Taken by the flood

It amazes me the mental gymnastics the biblical fundamentalists will go through to use scientific studies to shore up their contention that the Bible is literally, word-for-word true.

We've seen this sort of pretzel logic here before, of course.  Eleven years ago I did a piece about a cool scientific discovery that a mineral called ringwoodite, which contains about one percent (by mass) chemically-bound water, was abundant in the Earth's mantle, which prompted the biblical literalists to jump up and down yelling, "See?  We told you.  That's where all the water went after the Great Flood!  Ha!  Q.E.D."  A few also pointed out that in Genesis 7:11 we read that God "broke up the fountains of the deep," so this could also have been the source of some of the flood waters as well.

Never mind that the ringwoodite is six hundred or more kilometers beneath the Earth's surface, and if God "broke up the fountains" to that extent, what would come out would not be water but superheated magma.

So more flood basalt than conventional flood, really.  Not something you'd want to float your Ark on, especially if it was made of wood.

It was with only mild surprise that I saw similar reactions to a study that came out this week from the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology.  You might recall that earlier this week I alluded to the Zanclean Flood -- the astonishing event that occurred about 5.3 million years ago, where plate movement temporarily closed off the Straits of Gibraltar, resulting in the Mediterranean Sea drying up almost completely.  This was followed by a sudden re-opening of the gap and the creation of the Mother of All Waterfalls over the Gibraltar Sill, at its peak refilling the Mediterranean at a rate of an astonishing ten meters a day.

What I didn't know was that apparently a similar thing happened to the Red Sea.  It shouldn't have been a surprise, really; the Red Sea is like the Mediterranean in having only a single narrow connection to the world's oceans (the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb), if you don't count the Suez Canal.  It's also a tectonically-active region, with the Red Sea Rift underlying the entire thing lengthwise, terminating at its south end in the geologically complex Afar Triple Junction.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Eric Gaba (Sting - fr:Sting), Red Sea topographic map-en, CC BY-SA 4.0]

Well, the research found geological evidence of a similar scenario to the Zanclean Flood; a tectonic shift closing off the strait, followed by evaporation of nearly all of the water, followed by a second shift reopening the strait and refilling the sea.  "Our findings show that the Red Sea basin records one of the most extreme environmental events on Earth, when it dried out completely and was then suddenly reflooded," said study lead author Tihana Pensa.  "The flood transformed the basin, restored marine conditions, and established the Red Sea's lasting connection to the Indian Ocean."

I'm guessing y'all can see where this is going.

The fundamentalists are twisting themselves into knots saying, "See?  We told you.  Moses parting the Red Sea, Pharaoh's army, the waters rushing back!  Ha!  Q.E.D."

Well, needless to say -- or, more accurately, I wish it was needless to say -- there are a few holes in this claim.

First, the study at KAUST explicitly says that the transformation from salty desert back to a water-filled Red Sea was far slower than the Zanclean Flood, and is estimated to have taken a hundred thousand years.  So Pharaoh's army must have been really slow on the uptake.  If they couldn't get out of the way of a flood creeping along at that rate, they deserved everything they got.

Second, the biblical apologists also conveniently leave out that the study found the Red Sea flood happened 6.2 million years ago -- so almost a million years before the much bigger Zanclean Flood.  At this point, there were no modern humans around, and wouldn't be for about another five million years.  Our likely ancestor who would have been alive back then was Orrorin tugenensis, who has been reconstructed to look something like this:

I don't know about you, but when I picture the characters from the Old Testament, this isn't the image that comes to mind.  Although I have to say, it would have made the movie The Ten Commandments a lot more entertaining:

Moses:  Fear not!  The Lord of Hosts will do battle for us!

Israelites:  *excited hooting, one of them throws a femur into the air*

However, the people who can already twist their logical faculties around enough to believe that the Bible is the literal truth will also happily conclude that (1) the KAUST team got the chronology wrong by a factor of 1,000, and (2) the Red Sea could have filled a lot faster than that, because God.

Oh, and (3) why are there still monkeys?

You can not win with these people.  Funny the confidence you can get from assuming your conclusion.

Anyhow.  My general opinion is if you want to believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, knock yourself out.  As long as you don't try to get it taught as science in public schools, you can believe the universe was created by a Giant Green Bunny from the Andromeda Galaxy, as far as I care.  But a word of advice -- when you start cherry-picking convenient bits of science to support Fundamentalist Bunnyology, and avoiding the much more numerous bits that contradict it, I reserve the right to make fun of you.

Not that I expect it to have any effect.  The creationists, I've found, are as impervious as Noah's lava-proof Ark.

****************************************

"Gotcha" proselytizing

A frequent reader and commenter on Skeptophilia sent me a note a few days ago, with a link and the cryptic comment, "Gordon, I think you need to take a look at this."  At first, I thought the link was to my own website -- but underneath the link was an explanation that the individual had discovered the link by accidentally mistyping the website address as skeptophilia.blogpsot.com.  (Bet it took you a while to figure out the misspelling, didn't it?  It did me.)

So, anyway, I clicked on the link, and was brought here.

To say that I found this a little alarming was an understatement.  Had someone gone to the lengths of purchasing a website name one letter off from mine, to catch off guard the unwary (and possibly uneasy) skeptics and agnostics who thought they were going to visit a site devoted to rationalism?  I've been the target of negative comments before, from angry believers in everything from homeopathy to hauntings, and certainly have gotten my share of hate mail from the vehemently religious contingent who are bothered by the fact that I am an atheist who is completely, and confidently, "out," and am an unapologetic defender of the evolutionary model, Big Bang cosmology, and so on.  But this seemed kind of out there even for those folks.

Fortunately, my wife, who is blessed with a better-than-her-fair-share amount of common sense and a good grounding in technology, suggested that I try to type in SomethingElse.blogpsot.com.  So I did.  I first tried the address for a friend's blog, but put in the deliberate misspelling for "blogspot."  It brought me to the same place.  Then I tried "CreationismIsNonsense.blogpsot.com."  Same thing.

So apparently, the owner of this ultra-fundamentalist website, with its babble about the Rapture and Armageddon and the literal truth of the Bible, had just bought the domain name "blogpsot.com," so that any time anyone makes that particular misspelling in heading to their favorite blog, it takes them to that site.  I was relieved, actually; the thought that someone would go to all that trouble to target me in particular was a little unnerving.  (And evidently the fact that on the homepage of the "blogpsot" site, there is a link for "The World's Biggest Skeptic" is just a coincidence.)

