Robertson vs. Ham vs. science

You know it's gonna be a surreal day when Pat Robertson starts making sense.

Yup.  The same guy who said that the Haitian earthquake and Hurricane Katrina were punishments sent by god because of voodoo curses, and Americans' acceptance of abortions and homosexuality, respectively.  The same guy who said that kids shouldn't go trick-or-treating, because Halloween candy had been cursed by witches.  The same guy who used to claim that he could leg-press a Volkswagen.

A couple of days ago, Robertson announced on his show, The 700 Club, that James Ussher, the 17th century clergyman who gave us our current scientifically accepted date of 4004 B.C. as the time of the creation of the universe as per the Book of Genesis, was just... wrong.  He was responding to a woman who had written in saying that her children were in danger of walking away from god because they were questioning the bible -- all because some lousy science teacher had told them about dinosaurs:  [Source]

Look, I know people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher, God bless him, wasn't inspired by the Lord.  He said it all took six thousand years.  It just didn't.  You go back in time, you got radiocarbon dating, you got all of these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs, frozen in time up in the Dakotas, you've got Sue, that big... Tyrannosaurus Rex...  They're out there!  And so there was a time when there were these giant reptiles on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible, so don't try to cover it up and try to make like everything was six thousand years.  That's not the Bible, that's Bishop Ussher.  So... if you fight revealed science, you're going to lose your children.  I believe in telling it the way it was.

Predictably, the firestorm started immediately, with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum leading the fray.

"Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson," Ham said.  "Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists.  We don't need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.  I still shake my head at the number of church leaders who want to appease the secularists and accept their anti-God religion of millions of years and even molecules to man evolution.  Such leaders (including Pat Robertson) have a lot to answer to the Lord for one day.  Such leaders are guilty of putting stumbling blocks in the way of kids and adults in regards to believing God's Word and the gospel."

But despite the criticism of Ham and others, Pat Robertson's spokesperson announced, "Dr. Robertson stands by his words."

So.  Okay.  Is it too much to hope for that Pat Robertson has finally come to his senses?  Unfortunately, I think the answer is probably "yes," given that other broadcasts from The 700 Club this month have suggested that liberals "want death" because some of them support abortion and euthanasia, and that we atheists are trying to "steal Christmas" because we are "miserable and want to spread that misery around to others."  (As an aside, I don't know about you, but isn't the "war on Christmas" thing getting a bit old?  Most of the atheists I know give Christmas presents and attend Christmas parties, and many of them put up trees and lights and so on.  So for warriors, we're remarkably lazy, hedonistic ones.)

So I think that Robertson's momentary departure from the party line is only a glitch.  But still, it does give me hope.  If the obvious rationality of science can be evident, even through the fog of superstition, and even to a fire-breathing demagogue like Pat Robertson, maybe we rationalists have reason for optimism.

Boldly going where no one has gone before

One of the best things about science is that it is just so freakin' cool.  I think that's why I have never really understood aficionados of woo-woo; why do you need all the magic and quantum consciousness and chakras and ley lines and so on, when the real, verified science is so mind-blowingly amazing?

If you needed proof of that, consider the Alcubierre warp drive.  Yes, you read that right; warp drive, as in Star Trek.  Turns out that a Mexican physicist named Miguel Alcubierre proposed way back in 1994 that there might be a way to achieve faster-than-light travel by warping space-time behind, and in front of, a spaceship, and then riding the wave of that warped space-time in the fashion of a surfer being pushed much faster than the individual water molecules in a wave are traveling.

For those of you who know your physics, you're probably saying, "But wait... what about general relativity?"  Apparently, since within the (warped) space-time of the region around the spacecraft itself, no one is exceeding the cosmic speed limit of 300 million meters/sec (the speed of light in a vacuum), this does not break the rules -- even though Alcubierre thought that it might be possible to travel at speeds which, when viewed from the point of view of someone not on the spaceship, might allow Our Intrepid Crew to reach Alpha Centauri in a few weeks.  (Voyager, one of the fastest manmade vehicles ever constructed, would take 12,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri, if it were heading that direction, which it's not.)

The catch, however (and it's a big one), is that in order to warp space-time to this extent, Alcubierre found that it would take the mass-energy of Jupiter.  Yup -- to do this, you would need half a Jupiter's size chunk of ordinary matter, and an equal-sized chunk of antimatter, and allow them to mutually annihilate.  If you could do that in the right way, you could warp space in this fashion.

