Day 2653: Expelled Exploded

Sunday:


Exciting news! My top chum, Professor Richard – husband of one-time time traveller Romana, who used to be in Doctor Who, and friend of the late Mr Douggie Adams, who used to write for Doctor Who (and some travel books) – is going to be in Doctor Who too!

This seems like an opportune moment to WARN you about another screen appearance for Prof Richard, the man rightly acknowledged as the Theresnosuchthingasgodfather of British Atheism.

It is a movie called "Expelled", which alleges that science is really a conspiracy by atheist Nazis to suppress Unintelligent Design and persecute teachers who believe in Mr God.

And – proving that even the brightest of elephants can be taken in some of the time – Professor Richard got fooled into appearing in it.

“The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ‘shock effect’,”

How did they fool him? Well, when they approached Professor Richard, and also Mr Professor PZ Myers and a number of other REAL scientists, they CLAIMED to be making a documentary called "Crossroads" about a cheap soap set in a Birmingham motel… no, that's not right. They claimed that "Crossroads" would be a dispassionate appraisal of the clash between scientific and religious thinking.

This – as you may have been able to guess – turns out to have been what is technically described as a HONKING GREAT FIB, or in religious language: breaking Commandment Nine.

But Professor Richard got his own back by getting into one of their "invitation only" screenings… though, at the risk of undermining my hero's reputation as a MASTER SPY, that's "invitation only" in the sense of "free tickets available off of the wibbly wobbly web".

In fact, Professor Richard happened to be in town for the American Atheists conference, and Professor PZ was the one who got the tickets…

…which it was probably why it was Prof PZ who the brave little STORMTROOPERS for Freedom of Speech picked out of the queue and EXPELLED from "Expelled".

Clearly not "intelligently designed" with an IRONY GLAND there then.

Professor Richard gives his review of the "movie" here.

But why take HIS word for it, when you can LAUGH and POINT at their own propaganda.

"But even worse, along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment"

What the movie is ACTUALLY about is pushing the assertion that believers in Mr God the entirely scientific and credible (I say SARCASTICALLY) "theory" (likewise) of Unintelligent Design, that has nothing to do with Mr God at all honest injun, are being PERSECUTED: i.e. kept out of teaching jobs and even fired just for no other reason than that they want to ignore the set curriculum (not to mention the Constitutional separation of Church and State) and fill their pupils' heads with religiously motivated brain-bilge instead.

Remembering that this is the country where, when the President's DAD was Vice-President, he said:

"I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under Mr God."

is it COMPLETELY believable that it is the SECRET ATHEIST CABAL who are doing the persecuting, as opposed to, just for example, the blatantly out-in-the-open religious theocrats who make it difficult-verging-on-the-impossible for anyone to get a job in public service in Americaland without expressing a deep and abiding lurve (but not in THAT way) for Mr Jesus?

And anyway, it turns out that their "evidence" doesn't stack up. As this review by Mr Dan Whipple from Colorado shows, the cases of "discrimination" that they cite just don't stand up to examination. Claims that Mr Richard Sternberg was removed from the Smithsonian prove problematic when you learn that he never worked for the Smithsonian. The allegation that Mr Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because the faculty of astronomy at Iowa State University "unfairly" based their decision on his book about Unintelligent Design collapses when you know that he HIMSELF submitted the book for their consideration. And so on.

"an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma… that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory"

Their OTHER "theory" is that knowing about Mr Darwin automatically turns you into a Nazi.

This is their equation:

"Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany."

which is said in HILARIOUS spoiler tags in this review on the movie's own website.

If you don't want to know the ending look away now… "Adolf did it!"

So, I know, Godwin's Law, but they mentioned the Nazis first so they lose.

Thing is, Mr Adolf WASN'T an atheist. He was some sort of weird cross-breed between Norse Mythology and Roman Catholicism, neither of which are RENOWNED as Atheist belief systems.

And Mr Adolf did NOT base his ideas on evolution.

For that matter "eugenics", which is selective breeding applied to human monkeys rather than pigs or dogs or cows or sheeps or other animals, does NOT follow from evolution either.

Selective breeding had been going on for AGES and AGES before Mr Darwin realised that it was going on in nature TOO. About TEN THOUSAND years, in fact since the agricultural revolution and people started farming crops (your mileage may vary if you believe the Earth was created in 6000 BC).

To say that something is happening in nature is NOT the same as saying that that is a good reason for people to do it too.

It is a FALLACY to suggest that just because a person ACCEPTS a FACT about how something works in one part of nature it means that they believe that that way of working should be IMPOSED universally.

