…and this is a 
Regular readers here may be familiar with WhoIsYourCreator, a creationist who blows through here and The Panda's Thumb now and then to dump a load of creationist cut-and-paste in the comments. WhoIsYourCreator is actually Julie Haberle, a deranged creationist whose chief accomplishment to date has been to erect foolish billboards all over the place. To date — but now she can take credit for another accomplishment. Her billboards and organization prompted a Christian to dig deeper into this evolution stuff, and what he discovered was that Haberle and others in the creationist movement have been lying all along, which led him to this simple conclusion, which he shared with Ms. Haberle.
I'm simply writing to say 'Thank You' and let you know by sharing with you the information I've discovered, your organization more than any other entity has been the primary factor in the shedding my faith. Keep up the good work as there is no doubt countless others have and will continue to do the same based on your efforts.
Dishonesty has consequences, and creationists are fundamentally distorting the evidence to fit their desired conclusion. That hurts them when people take a moment to actually examine what they are claiming.
Comments
Posted by: Victor | June 13, 2009 3:53 PM
Brilliant, maybe I should direct some of my theist friends to her rantings.
Posted by: Stefan | June 13, 2009 3:55 PM
Go go Julie! The more ridiculous you are, the more people will see through the delusions... Perhaps you are a plant working against the fundies?
Posted by: skip | June 13, 2009 4:14 PM
If an all powerful magical sky fairy really exists, of course, a six day creation 6000 years ago makes elegant sense. Why wait through millions of years of natural selection when it's obviously unnecessary.
It would be helpful, however, if creationists would provide at least some evidence for the origin of the sky fairy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 4:17 PM
ha-ha!
Posted by: Dylan | June 13, 2009 4:24 PM
BOOSH!!!!
Posted by: pete | June 13, 2009 4:24 PM
Ideas that require lies in their defense are not worth defending. Even most theists can see that.
Posted by: Sauve | June 13, 2009 4:30 PM
Brilliant
Posted by: llewelly | June 13, 2009 4:31 PM
I see you've admitted the vile truth. When the Elder Gods of Evolution awake, the souls of the faithful will be Consumed by Charles Darwin.Posted by: Bomias | June 13, 2009 4:41 PM
Well done. That's very similar to a letter I wrote to my childhood priest.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | June 13, 2009 4:44 PM
I just love it when their idiocy self-implodes snd has the reverse effect to which they wanted. Highly entertaining amusement.
Posted by: Bomias | June 13, 2009 4:44 PM
Well done. That's very similar to a letter I wrote to my childhood priest.
Posted by: Seldon | June 13, 2009 4:45 PM
I actually clicked on the link and read the email conversation from the ex-Christian in question. I must say I am very impressed with his ability to reason things out for himself despite a life of indoctrination in the Baptist church. The fact that the feeling of being lied to drove him to spend a year and a half understanding the science as well as he could shows an incredible amount of dedication to seeking the truth (lower case t). I always feel with these sort of stories that science has missed out on a great brain.
Posted by: Blair | June 13, 2009 4:54 PM
That sounds like my last words walking out of the hometown southern baptist church.
Posted by: Ragutis | June 13, 2009 5:00 PM
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer hoist with his own petard.
Posted by: Gold@evolved.net.nz | June 13, 2009 5:13 PM
To take creative license from another quote: That's not Charles Darwin. That's Cthulhu. He just wishes He was Charles Darwin.May be more entertaining to replace Cthulhu (in the above statement only) with God...
:)
Posted by: Helene | June 13, 2009 5:20 PM
Gosh- amazing what happens when people actually think critically. Maybe there is hope for our species.
Posted by: sikiş | June 13, 2009 5:23 PM
How could the editors and reviewers of the journal let this study publish with such generalized statement about boys and girls and identity of toys!! In most other parts of the world or even in the USA (not among the white middle class), there are families who do not have the exact same child rearing method... by that I mean that boys and girls are not always dressed in pink or blue and the are exposed to gender neutral toys from early age.