However, you have to wonder if the person who owns the site really is laboring under the mistaken impression that this is an effective proselytizing tool.  Can you really imagine someone who is trying to check out the latest post on his/her favorite blog on, say, sewing, and lands here -- and then suddenly goes all glassy-eyed, and says, "Good heavens. I get it now.  The Bible is true, the Rapture is coming, and I'd better repent right now."

No, neither can I.

And when you think about it, the door-to-door religion salesmen that periodically show up in our neighborhoods are the same kind of thing, aren't they?  A little less covert and sneaky, that's all.  But they're trying to accomplish the same goal -- catching you off guard, getting a foot in the door, spreading the message.

Of course, that approach sometimes backfires.  A couple of years ago a pair of missionaries (Jehovah's Witnesses, if I recall correctly) came up to my front door.  They were both women, the older maybe forty and the younger looking like she was in her twenties.  Both of them were immaculately attired in modest dresses and starched white blouses.  They didn't see that I was working in the garden; I was kind of hidden behind a bush I was pruning.  It was a blistering hot day, and when I heard the knock I walked over to them -- shirtless, covered in grime and sweat.  I acted completely nonchalant, but they were clearly uncomfortable.  The usual spiel was seriously truncated, and they made an excuse to leave after five minutes or so despite my rather over-the-top friendliness.

I gave them a big wave when they left and told them to drop in any time.

Never saw them again.  I guess God's only interested in converts who are clean and fully clothed.

Franciscan missionaries in California (woodcut from Zephyrin Engelhardt's Mission San Juan Capistrano: A Pocket Guide, 1922) [Image is in the Public Domain]

In any case, my previous comment about this sort of thing being an ineffective proselytizing tool is irrelevant, really.  It's like spam emails.  If you send out a million emails, and your success rate is 0.1%, you've still made money, because of the extremely low overhead.  Same here; you get volunteers (in the case of the door-to-door folks) or unsuspecting drop-ins (in the case of the website).  Most of the target individuals say no, or hit the "Back" button -- but the fraction of a percent that don't are your payoff.

The whole thing pisses me off, frankly, because it's so sneaky.  Even if it wasn't targeted at me specifically, it just seems like a skeevy way to get converts.  But to a lot of these folks, how you convert people is unimportant.  The essential thing is to convert them in the first place.  If you can grab people when their rational faculties are not expecting it, all the better -- because, after all, rationality is the last thing they want to engage.

**************************************

Trick or tract

Halloween is this Thursday, so you know what that means: pumpkin decorations and skeletons and ghosts everywhere, candy of all kinds for sale in the stores, people excitedly coming up with creative costumes for parties and trick-or-treating, and the extremely religious telling people that indulging in any of the above will doom them for all eternity.

This time the harbinger of fire and brimstone is none other than Ken Ham, who runs Answers in Genesis and is most famous for "Ark Encounter," a museum (to use the term loosely) in Grant County, Kentucky that has as its mission convincing people that a book documenting the beliefs of a handful of Bronze-Age sheep herders is the best resource we have for understanding science.  According to Ham, here's the way it all went down:

• The Earth is only about six thousand years old.  Any evidence to the contrary is either flat wrong or was put there by Satan to fuck with us.
• In a matter of a few weeks, Noah built a boat capable of holding two of each of the nine-million-odd species on Earth, using only hand tools and materials he could find in the desert.   [Nota bene: The Ark Encounter itself, supposed to be a modernized replica of the Ark, took several years and a few million dollars to finish.  And that was using huge work crews equipped with power tools.]
• The dinosaurs died because they missed getting aboard the Ark.  Oh, and before the Fall of Man, the dinosaurs were all peaceful herbivores.  T. rex, apparently, used his Big Nasty Pointy Teeth to munch on carrots.
• It rained enough to cover the entire land surface area of the planet, and after forty days all the water just kind of went away, presumably down a big drain in the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean or something.
• Afterwards, the kangaroos, dingoes, and wombats hopped, skulked, and waddled their way back to Australia unaided, conveniently leaving behind no traces of their thousand-mile journey.

But other than that, it makes complete sense.

Looks to me like there's an issue here with the lions.  Maybe they're gay lions, I dunno.  But even though I applaud them for coming out of the closet, it would still be problematic with respect to rebuilding the lion population, post-Flood.

So anyway, we're already on shaky ground, reality-wise, with Ken Ham weighing in on pretty much anything.  That didn't stop him from giving the devout some suggestions on how to deal with the upcoming Day of Evil.  "One way you can make the most of this once-a-year opportunity is by giving gospel tracts to children and/or their parents," Ham said.

Yeah, that'll make you popular in your neighborhood.

He also recommended buying (from his online store -- of course) some "million-dollar bills" printed with a picture of a T. rex on one side and a picture of the Ark on the other, with edifying messages such as:

• Have you ever lied, stolen or used God’s name in vain?  If so, you’ve broken God’s law.  The penalty for your crimes against God is death and eternal hell because God is holy and just.
• If you have engaged in lust, this is the same as committing adultery.  God sees you as guilty of sin.  The penalty of sin is death and eternity in hell.
• We broke God's law, but Jesus paid our fine.  Proving He satisfied God's justice, He rose from the dead.  Now God as Judge can legally dismiss our case!

Now wait a moment.  "Legally?"  What does that even mean in this context?  Isn't the whole point of the Bible that God can pretty much do whatever he damn well pleases, and we humans just have to suck it up and deal?  Seems like if God wanted to forgive us, he would have just done it, and not gone through the whole nasty crucifixion business.  So that "Jesus paid our fine" thing has never made a scrap of sense to me.  It's kind of like if your brother pissed your dad off, and your dad spanked you.  Then he says to your brother, "You're forgiven now."  When you understandably object to all of this, your dad says, "Well, I had to spank someone, right?"

In any case, I wouldn't throw away your bags full of Snickers bars and replace them with gospel tracts.  For one thing, it seems like a good way to get your house egged.  Second, warning trick-or-treaters about the dangers of lust seems to me to be targeting the wrong audience, even if you think lustful thoughts are evil, which I don't because that would mean that 99% of humanity is destined for eternal hellfire.

So have fun with your costumes and scary decorations and whatnot.  Honestly, it seems a lot more sensible than all the stuff Ken Ham is trying to get you to believe.  And that's even if you account for the gay lion couple.

************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is a really cool one: Andrew H. Knoll's Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth.