That's one hell of a big warp core.  I don't think even Scotty or Geordi LaForge could make that work.

But this hasn't discouraged scientists.  Recently, Harold White of NASA announced that if you took the warp bubble, and made it toroidal instead of flat, and oscillated it, you could achieve the same effect -- and reduce the mass-energy needed to less than 800 kilograms!  [Source]

Right as we speak, White and his team are trying to accomplish the same thing on a tiny scale -- seeing if they can distort space-time in the way Alcubierre predicted, using lasers.  They're looking for a one-part-in-ten-million disturbance.  But if they find it -- it confirms Alcubierre's predictions, and at that point the problem changes from being a theoretical one to being a technological one.

And, if history is any indicator, after that, it will only be a matter of time.

Or space-time, actually.

I think this is about the most exciting thing I've read in ages.  Despite the fact that I was a physics major in college, I don't pretend to understand the details of the theory; I very quickly got lost in the abstruse mathematics when I took a look at Alcubierre's paper.  But all I know is, if I could get to the nearest star system  in only a few weeks, I would be elbowing people out of my way to get to the front of the line.  Can you even imagine, landing on a planet orbiting another star?  For real?

Man, I think I just had a nerdgasm, there.

So, if White et al. end up with results, I think we know who our answer to Zefram Cochrane will be.  His name is Miguel Alcubierre, and I think we should make sure that he's the one who gets to shake the Vulcan's hand when they land on the Earth.

Make it so!

Faith, exorcism, and fraud

Following right on the heels of yesterday's post about sex with demons, today we have a story out of Ontario that a man has been charged with "pretending to practice witchcraft."  [Source]

The online Globe and Mail tells the story of a Mississauga man, Gustavo Valencia Gomez,  who self-publishes a Spanish language newspaper called El Negocia Redondo, wherein he advertised his services as a "healer."  He claimed to have three offices (in Toronto, London [Ontario], and Montreal) where he practiced his healing arts, and he would be happy to help you out... for a fee, of course.

Apparently, one woman came in complaining of various illnesses, and Gomez told her that she and her family were "cursed" and that he would perform rituals that would lift the curse if she would pay him $14,000.  Which she did.

But then the Canadian law enforcement got involved, and the next thing you know, Gomez was under arrest for fraud, false pretenses, and "pretending to practice witchcraft."

All right, so far, so good.  But my question is: what is the difference in the eyes of the law between "pretending" to practice a belief, and actually practicing a belief?

So, here we have Gomez, saying he'll perform rituals for you if you'll pay him.  The rituals are almost certainly useless, and have no basis in fact.  Gomez is arrested for fraud.  On the other hand, check your pharmacy shelves for homeopathic remedies, which are also useless and have no basis in fact.  On yet another hand (I have three hands), consider churches who claim that "god requires you to tithe" and strongly hints that you will be Naughty In God's Sight, and that god might well Smite You With His Mighty Fist, if you don't, yet another nonsensical claim that has no basis in fact.

Consider also sites like this one, wherein Reverend Cotton Marcus of the Church of St. Mark's has provided a handy questionnaire which will tell you what (if any demon) is possessing you.  Naturally, I had to take the test, and I know you will be as eager to find out my results as I was, so here they are:

You may be afflicted with a demon known as MIITAKK.
Miitakk is the demon of complacence and slothfulness – many initially afflicted with this demon stop making an effort in any aspect of their lives. Without exorcism or care of any kind those possessed by Miitakk will suffer from bedsores, atrophy of the limbs and other ailments of the immobile. Signs: often those possessed by Miitakk take on a nearly catatonic state, and it is difficult to get them to respond. However, if the afflicted is prodded too much, they can suddenly become violent. Touching cool water causes those possessed by this demon to feel a burning sensation.

I do get fairly annoyed when I'm prodded, and although I love to swim I hate cold water, which is why I don't tend to go swimming except during summer (next year summer in upstate New York is scheduled from July 21 through August 3, in case you want to plan ahead).  So that much is accurate.  However, I don't have bedsores, my limbs are not atrophied, I have never been catatonic, and I'm actually quite an active person.  So apparently "Miitakk" isn't doing his job very well, and should probably go back to hell and leave me in the hands of a different demon, preferably one that I could sell my soul to in exchange for perpetual youth, good looks, lots of money, and a Jaguar.