Posted by: sikiş | June 13, 2009 5:26 PM
Seriously, when you attack adaptation arguments, why shouldn't people think you're attacking evolution? Natural selection is about adaptation to the environment--even genetic drift doesn't escape that because it has to survive selective pressures, and drifts that are maladaptive are likely to be selected agains.
Posted by: sikiş | June 13, 2009 5:30 PM
I must say I am very impressed with his ability to reason things out for himself despite a life of indoctrination in the Baptist church. The fact that the feeling of being lied to drove him to spend a year and a half understanding the science as well as he could shows an incredible amount of dedication to seeking the truth (lower case t). I always feel with these sort of stories that science has missed out on a great brain.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
June 13, 2009 5:47 PM
So another tool to use in reaching creationists is . . . the creationists themselves!
Yeah, shine a bright light on them.
Posted by: Carlie | June 13, 2009 5:47 PM
sikis @17, did you have a window with Cognitive Daily open at the same time? :) Good point, though. That study is riddled with holes.
Posted by: Paper Hand | June 13, 2009 5:54 PM
Carlie @ 21 (or probably 18 after PZ deletes the spam)
Sikis appears to be simply cutting-and-pasting random comments from various blogs to create the appearance of legitimacy
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
June 13, 2009 5:56 PM
I want you to think very carefully about what you just said, mister. Cthulhu wishes for no more than our sweet, sweet tears of pain.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 13, 2009 5:56 PM
Glory be!
Happy monkey!
Posted by: Carlie | June 13, 2009 6:26 PM
Paper Hand - Oh, thanks. That seems like a...weird thing for someone to do. You'd think they'd know enough to at least cut and paste from the same blog.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 6:29 PM
carlie, it might be from pharyngula.... somewhere. usually they c/p from posts in the same thread, but this one is extra special :-p
Posted by: Carlie | June 13, 2009 6:33 PM
carlie, it might be from pharyngula.... somewhere. usually they c/p from posts in the same thread, but this one is extra special
I see they then did that, too! There is a recent article at Cog. Daily right now about infants and gendered toys, so I thought it might be from there. (checking) Yes, plagiarized kaberi's at 25. sikis should be told that plagiarism's a killing offense around these parts.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 13, 2009 6:41 PM
It's just a spambot, though, so it can't learn any better.
It links to its spam site through the name, and uses a random algorithm to grab what hopefully will seem like relatively on-topic banter, to avoid being deleted.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 13, 2009 6:46 PM
*Retrieves cyberpistol which finally arrived in the mail*
Where is the target? Idiocy must be suppressed. Need more grog...
Posted by: SinSeeker
|
June 13, 2009 6:56 PM
skip@#3
“If an all powerful magical sky fairy really exists, of course, a six day creation 6000 years ago makes elegant sense. Why wait through millions of years of natural selection when it's obviously unnecessary.”
If an all-powerful magical sky fairy really exists, why did it take [him] six days? Couldn’t an all-powerful magical sky fairy create everything in a nanosecond? Why take six days? And be so buggered you need a rest afterwards?
Posted by: Aphrodine | June 13, 2009 6:59 PM
Jack Chick had the same effect on me.
Posted by: jedgardee | June 13, 2009 7:01 PM
This sort of exchange only convinces me that we are winning, albeit slowly and painfully. Whenever I read this stuff I always find myself asking 'who switches the other way?'. This bloke started off with no knowledge, educated himself and reached the obvious conclusion. Can you imagine that happening arse about face? It'll take a while but even America will get there in the end once critical mass is acheived, we just need to keep up the pressure.
Greetings to all by the way, I've observed for ages but this is the first time I've got myself around to posting.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 13, 2009 7:03 PM
Nobody's thinking Poe?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 13, 2009 7:04 PM
nice
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 13, 2009 7:15 PM
Wow, here's another conservative republican who has grown to believe in evolution. Maybe we are making progress...