Knoll starts out with an objection to the fact that most books on prehistoric life focus on the big, flashy, charismatic megafauna popular in children's books -- dinosaurs such as Brachiosaurus, Allosaurus, and Quetzalcoatlus, and impressive mammals like Baluchitherium and Brontops.  As fascinating as those are, Knoll points out that this approach misses a huge part of evolutionary history -- so he set out to chronicle the parts that are often overlooked or relegated to a few quick sentences.  His entire book looks at the Pre-Cambrian Period, which encompasses 7/8 of Earth's history, and ends with the Cambrian Explosion, the event that generated nearly all the animal body plans we currently have, and which is still (very) incompletely understood.

Knoll's book is fun reading, requires no particular scientific background, and will be eye-opening for almost everyone who reads it.  So prepare yourself to dive into a time period that's gone largely ignored since such matters were considered -- the first three billion years.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

The literal truth

One of the problems with biblical literalism is that the bible has some pretty awful and bloodthirsty bits.  It's been observed more than once that if anyone ever did try to live biblically, in the sense of following all of the biblical commands to the letter, he'd end up in jail.

The result, of course, is that people cherry-pick.  If you're up front about this -- if you admit that a lot of the biblical precepts were commands for another time and culture, and are irrelevant today -- I've got no quarrel with you whatsoever.  (Some people even go so far as to say that some of the rules in the early books of the bible, such as the penalty of death by stoning for collecting firewood on the Sabbath, were wrong even back then.)

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

Most alleged literalists, however, solve the problem by obeying to the letter the rules they like (such as the prohibitions against premarital sex and gay marriage), believing word-for-word the stories they like (such as the six-day creation of the universe and the story of the flood and Noah's ark), and pretty much ignoring everything else.  But every once in a while you run into someone who has decided that being a biblical literalist means that you really have to buy the whole thing, in toto, and that when the bible conflicts with one of the rules of civilized society, society is wrong.

Which brings me to Reverend Steven Anderson.

Anderson is the pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church, and has been in the news before for his vitriolic anti-gay message.  (He's the guy who said if his brother was gay, he'd support his execution.)  But now, he's been called upon to defend one of the most horrific practices condoned in the bible -- slavery.

This is one that makes even the anti-gay cohort squirm a little.  Not Anderson, though.  This is a direct quote from his sermon -- which, if you don't believe me, you can listen to here, if you can stomach it:

People will try to come at us — usually atheists or people like that — they’ll come at us and say, “Well, the Bible is wrong because the Bible condones of slavery.”  We’ve all heard that before, right? 

But here’s the thing about that, is that if the Bible condones slavery, then I condone slavery.  Because the Bible’s always right about every subject… and keep in mind that locking someone in prison is more inhumane than slavery.  Prison destroys people’s lives.

And, in Anderson's fantasy world, slavery apparently didn't.  The families torn apart when slaves were kidnapped from their homes, the brutal beatings and horrific living conditions, the attitude by the slave-owners that their slaves were worthy of no better because they weren't quite human -- all of that is evidently just fine in god's eyes, and therefore in Anderson's.

Is the Bible just pro-slavery?  No.  But are there certain situations where God did indicate slavery or for people to beat their servants?  Absolutely.  Absolutely.  Of course!  But you know what?  It’s all right.  And I agree with all of it.  Why?  Because the Bible is God’s Word.  That’s why.

So that settles that, at least for Anderson.

Another awkward point for many Christians is the bible's recommendations for the treatment of women.  Dozens of bible verses mandate that women be treated like objects to be given away or sold, and once married, subjugated to their husbands.  In 1 Corinthians 14, we read the following:

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.  If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Which makes you wonder how outspoken evangelical women justify being in leadership roles.

Here too, most Christians just breeze past the dodgy bits.  But not all.  Over at the site Biblical Gender Roles, we find out in an article with the lovely title "How To Help Women Learn Their Place" that there are people who are determined to have this followed to the letter, too:

We have women saying things in the wrong place or in the wrong way.  Women showing no deference or respect toward men.  Daughters showing little to no respect for their fathers and wives showing little to no respect for their husbands.  Wives routinely shame their husbands in public not to mention in private.  Daughters disobey their fathers and wives routinely disobey their husbands with impunity.  Many women pursue selfish career ambitions instead of being ambitious for marriage, child bearing and homemaking.

If you can imagine.

Further along in the article -- once again, if you can stand to read it -- we find out that women should be cooks and house-cleaners and child-bearers, defer to their husbands in all matters, be ready for sex whenever the man wants it, be submissive, and dress modestly.  We then hear all about how the writer is training his own daughter in these ways, to be the "wife and mother that God wants her to be."

Is it just me, or is this close to emotional and psychological abuse?

You know, you have to admire these people for one thing; they aren't hypocrites.  They have decided on their precepts, and live them down to the last syllable.  The horrific part is that their precepts are entirely repugnant, and are based on the savage customs of Bronze-Age sheepherders that for some reason they still think are relevant and humane.

So however annoying the cherry-pickers are, at least they're not really trying to follow the bible to the letter, however much they claim that they are.  Which, after hearing about Reverend Anderson and the owner of Biblical Gender Roles, most of us will probably consider a fortunate thing.

The dinosaur deniers

So now apparently it's a thing amongst the devoutly religious not only to believe that evolution is false, but that dinosaurs never existed.

I'm not making this up.  According to Chris Matyszczyk over at CNet, there's a whole movement within Christian fundamentalism to "disprove the existence of dinosaurs," and, especially, to stop children from being exposed to information about them.

There's a group, apparently, called Christians Against Dinosaurs, and Matyszczyk investigated them, initially thinking that they had to be some sort of The Onion-esque satire group.  Sadly, Matyszczyk found that they're real.  And serious.

"I'm getting sick and tired of dinosaurs being forced on our children," said one member of Christians Against Dinosaurs in an online video you can watch on the above link if you can stand faceplanting multiple times.  "I for one do not want my children being taught lies. Did you know that nobody had even heard of dinosaurs before the 1800s, when they were invented by curio-hungry Victorians?...  Dinosaurs are a very bad example for children.  At my children's school, several children were left in tears after one of their classmates (who had evidently been exposed to dinosaurs), became bestially-minded and ran around the classroom roaring and pretending to be a dinosaur.  Then he bit three children on the face."

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

The invention of dinosaur fossils by "curio-hungry Victorians" would have come as a great shock to 3rd century Chinese historian Chang Qu, who describes the discovery of what he called "dragon bones" at a site that would later prove to be a rich paleontological site of Jurassic-era fossils.  Equally shocked would have been 17th-century British naturalist Robert Plot, who described the fossilized femur of a Megalosaurus in his book The Natural History of Oxfordshire.

