The latest installment of the Carnival of the Godless is up over at Unscrewing the Inscrutable. It was supposed to be the Christmas edition, but it didn’t come out until December 28. I lost track of it until today, because it was late.

Here are two of the articles that caught my attention. First is Does Hoping For An End To Religion Make Me Intolerant? at Atheist Revolution. This one resonates with me, because I frequently get emails from fundies claiming that I’m either intolerant or disrespectful. I’m planning to write an article on respect one of these days. In the meantime, go read the article on intolerance. It says much of what I would have written on that topic.

The second article that is especially worth reading is about Huckabee and the Theocrats over at Cheerful Iconoclast. He is one, or will become one if given the chance.

I received an email from BoF reader Terri. I tried to respond, but my email bounced. I’ve been having internet connection problems for the last day and a half, but I don’t know if that’s the cause.

Terri wrote:

Today, my local newspaper published a long article about Adrian Bejan’s Constructal Law. I’m not enough of a scientist to judge, but the way the article was written seems to be subtly supporting intelligent design. I would appreciate your opinion, or a reference to another blog or person that could help me; if I am correct, I intend to write the paper about misleading readers.

The article does seem to suggest intelligent design creationism, but that may not be the actual intent. Here’s what I wrote to Terri in my email that bounced:

I read the article. Physical sciences aren’t my expertise, but I don’t think the guy is implying intelligent design. Things are designed by their environment. Look at a fish. They all have similar shapes, because that shape is the most efficient way to travel through water. Through mutation, some fish will have a more efficient design, and some will have less. The more efficient design is selected for. You end up with a design without a designer.

Does anybody out there know more about this Constructal Law and if the guy behind it is promoting ID creationism?

If you make fun of enough fundies, eventually one of them will notice. “Oh boo hoo! Stop laughing at us!” Such is the case with Access Research Network, who are upset about my last post. Their rebuttal is written by Tom Magnuson. He writes:

The Bay of Fundie blog, no friend of ARN, opined on our recent “Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories of 2007”.

Poor ARN! They don’t have me as a friend!

It is not surprising that when someone has little to say concerning the substance of the debate, he resorts to ad hominem attacks and vitriolic speech.

For instance, ARN and IDers are crackpots, morons, “smart guys”, retards, incapable of understanding biology, Clowndi_ks, fundies, disinformationists, etc.

Actually, I had a lot to say about the substance of the debate. Apparently Tom didn’t read that part of the article. Maybe if he’d get in the habit of reading something in its entirety, like a biology book, he wouldn’t be so ignorant.

Yes, I throw in derogatory terms, such as “crackpot” and “moron”, but they are accurately descriptive. If you promote crackpot ideas like creationism, then you’re a crackpot. If you proudly advertise your lack of comprehension of sixth-grade science, then you are a moron.

Reread that list of “ad hominem attacks and vitriolic speech”. With the exception of “clowndick” (which was just thrown in because I’m sick of creationists) every single item in that list is accurate.

He asserts there is no debate, which is often the first line of “defense” of proponents of the “Modern Synthesis”, a.k.a. Neo-Darwinism (and Global Warming).

What? So now “Darwinists” are also proponents of global warming? Why stop there, Tom? Why not accuse us of also including the Kennedy assassination and the Iraq War into “Darwinism”?

Notice that he equates the Modern Synthesis with Neo-Darwinism. As is typical of creationist retards, Tom either didn’t read the article I linked to (they don’t seem to read much science), or he was incapable of comprehending it. The article about the Modern Synthesis clearly says:

…more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis….

Here’s a cheat sheet for you, Tom. Cut it out and hang it on your fridge until you learn it:

Also notice how he didn’t actually address the point I made in the article. That’s really funny, because he started his article by accusing me of not addressing the issues raised.

So come on, Tom. Put up or shut up. In my article, I specifically asked you to tell me who all of these scientists are who doubt evolution. Who and where are all of these scientists who are part of the great debate?

IDers are liars, like Joseph Goebbels (a Nazi), who once may have said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” As was said in the blog, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Apparently he’s calling me a liar. Which statements, specifically, are the lies? Everything stated as fact in my article is a verifiable fact. Tom can not say the same thing about the article I was commenting on.

As is typical of Neo-Darwinists…

I’ll say it again. Modern biology has moved beyond Neo-Darwinism.