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10526195&nav=0RaPIYA8
Posted by: fcaccin | June 13, 2009 7:42 PM
Kudos to Mr. Florien. Having been an atheist since birth, I cannot claim to have accomplished the transition he has.
On a side note, I envy him. Making the medium by which a fool faces the consequence of her own idiocy out of oneself is the greatest pleasure a man can get without lowering his trousers.
Posted by: Dahan | June 13, 2009 7:55 PM
Countdown to the religious-nuts using this as proof that atheists believe in souls and think Darwin is a god commencing now. With 10... 9... 8...
Posted by: nick nick bobick | June 13, 2009 8:13 PM
@ #14
When we are talking about fundy creationists, it is more correctly, "Hoist on their own canard". Shakespeare may have first made this pun, but I cannot verify.
Posted by: cicely
|
June 13, 2009 8:14 PM
What's that word...schaden-something. Is this some of that?
Posted by: OperationCounterstrike | June 13, 2009 8:29 PM
A new abortion blog, unlike any other:
http://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
June 13, 2009 8:31 PM
The Happy Monkey is dancing and laughing at Julie Haberle.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 9:08 PM
oh, it happens, not for intellectual reasons usually though. it's more of a "that's it, I give up: life's hard, making decisions day-in-and-day-out is hard, being responsible is hard; and I can't do this anymore", and then they reach for the nearest
bottle of whiskeydrugreligionPosted by: bobxxxx | June 13, 2009 9:47 PM
"a deranged creationist"
There are creationists who are not deranged?
Posted by: Kel | June 13, 2009 10:11 PM
The Liars for Jesus were called out as such, good to see. As has been said many a time, if you have to lie in order to defend your idea, then your idea is of no value.
Creationism once again shows that it is a nothing idea, supported by people for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with science. The battle is for the soul, that's the only battle that matters. Lying is but a means to an end...
Posted by: SEF | June 13, 2009 10:15 PM
There are a couple of problems with that.The first is that the subset of people not too lazy to actually bother examining, checking and thinking seems to be rather small. The second is that it's apparently also only a small subset of people who care sufficiently about truth - as opposed to being casually accepting of liars and lies or even actively impressed by them. Eg describing someone as having the "gift-of-the-gab" is not usually a put down whereas "you're cynical" is; and it's often a proud boast rather than a shameful admission to have been bad at maths or even school in general (it certainly is among BBC TV personnel!).
So, while creationist dishonesty will keep pushing some people towards atheism, I suggest that that's only ever going to be a (tiny?) minority. The vast majority are too lazy and/or too lacking in their regard for truthfulness to care.
Posted by: Wayne | June 13, 2009 10:55 PM
cicely @ #39
schadenfreude - taking pleasure in the misfortune of another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2009 11:31 PM
...yet again, another example of a converted creationist, not set on the path by the evidence itself, but by the fact that the people he originally gave the most credence to were shown to be liars.
Broken record time, but if you haven't read it yet, it's only 2 pages long:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
READ IT.
In fact, I'd be happy to email a copy to anyone that doesn't have a subscription.
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | June 13, 2009 11:55 PM
So I went to her website and found this little gem:
"It is impossible to reconcile the Book of Genesis while believing in the theory of evolution. The Genesis Account of Creation and the fall of man are crucial to understanding why it is our fallen nature that sends God’s wrath upon us. Without that understanding, why would we need saving by a Savior? His love and sacrifice for us in spite of our utter depravity would mean nothing."
Uh, exactly. Why? Without it we don't. And life instantly becomes so much simpler and understandable. If they ever answered their own question ... nah, never happen.
But this is a surprisingly clear example of mistaking a false (or null?) statement for an axiom and building up the rest of the logical edifice without re-examining its foundations.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 12:01 AM
I agree 100%
Posted by: John Morales | June 14, 2009 12:28 AM
Not according to Francis Collins, or the The BioLogos Foundation he established.--
PS that quote is an example of a ontention being poorly expressed; not that I expect much from its source.