Sadly, though, Christians Against Dinosaurs is not some kind of isolated wacko splinter group.  There's a whole movement afoot to discredit all fossils.  Consider the post over at Clues Forum entitled "The (Non-religious) Dinosaur Hoax Question," wherein we find out that because fossils are "rock in rock," the paleontologists are simply taking blocks of rock and carving them into whatever shape they want, and then saying, "Look!  A fossil!"  Here's a sample:

Fossils, then, are basically bones that have turned into a sort of rock. They are rocks that mimic the form of a bone that is now long gone. Many of the dino bones on display in museums are bone-shaped rocks essentially. The problem I have with this is that, according to many cable TV “science” shows I have watched over the years, these dinosaur fossils are often found embedded in rock. So, we're talking about digging out rocks imbedded in rock and we must trust that those who prepared these fossils for display have correctly carved away the non-bone rock from the real bone rock. But, in our hoax-filled world of fake science, doesn't this rock-in-rock situation make it rather easy for creative interpretations of what the animal really looked like? And, once a particular animal is “approved” by the gods of the scientific community, wouldn't all subsequent representations of that same animal have to conform with that standard?

I think what bothers me most about this is the phrase "our hoax-filled world of fake science."  Does this guy really think that scientists are getting grants to sit around making shit up?  And because all of the other scientists are in on it, no one blows the whistle?

Oh, and then the guy does this whole thing about how the discovery of fossilized Velociraptor claws are suspect because they look "just like bear claws."  Can I just ask one question?

Wouldn't you expect bear claws and Velociraptor claws to be similarly-shaped, because otherwise they wouldn't be called "claws"?

The most mind-blowing thing about this is how simple it would be to destroy the whole "argument," if this guy was really interested in finding out answers.  All he'd have to do is two things: (1) volunteer to go on a paleontological dig, and (2) talk to any scientist about how peer review is done.  But no, that's apparently too much to ask.

Much easier to sit at home talking out of your ass about "non-bone rock and real bone rock."

And then, then, the guy has the audacity to refer to himself as "skeptical."  This use of the word (as in "climate change skeptic") just makes me want to punch a wall.  "Skeptical" does not mean "someone who disbelieves in random stuff."  It means "keeping your mind open until sufficient evidence is obtained."

And don't even get me started about how the author calls his disbelief-o-thon a "theory."

But back to Christians Against Dinosaurs.  The group has a Facebook page, wherein we are told, "We all know God never created dinosaurs, and its great to have a place we can all celebrate this... I only hope that it serves as an outlet for others too afraid to speak out about their doubts in the field of paleontology.  It is healthy to question the world around us and not just take the word of science as gospel."

The last sentence of which should win some kind of Unintentional Irony Award.

Oh, yeah, and on the Facebook page we also find out that "The Museum Industry Complex are [sic] ruthless."  The rest of us, apparently, are simply shills for the Paleontological Mafia.  Jack Horner, then, would be the Don Corleone of the dinosaur world, and if we try to interfere with his research, we stand a good chance of waking up with the severed head of a T. rex in our bed.

So anyway.  The latest in the world of reality denial; don't argue that extinct species died in the Great Flood, argue that they never existed in the first place.  I wonder what's next?  Maybe deciding that all of us science-types don't exist, either.  The whole world is populated by a few thousand holy people, and everything else is imaginary, placed there by Satan to trip up the true believers.

If you're going to deny reality, hell, why not go all the way?

The loveliest of all was the unicorn

It is probably my own lack of tolerance, empathy, and compassion that makes me laugh out loud when I hear the "arguments" people use to support biblical literalism.

I mean, they can think what they want, right?  No amount of railing by the likes of me is going to rid the world of wacko counterfactual thinking, much as I'd like to live in my own fool's paradise in thinking I'm making a dent.  So why not just ignore 'em?

Of course, I can't, as you well know if you've been following this blog for very long.  The biblical literalists still have too powerful a voice in American politics to be dismissed as inconsequential.  It'd be nice if we were in a place where Bronze-Age mythology wasn't driving legislation and educational policy, but we're not there, yet.  That's why my laugh directed at two stories I ran across yesterday rings a little hollow.

In the first, we have Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, who despite her summa cum laude bachelor's degree in chemistry and a medical doctorate from Vanderbilt, believes in unicorns because the bible says they exist.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

Apparently, since the bible mentions unicorns, to disbelieve in them is to "demean god's word."  She cites Isaiah 34:7 ("And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness"), a passage that I not only find funny because of its mention of a nonexistent animal, but because of the phrase "fat with fatness."  I think this is a pretty cool use of language, and one that we should emulate.  We should say that a cow is not just big, it's "big with bigness."  The night henceforth will be described as "dark with darkness."  The ocean is "wet with wetness."

But I digress.

Mitchell says that the unicorn could have existed because there are other one-horned animals, such as the rhinoceros and the narwhal.  (Yes, I know that the narwhal's spike is a tooth, not a horn.  Mitchell doesn't let facts intrude on her explanation, and neither should you.)  Then she goes on to say that the unicorn could have been the aurochs, an extinct species of wild ox.

But oxen have two horns, you're probably thinking.  Mitchell says that this can be explained because if you look at an ox from the side, it looks like it has only one horn.  There's archaeological evidence of this, in carvings of oxen from the side "on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism," and lo, those carvings show oxen in profile with only one horn visible, as hath been revealed by Dr. Mitchell.

This ox also hath wings, which may be a problem for Dr. Mitchell's argument.  [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

You have to wonder how Dr. Mitchell would explain that the bible also says that bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), that the Earth doesn't move (Psalms 93:1), and that in one place it says that men and women were created simultaneously (Genesis 1:27) and only a few verses later, it says that god made men first (Genesis 2:7).

I dunno.  Maybe the contradictions and inaccuracies look different if you look at them from the side.

The second story comes from our old friend Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, who has his knickers in a twist over a resolution in Congress to consider February 12 as "Darwin Day."  Ham, of course, thinks this is a bad idea, and has given a countersuggestion; let's call February 12 "Darwin Was Wrong Day:"

Secularists are becoming increasingly aggressive and intolerant in promoting their anti-God philosophy.  Evolutionary ideas provide the foundation for this worldview because they seemingly allow mankind the ability to explain the existence of life and the universe without God.  As Christians, we need to be bold in proclaiming the truth of God’s Word to a hurting (groaning, Romans 8:22) world.  This year, on February 12, instead of celebrating Darwin’s anti-God religion, we can take this opportunity to show the world that Darwin’s ideas about our supposed evolutionary origins were wrong, and that God’s Word is true, from the very beginning.  Let’s make February 12 Darwin Was Wrong Day and point people to the truth of God’s Word.