…they separate the origin of species from the origin of life.

Now Tom launches into a misdirection. I mentioned that evolution and abiogenesis were separate, because it was in response to the laughable statement in their original article that said:

[T]he level of biological complexity being discovered in early life history provided another challenge for Darwin’s molecule-to-man theory in 2007.

Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism nor the Modern Synthesis have a “molecule-to-man” theory. This is all part of the ARN disinformation campaign. They try to get the public to equate all of modern biology with the one theory that Darwin proposed. Then they show that Darwin’s original theory doesn’t explain everything. Then, ipso facto, they have disproven evolution!

Neo-Darwinism does not deal with the origin of life, and we are well aware of that fact.

Well you sure as hell didn’t give that impression in the original article! You very specifically said that it did. Weren’t we saying something earlier about liars?

But, in the materialist’s worldview, the origin of life is actually more problematic than the origin of species. That’s why Francis Crick pushed back OOL by proposing directed panspermia. He rightly concluded that a chemical origin of life on Earth was impossible. He posited that OOL must have happened somewhere else in the universe, and was brought here. Neo-Darwinists choose to say, “In the beginning was a great mystery, then evolution.”

This is all misdirection. It has nothing to do with the original article that I was responding to. In any event, there are several scientifically-valid hypotheses involving the origin of life. None involve “God did it”.

One of the citations in the blog to indicate how out-of-touch IDers are with Neo-Darwinism is from 1993.

Wrong again, liar. It was to show how out of touch you are with the Modern Synthesis.

In that post, Moran states, “Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin’s book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.” So, my question is, “If we don’t know HOW materialistic evolution happened, how do we know THAT it happened?”

Excellent question, Tom! (I’m not being sarcastic for once. That is exactly the type of question that any person should ask. How do we know what we know?) There might be a brain in that skull after all! (OK, now I’m back to the sarcasm.) Your question can be easily answered with this illustration:

The debate (which he says doesn’t even exist among REAL scientists) is about the HOW (mechanisms). What they accuse us of (God of the Gaps), is exactly what they are doing (Science of the Gaps), when saying they don’t know HOW it happened.

Wrong again, liar. We never said we didn’t know how it happened. We have an excellent theory that explains it all. It’s called evolution. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

But, according to them, it had to have happened, because it fits their worldview.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. We have that worldview, because it fits the data.

Believers in the extranatural either believe that the universe was front-loaded with information, or a designer injected information into systems at various times.

“Extranatural” isn’t a word. You’re looking for “supernatural”. And looking for the supernatural is not science. Stop claiming it is (e.g., “intelligent design”).

If REAL scientists can infer design in SETI, criminology, etc., why not in biological science?

He lost me here. What are you saying, Tom, that SETI is trying to prove that God made aliens? We need to find some first, then we can try to figure out where they came from.

Well, that would upset the apple cart, because they cannot allow a “divine foot in the door”.

It has nothing to do with not allowing a “divine foot in the door”. It’s just that a few centuries ago, we discovered that we didn’t need a divine foot to explain the natural world.

So they attempt to nail the door shut by saying there is no legitimate debate.

Nobody’s nailing any doors shut. It’s shut, because nobody has opened it in a hundred years. I’ll repeat my challenge from above: Where is this huge gaggle of scientists who are debating evolution? You didn’t answer it in the original article, and you didn’t answer it in your rebuttal.

I prefer clarity of thinking over agreement. This is what we should all strive for this coming year, including Neo-Darwinists.

Well, Tom, you go find yourself some Neo-Darwinists, and you guys can get yourself a nice big clarity orgasm. In the meantime, all of modern biology will continue with the clarity of thinking that we’ve enjoyed for over a hundred years.

UPDATE

Note to those coming here from Carnival of the Godless. This is the second post in this series, both of which pissed off one of the guys at ARN. The post I wrote right before this one received the brunt of the comments from their “Director of Media Relations”. He just proves what I say in that post, that they’re a disinformation site. If you want to read that post, and the barrage of comments that it generated, you can see it here.

One of those crackpot creationist institutions dedicated to dismantling everything that has been accomplished since the Enlightenment and plunging us all back into the Dark Ages is called Access Research Network. I think the only research these morons are trying to access is that done by Joseph Goebbels:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
—Attributed to Goebbels

ARN has just published a press release promoting their year-end top ten list, “Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories of 2007”. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights.

