created by many ‘Intelligent Designers’ – or just happened randomly, or was the work of hyperintelligent mice, or a Giant Spaghetti Monster. If your theory is founded on the understanding that you can never able to prove or disprove it, it ceases to become a theory and becomes theology instead. That’s absolutely fine with me - it’s all very well to believe in a higher power – but if theology gets taught in school, it should be confined to the Religious Studies classroom, not the Science Lab.

Another argument against teaching Intelligent Design/Creation Theory in school is that I just don’t see the point. The beauty of what we get taught about evolution is that it is fundamentally compatible not just with decades of scientific research, but also with just about every religion on Earth.

Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

—National Academy of Sciences

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. Vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

Pope Benedict XVI

Just because we teach that one species evolved over millennia into another, that doesn’t discount the belief that some mysterious ‘Intelligent Designer’ wrote the blueprint or lit the touch paper.

Nor does it prove that they didn’t. Whether or not there is a God is unprovable, so that's why the question doesn't get asked when studying evolution - not because evolution and atheism somehow co-exist.

Finally, proponents of Intelligent Design/Creation Theory have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. They incorrectly believe that the concept of evolution – that one animal species evolves into another - hasn’t been proven, and is somehow up for debate. That simply isn’t true.

Evolution is a ‘theory’ only in the same way gravity remains a ‘theory.’ Or, to be more specific, we know THAT evolution happens, just as we know if you throw something in the air, gravity will bring it crashing back down to Earth. The ‘theoretical’ part is WHY that happens – ‘survival of the fittest’ being the current understanding.

To argue against the process of evolution – that protobionts evolved into bacteria and eukaryotes and eventually more complex life forms – is like arguing that the world is flat. It’s wrong, plain and simple – and if we teach our kids something so mind-numbingly, inconceivably false, even as a ‘theory’, we’re guilty of child abuse on a massive scale.

Science for Idiots (Idiots like me...)

Over on Coffee Bean's brilliant 'An Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics' there is all sorts of angry debate going on, encompassing many topics, including the perennial discussion about creationism versus evolution.

One of the angriest voices has been mine - simply because the whole existence of 'creationist doctrine' continues to astonish me.

Living in America, I'm often astonished at how similar things are to life in Britain. Oh, sure, the accent and the weather is different, but things are largely the same, aren't they?

Well, it stuff like creationism (and maple syrup on bacon, but I digress) that throws into sharp relief how different things in America actually are.

Here in the United States, people - and I'm talking about a lot of people - actually believe that the world was created in six days, exactly as it's written in the Bible.

This truly astonishes me.

For the most part, I like to think I'm fairly open minded and slip quite effortlessly into the conventions of different cultures. However, I find this particular one very difficult to swallow.

Over on Coffee Bean's blog, I haven't been altogether gentlemanly in my discussions. The words 'religious nutjob' and 'idiot' have passed my (virtual) lips more than once. This really isn't very mature of me. I should simply accept that other people have opinions different to my own (and then I should take the time to explain to them, in very simple terms, why they're wrong.)

Which is the point of the next few posts. I'm not a scientist - but I am a reasonably literate human being. I'm going to explain what I believe and why I believe it.

Now, as arrogant and opinionated as I am, I'm not always right. In fact, I'm not even often right! So there may be typos and errors in the next few posts that people should be more than willing to point out (for example, in a previous post I described the Earth as being 150 million years old. In fact, it's more like 5 billion years old.)

However, everything I write is going to be based in fact and science. I'm sorry, but evidence I can see and touch with my own two hands will always trump what's written in a two thousand year old religious text - no matter how 'inerrant' irrational people claim it to be.

Let the fun begin...

Tolerance in America

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.

Abraham Lincoln

In the past few months, I've witnessed an awful lot of people bleating about their rights, claiming persecution and donning the mantle of victimhood. I've stood up for quite a few positions during this time - some of which I was right about, others that I might not have been.

I've come think the secret to a happy society is tolerance. But what is tolerance?

I've been thinking about this a lot and I think tolerance is actually easy. Tolerance is the subtle art of not getting up off your arse to meddle in somebody else's business.