Posted by: dendrofanatic | June 14, 2009 12:32 AM
I too can thank creationists for my atheism. A love of science instilled in me by my father and a college course in evolution helped in no small part as well.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 14, 2009 12:40 AM
#39
"What's that word...schaden-something. Is this some of that?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9B-ZoS0wvU&feature=related
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 14, 2009 12:53 AM
The cabaret show I was at last night featured that song - it's hilarious. I'm quietly hoping Avenue Q will make it to Adelaide but it probably won't, so I may have to get over to Melbourne to see it.
And catch up with Rorschach for a few beers as well, of course...
Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 1:17 AM
As a non-religionist, someone who never came across evangelicals until his late teens, the account of Genesis is perfectly reconcilable in terms of evolution. What is not compatible is a literal interpretation - but who the fuck takes a literal interpretation anymore? Even the most ardent fundie no longer looks for a literal interpretation of genesis - they take on scientific and secular thought and incorporate that into their interpretation.The easiest thing about their position is that they tightly-couple God with creation 6000 years ago, and from there it is easy to do away with God because creation is obviously false. If creation is false, then there's no need for God - well that has to be the case then... The position I find hard is that there are those who think that God is completely compatible with evolution - as the concept of God decoupled from the myth is. It all just depends on whether one believes in God or believe in the Bible. Most creationists believe in the latter because without the latter they have no way of knowing the former.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
June 14, 2009 1:19 AM
Interesting account. I would definitely say that the evolution v. creationism wars were not the sole catalyst for my own faith-shedding. For me it was a mixture of factors, starting with questions about why Jews and those of other religious denominations not my own were destined to die in fiery and "everlasting" eternal punishment simply because they believed differently than myself. That was the first spark (which was a real big hangup for a social justice type such as myself) and since then a confluence of (largely right-wing) anti-science zealotry, political and social malfeasance, misappropriation of moral authority and power, and calls to return to traditional (read: dead and dying) social norms (that oddly enough seek to regress our society back into bigoted molds) cemented for me the notion that I was in the room with the wrong crowd. So, I left.
I haven't looked back and have no intention of doing so. I also have no doubts about which side has been, is, and will be on the right side of history.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 2:42 AM
It all just depends on whether one believes in God or believe in the Bible. Most creationists believe in the latter because without the latter they have no way of knowing the former.
who does?
It's not like there's any independent evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic deity.
word of mouth only goes so far.
Posted by: echidna | June 14, 2009 2:44 AM
Saves a soul... and saves a brain.
I'm sure that accepting lies as truth, and the self-delusion necessary to do this, addles the brain.
Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 3:11 AM
Of course not. That's the whole problem in my view, they have to keep the Bible as the book of God otherwise they have nothing.Posted by: Richard Harris
|
June 14, 2009 6:05 AM
Richard Wiseman, as reported in New Scientist, recently carried out a mass participation experiment on a supposed psychic ability claimed by some.
The important thing to me was that a high proportion of participants, including quite a few skeptics, reported a feeling of connection to the target. !!!
This seems to be somewhat similar to, or related to, the feeling that some people have of the immanence of a god, or a spirit that pervades the Universe.
As long as some people have these sorts of feelings of connection or immanence, they will be prey to the irrationality of religion or New Age nonsense.
Where do these feelings come from? Is it mild schitzophrenia, at a level too widespread in the population to be regarded as a mental disorder? Is anyone researching this, or has anyone done so? Does brain imaging offer a starting point, if it can show that particular structures of the brain are activated in people experiencing these feelings, but not in more rational people?
Posted by: John Morales | June 14, 2009 6:13 AM
Richard @59, a good work is Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.
Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 6:42 AM
Agreed John, 'tis a great book. Especially the extra chapter in recent editions: "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things"
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 14, 2009 8:11 AM
[I just posted this at The Thread that Will Not Die, but it seems relevant here too]
Proceedings of the Princeton Society of Paleontology 66: 6–7, 2009
Strategies and chief weapons of YECs, an introduction
Introduction
Our beautiful science of paleontology, which is one of the cornerstones of the Theory of Evolution (ToE), is increasingly under attack from, and being abused by a group of people who may be termed Young Earth Creationists (YECs). These people hold the curious belief that the first book of the Christian Bible*, a book called Genesis, provides a completely accurate account of the origin of the universe, the earth, and its biodiversity. They also believe that the main events in this narrative took place around 6000 years BP.