As is typical of press releases, there is a quotation from one of their head guys, in this case Kevin Wirth, Director of Media Relations. He says:

Part of our mission at ARN is to help educate the public about issues relating to Darwin and Design. Not only are there a lot of moving parts to this issue, but it also suffers heavily from significant mis-information.

Yes. Most of it coming from fundie disinformation sites like ARN.

The news reports we’ve cited in our Top 10 News Stories this year reflect many of those concerns…. One of the things we’ve noticed is that the probability surrounding the notion that life arose spontaneously and evolved over eons is straining the limits of credulity among observers who are not heavily invested in Darwinian speculations.

OK, smart guy. Who are all of these so-called scientists who reject evolution? I’m waiting. And don’t give me that list of mathematicians and physicists you retards have been pedaling for the last few years. Who are the life scientists? You know, the people who actually study biology.

[T]he level of biological complexity being discovered in early life history provided another challenge for Darwin’s molecule-to-man theory in 2007.

Now which theory would that be? Darwin never proposed a “molecule-to-man” theory. He merely described how one species (that already existed) could evolve into another. I told you ARN was a creationist disinformation site. The origin of life (abiogenesis) is a separate issue.

Well-preserved jellyfish fossil finds in Utah confirm that the modern form of the jellyfish existed nearly 200 million years earlier than previously thought. This leaves an insufficient amount of time for complex life to have developed only via the Darwinian principles of random mutations and natural selection.

Then it’s a good thing that modern evolutionary theory abandoned Darwinism as the sole explanation decades ago. Once again, this is creationist disinformation at work. In fact, almost all creationist claims are rooted in this one disinformation tactic.

The press release then starts quoting Dennis Wagner, ARN Executive Director:

We have a whole generation of people who have been raised according to Darwinian fairytales, like ‘human and chimpanzee genetics only differ by 1%’….

They then cite a study that indicates that the genetic difference between chimps and humans is closer to 6%. I fail to see how that’s relevant to their argument. Science marches forward, unlike Biblicalism. If you read the article cited, everything about it supports evolution. If ARN is going to try to shoot down evolution, they should try to find a study that actually does so.

These are Darwinian ‘arguments from ignorance’….

Wagner also noted that several new books in the ARN 2007 Top 10 Darwin and Design Resource list such as Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution and Mike Gene’s The Design Matrix are causing a healthy shift in the debate from ‘Darwin versus Design’ to ‘Darwin and Design.’

You can’t shift something that doesn’t exist. There was no “Darwin versus Design” debate in the first place, at least not among scientists.

The debate has been highly polarized for generations because you have one group claiming everything can be explained by Darwin…

Those would have to be the creationists. As I explained above, they’re the only ones who are still fixated on the antiquated notion of “Darwinism”. Real scientists have long since moved on to the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution.

…and another group claiming everything can be explained by design.

Those would also be the creationists. They must be a very confused group of people, having polarizing debates among themselves like that.

These new books are revealing that scientific evidence is now indicating life bears the hallmarks of both.

No. These new books are revealing that the authors are incapable of understanding modern biology, and are therefore resorting to “God did it”.

Wirth concluded, “As we monitor scientific discoveries and reports in the news, I think we’re beginning to see a growing trend overall that the sufficiency of Darwinian explanations to describe how life evolved is turning out to be substantially inadequate in a growing number of fields, particularly in the areas of genetics and molecular biology.

Look, Clowndick. If you’re just now seeing that “Darwinism” is inadequate to explain everything, then I suggest you throw away your 1920 textbook and learn some modern biology.

From Tearing Books Apart:

I like old weird films. I have no idea why. I guess it’s just a personality defect. I recently came across one that fits both the season and this blog perfectly. Supposedly it was originally called “The Santa Claus Suit”, but the beginning of the film is missing, so I can’t be sure.

I’m guessing this thing is from the 1950s, because they would have needed a lot of cheap content for TV in those days. It’s ten minutes long. I hope you can spare the time to watch it with us.

It’s about two puppets, Stripe and Spot. Stripe is using his brain and questioning dogma, instead of just taking everything on faith. If Stripe would just follow things to their logical conclusion, he could become an atheist. Instead, he fails the final test and retreats into the demon-haunted world.

