We all know he’s very cool and has a… unique way with words. But Mayor? Speaking impartially, I am interested to know how many support our conservative friend. Is it a good idea to ban alcohol on public transport? Oxygenchameleon: you live in London and like Boris. What are your two cents?
To continue my rants into the idiosyncrasies of religious belief, here’s a real treat.
Such is the slogan of the $27 million creation museum in Kentucky, which is something of an embarrassment for the US scientific community. It’s easy for atheists and non Bible Belt Christians to laugh, but the “museum’s” calculated merging of religion and science is dangerously misleading, and is aimed at brainwashing its younger visitors into believing that science is able to substantiate Christian doctrine. The fact that the museum was even built is testament to the influence of groups such as its parent, Answers in Genesis. And $27 million! Think of the good that a Christian organisation could have done! This religion constantly urges us to extend the hand of aid to our less fortunate brothers, but where is the charity in this monstrosity of a building? Its hand is busy misleading and brainwashing young minds into believing a hypothesis whose only evidence is located in an age-old, outdated book written by MEN. Since we fell from grace, aren’t all men faliable?
It’s a good job scientists aren’t religious fanatics; if they were, the museum would suffer from more than protesters with innocuous paper signs. I am no scientist, but I have great respect for its practices. Without science, man would still be in the dark ages, worshiping some animalistic deity. Scientific Method is the only way to provide proof of the origin of existence. Think how far we’ve come since Copernicus and Galileo. With knowledge comes power, but also understanding. Why did God order Eve and Adam not to eat of the Tree? Because it would give them the power of autonomy, the ability to make up their own minds. God is by nature a tyrant. Tyrants want to oppress those beneath them, and one way of doing so is to forbid all forms of knowledge that might help the oppressed to become free-thinking individuals.
Science is part of this knowledge. The evidence provided has helped throw off the shackles of religion until secularism is perfectably acceptabe and is the neutral standpoint to adopt.
The creation museum is cherry-picking its scientific elucidations in order to validate some of the Bible’s more unlikely “facts”. Take for instance the Grand Canyon, carved out by the Flood:
Or the strange application of Natural Selection:
Tennyson might be quite interested to see how his words have been put to use. (‘Nature, red with tooth and claw’, In Memoriam, 1850).
The museum even descends into attacking the Pill, which has freed thousands of women from the financial, physical and emotional burden of unwanted children:
The “evils” of the secular world include gay marriage, abortion and evolution taught in schools. To think of it! A substantiated, well researched argument that goes a long way to explaining how humanity came to be. Of course, it necessarily contradicts the existence of god, which is never a good thing for the religious authoritarians who have exercised the use and abuse of power for centuries.
There are some excellent reports about the museum, as well as a first hand account of an American’s visit, complete with photos! The BBC report inerviews the guy in charge, who actually believes that the Bible is the ‘be all and end all’ authority on life. As well as another who genuinely thinks that the first humans played alongside dinosaurs and treated velocorapters as pets. Where did we go wrong?
Ah yes. Of course.
I’ve lifted the following parody from Richard Dawkins.net which basically exposes the stupidity behind the pro-creationist film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, whose title nicely sums up the criteria for believing in ‘intelligent’ design:
Anticipating success with their feature film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Producers Mark Mathis, Logan Craft and Walt Ruloff have already leaked a teaser trailer for the film’s sequel. Their “teach the controversy” slogan seemed to work well in getting the general public to believe that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative scientific theory to Evolution, so the team has moved on to promoting other theories that they feel are being suppressed by the scientific community. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed tells of how Sex Theory has thrived unchallenged in the ivory towers of academia, as the explanation for how new babies are created. Proponents of Stork Theory claim that “Big Sex” has been suppressing their claim that babies are delivered by storks. Furthermore, Stork Theory proponents warn of the serious moral dangers posed by teaching children that sex has a function. They point out that evil dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao all believed in Sex Theory, and they may have even had sex themselves.
There is also a late-breaking new development in the controversy, a new theory called Avian Transportation Theory.
Unlike the original Stork Theory, the modern, sophisticated “Avian Transportation Theory” (ATT) merely points out that there are gaps in the orthodox Sex Theory, and that current sonogram imaging is unreliable. Moreover ATT does not specify that babies are necessarily brought by storks but by “large birds unspecified” (although many individual ATT theorists PRIVATELY believe it is a stork).
See more about Expelled:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
PZ’s post:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/pelicans_always_seemed_more_pr.php
Another funny ‘teach the controversy’ video posted today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwUCXkqn-dM&watch_response
Everyone raise a glass! Not only because I handed in my dissertation today, but also to celebrate the abolition of the blasphemy law!
Almost two hundred years have passed since Shelley spoke out against this very law, which has the power to sentence a free-thinking individual to imprisonment and hard labour. In Shelley’s time, publishers could be jailed for printing a text such as Tom Paine’s Rights of Man, dubbed an “infidel” tract by authoritarian clergy. The blasphemy law was strictly enforced by a conservative government desperate to cling to power in the sudden upsurge of socialism, post French Revolution. Though Richard Carlile was in fact sent to Newbury prison for his publication of Paine’s work, this didn’t stop him from printing more “infidel” literature. He even wrote pamphlets, whilst incarcerated, ‘To Men of Science’ and ‘To The Reformers of Great Britain’. It was for looking after the bookshop whilst Carlile and his wife were in jail and for selling his pamphlets that Susannah Wright was arrested:
Susannah answered the Carlile’s calls for volunteers to keep the bookshop open and, assured of the support of her ‘atheistical friends’, vowed to ‘attend to the business at all risk’. Like the Carliles before her, and the legion of volunteers who followed, Susannah was soon prosecuted; in her case, for the sale of two tracts penned by Richard Carlile from his Dorchester prison cell. During her first trial in July 1822 she conducted her own defence, which lasted a formidable four hours. Retiring from the court to attend to her baby, Wright returned to conclude her case, advising the Jury to ‘be firm and do your duty’ and insisting that she both scorned ‘mercy and demand[ed] justice’.