This questionnaire also brings up another important question, namely: who the hell names their son "Cotton?"  Did Mr. and Mrs. Marcus look at their newborn baby boy, and say, "I know!  Let's name him after the guy who was responsible for hanging the witches in Salem, Massachusetts!  That'd be an awesome name!"

However, all of that is not why I included the Church of St. Mark's website in this post.  The reason that I bring up this site is that alongside the questionnaire, there are other links you can follow, including "How to avoid demon possession," "A brief history of exorcism," and "Exorcism application form" -- and there is also one called, "Exorcism supplies: BUY NOW.  PROTECT YOURSELF and others from demons."  So, naturally, I had to click it, and I found that the "exorcism supplies" were mainly crucifixes in various sizes and materials, and ran from the economy model ($24) to the deluxe, all the bells-and-whistles model ($106).  So, here's my question:

How is this any different from what Gustavo Gomez was doing?  How can poor Gomez be guilty of fraud, and Reverend Cotton Marcus isn't?  Nor, apparently, are the homeopaths, or mediums, or astrologers, or crystal-energy-chakra people, or any of a hundred other practitioners of woo-woo who make goofy claims, legally.  What, pray, distinguishes between them?  Because of course, all of these people, just like Gomez, swear that their cures will work, if only you'll open your heart and your pocketbook simultaneously -- and none of them have the least basis in fact.

Now, don't misunderstand me; I'm quite sure that the Canadian police are correct, and that Gomez is a fraud.  But once you start calling faith-based, evidence-free claims "fraud," where do you stop? 

Well, I know where I stop, or more accurately, where I don't stop.  But I just wonder if the Canadian law enforcement realizes what a can of worms it's opened.

Poe's law, absurd beliefs, and demon sex

There's this idea called "Poe's Law."  Named after Nathan Poe, the first person to set it down as a rule of thumb (although certainly not the first person to notice the phenomenon), Poe's Law states that a sufficiently well-done parody of a ridiculous or extreme belief is indistinguishable from the belief it is parodying.

Poe's Law, coupled with a lack of rigorous research, almost certainly explains how comedian Stephen Colbert got invited to be the keynote speaker at the Presidential Press Dinner during George W. Bush's presidency, probably selected by a staffer who was fired one microsecond into Colbert's speech, and whose job is now giving rectal exams to walruses in Barrow, Alaska.  The speech was a combination of funny and excruciating, as he stayed in his ultraconservative persona for a full twelve minutes while slyly lambasting the president, vice president, Chief Justice Scalia, and just about every Republican politician in office at the time -- right in front of their faces.  Poe's Law also explains how stories on the political parody site The Onion have suckered real, legitimate news reporters from Pravda and Xinhua, and have more than once spawned outrage (remember the firestorm that occurred when a story on The Onion claimed that the last Harry Potter movie was being split into seven separate films?).

So, parody, when done well, can fool you.  But that is part of what parody's function is, isn't it?  It's to take every flaw, every foible, every odd claim, every trope of what's being parodied, and exaggerate it just enough to make it look ridiculous.  And done well, it can be a powerful force for showing crazy beliefs for what they are.

The problem is, of course, that Poe's Law also works the other way.  A sufficiently crazy (but seriously held) belief can be so out there, so bizarre, that it looks like a parody.  We read about it, and stop, smile a little, and say, "No... really?  No, come on, no one can possibly believe that."

The problem is yes, often, someone -- and a lot of someones -- do believe that.   Fervently.

I ran into a perfect example of this yesterday, in the online magazine Charisma.  Far from being what it sounds like -- a magazine about romance, makeup, clothing, or something of the sort -- Charisma is a magazine featuring stories by, and about, devout Christians.  From their "About" page:

To passionate, Spirit-filled Christians, Charisma is the leading charismatic media source that inspires them to radically change their world. Since 1975, Charisma magazine has been a trusted source of news, teaching and inspiration to help spread the gospel of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

As the voice of the charismatic movement, Charisma has steadily combined award-winning news coverage of what the Holy Spirit is doing around the world with relevant, timely messages from leaders in the Spirit-empowered community. Yet even from its earliest days, Charisma has always been about more than what's on the pages of a monthly magazine.