For example, if my evangelical Christian next-door-neighbor wants to home school his kids, (teaching creationism and other delightful fairy tales) my natural instinct it to leap up and do something about it. But do you know what? Maybe it's none of my business. Maybe I should let him do whatever he wants and confine my opinions to how I live my life.

Likewise, if the two young men next door want to get married, the idea might be sickening and disturbing to you - but their union isn't going to affect you at all. In fact, to propagate a popular stereotype, their house renovations might raise the property value of the entire street. Maybe you should leave them to do whatever they want to do and confine your opinions to how you live your life.

The best thing about tolerance is that it's that easy. You don't have to do anything.

To protest religious homeschooling, you have to write an angry letter to the school board ("Dear Sir, teaching creationism is akin to child abuse!")

To protest gay marriage, you have to campaign for legislative reform and paint placards (God Hates Fags! Mal 1:3!)

To do the right thing - and be tolerant and respectful of other people's rights to live how they want to - the only thing you have to do is settle back into your chair and take a sip of your Plym and Tonic.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to support it. All you have to do is recognize that it's none of your Goddamned business (and therefore, your opinion on the matter is completely insignificant.)

Here endeth the sermon - but I think it's just as valid a lesson for liberty-lovin' liberals like me as the right wing people I'm always attacking. Looking back, I realise there's no ideological right or wrong. When it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the Conservatives have been right on some issues, the Liberals have been right on others - and they've both been wrong on things a number of times!)

As long as they don't infringe on anybody else's freedom and nobody gets hurt, we've no right to prevent people making their own choices in life. It's called progress, Baby, and you'd best not stand in the way of it.

A shameless nonsensical rant...

So here's why I'm always bitching about some (but not all - you know who you are) social conservatives - they really don't seem to get the idea of 'liberty.'

What I should be doing is bitching about the most extreme liberals - who really don't seem to get the idea of 'personal responsibility.'

Actually, those accusations work equally well the other way around!


The Far Right

Take some conservatives. They boast about being 'good Americans' and supporting 'liberty' and the 'constitution,' but they do no such thing!

The first amendment means that the social conservatives should stop trying to ban pornography! Barring child porn and bestiality (which require child abuse or animal abuse to produce) I think anything filmed between two consenting adults (and viewed by consenting adults) is fine.

If you don't like it - don't buy/rent it!

It is not up to the 'moral majority' (which is neither moral nor a majority) to dictate to the rest of us!

Likewise - let's have some T&A back on the television, please. I think after a 10pm watershed, American television should show all the nudity and bad language they want. If parents don't want their kids to be 'corrupted' then DON'T LET THEM WATCH IT.

It's not the network's responsibility to monitor what kids watch (after a certain time.) If parents don't like it, they really shouldn't let their kids have TVs and access to the Internet in the privacy of their bedroom.

Don't they remember being kids themselves? Of course they want to watch the naughty stuff! (Back in my day, I used to thumb through Jilly Cooper novels just to get to the saucy bits.)

It's called the 'off' button people. Learn to use it. The television is no longer your kid's babysitter! (The DVD player is.)

Let's move on...

How about teaching creationism (old school creation doctrine, not fluffy 'intelligent design') in schools? It's totally stupid, but I'll meet the social conservatives half way on this one...

If people want to home school their kids, or send them to private school, I think it's fair enough. Teach the we tykes whatever you want (thank goodness there are responsible home schoolers like Coffee Bean who give their kids a well rounded education - and still manage to squeeze in the religion.)

I think teaching 'new earth' creationism is ridiculous and still say it's tantamount to child abuse - but it's your money, they're your kids - if parents want to send them out into the 'real world' thinking that the earth is six thousand years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens, that's their (ir)responsibility.

But public schools, funded by taxpayers money, should only teach secular, proven fact. Not even intelligent design, which is meaningless and unprovable.

And if parents don't like that? What about letting them have 'vouchers' so their property tax can be refunded to pay for their kids to attend religious or private schools?

