The Scientific Method

religion, science, babies, baby, christian, creationism, ray, hovind, atheism, atheist,

My newest niece just turned one*. I caught a ride to work with my sister and my niece, we'll call her Blondie, was in the back seat with a half-full bottle of formula.

I watched Blondie as she tried to get formula out of the bottle without sucking on it. Her first try was to hold the bottle upside-down. This did not work. Then she tried holding the bottle upside-down and shaking it, with no success. Blondie then experimented with variations on the same theme: holding the bottle at a 90 degree angle, holding it straight out from her body like a wand, with and without shaking, etc.

Eventually, Blondie ended up accidentally squeezing the nipple of the bottle and formula flew out. Success! She then worked out the most efficient way to squeeze the nipple (gripping it with her fingers in the manner of milking a cow) and formula was everywhere, at which point the experiment was abruptly ended.**

Blondie proved to me that humans are born knowing the scientific method. She formulated a hypothesis: If I hold the bottle upside-down, formula will come out. She tested that hypothesis. She worked out the results: formula does not come out when I hold the bottle upside down. She then reformulated the hypothesis: if I hold the bottle upside-down and shake it, formula will come out. She then repeated this process until she got her desired result.

So why is it that my one-year-old niece has a complete, intuitive understanding of science while asshats like Ray Comfort and Ed (Ted? Ken? Whatever.) Hovind can't figure it out?

Oh, wait, that's right- my niece is an atheist, being one year old and all.

Yeah, religion's harmless.

*I really wish I could show you a video of her. She is just the cutest thing ever, but this is the internet and there are pervs. Lots of pervs. Pervy pervs.

**My sister knew what was going on the whole time. She thought it was funny, too, until formula started raining all over the inside of her car.

The Dunkin' Donuts Anarchist

There is a woman who works at the Dunkin' Donuts by my house who seems to be practicing an odd form of anarchy: every time she makes my coffee, she puts flavoring in it. Sometimes hazelnut, sometimes blueberry, once cinnamon. I don't ask for this flavoring, in fact I've emphatically not asked for flavoring, but there it is. I hate artificial flavoring. I can taste the artificial. I can tell if you used imitation vanilla extract in cookies. Yes, I can.

I'd report her to the manager for this, but I bet I'd like spit in my coffee even less than artificial flavoring.

Please, Dunkin' Donuts Anarchist, stop putting flavoring in my coffee. Find some other way to make a sociopolitical statement that doesn't involve my coffee.

Thank you.

A Christian Comic: Final Fantasy Meets Rock Band

comic, christian, safe sex, homosexual, music

The Truth for Youth produces Christian comics of such awesome hilarity that I think the author/artist should get some sort of award. Seriously, look at that picture from "Wasted Words: The Truth About Secular Music". Clearly, the designers of Final Fantasy have gotten together with the designers of Rock Band and this was the result. The lyrics were obviously taken from a rejected song written by the Maynard of Tool after a week long ecstasy binge, and someone's been spending a little too much time with the lolcatz (KEWL!*).

The comic only gets better from there with such classic lines as "I should have listened in bible study!" and "Maybe I'm [at the show] to learn deeper truths".

Born That Way: The Truth About Homosexuality has the standard "gays don't deserve civil rights, it's a choice, blahblahblah", set the exciting atmosphere of a riot- complete with tear gas and flying boulders.

Passes and Plays: The Truth About Safe Sex includes the high school football star, the slutty cheerleader, lies about STDs and birth control, and the instant classic line: "Baby, we'll be doin' more than talkin' later! I'm gonna huddle on your line of scrimmage and go for the extra point! Haw Haw**!"

Fail so awesome it's a win.

*Seriously, who speaks lolcat?

**It appears that Christian comics are required to include that laugh.

Solved the Problem

Robert Rector of National Review Online has solved the problem of poverty by putting sarcastiquotes around the word "poor".

Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual poverty report. The report is expected to show an increase in poverty in 2008 due to the onset of the recession. It is no surprise that poverty goes up in a recession. What is surprising is that every year for nearly three decades, in good economic times and bad, Census has reported more than 30 million Americans living in poverty.

What does it mean to be “poor” in America? For the average reader, the word poverty implies significant physical hardship — for example, the lack of a warm, adequate home, nutritious food, or reasonable clothing for one’s children. By that measure, very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as “living in poverty” by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.

Well, sure, if you redefine "poor"*, hardly anyone is poor. I'm not homeless, so I'm not poor. I'll keep that in mind while I wear the same, faded clothes I've been wearing for years, while I freeze this winter because I can't afford to turn the heat above 60, and while I walk past the produce section salivating over all the fresh fruits and vegetables I can't ever afford to buy. Asshat.

Let's see why I'm not poor:

Various government reports contain the following facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau:

Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. A porch? That is untold wealth previous generations only dreamed of! First of all, so what? Rector's never heard of Habitat for Humanity or inheritance**? I suppose he's also not considered all the people who were doing well at one point, but aren't anymore. Not to mention all the places where you can get a house for $80,000 or less. As for 3 bedrooms and 1.5 baths- again, so what? Most houses have 3 bedrooms and at least 1.5 baths these days. Very few people want less than that.

Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Air conditioning? Wow! So do I. I never turn it on, because I can't afford to, but I do have an air conditioner downstairs. Check out the link, btw, that first air conditioner is $69.

Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV. Poor people shouldn't be allowed to watch TV. The joys of House and Lost are only for the rich. Seriously.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. two rooms? i suppose by that logic, i get four rooms if you're counting the dining room, the living room and the laundry room.

The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) has he noticed that most European countries are smaller than the state of Pennsylvania? We gots the space here in the US, we uses it.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. a car, not a mercedes, you spleenweasel. I used to own a car, a 1983 Camaro. It didn't work more often than it did, and it was useless in the snow. I had no idea how rich I was. Beyond that, outside of New York City, can you imagine trying to get by without a car? I don't have to, I do it. Let me tell you, not easy.

Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions. a color television? that would be impressive- in 1967. I can get a color television, with built in DVD player, for less than $100.

Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens less than $50; 67 percent have a DVD player $35 dollars; 73 percent have a VCR $14.99; 47 percent have a computer $115.

There you have it, I could buy my way out of poverty by selling my microwave, my computer and cancelling Dish Network. Yeah.

Asshat.


*Two can play this game!

**Which would be why I own my home.

Patriot Day

patriot day, glenn, beck, 912 project
I can't even think of an appropriate Patriot Day greeting. "Happy Patriot Day" is a little too upbeat for the rememberance of 9/11. "Merry" is out for the same reason. "Mournful Patriot Day" is more accurate, but has obvious problems. "Patriotic Patriot Day" is just stupid.

I don't really have much to say about all this. 9/11 affected me deeply, and does to this day. I live a few miles from an airport, so planes fly pretty low over my house all day, and 8 years later, this makes me very nervous. I cry when I think of some of the things I saw, live on the news, that day.

This does not excuse torture, Gitmo, or the deaths of a couple hundred thousand Iraqis. And Glenn Bek's* 912 Project? Inexcusable. Glenn Bek wants me to feel like I did on 9/12. I felt scared and sick and sad. Why would I want to feel that way again? Why would that be a good thing? Oh, yeah, because then the GOP could twist that into a fear of the black man in the white house and death panels and werewolves**.

Sorry, Glenn, I'm not going there.



*Glenn Bek- putting the "" in "oligarhy". Hat tip to the Accidental Historian.

**I'm fairly certain werewolves are next on the GOP's Fear Parade.

Job (and possibly Ben)

christianity, job, bible, satan, god, atheism, atheist,
I have a tremendous problem with the Book of Job: it's the saddest story ever told. It's a tale of a cruel god and a crueler bet.

If you're not familiar with the Book of Job, Job was a righteous man, one of few in the Bible to be named so.

In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless* and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.

One day, for no apparent reason, Satan pays a visit to God.

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

Satan, ever the logical one, I guess, suggests that perhaps Job wouldn't be so righteous if God weren't forever rewarding Job for his righteousness. It's a valid point, but what God does next is nothing short of criminal.

9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

I have three problems with this: (a) Suppose you were bragging to a friend that your dog is the best natured dog in the world, and your friend says, "well, sure, you're always coddling him, of course he's good natured. I bet if you started starving and beating him, he wouldn't be such a good dog," would you say, "okay, then, beat and starve my dog. that'll show you!" Of course not.**

If you wouldn't torment a dog just to make a point, why is it okay for God to torment a blameless man?

(b) God doesn't even allow Satan to torment Job directly. God has Satan tormenting innocent animals and family members. They didn't do anything, but they'll pay to prove God right. How is that not the worst thing you've ever heard?

While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, 19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"

(c) What is the difference between Satan and God in this story? Sure, Satan's the one who suggested torturing Job for no reason at all, but God's the one who allowed it. Between the two, God may actually be the less moral entity.

Despite losing all his livestock and his entire family, Job remains faithful to God. Not one to lose a bet, Satan suggests that if God allowed Job himself to be tormented, Job would surely crack.

7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.

Job, of course, does not crack. Eventually, Job does (sort of) question God's will, at which point God basically answers with "Because fuck you, that's why!"

1Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
2 Do you count the months till they bear? Do you know the time they give birth?

Job immediately backs down, instead of asking what goats and deer have to do with killing his children in order to win a bet with Satan***.

The most disturbing portion of Job comes right at the end wherein God makes everything better by giving Job more livestock and more children. Sure, God, children are all the same. Just replace the one you killed and that makes it all better. Seriously, who would be okay with this?


If the point of Job were to remind me that God is fickle and dangerous, and that even following all the rules could well earn me torture, the story would be bad enough. Christians however, read stories like this and then blather on about "love" and "gifts" and "justice". That's just insane. I'm beginning to think atheism is just the moral response to crazed immorality of Yhwh.




*People like Ray Comfort like to remind us, well, more like beat us over the head with, that no one is blameless, you know, except for Job, as it says, right there in the Bible, that they say is the exact, literal word of god.