All of which sounds like pretty standard Christian fare -- until you start looking at specific articles, many of which fall into the "Backing away slowly, keeping my eyes on you the entire time" category.  In fact, the article that I came across yesterday on their website is entitled, "Can You Be Raped By The Devil?"

Well, I'm sure you've already guessed that just by having this question as the title of the article, the author, Cedric Harmon, thinks the answer is "yes, of course."  It is, he says, "more common than you think."  (Well, given that I think the number of times it has happened is zero...)  To research this phenomenon, Harmon interviewed Contessa Adams, a stripper turned devout Christian who thinks she had sex with a demon not just once, but many times.  "Unless you're strong enough to rebuke it, they'll keep coming back," she says.  "You must speak the Word of God, knowing you have power in the name of Jesus."

So, what is the consequence of all of this satanic bow-chicka-bow-wow?  Harmon says that when people are tricked into having demon sex, it can change them in a variety of ways:

• It can make you not want to have sex with an actual human.  Demons, apparently, are that good.
• It can lead you to practicing voodoo or Santería.
• It can make you a homosexual.

Yes, dear readers, you read that right; Harmon believes that one way a person becomes gay is by fornicating with a demon.

I think this was the point that I did the "No... really?" thing.  Was this a parody, slipped into Charisma magazine by a parodist to see how absurd a belief they'd actually print?  The answer, apparently, is "No."  It appears that however absurd it sounds, Harmon seriously believes this stuff -- and so do many (although, thankfully, not all) of the people who left comments on the story.  As frightening as this is to me, there are people who read this sort of thing, and basically say, "Oh, of course.  That makes complete sense."

The eminent evolutionary biologist and science writer P. Z. Myers, in his awesome blog Pharyngula, recently wrote a piece called "No More Poes" in which he says:

I heard several announce “He’s a poe” or “he must be a poe”. Dear god, but I’m sick of that stupid word. It’s become a standard response to batty stupidity — lately, it doesn’t matter how ordinary a comment is or who said it or how well verified it is — there’s always someone in the crowd who has to show off how insightful or cynical they are by declaring that it must be a pretense.

Look, people, we live in a country with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Joseph Farah as prominent media sources; where Akin and Broun and Jindal get elected to high office; where every newspaper is full of common folk writing in to complain about those gays or those socialist commies or those egghead liberals. There is nothing unlikely or unbelievable about a down-home ministry that announces you’ll go to hell for believing in science. Bat-buggering bullshit is routine.

If you needed a good example of exactly that, look no further than Charisma magazine.  Parody, after all, is hardly needed when the people in question have descended so far into absurdity that they seem to be engaged in self-parody.

The Beast of Tunbridge Wells

Following on the heels of yesterday's post about Dr. Melba Ketchum and the maybe-perhaps-sort-of confirmation of Sasquatch DNA from a hair sample, we now have a story wherein the Brits (not to be outdone by a bunch of upstart Americans) are claiming their own Bigfoot-clone.  [Source]

Nicknamed "The Beast of Tunbridge Wells," this cryptid is described as an eight-foot-tall beast, human-shaped but covered with hair, with "long arms" and "demonic red eyes."  Some locals are afraid to go outside at night because there have been so many sightings in the past six months; but the story claims that the thing has been seen for seventy or more years, and describe a sighting that occurred in 1942 and was told to a "man named Graham S."

Well, far be it from me to doubt any anecdotal reports from "a man named Graham S.," but let me just interject a bit of a science lesson that may raise some questions in your mind.

There's a concept in ecology called "minimum viable population."  This is the number of organisms needed in a population to assure that (assuming nothing changes) the birth rate equals or exceeds the death rate.  It is quite difficult to estimate, and depends on a great many factors, including the number of offspring per mating, mortality in the young, dependency on available resources, size of the territory, and so on.  To give two extreme examples that will illustrate this:  the MVP for mosquitoes is probably pretty damn close to two, as long as one was male and one was female, and they were near enough to find each other and had a source of food and water.  Mosquitoes can produce so many young from one mating that it's likely you could rebuild a sizable population in short order from those two survivors.  Elephants, on the other hand, reproduce very slowly, and the young are slow to reach sexual maturity; in order to have a population large enough for the birth rate to equal or exceed the death rate (from natural causes, predators, poaching, and so on), you would need hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individuals in the population.