(YouTube page is here)

The filmmakers clearly had an agenda here. Stripe says that if he can’t see it, it isn’t real. This is the sort of faux atheism argument put forth by theists who want to disprove atheism.

What Stripe should have been saying wasn’t “If I can’t see it, it isn’t real.” Instead, he should have been saying “If I can’t measure it, it isn’t real.” All of the examples given in the film (electricity, wind, heat, and God) can be subjected to this test.

Fundie pressure group Concerned Women for America is so full of concerned women that they have to use men to do all their work. I guess they can’t spare any women to do the writing, because they need all of them to sit around looking concerned.

The opinion column duties usually fall to J. Matt Barber, but he was probably busy today suppressing women’s rights, so they could have even more stuff to be concerned about. Today, Mario Diaz takes over the writing job.

OK, Mario, what do you have for us today? Why, look! He takes his job seriously! He has given us a column with the very ominous title “Judge Declares the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional”. Good job, Mario! The concerned women will be so proud! In fact, the column is so good, that is one less thing for them to be concerned about! Let’s see what Mario has to say:

Judge Declares the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional

Okay, so the headline is a bit premature, but it’s the logical precursor to the legal philosophy of liberal extremists, isn’t it?

Oh, Mario, Mario, Mario! Where do I begin? First of all, the Declaration of Independence could never be declared unconstitutional, because:
a. It isn’t a law, and
b. It predates the Constitution.

Second, I don’t think you mean “precursor”. What you are doing is taking your paranoid delusions about the Left and extrapolating. That’s not a precursor. I think you mean “logical conclusion”. Even then, that isn’t correct. You have to be extremely careful when extrapolating, because you are going way beyond the point where you have any data to support your claims. Finally, this whole extrapolation fantasy of yours is just that: a fantasy. You’re going to create a giant future straw man, then show us how easily you slay it!

Ever since the Supreme Court erroneously elevated Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor to a constitutional doctrine in the 1947 landmark decision Everson v. Board of Education…

Wrong, Mario. Even though the phrase “separation between church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the concept clearly does.

…a growing sort of legal fog has been setting in on our constitutional religious freedoms, ending in what can only be described as a requirement of government hostility towards religion.

Wrong again, Mario. If you read my report on Abington v. Schempp, you’d know that the Court has ruled that the government must not be hostile to religion.

The many perils of reading into the Constitution a “wall of separation between church and state” where none exists came as no surprise to many of us. Nothing good ever comes from deviating from the clear text and context of the Constitution.

Then it’s a good thing that the Court didn’t deviate from the clear text, isn’t it, Mario? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is clear to just about everybody.

Many well-intentioned, smart people have argued for a “living, breathing” Constitution, changing with the times and looking for small immediate “advances,” but this interpretation has only one result in the long run: tyranny.

The Constitution has to be living and breathing. That’s the only way to deal with the numerous conflicts that have arisen that the Founders could not have foreseen. That’s the whole point in writing a constitution!

Should the government censor television and radio? Why not? They aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom of the press only applies to things with printing presses!

In no other area of law has this proven truer than when it comes to our religious liberty. In the last sixty years, we have seen a constant attack on prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments, the sanctity of life, Christmas, Christian symbols and even religious doctrines. In many instances, our religious rights have been so inhibited that the result is exactly what the founding fathers where [sic] trying to prevent: the government dictating what the people can or can’t do when it comes to religion.

Wow! That’s a hell of a laundry list, Mario! It’s every paranoid delusion you people have!

Despite your fantasies, Mario, your religious freedoms are actually greater today than at just about any time in our history, because the government has gotten out of the religion business.

Because of their hostility toward religion and their unveiled hatred toward anything related to God, these extreme liberal scholars are forced to ignore history, precedent and facts and are forced to decide cases from what they feel is best for the country.

Now I’m confused. Who are “they”? Are we talking about some fantasy “extreme liberal scholars” that you’ve invented, or are we talking about Supreme Court Justices, few of whom are liberal and none of whom are extreme?

It is astonishing how they can go back in history and erect a temple for a distorted “wall of separation between church and state” phrase, while ignoring the text of the Constitution and the volumes of documents showing the people’s real concern when enacting the First Amendment.