In itself this would be as interesting as when a group of modern people still believed in the creation myths of the ancient Egyptians or the Mayas. Unfortunately, YECs are not only of potential interest to psychologists. They form an influential and therefore dangerous, anti-rational cult that aims to establish a totalitarian theocracy by replacing science with creationism, also called Intelligent Design (ID).
One way in which they try to achieve their goals is by ‘debating’ science. The fact that YECs are totally convinced of the truthfulness of the Genesis account puts them at a disadvantage. To overcome this disadvantage they have evolved several debating techniques that in their own estimation lend credibility to their arguments. These techniques work best in oral debates, which is why it often inadvisable to debate these people in public, where honesty and integrity may be exploited as a weakness.
In the interest of other scholars we here present an annotated list of the main tactics and strategies of YECs. Please note that the items on this list are not in any particular order. We would welcome additions from our readers.
List of YEC debating techniques
1. Quote mining
Note: Quoting out of context, often to suggest the contrary of the original intention of the author.
Example: Quote the note at 18 and pretend that this is the position held by the author of this list.
2. Cherry picking
Note: Only quoting what supports your position, deliberately overlooking what is against it.
3. Factoid mining
Note: Mentioning dubious facts that might support your position if they were real facts.
4. Lying
Example: Stating that Darwin converted to Christianity on his death bed.
5. Creating false analogies and arguing from these
Description: Argue that A is like B, even though that is not correct, draw (often faulty) conclusions based on the properties of A and pretend that these conclusions also apply to B.
6. Simulate misunderstanding
Note: One of the ways in which annoying facts can be discarded, see also 7.
7. Ignoring evidence
8. Distorting facts
Note: Closely related to 4.
9. Appeal to supernatural causes (‘goddidit’)
Example: State that granite can not be formed by natural means.
Note: Argument that always works, but at the same time ends the debate, hence to be used sparingly and as a last resort.
10. Blindly believing anything in the bible
Note: Except those parts that are not convenient, see 1, 2 and 3.
11. Changing the subject
Note: To be applied when the YEC appears to be loosing the debate.
12. Shifting goal posts
Note: To be applied when the evidence is so overwhelming that even the YEC can’t deny it.
Example: Admitting that micro-evolution can be true (‘dogs can become other kinds of dog without divine intervention’), but denying macro-evolution (‘a frog can’t become a mammal’), as if there really was a difference between micro- and macro-evolution.
13. Creating straw men
Note: Attack a position that is not held by your opponent, or that is irrelevant to the debate.
14. Defining words in non-standard ways
Note: Part of a more general strategy of obfuscation, see 20.
15. Ignorance
Note: If you don’t know what you are talking about you are free to spout any kind of nonsense.
16. Disdaining logic
Example: If A implies B is true, and if A is true, the YEC may still maintain that B can be false.
17. A paranoid mistrust of science
Note: The YEC believes that all scientists conspire to cover up the truth about The FloodTM, Noah’s ArkTM, and other articles of faith.
18. projection
Definition: Believing that your opponent uses the same tactics and harbours the same motives as yourself.
Example: The ToE is maintained by propaganda and lying about the facts.
19. Feeling morally and intellectually superior
Note: God is on your side, so the scientists must be wrong.
20. Make up nonsense to create confusion
Note: See also 14.
21. A complete lack of introspection
Note: Never analyze your own beliefs and motivations, it could lead to doubt.
22. A fanatical hatred of the ToE
Note: Justifies all debating tactics. See also 18, 23, 24, 25, and 26.
23. Pretending that science should already know all the answers
Examples: Asking why the law of gravity is the way it is. Asking how life originated. From the admission that science does not yet have all the answers argue that the ToE must be wrong.