Hmm. Why not? Then they'd stop demanding prayer in public school, intelligent design in the public classroom and stuff like that. There would be the opportunity for them to have education their way and leave us to have (sensible) education our way. I think that's a fine compromise.

Okay, onto gay rights.

Let's talk turkey for a second. Despite long arguments with CK, I suspect he's probably right.

The Bible probably does say that "teh ghey" is wrong, ghastly, unnatural and an abomination. But the Bible says a lot of things that turned out to be rubbish (and a few things that didn't) and I'd prefer to look at a more progressive picture.

Men and women, just like animals in nature, occasionally turn out 'a bit gay.' They seek sex and relationships with their own gender. And you know what? That's absolutely fine with me.

Seriously, it's like what I wrote about pornography. If their sexual and romantic tastes were directed towards children or animals, that would be wrong (since it would involve or risk child or animal abuse.) But between two consenting adults? I think that's fine.

It doesn't do me any harm whatsoever - and that goes back to the essential rule about American society - I don't have to like it, but if that's what you want to do with your life, leave me free to do what I want to with my life in return.

So whether it's marriage or civil partnerships, I think there should be a system in place for men and women to enjoy the same rights and protects of a married heterosexual couple (and suffer the same divorce problems if that relationship breaks up.)

Anybody who disagrees? They're sticking their oar in and trying, once again, to dictate to America what is and isn't 'moral' according to their own narrow-minded agenda. That's not acceptable. You don't dictate how I live my life (unless if affects you, which, in this case, it doesn't.)

Abortion. How about that?

Well, I can see where social conservatives are coming from here. But when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, they're not the ones facing the most difficult decision of their lives...

Imagine that you're a forty-five year old single woman and you're accidentally pregnant (and there's a good chance that the kid will be seriously disabled when it's born.)

You're not financially, emotionally or physically ready to bring this baby into the world... Yet somebody else, sitting in the smug comfort of another state (and another life,) decides that they should make the decision about what's best for you and your unborn baby. Then they take no responsibility for what happens after they've decided that your baby should be born.

I don't know. It's a trickier issue because we're talking about another life. But I think, within reason (say, up to 13 weeks, or when there are medical issues) we might just have to accept that what's best for mother and baby might, just might, be up to mother and baby to decide.

And I don't think that's a decision any pregnant woman makes lightly (or forgets in a hurry.)

The Far Left

Let's leave the social conservatives alone for a second and move onto the liberals. These guys can be just as bad, if not worse.

I mean, take Barack Obama, dictating that the oil companies 'make too much profit.'

I'm sorry, but if you run a private business and operate within regulations, you should be free to make as much damn profit as you like! It's not like the oil companies are even the biggest businesses in America. The pharmaceutical industry makes billions more than Exxon. What are you going to do? Start redistributing their profits next?

Good luck, America. I think the supply of new and exciting drugs will start to dry up pretty damn quickly when that happens.

This is America - the land of opportunity. You should have the freedom to (legally) make as much profit as you want - and keep it (or redistribute it to your shareholders.) The government should butt out!

While we're at it, what is up with this reckless abandonment of personal responsibility? I thought the conservatives were bad enough, trying to ban pornography. Liberals want to ban smoking and trans fat (and have succeeded in New York.)

I hate eating in a smoky restaurant as much as the next person - but I think there should be bars in New York that are allowed to let smokers in. Give people the choice - smoking or non smoking. If they want to go to a smoking bar, that's their responsibility and their right.

Likewise, if you don't want to have smoke blown in your face, you should also have that right. I agree with some specific 'smoking' bars, but I also agree with a ban in every other public venue, like cinemas and sports arenas.

It's the same with trans fat.

Okay, so it's really, really bad for you - but nobody's forcing you to shove Kentucky Fried Chicken down your gullet. If you eat too much fatty food and have a heart attack, that's your shauri. You made that choice (and this is America. It's your right to.)

Banning trans fat is the start of a slippery slope. Next what'll it be? Dairy? Salt? If the liberals had their way, we'd all be eating nothing but a homogenized vegan slop.

It gets worse. I recently heard of a bartender on Long Island who got arrested because a woman he'd served got into her car (over the limit, since she'd been drinking elsewhere) and killed some poor kid on her drive home.