In fact, Professor Richard often says that he is passionately AGAINST Darwinism being APPLIED. He believes in social services, universal education, health care and support for the unemployed. If ANYONE is a "Darwinist" in the area of public policy it is the right-wing Mr-God-bothering THATCHERITES like Mr Balloon with their "get rid of the failures" policies.


Suggestions that "evolution is racist" or that "Mr Darwin was a racist" are just as FALSE. If anything, evolution and genetics show that, for all of your different colours, human monkeys are one of the LEAST differentiated species on the planet. Famously, there is MORE genetic differentiation between two tribes of CHIMPANZEES on opposite sides of a river than between any tow humans ON EARTH. (You can thank a near miss with extinction in the last Ice Age for that, by the way.)

To point at "the Origin if Species" and hoot about the rest of the title being "…or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is to show DRAMATIC IGNORANCE. Mr Darwin talks about races of CABBAGES, or PIGEONS and all sorts of things. He is talking about VARIATION within species. He's not recruiting for the KKK.

As Professor PZ explains, Mr Darwin was no more a racist than anyone else in the Victorian era… that is to say actually quite a bit racist, but only because he'd been taught all his life that the British were the Best. And certainly no worse than Mr "I freed the slaves" President Lincoln.


If by now you are worrying that I am only going to stop writing my fluffy diary in order to go back to my secret volcano base and polish my black leather jackboots before receiving my next set of secret instructions from Uber-Professor Richard, then I suggest you put on your best TINFOIL HAT and go out to see this movie.

Otherwise, I should look forward to some more EXCITING Doctor Who!

PS:

I am indebted to Uncle Alan for bringing this BUNKUM to my fluffy attention.

Day 2609: Stupid By Design

Friday:


No, no, no! It is no good giving an INCH to the Unintelligent Design crowd: give them an EYE of a NEEDLE and they will try to force a DIPLODOCUS through it. AND claim that Noah had them on the Ark! Along with all the cat-monsters and donkeys and upwards of five million species of beetles. In pairs.

I am referring to this article by an American scientist suggesting that science should try to RECLAIM the word "design", and say that yes evolution DOES "design" things.

This really IS NOT helpful. Evolution does not DO design. It just DOESN'T.


Design means sitting down at the start and working out where you want to end up. Evolution only works on what it has, chipping bits off, adding on strange new convolvulations, scouring away the redundant bits, always trying to make the square peg a better fit for the starfish* shaped hole.

(*other evolutionary niches are available.)

The argument that telling people "sorry there's no designer" makes them feel bad is a fast trip up the wrong creek. Science isn't about telling people a CUDDLY STORY – and it's not going to beat religion on THAT score; if they need it, they're always going to have a CUDDLIER sky fairy to fall back on who'll wuv you forever and ever (if you're a gud lickle babykins) at a point where science is going to have to say, "sorry, cold hard fact".

I do understand that there is a DIFFERENCE between America and Europe, as illustrated by this new GLOBE, designed in accordance with the new Theory of "Intelligent Geography". (It's like Intelligent Design: you ignore the bits you can't ANSWER.)

I do realise that it is DIFFICULT for scientists in America, because the number of people over there who believe in nonsense over the evidence is quite a lot larger than here in Europe, where fortunately we are able to SCOFF OPENLY at anyone who thinks that evolution isn't true or that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side like the keys on a piano. Those ivory ones would be the Tyrannosaurus's TEETH, by the way.

But this is the wrong way to go. You can't compromise the science, and say "oh, okay, we'll say that it IS a bit like that made-up story that you've made up." Because it's not.

Evolution is NOT a process of "mistakes". It's an ongoing series of triumphs over adversity, and every species alive today is a gold medal winner. We're NOT just the recipient of a spoonful of divine generosity. We have worked our way up.

(I will IGNORE the fact that Daddy is watching "HOWARDS' WAY" as this might disprove my argument!)

Frankly, evolution is the American Dream, red in tooth and claw, and it boggles my fluffy mind that the US can worship one and deny the other. Often in the same SERMON!

Day 2255: Lunar Eclipse NOT proof of divine intervention

Monday:


We stayed up late to watch the moon eclipse. We enjoyed it lots.

But then along comes Mr Clifford Clongley on the The Today Programme's Fart for the Day and says:

"Oooh, pretty – there must be a god!"

Worse than that, he talked about INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

"I don't mean whether it is good science – which I don't believe it is – but whether it is true – which I do believe."

Well, WAKE UP Mr Clongley: Intelligent Design CLAIMS to be a SCIENCE. If you DON'T believe it's good science then you DON'T believe it's true!

(Or possibly you don't know what you are talking about.)