I’m guessing we’re talking about the Supreme Court here. It was certainly more liberal in the past than today, but the Court has always looked at the text of the Constitution first and foremost. As far as the “volumes of documents showing the people’s real concern when enacting the First Amendment”, many of those documents show a clear and profound preference for a wall of separation.

This is why they seem to virtually ignore the Declaration of Independence. It’s too simple, too direct and too straightforward. If they were to be honest, they would have to say unequivocally that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.

Now we finally come to what Mario promised us at the beginning, a false argument. The Declaration of Independence is just that: a declaration. It isn’t a law.

After all, here is what this horrible, oppressive document says:

When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

OK. I see the words “Nature’s God” and “creator”. Those are clearly theistic statements. They reflect the prevailing worldview at the time. They are also clearly vague and non-specific. The terms can apply to any theist: Christian, Jew, Muslim, or pagan. I’ll tell you what I don’t see: the Christian God. If Mario is trying to tell us that we’re supposed to open every school day with a prayer to Jesus and his dad, he’s looking at the wrong document.

“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “Endowed, by their Creator”? Let’s pass a bill including this language today and see what happens. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would bring suit before the vote was even cast; Michael Newdow’s daughter would somehow be deeply affected by it, prompting him to bring yet another suit; and Barry Lynn would be invited to every major news show to “educate” us as to why this kind of rhetoric is okay as long as you keep it to yourself, but once you actually express it, well, then we have a problem.

Well now Mario is just making stuff up. Out of straw.

But liberal scholars consistently encounter one little problem: there would be no Constitution without the Declaration of Independence.

But fundie Mario consistently encounters one little problem: The Declaration of Independence is not a foundation of our laws.

The enemies of God in our government have a problem with the Declaration of Independence…”

Here he’s making stuff up again. What “enemies of God in our government”? I don’t know how many “enemies of God” there are anywhere, let alone in the government. Most of the people who hold opinions contrary to Mario’s are theists themselves. They just understand the dangers of mixing government and religion.

…and ignoring a problem does not make it go away - we learned that the hard way on September 11, 2001.

You’re absolutely right, Mario. Nineteen extremely religious men killed over 3000 people that day. Imagine what they could have done with an army backing them! Imagine what they could have done if they had the power of a state acting as the muscle for their religion.

Actually, Mario’s September 11 comment is a non-sequitur. I don’t see how it’s in any way related to his other points.

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our legal jurisprudence.

Again, it’s not.

And in fact, it makes reference to what they hate the most, God.

Again, the “they” is vague. I guess it’s some undefined group of liberals. Or maybe it’s this gang of God-haters in government. Tell you what, Mario. You bring me a list of all of the people in government who hate God, and then I’ll listen to the rest of your passion play.

So liberal activists should be truthful for once, or at least intellectually honest (remember, they believe there is no truth; everything is relative),…

I was about to chide Mario for painting a large group of people with such a broad brush, but then I realized that he still hasn’t told us who he’s talking about. First it appears to be all liberals. Then it appears to be Supreme Court Justices. Then it appears to be the “God-haters in government”.

…and stop their little nonsensical lawsuits against “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, the 10 Commandments in the public square, “In God We Trust” in our coins, etc.…

Oh! Now Mario is talking about the people who care enough about the Constitution that they actually try to protect it, instead of shred it.

…and ask a judge (perhaps the brilliant Ninth Circuit) to declare, once and for all, the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional.

Again, Mario, I told you: The Declaration of Independence is not a law, and it predates the Constitution. Why don’t you have kitty litter declared unconstitutional while you’re at it? You’d be on the same legal footing.

After that perhaps they can finally take their cases to the House of Lords.

And again, Mario throws in a non-sequitur! Way to go, Mario! What a way to end your brilliant essay!

Now I finally understand what those women are concerned about: Poor, deluded Mario.

Jim Newell at Wonkette found this video of Ron Paul criticizing Mike Huckabee’s religious campaign commercial:

(YouTube page is here)

Newell writes:

Ron Paul appeared on today’s edition of teevee shitparade Fox & Friends. In this 25 seconds or so Paul managed to speak before a commercial break, he found a window to call Mike Huckabee a fascist. Paul, responding to a question about the not-so-subliminal cross in Huckabee’s new Christmas ad, said it reminded him of a Sinclair Lewis quote: “When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross.” Indeed, 2001 was a bad year.