Lock that lady up and throw away the key - I'm fine with that. But the bartender? He was just doing his job? I know bartenders are not meant to over serve, but by suggesting he's responsible for the girl drink-driving also suggests that she isn't.

**adopt sarcastic tone** Poor little lamb. Despite the fact that she was probably drunk when she rolled up to the bar in the first place, it's not her fault that she drove drunk. It's that mean ol' bartender, who served her a drink even though she was already tipsy. All because she would have yelled at him if he didn't.

Liberals seem so desperate to relieve us of responsibility for anything. Why doesn't anybody man up, hold up their hands and say: "Yeah, I made a bum decision and I take responsibility for it?"

That'd be refreshing.

The Big Picture

At the end of the day, the far left and the far right have the same vision. They see America and it's problems and want to fix them.

Statistics prove that banning smoking saves lives. People claim that banning pornography would reduce sexually transmitted diseases. The Bible said that the world was created in six days and somebody in the Tennessee backwoods wants to teach their boy that (and demand that every copy of Jurassic Park get burned.)

Perhaps banning these things would work for the 'greater good.' But manipulating society to 'make it better' is social engineering. It's the sort of thing you'd expect in Communist China or North Korea.

This is America. Whether they're right or wrong, we should have the right to make our own decisions here.

It's inalienable, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit doesn't interfere with anybody else's, why should it be restricted?

In the upcoming election, people banter around words like 'patriotism' and phrases like 'a good American.' Well, isn't this what being a good American is all about? Defending the freedoms that the founding fathers fought and died for?

Even if they never anticipated that those freedoms would be the right to produce pornography, marry another man and gorge ourselves to death on fried chicken!

Dog with a Bone? Theories that didn't pan out...

I think went too far comparing New Earth Creationists with Holocaust Deniers. [British tabloid journalism strikes again? - Editorial Bear.]

Although the similarities I pointed out were awkwardly accurate, perhaps it was shotgun journalism... I apologise.

But it DID get me thinking...

I'll admit it... Recently I've been like a dog with a bone (a dinosaur bone) when it comes to creationism and intelligent design and all this other religious babble trying to muscle in on rationality, science and history.

Maybe I should take a deep breath, sit down and relax.... Chill out, as they say.

I mean, what does it matter if somebody believes that the world is 6,000 years old? By the same logic, what does it matter if somebody believes the holocaust didn't take place? I find the first suggestion stupid, the second suggestion offensive - but neither of them really affect my life in the slightest way.

This is America. We have the First Amendment, which says (short of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre) that you have a constitutionally protected right to claim whatever you want, no matter how stupid or offensive the rest of us find it.

And the First Amendment is an important one. If people didn't have the freedom of speech, what sort of nation would this be? I'm already sick to death of our 'moral superiors' trying to tell us what we can and can't watch on television, or banning sex toys and naughty DVDs in the deep south.

Freedom of speech is a two way street. If we argue that the moral majority have to respect our freedom of speech, we must respect theirs in return. So consider my wrist smacked.

Besides, some open minded discussion is always good.

I mean, look at the theory of the creation of the Earth... Sure, it's a proven scientific fact that creation doctrine isn't correct. The world wasn't created in six days...

On the other hand, despite a mountain of evidence supporting it, the jigsaw puzzle of evolution isn't totally complete. There are still some missing pieces and it's entirely possible that newly discovered evidence might drastically change the way we view the early history of our planet.

That's why it's such a good theory. More important than being provable, the theory of evolution is unprovable. It is possible to imagine evidence that disproves it.

The ability to disprove a theory is what makes it scientific and open to discussion. The problem with doctrine like Intelligent Design is that it's a theory that cannot be proven wrong, because you can't prove it right, either. Therefore it's not a scientific theory at all (and that's why it belongs in a theology or philosophy classroom, not a science lab.)

All that being said, it's always important to keep an open mind. Look at other theories we've seen in the past that have been blown apart by later discoveries:

Spontaneous Generation

Look back at the early days of science, back in the 17th century when people were first seeing the living organisms we'd later describe as bacteria. Scientists observed little squirmy creatures in people's wounds and came up with the theory of 'Spontaneous Generation.'