If you're just an old fashioned CREATIONIST, then you believe that all of the different animals and plants and fungi were all individually created by god by hand:

Poof: humans. Poof: elephants. Poof: brontosaurus, no, scratch that one it's not going to fit on this ark plan I've got…

But then along comes PESKY science and says: well, actually there's another explanation which accounts for the reason why some animals are so like one another (like why create lions AND tigers when they are essentially the same evil cat monster?) or why some creatures do the same sort of thing but are totally different (like why create bats when you've already got birds?).

That explanation is called EVOLUTION.

It says (in really basic terms) that all creatures in a family are slightly different, and if some of them have a difference that gives them a better chance of having babies then over time the whole family will come to be more like that. Because different advantages apply in different places (say in one place there's lots of insects and in another there's lots of fruit) this causes what was one family to change into two different families.

This is why some creatures are similar (it's not been long since their families were one family) and why some different creatures end up doing the same thing (they've both been selected from having the right advantages to do that thing).

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. This means that it is a set of rules that are based on observed evidence and makes testable predictions that have been confirmed experimentally.

Creationism is not a scientific theory because you can't test it.

(Actually, Creationism's basic tenet that all life was created in the first six days of the world IS testable in the sense that the appearance of any new species ought to be impossible… except there are SO MANY species that it's difficult to PROVE that.)

Anyway, more importantly (if you are a CRAZED THEOCRAT) Evolution gets taught in SCHOOLS in the science class and Creationism doesn't.

This is true even in America thanks to their Constitution wisely having a SEPARATION of CHURCH AND STATE written into it. (And alarmingly it is not always true HERE where there's nothing to stop Lord Blairimort's bonkers, nutty friend Mr Vardey teaching creationism alongside the national curriculum in his city McAcademies!)

This, however, is a bit of a THREAT to the Creationist way of thinking. What, they correctly realise, will happen if our kids start thinking for themselves. Why ANYTHING could happen!

So they campaign very hard to get evolution banned from being taught or to get biblical creationism taught alongside it or to insist on stupid stickers on textbooks saying "This is only a theory".

(As I have said before, you may try putting the Theory of Gravitation to similar test by jumping out of a window and shouting "this is only a theory… arrrgh splatt!")

And then they hit on a BRILLIANT NEW WHEEZE: Let us create a "Science" that gets creationism into the classroom by the back door. This they called "Intelligent Design".

The wheeze (it's not a theory) goes like this: if you find a watch in the desert it is such a complicated thing that your assumption is that it must have been made by someone and left there; it is certainly more likely than it having appeared spontaneously out of the movement of the sand and wind.

Similarly (THEY SAY) there are some parts of living things that are "too complicated" to have come about by random rearrangement of genes and proteins. So, in the same way, they would have you assume that living things (or at least the "too complicated" bits) must have been made by someone.

Of course, it's NONSENSE. If you find a watch in the desert you assume it's designed BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT A WATCH IS AND YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED!

(And by "KNOW" I mean "have established as a fact based on observation and capable of being proved by reference to evidence" and NOT "a feeling you've got based on a story in an old book"!).

Almost every one of the things that the supporters of I.D. have come up with as "too complicated" or "irreducibly complex" as they call it, have in fact been explained by evolutionary science. Their big favourite used to be the eye and that was explained AGES AGO.

And it's STILL not a proper scientific theory because it STILL doesn't come up with testable predictions. It just gives them something new to whine on about.

So, anyway, for Mr Clongly's benefit: Intelligent Design's BASIC CLAIM is "this is a science" (hence: you must teach this in school).

So if you don't thinks it's a science YOU DON'T THINK IT'S TRUE.

QED

(That's science talk for: Quick Elephant Demolition!)




And meanwhile, we have been very much enjoying Mr Stodge keeping us up to date with the latest mental loop-the-loops in I.D world!

Day 1927: Missing Links

Thursday:


Today we learned that scientists have dug up some bones that they think is the last missing link in the family tree of HUMAN BEINGS. This is jolly good news as maybe it will stop the CREATIONIST TWITS from talking about the missing link as though it proved that people were not descended from monkeys.

Of course, the really interesting thing is that there is not really any such things as “missing links” because this assumes that you have one species and then you have the next and they are completely separate. This is often expressed as “which came first, the CHICKEN or the DINOSAUR EGG?”

But REALLY each species sort of blurs into the next one. You can look at monkeys from a million years ago and easily say that they are from a different species to people. But if you took someone from now in a time machine back in time a thousand years, then you would expect that they could get out and happily get married to anyone from a thousand years ago (give or take having to learn ye olde Englyshe). Then if you took seomone from a thousand years ago back to two thousand years ago, you would also expect them to be able to get happily married to anyone that they met then. Then take someone from two thousand years ago and take them back to four thousand years ago… and so on and so on.