Well, I'm not sure we secularists are "aggressive and intolerant" about evolution so much as we are "right."  To return to the point I began with, it's hard not to be intolerant when (1) you have mountains of evidence on your side, and (2) the people arguing against you are determined to have their views drive national policy.

A funny thing happens, though, when you put the Mitchell story and the Ham story together.  We have the former putting forth the loony view that all of the inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible can be resolved and explained (and the ones I mentioned are only scratching the surface), along with a demand that everyone believe that the bible is literally, word-for-word true anyhow (and should be used as a primary source in science classrooms).

It's to be hoped, however, that more and more people are realizing how impossible it is to reconcile the contradictions, and that therefore biblical literalism fails right at the starting gate.  Maybe that's why people like Mitchell and Ham are becoming more strident; they sense that they're losing ground.

Or maybe they're just "crazy with craziness."

22 questions, 22 answers

So the Ham-on-Nye debate is history, and we science-minded types are breathing a sigh of relief that it went as well as it did.  As I pointed out six months ago, Bill Nye had every reason to refuse to debate Ken Ham.  In fact, it's misleading to call it a debate in the first place, as Ken Ham doesn't accept hard evidence as the sine qua non of understanding.  He said as much, during the question-and-answer period, when he was asked "What would it take to change your mind?" and he answered in what may have been the most telling quote of the entire evening:

Well, the answer to that is that is that I'm a Christian, and as a Christian, I can't prove it to you, but god has shown me very clearly through his word, and he has shown himself in the person of Jesus Christ, that the bible is the word of god.

I admit that this is where I start from.  I can challenge people, that you can go and test that, you can make predictions based on that, you can check the prophecies in the bible, you can check the statements in Genesis.  I did a little bit of that tonight.

I can't ultimately prove that to you, all I can do is to say is to say to someone, "Look, if the bible really is what it claims to be, if it really is the word of god (and that's what it claims), then check it out, and the bible says that if you come to god believing that he is, he will reveal himself to you and you will know.

As Christians, we can say that we know, and so far as the word of god is concerned, no, no one is ever going to convince me that the word of god is not true.

Contrast that to what Bill Nye said, to the same question:

We would need just one piece of evidence.  We would need one fossil that swam from one layer to another, we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but are not.

We would need evidence that the rock layers could form in just years as opposed to an extraordinary amount of time, we would need evidence that you can reset atomic clocks and and keep neutrons from becoming protons.

Bring on any of those things and you would change my mind immediately.

So it really wasn't a debate.  Further, it has the possible downside of giving the impression to anyone on the fence that there is controversy over the issue; as I've said many times before, there is far more controversy, in scientific circles, about the ultimate explanation for gravity, and the means by which it operates, than there is over evolution.

So the Great Debate was really preaching to the choir, as it would inevitably have to be.  Still, most folks I've seen seem to think that Ken Ham had his ass handed to him -- even a poll over at Christian Today gave Nye the win, with the final tally being a decisive 92%-8%.

This hasn't stopped the creationists from singing Ham's praises, of course, which is pretty much what I expected.  There was a post over at Buzzfeed that's been making the rounds, wherein writer Matt Stopera asked 22 creationists what message they had for the evolutionists.  And despite my stance that arguing with these folks is generally fruitless, I felt obliged to respond largely because of the level of derp evident in so many of these statements.

So here they are -- the 22 statements from creationists, and my 22 responses.  Just so I don't have to write "sic" a hundred times, you'll just have to trust that I'm copying them with the spelling and grammar as written (or click on the Buzzfeed link and verify it for yourself).

1.  Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?

My answer: Damn skippy he is.  I'll take a rational, evidence-based understanding of the world over Bronze-Age mythology and magical thinking any day of the week.

2.  Are you scared of a Divine Creator?

My answer:  Are you scared of Frost Giants?  Why would I be scared of something I don't believe in?

3.  Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature?  i.e. trees created with rings...  Adam created as an adult...

My answer:  Yes, it is.  If you're accepting that, then how do you know you weren't created five minutes ago by Zeus, with your memories as-is?  If you don't buy that we understand the world through logic, reason, and the information from our senses, and accept that the world acts in a regular, understandable way, you have to throw out all of science, not just evolution.  Interesting, isn't it, that questions like yours -- that undermine our ability to know the universe -- could equally well be applied to chemistry, but no one ever frames them that way?

4.  Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove evolution?

My answer:  Fer cryin' in the sink, take a fucking physics class.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system, entropy (disorder) always increases.  The Earth is not a closed system, therefore there can be local and temporary decreases in entropy.  There is no conflict between thermodynamics and evolution.

5.  How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?

My answer:  The Earth rotates.  q.e.d.

6.  If the Big Bang theory is taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?

My answer:  See #4, especially the part about taking a fucking physics class.

7.  What about noetics?

My answer:  What about it?

8.  Where do you derive objective meaning in life?

My answer:  The meaning in my life comes from my connections to my family, friends, vocation, pets, and community.  I don't need a magical sky guy to give my life meaning; I create meaning for myself.

9.  If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate?  By chance?

My answer:  Pretty much, but the chance was really high.  Organic compounds are common in the universe, can readily be created by abiotic processes, and will self-assemble into cells.  Life is probably abundant in the universe.  Once again: no need for the hand of a magical sky guy.

10.  I believe in the Big Bang Theory.  God said "BANG!" it happened!

My answer:  How nice it must be for you to have an understanding of the universe that doesn't require you to do any hard work.

11.  Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial species?

My answer:  Whatever drugs you have been ingesting, can I have some?

12.  There is no inbetween... the ONLY one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for "official proof..."

My answer:  You seriously think that the only hominid fossil is Lucy?  And that scientists have a numerical threshold for "official proof?"  "Nope, sorry.  We've only got 99 pieces of data supporting the existence of velociraptors.  If only we had one more... but for now, we'll have to classify them as "imaginary."

13.  Does metamorphosis help support evolution?

My answer:  Of course it does.

