The Atheist Blogger » intelligent design

YouTube Thursday – Thunderf00t, Jesse Ventura, & Steven Fry

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:00:03 +0000

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.

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Ray’s “Apology”

Adrian Hayter — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:00:04 +0000

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.

Possibly Related Posts:

When Are Scientists Not True Scientists?

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:18:14 +0000

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.

Possibly Related Posts:

Christian Blogs

Adrian Hayter — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:34:02 +0000

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?

Possibly Related Posts:

But Seriously…

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:09:20 +0000

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.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk ↩

Possibly Related Posts:

Ray Comfort: “Light Is Invisible”

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:15:16 +0000

I really had hoped to write something interesting for the 100th post on this blog (yay for the first milestone!), but this just appeared in my feed reader and I had to post it.

If you don’t know who Ray Comfort is, he is the guy behind the infamous banana argument / atheist’s nightmare:

He also had a hand in the not-so-famous but equally amusing “crocoduck”:

The banana argument is meant to prove creation / intelligent design since Ray claims something as easy to use as the banana couldn’t have evolved by chance. The problem with this explanation is that wild bananas actually look like this:

They only look like they do today because of horticulture; years and years of cross breeding by humans, not God. So +10 points for a funny argument, but -1,000,000 for not actually researching what he was talking about.

As for our friend the crocoduck, it was a poor attempt to disprove Evolution, saying that there has never been any transitional form between a duck and a crocodile. Of course there never has been a transitional form because neither creature evolved from the other and they are both living descendants of some extinct ancestor which was probably neither a bird nor a reptile.

If you doubt many arguments could beat that, then listen up. Ray’s latest blog post is entitled “Thank God for Science” which is ironic in itself since Ray has the scientific knowledge of a 2 year old. The first couple of sentences in this post defy all belief:

Light is invisible. We can’t see it.

As soon as I read that, I had to clean my glasses to make sure I wasn’t misreading something. For someone who claims that he can debunk Evolution, one of the most researched and valid theories in existence, he certainly fails at simple physics.

If anything, light is the only thing we can see. Everything we see through our eyes (trees, the sky, my laptop in front of me) is through light reflecting off said objects and going into the retina to be processed by the brain. Technically speaking all objects aren’t visible at all. They aren’t emitting any kind of energy we can detect through sight. The only reason we can see them (and therefore perceive them as visible objects) is because the light from a source (lightbulb, Sun) reflects off them.

The great part of his post is that he backs it all up with references from the Bible, inadvertently proving that the Bible is wrong through contradiction:

God is light (see 1 John 1:5, Revelation 21:23), and the Scriptures tell us that He is invisible to the human eye (Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17)

The sad thing is that it doesn’t take much to verify what he is saying as wrong. If only he had looked up the Wikipedia page for “Light” beforehand to make sure his “science” was actually science, he would have been greeted with the line:

Light, or visible light, is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye.

Now if he talked about the entire electromagnetic spectrum he might actually have got somewhere, since most of it is “invisible”. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say “God is Radio, Microwave, Infrared, Ultraviolet, X-Ray, and Gamma Ray” so he wouldn’t have much or an arguing point.

Posts like these just prove that people like Ray should stick to the preaching and stay far far away from science. Science and religion are for the most part incompatible, so you should stick to what you know best until the day you finally realise your entire life has been devoted to false teachings; and the people you have been so vehemently arguing against are the ones who have the actual evidence and research to back up their claims.

Possibly Related Posts:

A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen

Adrian Hayter — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:00:30 +0000

I’ve read a few of the current “Atheist Thirteen” meme posts that are going around, and that got me thinking. What would a fundamentalist Christian say if they had to answer the questions? Probably something like this:

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Satanism, devil-worship, false, Godless, infidels, idiotic, Hell-bound, unethical, evil…there are many words I could use. Atheists are evil wicked people with no morals who deserve Hell more than any murderer or rapist!

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Naturally. I was born a Baptist Christian and still follow our Lord Jesus Christ today. As a child I attended church every Sunday, and as I grew older I was born again and began to participate in church events, regularly attending services mid-week and at the weekends.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Truth

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

As obvious in the previous question, Intelligent Design! It proves once and for all that Darwin and his followers are all trying to spread their wickedness and evil lies about Evilution. Only the truth will conquer their sham “science”!

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

There isn’t an Atheist community. My country is a Christian nation! The only communities are God’s communities. If any Atheists ever gather together God will smite them down for their evil, wicked, and sinful ways.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

I would thank the good Lord for blessing me with a child who is willing to do His work and fight the ways of evil.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

I can’t refute the irrefutable. Look around at nature, the universe, everything. Does it look random to you? Does it look like everything is the result of chance or coincidence? No. Everything works in harmony and perfectly because it was made by a loving, caring, perfect God. Anyone who can’t see the beauty of the Lord’s work is a fool and will suffer for eternity in Hell.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” viewpoint?

I have no controversial viewpoints, for my viewpoints are all Christian and they are the teachings of God. No government can dictate against the laws of God, and Jesus Christ will return and destroy the evil secularism, sending its followers to Hell.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Dawkins. His false book “The God Delusion” has converted many over to the way of Christ with its impossible arguments and evil doctrine. Having converted many people won’t save him from the lakes of fire and Satan though.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Any believer in a false God. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc will all suffer in Hell for eternity for their wrong and evil beliefs. I would make them abandon these false Gods and worship Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Possibly Related Posts:

Discovery Institute Vs. Dawkins

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:34:31 +0000

It seems that the Creationist organisation Discovery Institute is attacking Richard Dawkins over his involvement in the Louisiana “academic freedom bill” which allows teachers to discuss theories that oppose Evolution. Simply put, it is allowing Intelligent Design into the classrooms.