24. Slander
Example: Argue that the ToE is somehow implicated in the Holocaust.
25. General and total dishonesty
Note: Anything goes to defend and promote the faith; also known as ‘lying for Jesus’.
26. Asking such stupid questions that your opponent is left speechless
Examples: If evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys? Doesn’t the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradict the ToE? If the ToE is true, then where does gravity come from?
*A collection of myths, forged histories, stories, poetry and assorted ramblings from a Middle Eastern goat-herding people, living thousands of years ago, that for reasons that are not entirely clear has become the holy book of numerous people living today. Similar works are for example the Torah, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon.
Posted by: John Morales | June 14, 2009 8:30 AM
Drosera @62, that's a joke, right?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 14, 2009 8:35 AM
Drosera,
The same tactics are use by all anti-science movements--climate-change denialism, HIV/AIDS denialism, Smoking/cancer denialism...
I would add also making the argument that the subject science isn't really science, or is politicized, or is corrupt... and that they represent "true science". You see this a lot in the arguments of Milloy and his minions.
There is also the tendency to produce false experts--usually some sort of emeritus professor and often from a field utterly unrelated to the subject matter.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 8:57 AM
When the Elder Gods of Evolution awake, the souls of the faithful will be Consumed by Charles Darwin. - llewelly
Yeah, but given his medical history, they'd probably just be sicked up again!
Posted by: Mark | June 14, 2009 9:28 AM
The key factor here, as always, is the 'digging'. Shad was already on his way out of the shackle of mythology. He simply dug deeply enough to get his OWN answers instead of allowing nonsense to be shoveled into his brain.
Anyone who actually reads the Bible will instantly recognize it for the crap it is. The vast majority of Christians and non-Christians never bother to open one past the first page.
Anyone who has a single Geology 101 class, anyone who has ever picked up a copy of Astronomy magazine, or anyone who has ever watched a caterpillar transform into a chrysalis IN THEIR HAND (Do it. You will be forever awed.), knows that the universe around us is a truly magical place that is far more interesting and wonderful than anything any demented religious nutcase could ever conceive.
Posted by: DebinOz | June 14, 2009 9:35 AM
This is so off-topic, but apparently I am the last to know. Having just spent a pleasant evening reading threads on the Panda's Thumb - THERE IS KWOK-OF-SHIT! Yes, I know I am shouting.
Every post is I, I, I,.....
I'm so glad he got turfed from here!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 14, 2009 9:49 AM
No, actually, it's more like this, except for the ghastly music.
<yawn>
You've posted the link several times already. You can stop blogwhoring now.
Blogwhoring, you see, turns people away from looking at your blog.
To be fair, there is a Catholic workaround: because our bodies have evolved from mere animals, we have an imperfect, sinful nature and therefore too need a savior.
That much is obvious.
Posted by: Medievalist Jon | June 14, 2009 10:06 AM
It was thanks to a creationist that I eventually came to conclude that atheism probably represents the true state of affairs in the universe.
I was ghostwriting a "Dawkins flea" - one of the countless books purporting to refute Dawkins-Hitchins-Harris. As I researched to try and support the creationist claims and refute...well, all of science, basically...I had my eyes opened that religious belief was so much more full of shit than I had ever imagined.
I finished the manuscript but it will probably never be published unless my employer finds someone to radically edit it. I just was not able to lie and misrepresent the science. Besides, since I was an English scholar and my employer was a clergyman, I knew that our shared understanding of the science was not at a level where I felt comfortable making authoritative-sounding assertions.
It was a strange assignment, but I'm glad for the effect it has had on me, intellectually and in my general attitude toward life.
I think when people are encouraged to sort through the arguments and facts for themselves, they will likely arrive at the same conclusions I have.
Posted by: DebinOz | June 14, 2009 10:31 AM
My poor ex-husband had a much sadder, yet more empirical, reason, to reject fundie Xtianity.
