The Atheist Blogger

150 years ago today, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life“. A monumental book, considered by biologists around the world to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.

In the 150 years since its publication, evolutionary theory has expanded and grown in ways that Darwin himself could not have imagined. The discovery of the multitude of transitional forms that match Darwin’s original prediction, and the work of others (the prediction and subsequent discovery of Tiktaalik being perhaps the most notable) helped bolster the theory, and firmly establish it as scientific fact.

Not only that, but all discoveries of biology since Darwin proposed his idea have complemented it perfectly, with DNA confirming common ancestry, and the various evolutionary development experiments that have captured evolution in action^[1].

So, happy anniversary to Charles Darwin’s masterpiece! May it inspire many more of the generations to come!

Way back in July, I responded to a tweet at showed up in my TweetDeck search that looks for mentions of words like “atheist”, “agnostic”, “skeptic”, etc. The tweet in question was from an astrologer on Twitter who I hadn’t come across before.

How deep a thinker is a skeptic, for the rest of the intellectual world to ever take notice of, when he MOCKS ALL people’s beliefs? – @edaugusts

Well evidently this was untrue; skeptics do not mock all beliefs, they challenge beliefs that have no evidence or explanation behind them. On the occasion we do mock (and I’m not denying this), we do it to beliefs that have consistently failed test after test. Beliefs like astrology, homeopathy, and applied kinesiology are openly mocked because they simply do not stand up to the rigorous tests that skeptics put them through. The tests aren’t impossible either; they are set up to test the exact claims that the belief makes, and if the belief was true, the test should be passed easily.

Knowing this, I sent a reply back to the astrologer:

Skeptics don’t embrace astrology because there is no evidence to suggest it works. In fact the evidence shows the exact opposite. – @ah8r

Angry reply after angry reply came back, attacking me for my atheism (saying I couldn’t find purpose in life), insulting the JREF and James Randi (although he curiously didn’t respond to my point about the JREF tests being set up and agreed to by the claimant), and generally acting like he had all the answers with none of the responsibility for burden of proof. Here are a few more of his tweets:

It does not take a genius to see that NO ONE would EVER be able to convince a devout skeptic like Randi about ANYTHING! – @edaugusts

Well nobody is trying to convince Randi; they are trying to pass the requirements (which are written in plain English) of the JREF $1,000,000 Challenge. The claimant contacts the JREF, and agrees to a test that would demonstrate the claimant’s powers. In all cases, the claimant comes up with the test, and the JREF come up with conditions that the test much adhere to in order to be fair. Mentioning Randi’s skepticism is nothing but a red herring.

Did you know James Randi (JREF) attacks many other targets, such as alternative medicine: http://cli.gs/YsNAUt – @edaugusts

Followed closely by another red herring. Just because the JREF attacks alternative medicine doesn’t mean their test for such pseudo-scientific claims is somehow flawed. The JREF was involved with the BBC a few years back to test Homeopathy. The BBC were the claimants (as an experiment) and helped set up the test, which failed miserably. The entire case is still documented at the BBC website, and the Horizon programme is probably still online somewhere.

To cut a long story short, I requested that he do a reading of my chart, since he said that such a reading would change my mind entirely. What follows are select parts of his finished reading (mainly because the thing is far too long to post here entirely), with comments interlaced from me. You can read the entire reading here.

This chart-work came up as a sort of ‘challenge’ on a Twitter thread a few days ago. The chart belongs to a young man who calls himself  ‘AtheistBlogger’.  He attracted my attention by making a wild comment on Twitter:  “Astrology is crap,” which seemed a scary-kind of blanket statement to apply to such a well-researched and ancient subject of inquiry.

Whoaaa there! I never said any such thing! As you saw at the beginning of this post, my “wild comment” that first attracted his attention was that skeptics didn’t embrace astrology since there was no evidence of it working, and that all the evidence shows the complete opposite. A much more eloquent (and honestly skeptical) way of telling him that astrology simply doesn’t work. At this point, I was quite taken aback, and what is most interesting is that the astrologer built up a characterization of me from the way he interpreted my tweets. What I see as honest skepticism; references to studies that have debunked astrology, he sees as aggressiveness and close-mindedness. This actually helped me out a lot, because his reading was skewed off course by his own bias, and he ended up reading this characterization of me into the entire thing.

