The Atheist Blogger

Time again for another YouTube Thursday, and we start with 2 videos from YouTube user Thunderf00t; the first is a short but funny comparison of the old VenomFangX and the new VenomFangX (Shawn recently closed his channel due to “death threats” and gave it to another creationist). The tag-line is a kicker though: “Creationism: when being naturally stupid just isn’t good enough”.

The second video of his is part of the fantastic series “Why do people laugh at creationists?”, which involves the elegant destruction of popular creationist arguments. This is part 30, and if you want to see the other 29 (highly recommended) then check them out here. In this video, Thunderf00t points out the hypocritical nature of the Discovery Institute, and one of its prominent spokespeople, Casey Luskin.

Jesse Ventura (ex-Governor of Minnesota) has been on a campaign recently against waterboarding, and he should know all about it, given that he himself was waterboarded as part of SEREs (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training. He says it’s torture, but Elisabeth Hasselbeck of “The View” disagreed with him. Hilarity ensued as Ventura hit back with some great points, ending with the great line
“You give me a waterboard, one hour, and Dick Cheney and I’ll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders”. Jesse Ventura once said of religion “[it] is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business.”

Finally, I end with some wise words of wisdom from the legendary Steven Fry. His advice on being happy? Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

Ray Comfort has issued an apology for his banana video in which he described how the banana had certain features that made it appear designed, insinuating the “designer” was the Judeo-Christian God. As you will see when watching the “apology” below, it doesn’t cover Ray coming up with a bad argument; it is more of an excuse, blaming atheists for editing the original video to appear out of context.

The video presents some very bad logic in the first 30 seconds, when it tries to explain the “bananaman” reference:

“Bananaman” is a reference to an illustration presented by Comfort, in which he compared the complex design elements of a coke can to the complex design elements of a banana, in order to demonstrate that thoughtful design by an a designer is required for both examples. (0:20 -- 0:35)

Ray wants us to believe that God made the banana, but even knowing this is untrue (at least in regards to the modern banana) all it does is prove what we know already; that certain things in the world are the result of human intervention. Whilst it is true that the banana is a product of design, the same cannot be said if you replaced the banana with a wild blackberry, which is perfectly edible, very sweet, and not the product of human intervention. Replace the blackberry with something like the pineapple or the coconut, and you immediately have to start questioning the sanity of the “designer” Ray implies on such things. Pineapples and coconuts have to be some of the hardest fruits to get into, not to mention the amount of preparation needed before eating.

When you do not know the process in which certain things are created, you cannot compare them to things of which the creation process is known. It is a logical fallacy. In fact, the creation process of the wild banana is partially known, and we refer to it as the theory of Evolution. This doesn’t explain the entire process of the banana creation, but it certainly gives a mechanism for understanding how it could have possibly come about. This is a far greater explanation than the idea that “God did it” which has no evidence and holds no grounds in proper scientific debate.

Ray presents to us his often-repeated lie that atheists somehow misrepresented his point in the banana video:

However, atheists removed the coke can from the video version, and sent it across the internet, saying that Comfort believed the banana was conclusive proof of God’s existence, missing the point of the illustration completely. (0:42 -- 0:55)

You see this simply contradicts the last point, as Ray admits that the comparison was to show that a designer is needed for both coke can and banana. In the original video (even in the edited version which only shows the banana) Ray mentions God as the creator of the banana, and he also mentions the coke can in comparison. His exact words were:

Now if you go to the top of the banana, you’ll find as with the soda can makers, they placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top.

Implying that there must be a designer, and then stating that the designer is God, therefore proving God’s existence seems to be exactly what Comfort had in mind. If Ray had not mentioned God as the designer, then he may actually have a point about not trying to prove God’s existence, but as soon as he said “so God has placed a tab at the top” he left the realm of speculation and entered the realm of certainty.

They also said that the banana had been modified over time by man to fit in the palm of the hand, and not by God (0:55 -- 1:02)

Well yeah, that’s because it has been. This intervention is very well documented.

But in their effort to make him look foolish, atheists gave Ray Comfort and international platform for his message. (1:03 -- 1:09)

Effort? I think you’ll find Ray does enough to make himself look foolish without us there to help. Anyone with a (to quote Ray) “brain that works” can tell his arguments are weak, and his views on science are stuck in the middle ages. The number of times simple scientific concepts have to be explained to him reveals his as the willingly ignorant fool that he is. Now for his “apology”:

Comfort apologized for his mistake about the banana saying “My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified by hybridization, however, the truth remains that God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it, so that it perfectly fit into his hand.” (1:31 -- 1:50)

So once your original premise is destroyed, you simply move the goalposts back a bit? Nice work Ray, but while this “truth” might be logical to your warped mind, you don’t give any evidence that God exists to give us this knowledge. In fact, since your original reason for using the banana argument was to show that certain things must have a designer, and that the designer of the banana is God, I fail to see how you can simply assert God exists when your argument for him via the banana was so utterly destroyed. I can do the same thing see: My car was designed, and the designer was God, therefore God exists. What’s that? My car was designed by Ford? Well…God gave Ford the knowledge and the materials to design the car in the first place! It isn’t a proof if you have to assume God exists for the proof to work.

Ray also leaps on the chance to misquote Richard Dawkins in the film “Expelled”, claiming he thinks aliens seeded life on this planet.

In “Expelled No Intelligence Allowed”, when Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins, ‘What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?’ he answered,

‘at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet … and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.’ (2:17 -- 3:22)

The beginning of this quote is left out, and the full thing reveals some vital clues to Dawkins’ explanation, specifically the words “It could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time somewhere…”. This clearly shows that Dawkins is speaking hypothetically, in response to the question by Stein. Dawkins is a scientist, and as such he isn’t going to close his mind to the possibility of intelligent design. However, if he is going to explain it, he is going to do it rationally and scientifically, not by mentioning some sort of supernatural deity.