As his parents were preaching fundie crap, the family was imploding with situations that I personally have only read about - murders, incest, beatings, etc. I thought he was making this stuff up (me being Australian and all), but then I had cause to visit his family in Texas and Arkansas. We are not even talking uneducated hicks - many of these folks had university educations. Fundamentalism was the direct cause of the strife within this large family.
I have been a militant, as opposed to a given, atheist ever since!
Posted by: Susan | June 14, 2009 11:09 AM
I have some hopes a similar education will occur due to this scam, too, but they're not real high hopes. Via Jezebel:
She gave "birth" to a doll.
Posted by: raven | June 14, 2009 11:42 AM
Making believing mythology is real a litmus tests works both ways.
A lot of people, particularly the young and intelligent just toss the xianity with the lies.
The numbers. Between 1 and 2 million people drop xianity every year in the USA. This is a 0.5% decline/year.
Xians are now down to a persecuted majority of only 76% of the population and falling. But this is a slow process. Do the math, it will take 50 years to fall below 50%.
Creationism will eventually go the way of Geocentrism. 400 years after Copernicus, while we have robots on Mars and a space probe around Saturn, 20% of the US population still thinks the sun circles the earth. Geocentrism is alive and doing OK if not exactly prospering. Flat Earthism still has adherents although not many. It could take most of a century or even 2 for creationism to end up like previously cherished pseudoscience fantasies.
There is nothing too stupid that someone won't believe it.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 14, 2009 11:50 AM
John Morales @63,
Shht. Don't tell... (Hint: The journal does not exist).
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 14, 2009 12:01 PM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space @64,
Agreed. You can also add anti-vaxers to the list of people who employ these tactics.
Posted by: Lurky | June 14, 2009 12:36 PM
#69
That's very interesting. How did you end up ghostwriting for a clergyman? Did you also research on other Dawkins-fleas for your assignment? And I'm glad you saw through their arguments.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
June 14, 2009 12:40 PM
"Agreed. You can also add anti-vaxers to the list of people who employ these tactics."
And the anti-vaxers often include many people on both sides of the political spectrum. The right has the most widespread and extreme cases of anti-science zealotry, but the left has its own crackpots when it starts waxing about alternative medicines and healing stones, heavy doses of spiritualism, etc.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 14, 2009 12:43 PM
Kel writes:
the account of Genesis is perfectly reconcilable in terms of evolution.
Yes, but why bother? As science, it's useless. As metaphor it's useless. As poetry it's mediocre.
Posted by: mb | June 14, 2009 12:43 PM
If this woman is a True Believer, this anecdote will not dissuade her. It's just an example of God's Word separating the wheat from the chaff. The real rebuke to her, and others like her, is Scripture itself that states that Satan is the father of lies. If what she believes is true, her deception (recall the Dover case where the judge specifically stated that he felt deceived by the creationists/IDers) is evidence of Satan working through her -- not the Holy Spirit. Of course, you have more than a few instances of Christ, himself, being deceptive and hiding his "true" identity. Was he open to Satanic influence?
The snake eats its tail. There is no "win" with a true believer -- they are masters at magical thinking. There are circles inside of squares spiraling into triangles. Magical thinkers are, imho, unreachable by the logic of cause and effect and must find their own way out.
Posted by: M | June 14, 2009 1:48 PM
@Lurky, #75 -
I responded to an ad for a "research associate" and found out that I was being asked to write out an entire manuscript. My employer, a religious personality you can see today on TV and the radio, put together a rough outline and some notes. I was asked to research the current state of affairs so as to update his original refutations. Some of these arguments were 10-20 years old, and I have a hard time believing that they were especially compelling then.
When I responded to the ad, I was interested in religion. I still am, but then I just tacitly assumed I believed. Even when I would have called myself a believer, I was never full-fledged. The best compromise I could reach was a personal version of another saying: "The person who believes in God and the person who doesn't are both correct."