His chart is an amazing ’stand out’ in the incredibly bad aspects it forms to MY personal chart, which really is a wonderful validation of Astrology — I’m so glad he appeared in the cross-hairs for this encounter — because his chart PROVES Astrology through the definition of its many significant comparison aspects with my own chart.   After all,  it wasn’t anyone who got into this dispute about Astrology in Twitter except him — and me!

The obvious irony in the above statement is that if Astrology was true, and my chart “proved” this, I would have no choice but to accept it, and we would no longer be enemies. Heck, I’d probably hire him to do more readings; knowing the future is important! Of course, this would cause a contradiction with his following statement:

You NEVER see this line-up of powerfully negative aspects between friends.  Maybe two enemies who meet in a killing field to cut holes in each other, but never friends!

He’s set up his position so that he cannot possibly lose though, since he again reverses his decision to allow for possible “understanding”:

There is, however, a ghost of a chance of some ultimate kind of limited understanding arising between us, based on his Libra Moon in a (weak)  5 degree trine to my Gemini Sun and his Gemini Venus being conjunct my Sun.

So, I deny Astrology, he wins. I accept Astrology, he wins (via a loophole). Of course, all this relies on friendships being predetermined by where and when you were born, something that is so astronomically bizarre that I doubt any astrologer would be able to demonstrate a good naturalistic method of how it works. But of course, they aren’t interested in demonstrating how it works; they just delude themselves into thinking that because people find it accurate in places, it must be true. However they fail to realise that their “predictions” are often so vague that they cover almost all bases.

Ed starts his reading in a truly skeptical sense though:

At first I wondered if he would give me his actual chart data, or use the birth date of some well-known public figure so that he could make fun of me afterwords for describing him using a chart belonging to some rap singer or football player!  I suspected a ruse, because that sort of thing has been done in the past on USENET sites, where skeptics used to gather before Google archiving put an end to their most rampant abuses.   But after looking at the chart for a few minutes, I wrote a message on Twitter stating that AtheistBlogger had been good as his word, and sent me his true birth data. How did I know? Because the major positions and aspects portray the person who came forward on Twitter.

Ok, he started out skeptical, but then deteriorated into a conclusion based entirely on faulty reasoning and…well…faith. As I previously showed, my attitude coming across on Twitter was pure skepticism; I challenged him in a polite manner, responded to his points, etc. I was met with anger, attacks on my disbelief, and just general insults on skepticism. I’m confused as to why skeptics giving wrong data is a “rampant abuse” though; surely if Astrology worked so well, you would easily be able to tell wrong birth data straight away? It’s a test; it might be sneaky, but at the end of the day, if the claim is that it can tell you information about a person just by birth data, then a test of giving the “wrong” birth data should still return information about the person it actually belongs to, rather than the person giving the information.

The Jupiter-Neptune aspect shows, surprisingly enough,  an actual connection with religion, a familiarity with it. Perhaps as a child he was coaxed to learn the Bible from a parent or grandparent who hoped to indoctrinate the child in that system of beliefs.   He didn’t reckon on AtheistBlogger disliking authority — other than himself!  — and challenging any such teachings.

The word “perhaps” doesn’t give me much confidence here. Yes, I have a “familiarity” with religion, but then you’d be hard pushed to find someone (even an atheist) who doesn’t. The vast majority of atheists were once religious. However, as a child I wasn’t indoctrinated by anyone. My mother was somewhat religious, but didn’t force me to read the Bible at all. We went to church rarely, usually only for harvest festivals or when some form of concert was on. My father wasn’t religious at all.

There is nothing at peace and rest in this square between Mars and Pluto. It causes a person to be unjustifiably wrathful, scornful, severe, and possibly violent against anyone who doesn’t share his personal opinions.   It invites violence in its turn, so as a child, AtheistBlogger may have had more than his share of personal challenges — wins — and losses.  It is as if at some point in his young life, he has already, or soon will, witness violence of a kind usually only seen in war.   He may even be at the center of an episode of some kind of violence!