The jury obliged, swiftly returning a guilty verdict. It would be four months before Wright again returned to court for sentencing. This time, her notoriety attracted more of the public gaze in both crowd numbers and press interest. When offered the opportunity to address the court in ‘plea of mitigation of punishment’ Wright instead challenged the validity of her guilty verdict, arguing that Christianity had no place in the law.
The Chief Justice issued repeated warnings to her to desist from profaning the law and the church in his court. To the amusement of the crowded courtroom she retorted, ‘You, Sir, are paid to hear me’. Infuriated by her obstinacy the Judge sentenced Wright (and by default her infant) to be confined for 10 weeks in the loathed Newgate prison to deliberate on her plea.
I had seen this article back in January that announced the possible abolition of the blasphemy law, but to find the motion has passed… well this really is a day to celebrate. I’m sure fatalname would agree!
So cheers, Shelley! And to all those who fought against the blasphemy law in the name of liberty; I am only sad it has taken so long and that you are not here to see this day.
The National Secular Society (NSS) welcomes the passing by the House of Lords last night, Wednesday March 5 2008, of an amendment abolishing the blasphemy law by 148 votes to 87.
The fiery debate had a near record turn-out of bishops, who were split between those accepting the inevitability of change and those lamenting the signal abolition would give about the decline in religious influence and the secularisation of society. Some feared that abolition would unleash a tide of blasphemous publications.
Terry Sanderson, President of the NSS said: “This is the culmination of the Society’s 140-year fight to abolish this medieval law under which many innocent victims have suffered. Even in the 20th century, one of my predecessors was jailed for blasphemy. The laws have been criticised recently as being uncertain, without penalty and widely believed not to be compliant with Human Rights.
“I pay tribute to all those who have suffered under this cruel law, denying freedom of expression, and to those before me who have campaigned for its abolition.
“Our celebrations will be overshadowed by the knowledge that parliaments elsewhere in the world will soon be pressurised into passing a new law even more pernicious than blasphemy. It will outlaw so-called defamation of religion. Pressure to pass this law is coming from a bloc of Islamic countries organised by the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference). Having made their demands at the UN Human Rights Commission, they are now planning to lobby the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Nations respecting Human Rights must speak out against the defamation of religious law as it undermines the freedom of expression on which our democracy, and indeed our civilisation, depends.”
Buffalo horses. Don’t ask. They are cooler than I can explain.
Hot-dogs. The national dish. A stand on every corner.
Danes. What a well-dressed people. Complete absence of British obesity.
Beer. Self evident.
Ex- ex-red light district. Our hotel. That same hooker standing against the wall.
Drugs. Offered four times.
Free sex. Once.
Pickpockets. Once.
Vegetable focaccia. Our favourite coffee house because they spoke English.
Smirnoff ice. In cans.
Discounted dinner because the waiter heard us talking about breasts.
“SLUTSPURT” Roughly translates as “SALE”. Highly amusing.
Hans Christian Andersen. The Little Mermaid.
Phallic towers. Tivoli.
Strip clubs. Disguised as retro cafes.
Tom Lehrer. Around an ageing Grand.
Shopping. A very long street.
Ice skating. An outdoor rink.
Nuts. The hot cinnamon variety.
Reading week. Well spent.
What follows is an interesting but long-winded article from the Times (16/12/07) detailing the scientific research that claims men will eventually become extinct.
‘The bill (the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill) is a reflection of much wider scientific and social changes. The technology to produce artificial sperm, or even create offspring from two females, is already in the pipeline; in addition, genetic evidence has shown that the Y chromosome, the only one that confers maleness, is in a long-term evolutionary decline’.
So we’re living in a world of genetic experiment. Healthy baby mice produced from two females. Artificial sperm constructed from bone marrow. Female sperm from female stem cells. Manufactured sperm potentially available to lesbians.
“Men will die out as the Y chromosome withers. At the current rate of decline, heterosexual reproduction may only last around 125,000 years. The core sex is female.”
As well as stripping men of their intellectual skill in the face of woman’s growing academic proficiency, the article goes to great lengths to explore ‘Britain’s burgeoning community of lesbian families’. I am no homophobe. I think this report is great and rather funny in places. But I find the issues it raises unsettling.
When it comes down to it, I advocate genetic exploration. It extends our knowledge of the human body and is capable of answering questions about the origins of life. When it is used to fight genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Down Syndrome, it improves the quality of life for thousands. The misuse of genetics can lead to experiments far worse than designer babies, but I don’t believe we should sacrifice progress to caution. Can we be trusted to use genetic research responsibly?
A world without men. Scary thought. What would happen to animal magnetism? Who would we laugh at or blame for unrealistic things? Seriously though, men extinct? Lesbian relationships the norm? I call upon men to defend their existence and women to defend…well, whatever they like.
Where is The Great Saundini?