The Discovery Institute reported that Barbara Forrest, leader of LA Coalition for Science has written an article on the Richard Dawkins website, pleading people to contact the Louisiana Governor and stop this bill being passed. The Institute rather snobbishly remarked:

Newsflash for Richard, we’re not a British colony anymore.

Well pointed out, but of course they forget that Richard Dawkins runs The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, a charity registered in both the UK and the USA. They also seemed to overlook the fact that his website isn’t tied to any specific country and as such has a large majority of American visitors. Forgetting as well that the article in question wasn’t even written by Dawkins but by a citizen of the United States, and their accusation that Richard Dawkins is somehow trying to “dictate education policy” to the U.S falls completely apart.

The Discovery Institute goes on to claim:

As usual, the letter is full of falsehoods. This bill is not about creationism or religion. That’s a red herring from desperate Darwinists.

No, the bill isn’t directly about creationism or religion, but it allows both into the science classrooms. As the D.I point out, “If a tenth grader can understand arguments for Darwinism, she can understand scientific arguments against it”. This entire sentence completely contradicts itself. Taking Darwinism to mean “Evolution”, there are no scientific arguments against it that have ever been proven or have evidence for.

I’m fully in support of people discussing Evolution, but there is no current scientific evidence against it. As some people have pointed out over in the Richard Dawkins forums, “God did it” is not a scientific explanation. If someone found some actual evidence that contradicted Evolutionary theory, it would be out of the school before you could click your fingers. Creationists seem to think the scientists hate being wrong and anything that challenges them is to be fought off. This is absolutely absurd. I’ve met a lot of scientists, and if anything, they are more excited about being proved wrong than they are about being proved right.

Evolutionary biologists would love nothing more than to have their work disproved. They wouldn’t call this a waste of their time, because whatever turns out to be correct Evolution has developed a number of things otuside of biology. On the contrary, they would be happy that science is heading in a better direction. There is no point researching a theory that isn’t true.

So, discuss I.D in religious classes. I’m absolutely in agreement that it should be heard in those contexts, but keep the science classrooms for science.

Possibly Related Posts:

Answering The Ignorant – Evolution

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:43:41 +0000

Matt’s Notepad has a great article in which he debunks some of the most well known Creationist / ID arguments concerning Evolution.

The arguments can be found here: http://mattcbr.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/repeated-ignorant-creationistid-arguments-a-solution/

Some similar arguments that debunk Creationism have been written by Talk Origins, and Richard Dawkins has a list of “Debate Points” that cover Evolution, atheism, and faith that you might find interesting.

Possibly Related Posts:

Why My Children Will Never Go To A Religious School…

Adrian Hayter — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:38:20 +0000

I attended a lecture a few months back (before I started this blog) entitled “Enemy in the Mirror: Richard Dawkins, the New Atheists and their Crusade against Fundamentalism”. It was nothing special, and the “lecturer” didn’t actually talk about anything to do with the subject. She just went on a random rant about how everyone should respect the church etc.

However, after the lecture there were a lot of questions asked from the audience, a large majority of whom were openly atheist. One such question was from a theist (towards the atheists) who complained that we argue all the time about religion and yet send our children to catholic schools and CofE schools with no problems. The parents in the audience said they do this because the results from those schools are better than those at non-religious schools, and they wanted the best for their kids.

I’ve got no problem with people doing that, they want their kids to do well. However I personally do not trust education systems that rely on religion to get students. The only reason that these students are getting better marks is because of the high levels of discipline those schools have, and the only thing large amounts of discipline does is inhibit creativity. You are taught what to think and how to think, and completely ignore the principles that freethinking was founded on.

The education system in England is a strange one. Public schools have to teach Evolution, and cannot teach I.D (for reasons we discuss in this forum thread). However, private schools (often religious in nature) can teach extra things to the standard curriculum. I know of Catholic schools in London that teach I.D far more than Evolution, and even have students learning that Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark. They are creating the next generation of Young Earth Creationists, and it sickens me to think of what they will be like in the future.

I used to think America had a better deal in education. Secularisation made sure that I.D was kept out of the schools, and that useless things like prayer were also removed in an official nature. Even the fundamentalist Liberty University has to teach Evolution (alongside I.D of course). Today, I’m not sure where I stand. It seems that everywhere Creationists are using loopholes to push their agenda onto innocent minds, in order to corrupt and control them. A couple of states have surrendered currently, but who knows how many it will be in a years time?

A lot of schools should take a good look at English universities. They seem to have a nice balance between education and belief, and I should know. My university is supposedly secular (although the CU would like to ammend that), and in lectures we are given the facts and told to think for ourselves. One of my friends is currently doing a PhD in Crypto Zoology, a course that doesn’t even exist, but to which the university has found adequate for him to form a theisis on.

The future doesn’t rely on religion, it relies on free thinking. I want my children to learn in an environment which will give them the ability to work things out for themselves, and I fear a religious setting will only hinder that and make them slaves to the false doctrine they support.