Violent? Moi? I don’t think there has ever been a more absurd accusation. The closest I get to violence is killing aliens and Nazi’s on video games, and in the “real world”, I don’t get into fights, feel compelled to strike anyone, or do anything that could be considered “violent” by any sane individual. Anyone who knows my views will be aware that I am for a completely open free speech society, one where any view may be shared by anyone. Yes, that means even astrologers can peddle their ideas about the stars, as long as I (and anyone else) gets the right to call them out on their claims, and challenge their views. Again, Ed finishes this prediction with a lot of unsure language, nothing certain, so that he can claim he is correct either way.

His sibling(s) probably include a brother, shown by Mars (male) in the 3rd House (siblings).  He has at least twice the chance of having a brother than he does a sister…  If he does have a sister, which is not as likely, she will be more aggressive and a source of possible trouble to him than most sisters, since Mars marks-her-out.  In any case, there will be rivalries with this sibling over inheritance or other worries.  He or she may have a sporty affable nature, but be prone to accidents and dangers (Mars square Pluto).  He may lose a sibling because of Mars being in that house, that sign, and the way it relates to the other planets.  Traveling abroad for said brother, and/or driving in the same car with this brother, may be dangerous (square both Jupiter and Pluto).

I really did have to laugh at this part. I have one sister, and one half-sister (on my father’s side). Quite amusing for a claim that I have at least “twice the chance of having a brother than a sister”. Both my sisters are no trouble for me at all; they aren’t aggressive at all. Likewise, there isn’t any sibling rivalry in my family; my sister is into history and archaeology, subjects I dislike completely (she dislikes Computer Science in return)! Neither are prone to accidents, and I honestly cannot remember the last time my sister was rushed to Hospital, but if memory serves correctly, she was 5 (she’s now 19). I’ve broken both my hand and my finger in various accidents, my sister hasn’t broken anything.

Writing or teaching could certainly be good careers for AtheistBlogger,  and Jupiter and Mercury together also promise travel, so a Grand Tour is indicated. The  mind is adept at languages, indeed all symbol-systems veritably fall before him.

Writing or teaching are possible careers for me, so good work there. However the only languages I am “adept” at are English and various (English-based) programming languages. I had to take French and Spanish at school, and I failed miserably at them. I just don’t do foreign languages, let alone symbol-systems.

But he is an avid learner.  Libra Moon, well-aspected, makes him know how to behave among the fair and beautiful.  His Mercury conjunct Jupiter shows he learns farther and wider than most people.  He loves learning and is enthusiastic about information and news.

Finally…something I can actually relate to. Astrology makes a hit! Shame about all the other misses, but heck, if I only remember this thing, I can join the ranks of people who claim Astrology “works” for them.

He has ideas about becoming famous by challenging people’s beliefs.  This is basically a ’sales’ idea.  Various sales activities, not just atheism, would be appreciated by the general public and may be of interest to him.

Meh…not really. I have ideas about becoming famous by creating new internet technologies for people to use, but I doubt it’ll involve challenging people’s beliefs. I’d hate being in a “sales activities” position though; I’d much rather be the guy coding or leading the product than the person who has to sell it at the end.

The rest of the reading deals with potential fortune, relationship predictions, and various things about me dying in car crashes (apparently, I’d best use public transport…). Suffice to say, there are probably a lot of people who could relate to it better than I can. If you have more than one brother, speak fluent foreign languages, used to be religious, and like learning, please let me know.

It was a very interesting experience having my chart drawn up though. I’ll have to get it done more in future and compare the results. Who knows, perhaps if we eliminate the bias of reading into my tweets, it might turn out as an accurate representation of…me! I somehow doubt it though; for all the hits Ed got (and admittedly, there were some), he got at least 4-5 times as many misses, and that’s excluding all the vague generalizations that could literally apply to 90% of the population.

Last night, Derren Brown promised to show a subliminal film that would glue a lot of us to our seats; we would literally not be able to get up. A lot of people watched, and over 500,000 of us were “stuck”, myself included. My friends Florian and Laura were watching with me, but after the film ended they were able to stand up without any problems. I found myself suddenly incapable of doing so.

There were a lot of cries of “you’re joking!” and “stop messing us around”, which slowly but surely turned into gasps of shock and horror as they realised that I really couldn’t stand up. The best I could do was get a few cm of the chair by pushing up with my hands, but my legs simply refused to support me. It was a weird feeling, but as I watched the subliminal clip, I felt my legs getting heavier and heavier. By the end, I could hardly feel them at all, and as I tried to get up, they turned to jelly and all the energy went out of me.