This theory claimed that living organisms were spontaneously generated by decaying matter - it matched something Aristotle himself had said over a thousand years earlier: "It was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth."

So mainstream was the theory that bacteria (and fleas and mice) spontaneously arose from rotting matter that when Sir Thomas Browne published his contradictory theory in 1646, "Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths," he was universally mocked.

His contemporary, Alexander Ross scoffed: "To question spontaneous generation is to question reason, sense and experience itself."

It wasn't until 1861 that Louis Pasteur finally proved conclusively that the theory of spontaneous generation was complete rubbish, through a series of complex experiments.

The Solar System

When I was a kid, we studied the planets in school - and there were nine of them.

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Today, kids are being taught that there are eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

So what happened? Did one go missing?

Far from it - in fact, scientists discovered another four planets in the last five years, or so. Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. But they're small planets - roughly the size of the 'ninth planet' Pluto, so scientists reclassified them all as 'dwarf planets.'

It's another example of how established fact gets superseded by a different established fact. Knowledge isn't black or white (like some Creationists believe) but a constantly moving roller-coaster ride where nothing is to be taken for granted.

Creationism

Just like Spontaneous Generation and the nine-planet Solar System, the idea of Biblical creation is also a theory that's been discredited by further scientific discoveries - the age of the Earth and fossils tracing the evolution of life on this planet.

Does that mean that our current theory is infallible? No, of course not. But the fact that the modern theory isn't infallible doesn't give the discredited theory any sudden legitimacy.

It's like one of the other widely discredited theories of our time - The Flat Earth.

The Flat Earth

It's a popular myth that people believed the Earth to be flat right up until Columbus crossed the Atlantic and discovered the Americas. In fact, that was just a story popularised by Washington Irving's 1828 book "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus."

The idea of a spherical Earth is as old as civilization itself. Pythagoras believed that heavenly bodies were spherical as far back as the 6th Century BC. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the Earth's spherical circumference in 240 BC.

In fact, even Biblical scholars from the early Middle Ages believed that the Earth was a sphere, contrary to popular belief.

When Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg was persecuted by Pope Zachary for his theory of a spherical Earth, the shape of the planet wasn't the origin of the heresy - it was actually his suggestion that other men existed beneath the Earth who weren't descended from Adam (and therefore were free of Original Sin.)

Observational evidence had always discredited 'Flat Earth Theory' - but that didn't stop people believing in it. In fact, an organisation called the Flat Earth Society still promotes their belief in a 'flat earth' today.

They have, astonishingly, thousands of members (and, unsurprisingly, strong historical links with a fundamentalist "Christian Catholic Apostolic Church," which later gave birth to the pentecostal movement. )

The BBC recently ran an article about how many 'flat-Earthers' still stick by their beliefs today.

New Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers

Perhaps a more politically correct version of my New Earth Creationists/Holocaust Deniers article would have been to compare them to modern Flat Earthers.

They're both preposterous, discredited beliefs - but unlike Holocaust Denial, they don't really do anybody harm if dumb people want to stick with them.

_____apedia.

It the Internet has one major flaw, it's that people tend to accept everything they read on it as fact. This is why websites like Snopes.com popped up, to debunk an awful lot of myths and hoaxes (never respond to an email round-robin without checking the first.)

Wikipedia is a particularly thorny problem when it comes to Internet credibility, since Wiki entries are actually contributed by users themselves - meaning people like you and I can go to a specific Wikipedia entry and change it as we see fit (just click on the 'Edit' button at the top of the page.)

As Stephen Colbert put it: "On Wikipedia, any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true. Together we can create a reality that we all agree on — the reality we just agreed on."

The good thing about Wikipedia, however, is that it's moderated by a dedicated and impartial team who remove malicious editing and require everything posted there to be backed up by some form of credible evidence (you'll spot the words 'citation needed' in some entries, signifying that the statement is not supported by evidence.)