14.  If Evolution is a theory (like creationism and the Bible), then why is it taught as fact?

My answer:  Creationism (and the bible) are not theories.  Theories are testable models of how the world works.  Saying "god did it" is not a testable statement.  "Theory" doesn't mean "it could just as easily be false as true."

15.  Because science is by definition a theory -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable -- why do you object to creationism and intelligent design being taught in school?

My answer:  See #14.  And I object to it for the same reason that you would object if your child's chemistry teacher taught him that you can convert base metals into gold via alchemy; because it's wrong.

16.  What evidence has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?

My answer:  Three examples out of hundreds known: Chromosome duplication and subsequent divergence.  Segment and polarity genes in arthropods.  Allopolyploidy.  All of which are excellent supports for evolution and speciation, so thanks ever so much for asking.  (For a wonderful take-apart of the so-called "information problem," go here.)

17.  What purpose do you think you are here for, if not for Salvation?

My answer:  If you mean Purpose, capital "P," then I think there isn't one, an idea that seems to terrify religious people and doesn't bother me at all.  I don't really feel the need for there to be a Cosmic Reason for Everything.  As far as my more immediate purpose; to teach, learn, love, enjoy, grow, experience.  And that's enough to satisfy me.

18.  Why have we found only 1 "Lucy" when we have found more than 1 of everything else?

My answer:  That may be one of the dumbest questions I've ever read.  How do you manage to remember to walk without dragging your knuckles on the ground?

19.  Can you believe in the "Big Bang" without "faith?"

My answer:  Science doesn't require faith; science and faith are opposites.  (Unless you're talking about my faith that science actually is a valid way of knowing the universe; if that's what you mean, then we can talk, but I don't think that's what you're asking.)  The Big Bang is a model that explains the evidence we see; faith is the belief in things not seen.  It takes no more faith to "believe in" the Big Bang (although I hate using the word "belief" referent to a scientific model) than it takes faith to "believe in" genes, or atoms, or stars, or the core of the Earth.

20.  How can you look at the world and not believe Someone Created/thought of it?  It's amazing!!!

My answer:  Ah, yes, the Proof from Incredulity.  "I can't imagine this, so it must be god."  Well, yeah, okay, the world and all of the life in it is pretty amazing.  That I feel that way is why I became a biologist.  But it's also pretty crazily thrown together, too, which is why "intelligent design" doesn't work.  Take the human male reproductive apparatus, for example, which has to be one of the most oddly "designed" organ systems in the animal kingdom.  We have two extremely sensitive structures that have to be positioned outside of the abdominal cavity in order to work, right at a position where they are easily kneed, kicked, and head-butted by small children and large dogs; the sperm-delivery device is fused to the urinary system, thus (as a friend of mine put it) being the equivalent of running a sewer pipe directly through a playground; and the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, which is unusually likely to become cancerous and squeeze the whole thing shut.  If a deity planned all of that, he has a really twisted sense of humor.

21.  Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?

My answer:  If you can't be bothered to take a fucking physics class, will you people please at least read the Wikipedia article on a topic before you ask moronic questions?

22.  If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

My answer:  If my ancestors came from France, why are there still French people?


So, anyway, there you have it; my response to the Nye/Ham debate, and the 22 questions from creationists.  My head now hurts from all of the faceplants I did reading those, and I suspect yours might, too.  So, as my gift to you for making it all the way to the end, here's a Klingon facepalm, to show you that Worf is on our side.

Jewish dinosaur evolution hoax!

Yesterday I came across the world's dumbest conspiracy theory.

I know I've said this before.  I said this about the claim that President Obama was selling us out to the Canadians.  I said this about the claim that CERN was designed to reawaken the Egyptian god Osiris.  I said this about the claim that Siri was programmed to open the Gates of Hell this coming July.

Each time, I thought we'd reached some kind of Conspiracy Theory Nirvana, that there was no way anyone could come up with something more completely ridiculous.

I was wrong.

Yesterday, I ran across a conspiracy theory that is so perfect in its absurdity that it almost reads like some kind of bizarre work of art.  You ready?

Dinosaurs never existed.  The whole thing is an elaborate hoax designed to give us the impression that organisms have evolved.  All the fossils ever "found" were either manufactured from plaster ("Is it possible," the author writes, "that dinosaur skeleton replica are secretly assembled or manufactured in private buildings out of public view, with bones artificially constructed or used from a number of different modern-day animals?  Why bother having any authentic original fossils at all if alleged replicas can please the public?") or are assembled from the bones of contemporary animals.

[image of Triceratops skeleton courtesy of photographer Michael Gray and the Wikimedia Commons]

Along the way, we learn that (1) radiometric dating is a method fabricated to give the dinosaur claim credibility, (2) fossilization is impossible, (3) the biblical creation story is true and the Earth is about 6,000 years old, and (4) paleontologists are big fat liars.  All of the evidence, in the form of fossil beds such as the ones at Dinosaur National Monument and the extensive fossil-rich strata in North and South Dakota, were planted there.  "Finds of huge quantities of fossils in one area, or by one or few people, goes against the laws of natural probability," we are told, despite the fact that once something occurs, the probability of its having occurred is 100%.

But so far, there's nothing much to set this apart from your usual run of creationist nonsense.  The pièce de resistance, though, is who they think is behind all of this falsehood, duplicity, and deception.  Who is it that has invented all of these fake "theories" about radioactive decay, geostratigraphy, and evolutionary descent?  Who planted all of these artificial fossils all around the world?

The Jews, of course.

I shoulda known. 

So last night, over dinner, I had a chat with my wife, who is Jewish.  I asked her why she spent her spare time creating a fake Jewrassic Park in Utah.  She already has her art -- isn't one hobby enough?

"I'm just that evil," she responded.

I asked her if she had any kind of Official Statement to make, now that her wicked plot has been uncovered.

She thought for a moment, and then said, "I'd have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you crazy kids and your dumb dog."

So there you have it.

She did ask one question, though, after making her Official Statement:  "Don't these people realize that the creation story is in the Jewish bible, too?  That, in fact, the first five books of the Christian bible are exactly the same, word for word, as the Torah?"

I said I didn't know, but if I had to hazard a guess, that logic had very little to do with any of this.

So that's it, folks: the Jews have gone all over the world, including Antarctica, planting fake fossils so as to fool the true believers.  Then they invented radiometric dating, evolutionary biology, and the entire science of geology.  There it is -- the single dumbest conspiracy theory ever.  If you run across a dumber one, please don't tell me, because then I'll have to post about it, and I feel like my IQ dropped at least 20 points just in doing the research about this one.