My friend filmed the event laughing at my futile efforts to lift myself. If it’s not too embarrassing I’ll upload it to YouTube sometime this week for you to watch. Next week, Derren has promised to turn us into “psychic spies”, which will be very interesting. When Florian and I viewed the subliminal film again today, nothing happened to either of us, and I reckon the subliminal messages are shown through the entire episode instead of the small film that was meant to do the job. Derren is all about misdirection after all!

Update: Here is a picture of my friend (and fellow atheist) Robert Heywood (@rjheywood) stuck to his seat:

Witchcraft, suggestion, or laziness? You decide.

Last Wednesday, Derren Brown amazed the nation by predicting the National Lottery. On Friday night, he promised to reveal how to do the trick, and this resulted in an hour long show that demonstrated some nice mental gymnastics, but no real answer. He started by stating that there were three (main) ways of predicting the National Lottery:

1. Faking a ticket.
2. Predicting the outcome of the machine.
3. Fixing the machine.

Option 1 wasn’t really an option for him, since it involved breaking the law and wasn’t really predicting anything. Option 2 was of more interest, and the rest of the show was devoted to this, explaining about various mathematical tricks you can do, and finally came to the “wisdom of crowds” technique.

Derren explained that a mathematician observed a “guess the weight of the ox” game at a country fair, and although nobody got the answer spot on, if you took the average of the answers given by the crowd, you got the exact weight. He said the same technique could be used to predict the lottery, and showed a film of 24 individuals studying the numbers of the last 100 lotteries, and trying to figure out what the next numbers would be. On the first attempt, they got 1 correct, on the second, when they did automatic writing and were allowed to write down negative numbers and numbers higher than 49 (the highest number in the lottery), they got 4 out of 6. Derren claimed that on the last go (a few minutes before his lottery prediction on Wednesday), they gave him the numbers that would eventually end up on the podium next to him; his prediction.

Of course, none of that makes any sense, and it doesn’t surprise me. Predicting the lottery is impossible if you are trying to guess some kind of pattern to the numbers. The reason why “wisdom of crowds” worked for the ox is because everyone could see the ox, and in guessing its weight you will have people who go too high and people who go too low, the average of all these values will be a good estimate for the weight. The same just doesn’t apply to random lottery balls; it doesn’t matter if a group of 24 people come up with “2″ as an answer, the machine will pick balls at random, and in a random machine every ball has an equal chance of coming out.

So how did he do it? People who want to believe his explanation will think that, the more rational will come up with other methods he could have used. The one that seems most likely is the theory that he simply used a split-screen and some very clever live video editing. The evidence that backs this theory up is the apparent sudden movement of one of the end balls in the stand (caused by the split-screen syncing back to a single-screen view), and the fact that Derren didn’t reveal his prediction before the actual draw. His reason for not doing this is that the BBC had a legal right to announce the result before anyone else, but the only problem with that logic is that he wasn’t announcing the result, he was announcing his prediction. Even in the “behind the scenes” footage that he aired with his show on Friday, you only see him select the balls out of the box, not the actual balls themselves.

As for option 3, in the true spirit of a showman, Derren took to the stage in the last 5 minutes of his Friday show, and told everyone how he *could* have done it by fixing the machines; simply make 12 sets of weighted balls, sneak into the high security area where the machines are used, and replace the regular balls with the weighted ones. His story was illustrated by blurred out pictures on the wall behind him, which gave everyone a laugh, and reminded everyone that this was Derren Brown; a man who does not reveal his secrets even if he says he will.

This Friday, Derren has promised to reveal a tape that will literally “glue us to our seats” in a show he has called “How to Control the Nation“. I’ll be sat with my laptop so I can tweet the event and see whether I get “stuck” as Derren says I will.

Foreword:

Life sciences has always been a favorite hobby of mine.  It could be the latest genetics book, the zoo, the natural history museum, or even my curiosity on the internet, I love science.  I like how it explains where we are, where we came from, and where we are going.  It almost hurt something deeper inside me when reading the life science section of the In the Beginning creationist textbook that some would want to be taught “side-by-side” in science classrooms to give students a “choice”.