This poses a problem for some people, who would love to have their opinions and beliefs endorsed by instant 'wikiality' - yet aren't willing to compromise by relying on something so erroneous as 'facts' and 'evidence' to back these beliefs up.

Hence the creation of 'Conservapedia.'

Truly one of the most cynical inventions in the Internet's history, Conservapedia is a 'Conservative Wikipedia.' It's like Wikipedia, except everything on it is written with a 'conservative' slant. It still demands all statements are backed up by facts - just not the sort of facts us regular folks would give credibility to.

For example, on discussing creationism, the Christian magazine 'Journal of Creation' is listed as a 'peer-reviewed scientific journal.' Which it's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination!

Conservapedia is one thing and one thing only. A place for conservatives to post their baseless theories onto the Internet and have them receive the vicarious credibility of being listed on a Google search engine. This in turn means they can link to Conservapedia as 'evidence' to support their ridiculous fantasies on blogs and in discussion forums.

Je-bus: Money well spent?

Traditionally, Evangelicalism hasn't done very well in Britain. In addition to having a fairly progressive state religion (The Church of England) Brits aren't generally programmed to go in for all that 'happy clappy' claptrap or join the 'praise Jesus!' crowd.

However, in recent years, that has been changing. The resurgence of the Evangelical cult in America has emboldened fundamentalist Christians in other countries, including England.

This campaign of disinformation is being fought on several fronts, including the teaching of Creationism in state schools (utterly despicable) and even a number of London buses emblazoned with Biblical quotes, such as: "When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8)."


I find this troubling for several reasons - not least of which, because I'm pretty sure it's illegal (I worked in advertising for years and Britain's got some pretty strict rules about using religion in adverts.)

But the really objectionable bit is that these 'Je-buses' promote a link to a website which, when visited, warns people that: "You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his demonic spirits! (Matthew 25: 41)."

Now this is where it gets silly.

Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine (who I have developed a total crush on) was so enraged by these buses and their fire-and-brimstone messaging that she encouraged readers to donate money for a 'positive response' to the Evangelicals and their nonsense.

"If there are 4,680 atheists reading this," Sherine challenged in her column, "and we all contribute £5, it's possible that we can fund a much-needed atheist London bus ad with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."

Sherine set up a 'Just Giving' account with a proposed target of £5,500 and - much to everybody's surprise - busted that target by an astonishing 2400%.

Richard Dawkins, the man behind the best-selling book 'The God Delusion' proudly launched the 'atheist bus' campaign, which rolled out on a whopping 800 buses nationwide, instead of just the original 30 Ariane Sherine had envisaged.


The campaign even went international, with buses in Spain and Washington D.C. running the slogan: "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." The Australian advertising commission, funnily enough, rejected a similar atheist campaign.

Now, as somebody who has had it up to here with the misleading, offensive, bigoted, ignorant rubbish peddled by the mainstream Evangelicalism, you'd think I'd find the rise of the atheist buses to be heartwarming and affirming. However, I can't help but think they're an awful waste of money.

£135,000 was spent on the national "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life" campaign. God knows how much money was frittered away by the stupid Evangelicals on their original 'you're all going to hell' bus stickers in the first place.

That money could have gone to cancer research, finding a cure for AIDS or something else practical. Instead, we're using one of the most expensive, imprecise and immeasurable advertising mediums on the planet to fight an expensive war for the hearts and minds of a bunch of people who probably couldn't care less in the first place.

I do think the atheist bus campaign was a complete waste of time and money, but it's the Evangelicals I'm especially angry at. If they weren't so eager to reduce the Western world to a backwards, fundamentalist regime, (like the Taliban in the middle east) than all those well intentioned atheists, who donated money to counter that rubbish on those 'Je-buses', could have donated to much more worthwhile charities instead.

What's the deal with the Iranian elections?

#freeiran

That's a 'Twitter' 'hashtag' that's winging its way across the Internet right now, spread viraly by millions of 'Twitterers' decrying the alleged election fraud that took place in Iran.

But let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. Are these accusations of fraud authentic?

Don't get me wrong. I loathe incumbent president Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād as much as anybody. I was fervently hoping for the predicted landslide for his opponent, reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh.