Dawkins again says in the middle that such ideas are a “possibility”, that they are “intriguing”, and that you might find evidence if you looked at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. However he never stated that he believes such things, nor that any evidence has been found to suggest it. He goes on to say that such intelligence would have had to come about by some kind of natural (and possibly Darwinian) means. Things don’t just magically appear out of nowhere, at least not in the realms of science.

So Professor Dawkins believes that highly intelligent aliens from somewhere else in the universe may have created us. (3:46 -- 3:54)

No Ray! No. Commenting on an idea, or even trying to explain some form of natural intelligent design does not automatically mean you believe it. As I said before, Dawkins is well aware that there is no evidence for such views, and he didn’t attempt to present evidence in the film. He was commenting on a hypothetical basis for intelligent design in the universe. Stein may have had ulterior motives for asking the question, but Dawkins answer was accurate. Aliens seeding life on Earth is at least one possibility of intelligent design that doesn’t invoke the supernatural.

Will there be a debate between Comfort and Dawkins? I doubt it, but one can dream. I’d personally love to see both Dawkins and Hitchens take on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron for a double smackdown of logic.

I had an interesting conversation with an atheist friend on mine over IM the other day. They were arguing that scientists who had religious beliefs couldn’t be “full” scientists because of their irrational belief systems. I pointed out that this accusation was bordering on the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy, because it doesn’t properly consider the definitions involved.

Firstly, a scientist is someone who furthers human knowledge by experimentation and observation. Of course this definition does not quite cover it, as it can also mean someone who uses the scientific method (observing, forming hypothesis, testing, forming theories etc.). The question remains is how some people can fit religion into this picture.

I argued that the majority of theistic scientists find ways to separate their religious beliefs from their science. They understand that their work reflects the observable world, and maintain that their religion reflects the unobservable. Others hold that without their religious beliefs, none of what they do would make any sense. They claim that the world just makes more sense with a God in the picture. I can understand this viewpoint, although obviously I disagree with them.

My friend countered that there were also scientists who did not fit in the above category. People like Michael Behe or Guillermo Gonzalez certainly do not hide their religious beliefs, even if they try desperately to in order to force I.D into public schools in America. However, even in these cricumstances I would say Behe and Gonzalez are “true” scientists. Sure, they might contribute some wacky ideas to the scientific community, but they have in the past contributed some good ideas (in order to get to where they are in the first place). Anyway, the whole point of science is to separate the wrong ideas from the right ones. Of course both Behe and Gonzalez are very unscientific in their denial that I.D is all but dead and buried in terms of actual scientific accuracy.

In the end, we agreed to disagree on the subject. My friend couldn’t see how scientists can be so rational at work and so irrational in their own time, but I guess you’d have to ask a theistic scientist that. I know Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so I guess that means he thinks God sent his son down in the form of the most advanced species on Earth. To me (and all atheists I presume) this makes absolutely no logical sense, but it does make for interesting conversation.

My Feeds

I subscribe to quite a few blogs; some technical, some webcomics, most atheist-based. However I do subscribe to a few Christian blogs for various reasons:

“Atheist Central” by Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort’s blog is a great place if you want to have a laugh, or simply want to watch a load of bigoted hatred emerge out of the “love” theists have for our souls. Whether he is busy redefining science or claiming that light is invisible, Ray Comfort always manages to bring a smile to the face of any atheist. Heck, he even has his own bunch of debunkers.

Stuff Christians Like by Prodigal John

This blog is rather atheist-friendly since atheists aren’t actually mentioned, so it is a nice look into the minds of Christians when they aren’t all riled up over our “atheist faith”.

Debunking Atheists by Dan

Debunking Atheists has a special place not only in my feed reader but also in my blog’s blogroll because the author challenged me to put him there after he wrote answers to the Atheist Thirteen for me. Dan (the author in question) has a current series trying to “Debunk Evolution” which is hilarious to read, mainly because he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of the science and simply repeats well-known lies.

Uncommon Descent by William Dembski (originally)

A blog about Intelligent Design, which of course spouts the same rubbish and regurgitated debunked “facts” they’ve been talking about for years. The site logo is still the I.D mascot, the bacterial flagellum, which of course has various explanations for its existence through Evolutionary theory. Still, it’s great fun to read on all the “controversy” surrounding these issues.

So what Christian blogs do you peruse? Why do you do it? Do you actively take part in discussions or just sit in the sidelines?

After writing my satiric review of Expelled, I am compelled to write a proper review, but I’m afraid the result would just be a mess of obscenities. In the course of writing the review, I watched the movie twice (once the whole way through, and then second partially to get plot “info”). Watching the movie in it’s entirety almost twice was a pain (believe me), and I really couldn’t say more about it than I did in the satirical review. When you know the facts that are being either lied about or misused, Expelled really does play more like a science fiction piece than anything.

That said, it was quite a well written piece of intolerable propaganda. I suspect it would have been more interesting if they hadn’t chosen the dullest voice in film to narrate and star in it. Of course, a lot of stars in Hollywood actually support science and accept Evolution. Matt Damon nicely brought the subject up in a election video^[1], where he stated “it’s like a really bad Disney movie…I really need to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago…because she’s gonna have the nuclear codes.”

Since writing the review, I have watched Expelled an extra time, and it was this time that I actually enjoyed the film. Why? Because it had lie-correcting subtitles. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you download the subtitles file first, because it really makes a difference.