Get it?  Now, let's consider how many Britsquatches we'd need to have a viable, sustainable population.

To get a handle on this, I referred to the paper "Estimates of Minimum Viable Population Sizes for Vertebrates and Factors Influencing Those Estimates," by David Reed, Julian O'Grady, Barry Brook, Jonathan Ballou, and Richard Frankham, which appeared in the Journal of Biological Conservation in 2003.  The paper is lucidly written but relies on some rather specialized models and technical mathematics; if you want to give it a go, you can access it here.  The main thing of interest for our purposes is in the Appendix, wherein Reed et al. use their techniques to make an upper and lower bound estimate for MVP; the lower bound is just using raw birth and death rates, the upper bound generated from a mathematical formula that estimates the number of individuals required to give a 99% likelihood of the population sustaining for forty generations.  Interestingly, there is a large primate species listed -- the Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei).  And Reed et al. place the lower bound for MVP for the Mountain Gorilla at 849, and the upper bound at somewhat over 11,000 individuals.

So assuming the Tunbridge Britsquatch (Sasquatchius anglicus kentei) has a similar MVP, and has been wandering about the highways and byways of southeastern England since time immemorial (or at least since 1942), you can't just claim that there are two, or four, or even a dozen of them... you have to believe that there are thousands.

Maybe some of my readers live in southeastern England, and might be able to explain how there could be a thousand (or more) eight-foot-tall hairy hominids hiding out down there, doing all the things animals do -- feeding (and an animal that size would need a lot of food), making noise, sleeping, mating, dying, and so on -- and they've only been seen a handful of times near Tunbridge Wells.  That such a thing could happen in the trackless woods of the Pacific Northwest, or the icy reaches of the Himalayas, I might be able to believe.

But Kent?  Really?

I'm sorry, but this just sounds preposterous to me.  As much as I'd love to see some cryptid discovered, and confirmed by science, I'm betting this won't be the one.  In fact, I think what we should be doing is looking for some prankster in Tunbridge Wells with a gorilla suit.

Bigfoot exists!... or, how science is not done

Well, the cryptozoological world has been buzzing the last few days about a press release from (in)famous Dr. Melba Ketchum, who has announced that her team has proven that DNA from a hair sample is from a non-human hominin species:

Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.

Hominins are members of the taxonomic grouping Hominini, which includes all members of the genus Homo. Genetic testing has already ruled out Homo neanderthalis and the Denisova hominin as contributors to Sasquatch mtDNA or nuDNA. The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual.

Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.

Well, that's just fine and dandy, but it's not really going to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced.  Because this, unfortunately, is not how good science is published.

This is, perhaps, the biggest misunderstanding about science on the part of the general public.  People have this sense that scientists go out and make discoveries, write them up, and the next thing you know, it's all over the "Science" section of Time magazine.  In fact, the first thing that should happen is peer review -- the data, methodology, and conclusions should be spread out for others in the field to take their best shots at.  Were the techniques used appropriate to the study?  Does the data unambiguously support the conclusion, or is there another conclusion (or more than one) that could be drawn?  Were reasonable controls in place to guard against bias, false positives, or sample contamination?

At that point, assuming that all went well with the peer review process, you trumpet your results to the public.  But not before.  In fact, that's been the problem all along with this study; hints and allegations were being made almost a year ago that the team had found something amazing, but the hard facts -- the actual data -- were shrouded in secrecy.  Months went by, and all we got were further teasers.  The whole thing was handled so as to maximize public hype -- rather like the whole kerfuffle over the "Baltic Sea Anomaly" (and notice how we haven't heard anything more about this non-story?).

Now, I'm not saying they haven't discovered anything; Melba Ketchum is a geneticist of excellent credentials, apparently, and it's hard to fathom why a reputable scientist would risk her career if there wasn't something real here.  (Although I am, reluctantly, reminded of the debacle over "cold fusion" that was handled in much the same way -- and the resultant irreparable damage done to the reputations of the two physicists responsible, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.)  What I am saying is that what has been released thus far isn't going to convince anyone who holds support of scientific discoveries to any usual standard of rigor.  So, predictably, the main ones who are greeting this press release with joyous shouts of acclamation are the ones who already believed Bigfoot was real before the study was even done.  Most of the rest of us are still sitting here, saying, "Okay, Dr. Ketchum, that's nice.  Now show us the goods."