Duck amuck

I told myself that I wasn't going to write about Phil Robertson, the guy from Duck Dynasty who has become the darling of the Religious Right for saying that he has a hard time understanding gays.  I kept seeing article after article and tweet after tweet on the topic, and sat there going, "Uh-uh.  Nope.  Not doin' it.  Nope."

I think it may have been Sarah Palin's tweet that tipped the balance.

Free speech is endangered species; those "intolerants" hatin' & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all

At that point, I said, "Screw it."  Just about everything I'd read about the situation from both sides was pissing me off, so I decided to write about it, because my cure for being pissed off is to write a post here on Skeptophilia and thus piss everyone else off.  So here we go; the 1,283,298th person to opine about the brilliance, ethics, and philosophy of Duck Dynasty.

Since I mentioned Sarah Palin, let's begin there, okay?  Starting with the fact that this is not about free speech.  Not one person I saw who objected to Robertson's pronouncement (which I shall quote momentarily) said anything about how he didn't have the right to say what he said.  They did, however, say he was bigoted and homophobic, and called him a variety of other epithets that I will refrain from mentioning, which is not the same thing.  A&E, the network that runs Duck Dynasty, suspended him because he'd crossed the line from homey and redneck and quaint into being offensive, a decision that the network executives have every right to make.  Free speech means that you have the right to state your opinion, but it doesn't protect you from the repercussions thereof with respect to keeping your job.

Of course, that didn't stop other political pundits from jumping on the bandwagon.  Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who is considered a front runner for the Republican nomination in 2016, showed that his understanding of constitutional rights was a little sketchy for someone considering a run for the White House when he weighed in with, "I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment.  It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."

Much as it pains me to admit that I agree with Jindal about anything, I have to say that in my opinion, the video of Miley Cyrus "twerking" was about as sexy as a dog humping someone's leg.  But that's as far as I'll go, and Jindal's claim that this has anything to do with the First Amendment is patently ridiculous.

So anyway, now it's time to throw out there what exactly Robertson said.  So here goes:

It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical...  Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong.  Sin becomes fine...  If somebody asks, I tell ’em what the Bible says.  All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.

So, yeah.  I just have three things to say about all of this.

First of all, sexual attraction has very little to do with logic, so saying that it's logical for a guy to prefer a woman's naughty bits over a man's isn't so much bigoted as it is idiotic.  It's not like straight people sit around when they hit puberty thinking, "Hmmm, which set of parts do I find attractive?  Let's see, I dunno... but I'm sure I can use logic to figure this one out!"

Secondly, I'm calling bullshit on Robertson's claim of living biblically.  Let's start with all of the kosher laws in Leviticus, which I highly doubt that the squirrel-eating chaps on Duck Dynasty have even read, much less follow.  Also, it bears mention that anyone who lived by all of the precepts of the bible would be in jail, given that the bible has verses that explicitly command you to stone disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), allow you to own slaves as long as they come from another country (Leviticus 25:44-46), and order you to burn to death members of other religions, along with all of their livestock (Deuteronomy 13:13-19).  To name just a few.  So the whole idea of living your life by the bible's commands is ridiculous.  Folks who claim to be fundamentalists are automatically cherry-picking the stuff they like, especially from the Old Testament, which means that the people who are using biblical justification to hate on gays are actually just bigoted assholes who are afraid to come right out and admit it.

But third -- and this is directed at all of the people who are outraged by what Robertson said -- what exactly did you expect him to say?  Did you not know he was a bible-thumper?  This guy thumps the bible so damn hard it's surprising he doesn't dent the cover.  Was it really such a surprise that he doesn't like homosexuals?  And for cryin' in the sink, this is a "reality show," which means that the whole thing -- including the article in GQ that started this tempest in a teapot -- was engineered for one reason, and one reason alone, and that is publicity.  If they can rile people up, even offend the hell out them, that's okay, as long as their audience keeps watching.  This is why I'm guessing that the executives at A&E will very quickly step down from their high horses and reinstate Robertson.  This is too good a money-making opportunity to pass up, especially given that #PhilRobertsonForPresident is now trending on Twitter.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Robertson.  It's just that the last thing anyone should expect from a reality show is reality.

So the whole thing is just annoying, and I am seriously looking forward to it all dying down, which considering the attention span of the average American, should take about three days.  The bloviators over at Fox News will probably try to string it all out for longer than that, but chances are, we'll be on to the next celebrity gossip really soon, and I'll be able to move on to more important topics myself, like the fact that Spike is going to be airing a show called 10 Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty starting January 10.

Now there's a show that isn't afraid to look reality in the face.

Tax return of the Beast

Well, it's happened again.  Another person has refused to handle a piece of official paper because it was stamped with the number 666.

In November 2011 we had the story about Georgia factory worker Billy E. Hyatt, who refused to wear a badge that said "666 Days Without An Accident."  He was fired, but basically claimed that his soul was more important than his job -- apparently he really, truly thought that if he pinned the badge on, then Satan would have burst upward though the floor, spurting flame and laughing maniacally, and dragged him off to hell.  (You have to wonder how he explained that this didn't happen to all of the hundreds of other workers who were cheerfully wearing the Mark of the Beast for the day.)

Hyatt, incidentally, was eventually rehired with back pay, after a court found that the company he worked for had infringed upon his religious freedom.

Now, though, we have federal law involved, and you have to wonder how this will play out.

Just last week, Clarksville (Tennessee) maintenance worker Walter Slonopas quit his job and is saying he will refuse to file his taxes after receiving a W-2 form stamped with the number 666.  [Source]  Slonopas, a born-again Christian (as if I even needed to mention that), said that the choice was go to work, or go to hell.

"If you accept that number, you sell your soul to the devil," he said in an interview with The Tennessean.

Interestingly, this isn't Slonopas' first encounter with the Number Of Evil.  When he was hired in April 2011, and was given a number to use to clock in, he was supposed to be given the number 668, but the human resources department at his company (Contech Casting, Inc.) miswrote it as 666.  Slonopas complained, and was reissued a new number.

Man, Satan must really want this guy.

Unlike in the Hyatt case, Slonopas says that he doesn't want his job back, because if he took it it would appear that he valued his job more than his faith.  "God is more important than money," he said, and added that he was sure that god would take care of him and his wife until he could find a new job.

As usual, I'm of two minds as to how to respond to all of this.  On the one hand, I'm all for the basic rule of "don't be an asshole."  Don't go out of your way to upset people, just on principle; respect others' rights to think differently than you do.