The book does suggests that its research was completed by evolutionists to further their credibility and has been suppressed by the scientific community. When looking at their notes, it appeared to be finessed cut and paste quotations, a wonderfully played sound-byte taken out of context.  Enjoy.

Life Sciences:  We’re All Mutants!

Scene:  Friday Morning, Elementary Science Classroom after new law states that creationism must be taught alongside all other existing science courses.

The new science teacher walks into classroom, “Attention students!  I want you all to write down the two definitions on the board, the first one is macroevolution, the second one is microevolution.  Macroevolution, also known as organic evolution, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity.  Microevolution does not involve increasing complexity and it only involves changes in size, shape, color, or other minor differences.

Acquitted characteristics, those gained after birth, cannot be inherited.  For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child.  Nor, did giraffes get long neck because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves.

Like this guy

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses.  New genetic traits are not created; instead the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present.  Natural section cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos island is another example of natural selection producing micro-evolution.  While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.  Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct.  Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.”

That would be a scary and confusing day.  Students would be left to interpret that giraffes were created to eat tall leaves, period, without a cause and effect for their existence.  The idea that new genetic traits are not created and are already present in each being leads to some interesting conclusions.  According to this, if zebras being chased by lions figured out that if they were rainbow colored, the lions could not see them, if zebra species then changed, it was only because they already possessed the gene for rainbow colors.

you can't see me

This logic suggests that every creature already possesses in it’s DNA every evolution it could become and that similarities in species do not point to a common ancestor. The fact that a European Wildcat and your typical house cat both have claws does not suggest anything but they had a efficient designer who couldn’t think of anything else to put at the end of their feet.

Back to the beginning of life, proteins and the first cell, the book goes on and on about how no scientist has ever replicated or even come close to what went down in the primordial soup.  This edition of  In the Beginning was published in 2008, I’m sure it was a casual oversight on the editor’s part to forget to mention the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952.  They created amino acids from virtually nothing but the conditions that were found on Earth before life.  Here, you can even do-it-yourself and learn more about the cool stuff they did.  I hope they include this experiment in the next edition.

Next, is fossils.  Where are all the transitional fossils or living creatures, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, etc.?  The book exclaims arrogantly that these gaps are real and will never be filled!

Besides this one

or this one...

I could not begin to start laughing because you already found it!  Just a few pages ago the book had a picture of the duckbilled platypus and explained that it was a mosaic species with no logical place in the evolutionary tree.  Wait what?  If something doesn’t make sense you just call it something else and say it wasn’t what, part of the plan?

That just doesn’t happen in science, if something “doesn’t fit” science always investigates and explains it.  In the May 8, 2008 publication of Nature, the draft sequence of the platypus genome, showed that the platypus has more than 80% shared common mammalian DNA, while the other 20% contained reptilian DNA. Many transitional species do die out, while a few rarities do survive, like the platypus.

screwing with your logic

The hardest classifications to accept were the ones used for pre-homo sapiens, the only two explanations given are either the category should have never been created (like homo erectus) or it was actually a human.  That’s right, Neanderthals are just humans who matured at a lower rate.

I'm just a little slow

Earlier, I told you how the book stated, “Natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.”  It actually goes on to contradict itself when it claims that mutations are the only way new genetic material can be introduced and that almost all observable mutations, “has never produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability to it’s ancestors.”

That’s what this book has a hard time understanding!  We are all mutants!  Every single one of us.  Evolution (or micro-evolution as it’s called in the book) are multiple mutations, one after another, to create new variations and new species.  This book can not accept randomness.  Randomness does not allow for a higher purpose.

There are further attempts at explaining DNA that fall very short and is barely worth mentioning the argument since the book does not believe that mutations exist or that they could be beneficial.

The one argument in the Life Science section that didn’t even have to do with something breathing, and as far as I’m concerned, is the boldest statement I have read in this book so far.  It says, there is no evidence that languages have evolved.  I can understand and sometimes sympathize with the beliefs and misunderstanding of a species evolving and mutating, however, this statement says that one of the fundamental roots of culture never evolved.  The book says that simple languages did not evolve into complex ones or vice versa.