This will, of course, earn more criticism for scientists and skeptics as being "closed-minded."  Actually, closed-minded is exactly what we're not; we haven't made our minds up at all, not until we've seen how the conclusions were reached, and whether the data support them.  It is to be hoped that Dr. Ketchum et al. will release more of their results into the peer-review system soon -- because until then, I'm afraid the response on the part of the rest of the scientific world will be lukewarm at best.

Franklin Graham, Islamic fundamentalists, and acting as God's mouthpiece

One of the (many) things I find mystifying about the very religious is their tendency to think that God agrees with them.

Not, mind you, that they agree with God.  Once you've accepted that some deity's dictum is your ultimate guide to life (whether it be the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or whatever), it isn't strange at all that you would then follow the rules to the best of your ability.  So although I do wonder what could lead anyone to accept that a self-contradictory text that was pretty clearly written by people is the infallible, literal word of God, I see how (once you've done that) it becomes unassailable.

What is more curious is how many of the same people who think that God has spoken to humanity through a revelatory book then make the further leap that any other thing they believe must be God's opinion, too.  I've commented before on the wild meanderings of Pat Robertson, who (for example) decided that the people of Haiti were sent the devastating earthquake of 2010 because of their history of practicing voodoo.  The upshot of most of Reverend Pat's pronouncements is that God has decided opinions on what should be done about the wickedness of the world, and coincidentally, those agree exactly with what Reverend Pat himself would do, if he were God.

The latest in this long line of people who seem to feel like their whims must be God's whims as well is Franklin Graham, son of the iconic evangelical leader Reverend Billy Graham.  Now, while I don't agree much with Billy Graham's philosophical and political positions, I've always thought he was a good man, who tempered his religious fervor with a genuine love for humanity and a sense that he should follow Jesus' command to render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.  Billy's son Franklin, however, doesn't seem to be restrained by any such understanding, as was evidenced by a recent interview he granted to Newsmax.com, and which was summarized here.

"In the last four years, we have begun to turn our backs on God," Graham said, in an obvious shot at the Obama adminsitration. "We have taken God out of our education system.  We have taken him out of government.  You have lawyers that sue you every time you mention the name of Jesus Christ in any kind of a public forum."  He went on to say, in a remarkable echo of Reverend Pat, that because of all of this God will visit upon America "a complete economic collapse" in order to bring us back to the "path to godliness."

I very much get the impression here that all of the fire-and-brimstone he's putting into God's mouth, and his prediction that God will smite the American economy with his Mighty Fist to teach us a valuable lesson, is not something he's abstracted from reading the Bible, but is what Franklin Graham would like to see happen because of his own particular bent toward Christian fundamentalism and political conservatism.  It's peculiar to observe someone who has so identified himself with the holy writ that he feels that he has the duty to pronounce God's word to the people -- as if he had become the mouthpiece of the deity, as if every word he said must be God's opinion as well.

This is a completely baffling stance to me, and I say that not only because I'm a secular atheist, but because I know how often I get things wrong.  I am far from infallible -- there are (many) topics about which I am partially or totally ignorant, I think illogically sometimes, I come to false conclusions.  Human minds only take you so far; our task, as far as I can see, is to hone and train our brains insofar as is possible, and always remember that we might not be seeing the picture correctly.  But what if you felt like you had, for one reason or another, a direct pipeline to the mind of God?  You would no longer doubt anything that came into your brain; surely God put it there, right?  You would lose that sense of perspective that keeps us all moving forward in our understanding of how the world actually works; and you would, scarily, have an instant justification for any action you took, any words you uttered.  Franklin Graham, I think, has crossed that line -- and that puts him in the same category as the British Islamists who just yesterday announced a fatwa against Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai.  [Source]

I find the whole thing bizarre and frightening.  That anyone can stand up in a public forum, and say, "I know what God wants," without the entire audience simultaneously shouting, "How the hell do you know what God wants?" is deeply puzzling to me.  But, oddly, that does not seem to be a very common reaction.  Many people, for some reason, want a figure to act as God's spokesperson, and the question, "But what if he's got it wrong?" never seems to occur to them.