**If you would do that, go jump in front of a train, you stupid fucking psychopath.

***Answer: Absolutely nothing.

In case you're wondering, Ben is a Lost reference. It's been suggested that Jacob is God and Ben Linus is Job.

All I Know About Science

gene therapy, disabled, abortion, christian, atheism, doctors, science,
I learned from Jurassic Park.

That was the shortest shorter Ken Connor of The Christian Post.

Recent reports of an unprecedented development in gene therapy indicate that humility before the mysterious and awesome power of nature is a lesson mankind has yet to learn. Like Crichton's Hammond, the scientific community seems unable to resist the Siren song of "discovery," even when the future of humanity may well be at stake.

shorter Ken: I know fuck all about gene therapy, but it scares me. All science does.

The field of genetics has been viewed as the last frontier of biological science, and with good reason. Unlike other forms of medicine that are applied at the individual level-e.g., mending an artery, fashioning a skin graft, or removing a tumor-genetics involves manipulation of the very building blocks of life. Manipulation of genetic material can affect not only individuals, but generations yet to come. That's why some scientists are celebrating after successfully replacing "faulty" genetic material of one female monkey with genetic material from another female monkey to produce several apparently healthy offspring from the genetically altered eggs. Many in the field are excited at the prospect of using this technology to help women with genetic maladies produce healthy children-despite "a host of safety, legal, ethical and social questions" that should give them pause.

I still don't know anything about gene therapy, but if women, even monkey women, are benefitting from it, I'm against it. And I like to put quotes around random assortments of words for no apparent reason.

It is easy to understand the altruistic impulse that drives many scientists to push the limits in pursuit of eradicating diseases and disabilities; but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Scientists and society must weigh the potential benefits of any given scientific "advance" against the costs of any unintended consequences. If we allow ourselves to be guided solely by our passion to break barriers and our irrepressible desire to play God, we could end up the authors of immeasurable damage to the whole human race.

Those scientists, always showing off and trying to disprove god. They couldn't possibly be motivated by a desire to help people by permanently curing such horrific maladies as Tay-Sachs or hemophilia. (Hey, if god wants you to watch your baby bleed to death from a scratch, that's what you should do. He's love, you know.)

Thousands of years of knowledge and discovery have illuminated much, but when push comes to shove doctors and scientists still wonder at the miraculous poetry and precision on display in the workings of life on earth. Of course, things sometimes go wrong. Nature does not always work the way we would like; but considering the vast complexity of the natural world, it is amazing that nature malfunctions as infrequently as it does.

It's not like scientists know everything, and until they do, they shouldn't do anything. Except give me antibiotics when I'm sick and chemo when I have cancer. But other than that, they need to stop playing god. As for the "infrequency of malfunctions"? Wow, really, cuz this is a long list.

True to our nature, however, mostly good is not good enough. Human beings desire perfection on this earth. We reject the Christian understanding of sin and fallenness as inescapable features of the human condition (manifested in part by our physical imperfection and frailty) and resort to the use of science as our instrument of omnipotence. Following Margaret Sanger in the early 20th century, for a time we believed that we could breed imperfection out of the human race by controlling who could and could not procreate. Adolf Hitler extended the theory of eugenics to its atrocious conclusion with his holocaust of 11 million Jews, Poles, Catholics, Christians, gypsies, the mentally and physically disabled, homosexuals, Communists, and others. In the early to mid-20th century, patients with psychological and mental disorders became experimental fodder for doctors convinced that lobotomy was the solution for ailments now treatable through therapy and medication.

atheists like to kill people, doctors and scientists have been wrong in the past, and sure, i'll pass on a bypass and let my heart explode rather than mess with god's perfect creation. right.

Today our methods of playing God are more subtle, but no less inhumane. With our righteous defense of a woman's "right to choose" and an individual's "right to die," we assume the divine mantle of Creation and Destruction. With our embrace of bioethicists like Peter Singer-who defines personhood according to a utilitarian "quality-of-life" criteria that does not recognize the humanity of the unborn, the disabled, the diseased, or the infirm-we endeavor to remake nature in our own vain image.

wouldn't gene therapy prevent abortions related to such disorders as Down's, etc? so, less abortions is bad? oh, i get it, Tay-Sachs is good? no, i don't get it.

So it is with genetic technology. When wielded proudly, unconstrained by humility and a sense of our place in the natural order, it represents a grave danger. Whether you call it the Law of Unintended Consequences or Murphy's Law, experience demonstrates that if something can go wrong it usually will-despite the best laid plans and the best of intentions. This may be of little consequence when applied to the mundane decisions of daily life, but when we are talking about the use of a technology that could irrevocably alter the human species, shouldn't we ask whether some risks are worth taking?

so, gene therapy done whilst praying to the lord would be okay? and, yes, i think we should ask parents whose children have died of these sorts of diseases if some risks are worth taking.

look, there are legitimate questions about this sort of thing, but "why aren't they consulting the bible before making medical/scientific breakthroughs" is not one of them. asshat.