Language may not have the complex DNA and organ systems that you have a hard time understanding, but instead a collection every culture’s way of encoding and decoding information, that will always be evolving.  Maybe that’s what this book can not accept, something quite simple and sophisticated, continuously changing over time.

They liked to quote Darwin out of context during this section, so I will try to repair and sum up his idea of randomness over time, the concept this book can not grasp, ”…from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

For Next Time:

After much thought, I have decided not to tackle the second part of the book and split up the first part of the book into two sections.  It would be impossible in the amount of time that I have been given for this guest blog to argue with this book the following subjects (since they dissect each one at great length and in order to accept their conclusion, you would have to first accept that a great flood caused all of these):  the Grand Canyon, Mid-Oceanic Ridge, Continental Shelves and Slopes, Ocean Trenches and Ring of Fire, Earthquakes, Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor, Submarine Canyons, Coal, Oil, Methane Hydrates, Ice Age, Frozen Mammoths, Major Mountain Ranges, Overthrusts, Volcanoes and Lava, Geothermal Heat, Strata and Layered Fossils, LImestone, Metamorphic Rock, Plateaus, The Mohorovicic, Salt Domes, Jigsaw Fit of the Continents, Changing Axis Tilt, Comets, Asteroids, and Meteoroids.

If I am invited back, I would be more than happy to write about anyone’s favorite.

Find me around.

Greetings, I’m S.A. Alenthony, and as Adrian was kind enough to give me a bit of blogging time, I’ll do my best to write a few interesting (I hope) bits here and there, interspersed with Samantha’s Odyssey into the Heart of Creationism.

There have been several moderately publicized court cases this summer that involve religious parents being tried for the deaths of their own children. Below I’ll explain why I feel a strong resonance with these stories, and what they motivate me to do in turn; but first, I’ll summarize the details for anyone that isn’t familiar with the cases.

In the first case, the AP reported on July 31 that an Oregon man convicted of criminal mistreatment in the “faith-healing” death of his young daughter was sentenced to a whopping 60 days in jail. (Two months?! That’s it?)

A jury convicted Carl Worthington of a misdemeanor charge of criminal mistreatment after acquitting him and his wife of felony manslaughter in the March 2008 death of their 15-month-old daughter, Ava, from illnesses that could have been treated with antibiotics.

The pair belong to the Followers of Christ Church, which avoids doctors in favor of “spiritual healing.”

As for the second case, the AP reported on the following day that a Wisconsin man, Dale Neumann, that was accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care, had been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.

Neumann was convicted in the death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have taken her to a hospital when she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, she died on the floor of the family’s home as people prayed.

Sentencing will be in October for both parents, who face up to 25 years in prison. (Which sounds far more fitting than 60 days.)

Neumann, who had studied to be a minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal the child, and that he never expected her to die. “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God,” Neumann testified. “I am not believing what He said He would do.“  (Some might wonder, as I did, what this fellow must be thinking about his God now, given that he followed directions but the girl still died… Certainly I’m sure he’s rationalized something.)

The capability that religion has for inducing this sort of mindless, death-affirming behavior is, of course, just one of its many problems. I hardly need to point out, as a guest writer on an atheist blog, what an indictment of faith-based thinking these examples are. (Mainstream and liberal Christians will protest that such behavior is a fringe occurrence and not representative of them – and they are right. But that isn’t because of anything religion per se has done, but because of the steady progress of secular enlightenment over the centuries.)

These stories are troubling, exasperating and revolting, of course, but occasionally they don’t have bleak endings; it turns out my life provides one rare example. For I had the very bad luck of not only being born to a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but to also have developed a condition at birth requiring medical intervention.

If you are familiar with the cult that is the Witnesses, you’ll know that they have odd interpretations of certain biblical passages. There are several that they read as injunctions against blood-transfusions, regardless of the medical emergency at hand. So when I was diagnosed with Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn, a condition where the red blood cells are slowly destroyed by the immune system (another example of that intelligent human body design, eh?) my father told the hospital staff that the fact that I could die was not sufficient reason to perform the abominable transfusion. Luckily for me, the state of New York issued a court order for the procedure. (I learned about this well into my adult life from my mother, who was horrified at the time that my father had actually proposed trying to remove me from the hospital.)