When I was ghostwriting the flea, I read everything I could get my hands on. Very quickly, I saw that the apologists and ID-ists were, in a word, evasive. When it came to talking about real scientific data that was being collected NOW, the faith-based texts I read failed to make any substantial, direct, positively stated arguments. Have you ever seen the Eddie Murphy stand-up where he advises a cheating man to simply deny the cheating accusation, even when his significant other has caught him in the act? This is what it felt like to write the anti-evolution manuscript - keep trying to find ways to say "wuddn't me."
As I said, I completed a manuscript. If my employer ever decides to publish it, it'll make millions because essentially the headline will be "Orthodox Clergyman Admits, 'Believing in God Is Unnecessary.'"
Posted by: SEF | June 14, 2009 2:46 PM
That's rather been the case in the Church Of England for ages!Posted by: Dave C | June 15, 2009 2:15 AM
Not really surprising. Twenty years ago, I was a good Christian lad who used to get into arguments at school about such matters as creation and evolution. Reading the writings of creationists, in an attempt to gather ammunition for my cause, I found them obviously weak and dishonest, and this was one of the prime factors which led to me having a good, hard think about my faith and coming to the conclusion that it was misguided. Happy and comfortable with my atheism for those twenty years since.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 15, 2009 10:13 AM
You haven't met Alan Clarke and
Cherry PickerRogerS then?_____________<;,><_____________
Posted by: Chris | June 15, 2009 2:17 PM
Wow, and here I thought this was a science site.
My bad.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 15, 2009 2:20 PM
Great comment. Full of wit and information.
Thanks for letting us know you can't read.
Posted by: Chris | June 15, 2009 2:31 PM
Typical.
Posted by: who is your creator | June 15, 2009 3:24 PM
Thank you for sending people to our site!!!
FYI - Maybe someone would like to help PZ articulate just how evolution occurs:
Go to
http://whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html
Example #2 was written by PZ in an article in Seed Magzine
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 15, 2009 3:30 PM
Typical drive by comment with nothing of substance?Yes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 15, 2009 3:40 PM
WIYC, when are you going to supply physical evidence for your imaginary deity and fictional babble? Can't have a discussion without evidence. Otherwise, it is all sophistry, just like all religious arguments.
Posted by: Chris | June 15, 2009 3:49 PM
Ah, fair enough. I just get sick of all these anti-religious postings on science blogs.
Why not start a separate anti-religion blog instead?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
Chris. If you scroll up to the top of the blog you'll see a tagline
And PZ has stated, many times, that it's his blog and he will discuss anything he pleases.
And if you don't like the post critical of religion, argue against the points don't just complain that someone said something critical of your religion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 15, 2009 4:00 PM
Chris: Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal. This is PZ's blog. He decides what to post. Others decide to join threads. If you don't like religious discussions, keep away from religious or creationist threads. Look at the headings and only join the science threads.
Posted by: Leon | June 15, 2009 4:03 PM
That reminds me of the reason my great-grandfather dropped out of training for the priesthood. He was on a retreat with the seminary or something, and he overheard a group of priests sharing confessions they'd heard(!)
To those without a Catholic upbringing, that may sound like a little thing, but what's said in the confessional is supposed to be between you, your priest, God, and NO ONE ELSE. What those guys were doing was roughly the equivalent of sharing confidential and personally embarrassing information that had been personally entrusted to your care.
To make matters worse, one of the confessions that a certain woman was having an affair, and my g-grandfather happened to know her. The next morning he told the priest he was apprenticed to what he had overheard, and quit.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 4:57 PM
"Thank you for sending people to our shite!!!" - Julie Haberle
You missed a letter out, fuckwit.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 7:51 PM
Thank you for sending people to our site!!!
indeed. Many of us are fans of clown shows, and you clowns are always good for a laugh.
oh, wait, you think your inanity actually will convince someone that gets directed to you from THIS site?
oh, now that IS funny.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 7:54 PM
Thank you for sending people to our site!!!
...oh, and lime green??
seriously, girl, spend some money on a real site designer.
your site is just painful to look at.
OTOH...
naw, leave it just like that. It fits the content.