But when the election results came in - with Ahmadinezhad winning the election by an average of two votes to one - I was suspicious of just how fast people started crying 'fraud!'

It would be desirable and convenient for the disgusting Ahmadinezhad to be ousted from office, but we must never allow ourselves to buy into the belief that if you want something to be true, you can make it true (kind of like fundamentalists to try to with creationism.)

As much as I'd like to join in the clamor for electoral equality, let's examine the evidence first.

Iran's a big country and this election saw a voter turnout of nearly 85%. That meant almost 40 million votes were tallied (according to BBC Persian.) Of those votes, Ahmadinezhad won over 24.5 million of them.

Contrary to the cries of 'fraud,' this actually matches the results predicted by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion. Three weeks before the election, this non-profit group held an independent poll and found that twice as many people pledged to vote for the incumbent president as Mousavi.

Supporting this analysis, Guardian contributor Abbas Barzegar argued that the western response to the election results showed complete ignorance of the real situation in Iran. Western media, such as the BBC and the New York Times, tended to concentrate on opinion and analysis from more liberal Iranians, coming from wealthier parts of the country. This ignored, according to Barzegar, "the wide support Ahmadinejad enjoys in poor and rural communities."

There is some logic to that opinion. If residents of only New York City and San Francisco had been polled in the leadup to the 2004 Presidential Election, nobody would imagine George W. Bush could win a second term. However, that's exactly what he did - with the support of America's infrequently opinioned 'heartland'

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, in an article in The Politico, pointed out much the same thing. In the 2005 Presidential Election, when facing similarly moderate Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinezhad won with almost 62% of the vote. That's practically the same result as in this disputed election - but, of course, there was no outcry of 'fraud' last time around.

It's certainly true that we, in the West, made certain assumptions about the election that didn't necessarily hold true. Mousavi, for example, was expected to poll well in his native Azeri provinces. However, Ahmadinezhad's speaks fluent Azeri and ran a blinding campaign in the two provinces (even quoting Azeri and Turkish poetry onstage.)

To quote the United States Intelligence Service, as they pragmatically analysed the results: "It is not outside the realm of possibility that Ahmadinejad won this election."

They, too, conclude that the Western media were relying on biased opinion from expatriate Iranians and urbane, pro-Western correspondents from capital city Tehran. The US officials wearily noted: "Tehran is Tehran, but it’s not Iran."

M K Bhadrakumar, writing in the Asia Times, dismissed even the post-election protests as 'inconsequential' - carried out by wealthy, young members of the 'Gucci crowd.' They are unrepresentative of the 'real Iran' and "the rural poor who, in their multitudes, form the bulk of voters and constitute Ahmadinejad's political base."

In short, it possible - perhaps even likely - that the election results were as fair as can be expected to be in a country like Iran.

Certainly, there are questions raised. At least 30 polling sites reported voter turnout of 'over 100%' and the New York Times reported a leak from the Interior Ministry hinting at a fraud campaign that had "been prepared for weeks."

But are any of these allegations truly convincing? Walter R. Mebane Jr., professor of political science and statistics at the University of Michigan (and an expert on detecting electoral fraud) concluded: "There are suspicious elements here, but there's no solid evidence of fraud."

Likewise, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett suggested that the anomalies identified in the Iranian election results were less significant than those of the 2000 Presidential Election in America (specifically, the debacle in Florida.)

I certainly don't want to be identified as a supporter of Ahmadinezhad - but in objective, rational analysis of this election, the evidence strongly suggests that his victory is legitimate.

We don't have to like it, but we may have to accept it. The media circus surrounding the 'election fraud' is damaging our credibility. It sends a message to the people of Iran that America and the west are only willing to support sovereign democracy if the people of that nation vote 'the right way.'

In this instance, they didn't. But that was their choice to make - and in the absence of any cold, hard, credible evidence to prove otherwise, we might just have to shut up and accept that.

Ben Stein and Dog Latin: Reductio ad Hitlerum

Blame Ben Stien.

In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, he reduced the debate about creationism to Reductio ad Hitlerum, the lowest common denominator - the point at which you start saying 'Hitler believed in x, ergo x is bad.'