Afforded a chance at a life that religion would have taken, I’ve tended to direct my energies in the direction most opposite to those of the Witnesses and other godly fanatics: I pursued a science career and married an atheist biologist. We’re raising two freethinking kids, and more recently, we’ve become active in volunteering with our state Academy of Science in order to try to motivate more young people to study in our fields. And I have bigger plans as well.

I bring all this up because, as important as it is for we secularists to speak out against ongoing outrages such as those demonstrated by “faith-healing” parents, it is equally important to try to be inspirational and motivational about what we are for. Too often, atheism appears as a viewpoint that only opposes something. A religious friend of mine says that many Americans view atheists negatively because they see us as being something like The Grinch That Stole Christmas. While we know this isn’t the case, the perception is out there, and it works against us.

If my experience has any motivational power to it at all, I hope I can use it to plant a seed in the minds of other freethinkers to get more involved, if they are not already: to sign up to judge a science fair competition at a nearby school; to support a local museum; or to spoil their own kids with telescopes and chemistry sets.

And may they help find the world its next Carl Sagan. And help put the Doctor before god.

Earlier this month, Ray Comfort agreed (well, the second time) to a discussion with Thunderf00t. The rules were simple: the two men, one room, and one camera. Any questions were on the floor for discussion, and each man would get a copy of the video to use as they wished. As it turned out, Ray Comfort had a separate cameraman (for higher quality video I guess) in the room, but overall the debate was as stipulated.

Thunderf00t has uploaded the entire discussion, uncut from start to finish, and if you have a spare 90 or so minutes, I advise you watch it all! Ray Comfort’s points are torn apart in front of him one by one, as Thunderf00t explores the deeper meaning of Ray’s arguments (evidently not done by Ray himself) such as the “how do you know it is creation?” rebuttal to any claim of the kind “creation needs a creator” in reference to the universe itself.

Here is the entire debate as a YouTube playlist, so sit back and watch the Bananaman get defeated by common sense and logic, as played by Thunderf00t.

Enjoy!

The internet was screwy yesterday so I didn’t get to make this post, but this morning we got 50MB internet in the house, which is amazing! So anyway, here are the videos I meant to post yesterday but didn’t:

Mr .Deity is a hilarious series of shorts that gradually but effectively tear apart Christianity and the Bible. This one (from series 3) deals with the contradictions in the Bible such as the virgin birth, and the multiple genealogies of Jesus.

Second up is a great explanation from Neil deGrasse Tyson about why the world will not end in 2012…or any other year in the recent future for that matter.

Finally, a video by Richard Wiseman explaining a quick personality test to do right in fron of your computer. Richard Wiseman is a celebrated psychologist who performed a test of psychic power over Twitter about a month back. You can follow him on Twitter as well as read his blog!

The Royal Mint commissioned a special edition £2 coin in honour of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. The coin is a limited edition of 25,000, and mine arrived this morning!

Presentation Pack

The presentation pack (above) has a short but detailed biography of Charles Darwin, as well as information about Evolution, and of course the coin itself. I think the front of the coin is pretty awesome:

Darwin vs. Monkey

There are still coins available if you want to buy one. They cost £7.99 each (plus shipping), and well worth it if you want a nice souvenir of Darwin’s 200th year. You can buy the coin from the Royal Mint website.

…but at least Thunderf00t will get his discussion.

Yes, it’s (kinda) official now. Ray Comfort phoned up Thunderf00t and accepted his proposal for a discussion. This can only be good news, as it means we actually get to see Ray try to make up some arguments without appealing to emotion. It will be one room, with only a camera and the two men.

Of course, what Comfort did originally (attempting to get Thunderf00t to pay the fee for Richard Dawkins) is utterly reprehensible; it was a cowardly attempt to use Thunderf00t (who was the person offering the discussion in the first place) to get a debate with Richard Dawkins.

So maybe Ray is slightly less cowardly now, but to be honest, knowing Ray, I have my doubts. I predict he will still try to pull someone on this one. Whether it involves having an actual audience (so he can use appeals to emotion) or just being dishonest concerning the actual discussion plan. I hope he doesn’t, but over a year of reading Ray Comfort’s blog has left me with a distinct level of distrust surrounding the man; everything he does seems to have an ulterior motive.