But there comes a time, I think, that people have to stop caving in to the crazy demands of zealots that everyone has to handle their Bronze Age mythology with kid gloves, that we all have to act as if it were true.  When will we start simply demanding that people act rationally?  "I'm sorry, Mr. Slonopas, if you don't file your taxes, you will be fined, just like any other American -- just because your W-2 was stamped with a number that gives you the heebie-jeebies doesn't mean that superstition trumps US tax law."

But my fear is that we, as a society, are still too afraid of religion to let that happen.  Courts, although designed to be as fair as possible, are run by humans and are subject to cultural and societal pressures.  If I were a betting man, I'd bet that any challenge to Mr. Slonopas' stance in the legal system will be found in his favor, on the basis of "religious freedom."

Which, despite my general "don't be an asshole" philosophy, leaves me feeling like this:

Charlie Fuqua and the implications of biblical literalism

I wonder how many folks outside of the state of Arkansas have heard of Charlie Fuqua.  Fuqua is a former state representative, and is seeking reelection to that position this year.  He is also, much to the chagrin of some of his supporters, the author of a book released this year called God's Law.

The reason that Fuqua's book has provoked such a fury of facepalming amongst his fellow Republicans is not, technically, that they don't agree with his views, which basically follow the conservative Christian, fundamentalist, biblical literalist pattern that so many of them espouse.  It's more that Fuqua did what you should never, ever, ever do  as a politician:

He told the truth regarding what those views imply.

Fuqua first landed himself in Huffington Post last week, when writer John Celock gave national exposure to a story from the Arkansas Times that had quoted Fuqua's book.  Fuqua wrote a nice long passage in his book that suggests creating laws in the US based on Deuteronomy 21:18-21:  "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Yes, people, you are understanding correctly: Fuqua wrote in his book that the USA should have laws that provide for the execution of rebellious children.

Now, wait, Fuqua says: it's not that I think it should happen all the time, fer Pete's sake:

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture [sic] provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents. 

Yup, Rep. Fuqua, that it would.  Respect through fear.  That's just the kind of relationship a parent should shoot for.  No wonder he won a "Friend of the Family" award from the Arkansas Christian Coalition, is it?

Of course, that's not the only repellent thing Fuqua said in his book.  Here are a few other gems:

• American citizens who are Muslims should all be deported.  To where isn't specified.
• Liberals are trying to overthrow the US government via "bloody revolution."
• Anyone who cannot support their children should be surgically sterilized.
• Anyone in the US who is not a Christian is, by definition, against the government, and they should be considered "conspirators" and "traitors" and dealt with accordingly.

What I find most interesting about this is not that Fuqua believes this (and has stated, for the record, "I think my views are fairly well-accepted by most people.").  It's that more people don't see that his views are simply the logical end result of biblical literalism.  Biblical literalists are usually quite good at cherry-picking a few of their favorite passages to support whatever cause they happen to be in the mood to rant about -- prohibitions on homosexuality, and the young-earth, anti-evolution stuff being two favorites.  They conveniently gloss over more dicey passages, such as the ones prohibiting anyone from eating shrimp or pork, the ones forbidding you to wear clothes made of cloth woven from two different kinds of thread, the ones expressly permitting slavery (as long as the slaves come from another country, which makes me wonder if I can own a Canadian), the one requiring that rape victims marry the rapist -- and the one mandating the stoning of rebellious children.  Fuqua isn't being crazy, as some people have said about him; he's merely being consistent.

It is mighty convenient, the way the vast majority of people who claim that the bible is the 100% true, literal word and law of god just ignore the passages that are unpleasant or troubling.  If anyone needed further proof that literalist Christianity demands an ethical code that is repulsive, bizarre, and inherently immoral, Fuqua and his ilk are it.  And as for the supposed fundamentalists who are squirming in their seats as they read the bits of Fuqua's book that aren't nice... well, I think you're the ones who have a bit of explaining to do.

Breaking news: The Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution!

Will Rogers once said, "If you find you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

This is a lesson that has apparently yet to sink in for some young-earth creationists who decided to get together and write a science textbook -- an endeavor that, in so many ways, resembles a bunch of ten-year-olds trying to stage a Broadway musical in their back yard.  (Source)

This particular crew turned out a book called Biology for Accelerated Christian Education, Incorporated, and (of course) the book harps continuously on the ideas that evolution is a great big lie, and that the Earth is only six thousand years old.  The consensus of thousands of trained research scientists is irrelevant in the face of the revealed truth of Genesis; in fact, there are hints of a huge anti-Christian conspiracy, funded by the secular left and (once again, of course) backed by Satan himself.  So far, all of this is fairly yawn-inducing, but for two things.

One of them is the new twist of using the Loch Ness Monster to disprove evolution.

I couldn't possibly make anything this bizarre up.  Here's the relevant passage, which I present here verbatim:

Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

In another lesson, the writers mention that a Japanese whaling vessel "caught what appears to be a small aquatic dinosaur."

So, what we have here is one mythological view of the world being used to prove another mythological view of the world, which would be funny except for the second thing: ACE-sponsored textbooks, including this one, are being used in some charter schools in Louisiana, which means that government-funded vouchers are being used to pay for this curriculum, and to teach it to children -- if you can call this teaching.  There you have it, folks: your tax dollars at work.

One thing that I was unclear on, however, was how Nessie (if she does exist) bears any kind of relevance to the truth of young-earth creationism.  Suppose dinosaurs did survive until the modern era; why does that mean that evolution is false?  Here's how it's explained by Jonny Scaramanga, an anti-fundamentalist activist who was subjected to an ACE curriculum as a child but fortunately came out with enough of his brain intact to be able to escape: "The 'Nessie claim' is presented as evidence that evolution couldn't have happened. The reason for that is they're saying if Noah's flood only happened 4000 years ago, which they believe literally happened, then possibly a sea monster survived.  If it was millions of years ago then that would be ridiculous. That's their logic. It's a common thing among creationists to believe in sea monsters."

Unsurprising, given what else they believe.  But as tortuous logic goes, this one beats anything else I've heard.  Having dug themselves into one hole -- abandoning the principles of scientific induction in favor of a Bronze-Age mythology for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever -- they continued to dig until they reached the further substratum of cryptozoology.  The horrifying thing is the number of people who are happily willing to join them in the pit, the government officials who are eager to fund the digging process -- and the thousands of children who are being dragged down there involuntarily in the name of "choice in education."