In this case, x was evolution.

"I was never a big fan of Darwinism," Stien explains, "because it played such a large part in the Nazis' Final Solution to their so-called "Jewish problem" - and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust."

Fair comment, Ben. Although Darwin didn't advocate human eugenics (calling such an idea an 'overwhelming evil') his theory of 'survival of the fittest' led to America adopting a eugenics program that was then copied by the Nazis. You can read about it here.

Ironically, eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism. His theory of evolution advocated variety to produce stronger stock, not Hitler's rubbish of 'racial purity.' Ask any dog breeder - they'll confirm that a mongrel mutt is generally healthier than a pedigree pup.

Beyond ignorance of Darwinism, Ben Stien's argument is stupid for another reason: Just because a scientific theory like evolution is 'unpalatable' doesn't make it any less true. (It's like Christians arguing that God must exist because Atheists have a higher rate of depression.)

But if he does want to play the Reductio ad Hitlerum game, let's cut to the chase...

It's not 'evolutionists' or even the Intelligent Design rabble who you need to be worried about. It's the New Earth Creationists. In my next post, I'm going to explain why...

Video Game Causes Outrage (but not the one you'd think.)

So in the highly popular Grand Theft Auto series of video games, your thuggish main character can cruise up to prostitutes and have a romp with them in the back seat of his stolen car.

[As long as you're parked in a dark alley, of course. The designers didn't want the the game to be accused of not being realistic. - Editorial Bear]

You don't see anything explicit - just watch the car bounce up and down and listen to the suspension squeak. [Actually, that's not true. In the latest incarnation of the game, you DO get to see all the gory details - Editorial Bear.]

But when the Lady of the Night pulls up her kickers and clambers out of your car, you can sneak up behind her and bash her pretty little brains in with a baseball bat.

That, for the uninitiated, allows you to recover all the bloodstained money you'd spent hiring her 'services' in the first place.

For the curious, here's how to do it:

[Warning, the video is narrated by a foul mouthed Scotsman and, being about the systematic murder of a digital prostitute, is unsurprisingly not rated PG-13. - Editorial Bear]


How to Murder a Prostitute for Dummies

Naturally, little side-games like this have caused some outrage amongst the moral majority - who argue that video games like Grand Theft Auto are destroying the moral fiber of today's youth (even though the game has a 18 certificate, so children of responsible parents shouldn't even be playing it.)

Nevertheless, it's not Grand Theft Auto that's attracted the REAL ire of the religious right. It's the G-rated, family friendly strategy game Spore.

In Spore, you guide the development of life - from single-cell organisms to multi-limbed monsters who discover fire, war with other tribes, create cities and eventually travel to space.

"This entire game is propaganda!" One Christian critic exclaimed. "Aimed directly at our children to teach them evolution instead of creationism!"

Cue the collective *faceslap* of every rational person on the planet.

Yes, it's true, the concept of Spore is based on the concept of evolution. However, Spore has about as much in common with evolution as, well, eugenics.

For example, when Spore's creatures 'evolve,' they don't change gradually, over the course of many generations. A fully formed 'new' creature pops out of the egg of an old one - thus propagating that tired line Creationists use: "Find me the proof, oh Godless heathen, that a dinosaur turned into a monkey!"

It's right there on your video screen, buddy. Unfortunately, that's not how evolution happened in real life.

To be honest, I'm surprised old earth creationists and those who believe in Intelligent Design haven't embraced this game, because Spore has far more in common with their philosophy than Darwin's.

For a start, you play 'God' and you 'intelligently design' your creature through each step of it's evolution. Secondly, as God, you 'intelligent design' the facets you think you creature will be best off using. You even guide their existence and philosophy, choosing between being warlike and aggressive, to create fiercer creatures, or diplomatic and peaceful, generating more resourceful critters.

Quite simply, forget about SimCity or Civilisation. There is no more authentic 'God' game than this. Conservative Christians? Quit your whining and pick up a copy immediatement!

[Thanks to Christine for her Spore pictures. - Kitty Copy Editor]