As you go further back, you would probably realise that the passengers that you are picking up and dropping off are getting a bit PRIMITIVE and probably a bit SMELLY. But they are still quite happily able to get together in a BIBLICAL sense with people from a thousand years earlier. In fact after you have done this about a hundred and fifty times, then the people you are ferrying in your time machine stop being modern human people (called homo sapiens by scientists or saps by The Tomorrow People) altogether!

But there is never a definite point where the species change, and never a point where the people from a thousand years later are “incompatible” even if you realise that YOU would be incompatible with your latest passenger… probably because they would rather eat the loo roll than use the toilet properly!

I guess what I’m actually saying that there ARE no missing links, and there NEVER WERE!

Day 1910: A for ‘Orses

Monday:


BBC4 showed us “A for Andromeda”, which is a remake of a serial which they made a long time ago and (like some of the DOCTOR WHO) “mislaid”. It was rather good and Daddy got snuffly at the end.

However, early on, one of the scientists said something like: “all this happening by chance, it seems a bit improbable”.

And this reminds me of something that got Daddy Richard hot under the collar on “Thought for the Day” on the radio last week, when the man said: “either it all happened by chance or there was a designer.”

This is what Daddy calls a FALSE DICHOTOMY.

(A Dichotomy is a choice between two things and NOT a system of government based on being ruled by GREG DYKE, which is what I thought.)

If you were to jump out of the window, NOBODY would say that what happens next is a choice between the chance of flying off in a random direction or being dragged down to Earth by Cuddly Chtulhu.

No, you would say that there is a physical law called GRAVITY.

Then you would say “Arrrgh, SPLATT!” so DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!


People get a bit confused because they think that the universe goes nothing, alakazam, stars+planets+people+lollipop ladies+radio four etc.

In fact it takes lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and LOTS and LOTS of tiny little baby steps over a VERY long time. MUCH longer than the attention span of most people. Perhaps it would be easier to notice if it took place in the ADVERT BREAKS on ITV1.

Anyway, watch out for people saying the FALSE DICHOTOMY, because it is a BAD argument! It is REALLY saying: “this happened MY way or in this very silly way that is nothing like what other people really say.”

Day 1900: Creating a Fuss

Thursday:


Today I have learned about CREATIONISM.

Oh very fluffy dear.

Apparently, this is the idea that the WHOLE WORLD and EVERY LIVING THING IN IT were all created by god.

NOT Cuddly Cthulhu! A nice god, more like Mr Blair's imaginary friend. NOT Mr Frown!

Not only that, but it was done in seven days – or rather six days and a day off.

Now this is a VERY NICE STORY that was made up in the OLDEN DAYS (even before Daddy Richard!) in order that Daddies could tell their baby elephants where things came from when they did not really know.

But I have watched all of Daddy Richard's DVDs including WALKING WITH DINOSAURS and THE PLANETS and LIFE ON EARTH with DAVID ATTENBOROUGH and the ASCENT OF MAN ELEPHANTS and so now I know LOTS AND LOTS of stuff.

Nowadays people (and ME!) have learned LOTS AND LOTS of things such as where stars and planets and elements and elephants come from and so now Daddies CAN tell their baby elephants the answers to lots of these questions. (Or at least, baby elephants can go and look the answers up on the Internet!)



But it turns out that some people think their nice story from the olden days is TRUE!

(At least, they SAY that – Daddy Alex thinks that it might be a PRACTICAL JOKE and has a good laugh!)

Perhaps they do not know that people have gone to all the time and trouble of finding out the proper answers for them!

But the worst thing is that some people say they do not believe my new best friends Professor Richard and Romana about EVOLUTION!

Apparently this is because they DO NOT WANT TO BE RELATED TO ANIMALS!

That is VERY RUDE! I feel SNUBBED!!!!!!

I don't want to be related to THEM, but – as the saying goes – you can't pick your relatives, can you!

Now it seems that Mr Blair has given some SCHOOLS to these people so that they can brainwash indoctrinate educate OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN with this anti-elephant propaganda belief.

They say that this is because their belief is as good as Professor Richard's theory but this is NOT TRUE because their belief is just "the story from the olden days is right" whereas Professor Richard's theory has EVIDENCE that he got with his TIME MACHINE!

[R: a time machine in the form of archaeology, palaeontology, geology, molecular biology and a brain.]

I don't understand why they don't listen to what Professor Richard (and LOTS of other SCIENTISTS) can tell them.

Honestly, if you were walking along and someone stopped you to say "Look! Your shoelace is undone." You wouldn't stick your fingers in your ears and say "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" now would you?!?

Children should have proper schools to go to, and not bamboozling brains trusts run by Mr Blair’s funny friends.