The “Brights” outsmart themselves again

Apparently this “Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth” graph is supposed to prove that the lack of widespread support for Darwinian evolution in the U.S. is directly tied to our per capita GDP.  I saw this at a site that worships secularism plus another site that thought the graph was “brilliant.” Then I Googled it and realized that it got virtual high-five’s at a bunch of atheist sites, including those of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

Carefully consider what it shows, then let’s see what it proves.  I think you’ll see a triple-fail of cherry-picking data points that (allegedly) support your cause, a confusion of correlation vs. causation and an ironic misreading of the results.

Here’s what the graph really proves: That people predisposed to cheer on Darwinian evolution (or their pet topic) will be quick to grab something that seems to prove their point.  That is something we should all be wary of.

First, think of some of the Middle Eastern countries left off the list.  They have roughly zero belief in evolution and high GDP per capita.  That’s odd how the graph’s author forgot those, eh?  Deliberately ignoring key data points is cheating.

Next, the graph shows that the author and those who revel in his work were not taught the distinction between causation and correlation. Just because the U.S. has a lower percentage of belief in evolution doesn’t mean that is what drove our GDP per person (did I really have to just type that?!).

You could draw endless conclusions to prove your points playing this game. Here’s a freebie: Compare belief in Darwinian evolution to which country has the most military power, then draw a graph. Wow, the skeptics of Darwinian evolution must be right!  We’re the most powerful, and by Darwinian definition we are the most fit!

Finally, it isn’t like the U.S. trails the pack.  We’re #2 after Norway, and I doubt that many people think the only reason Norway is better is because of their evolutionary beliefs.  If anything, you should draw the conclusion that we are better off because we don’t drink the Darwinian Kool-Aid.

What a train wreck of bad thinking!  It seriously fails on three levels but was all the rage on many Darwinian sites.

If the author of the graphs and its supporters came from the same environment, then perhaps that would be reason to mock that educational model.  Darwinian dogma has dominated public schools, government, media and entertainment in the U.S. for decades, yet it still hasn’t convinced us.  So those entities have all failed and/or we just have better critical thinking skills to analyze important topics like this.

Sort of like how we understand the difference between causation and correlation.

It is a sad sort of irony: They think they are more logical, but they do things like this over and over.  Remember, these are the same type of folks pushing the global climate change hoax.

There is one important take away from this graph: The remarkably high percentage of “Brights” who reflexively and uncritically trumpeted it as evidence for their view.  This helps me understand why they are so passionate about their other “scientific” claims.

P.S. If you want some more real science and logic see this post on the cosmological argument.

Atheist on atheist violence

OK, not violence, but a little smack-talk where a fellow atheist Oxford don takes Richard Dawkins to task for being scared to debate William Lane Craig.  Via New vid uses authentic clips to taunt Richard Dawkins for refusing to debate William Lane Craig | Uncommon Descent.

Watch and enjoy.

Hey, I won the Uncommon Descent contest!

Via Uncommon Descent Contest: What do we call people who refuse to read books they are attacking?  The idea was to come up with a pithy term for critics of Intelligent Design who slam books without reading them.  It isn’t just your random Amazon reviewer, either.  Even leading Darwnists do it, although to PZ Myers’ sort-of credit, he threatened to read one of the books — so take that!

The second award offer in the recent contest, a copy of Don Johnson’s Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability, asks “What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?”

It goes to homerj1 at 3 for

The review is a noview and the reviewer is a noviewer.

This won because it can be used effortlessly in a sentence, as in:

Prof. Retro Darwin’s noview of biochemist Michael Behe’s latest  …

Rev. Darwin Santa, noviewer of Steve Meyer’s …

Recently, Dimbo Darwin, science writer, noviewed Bill Dembski’s latest …

Ease of use is important. And dropping the pretense of reading makes for more honest communication: He didn’t read it because he wouldn’t like it and wouldn’t learn anything from it, plus he can find an audience who wants to hear from him for precisely that reason. Don’t forget how many people out there know they are “for science” because they believe any nonsense talked in Darwin’s name.

While I’m glad to have won and to have a tiny part in ID slang history, I thought “re-skewer” or “hypocritic” would win.  But I’m keeping the book.

This is a two-way street, of course.  We should give 5 stars on Amazon to pro-Christian books if we haven’t read them.

P.S. I suspect that most of those who gave 1 start to Ann Coulter’s new book are noviewers as well.

Noviewers, not reviewers

Uncommon Descent has a contest where they ask, “Why do people refuse to read books they are attacking?“  It is about critics of Intelligent Design who don’t even read books before trashing them.  (To PZ Myers’ sort-of credit, he threatened to read one of the books — so take that!)

Here are the questions and my suggestions, which already concede that the ID-critic community not only permits such behavior but seems to encourage it (all in the name of science, eh?):

1. Why would a scientist or scholar actually volunteer to do it?

Assuming original sin is too broad, I’ll go with one of these:

A. He loves his worldview more than his integrity.

B. He hasn’t evolved enough to have intellectual honesty.

2. What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?

The review is a noview and the reviewer is a noviewer.

Roundup

From the shadenfreude department, some Darwinian on Darwinian verbal violence – aka, PZ Myers reaps what he sowed.

—

Ten resources to help you defend the resurrection of Jesus as history

—

If Canada’s Bill C-389 passes, transgenderism will be taught in kindergarten – coming soon to a country near you.  This is the logical consequence of turning sexual preferences into civil rights.  It is child abuse to teach kindergarteners that they aren’t “really” boys or girls.  These people should be in jail.

—

New study links father absence to increased bullying – so when people want to reduce bullying in schools across the board – instead of just protecting their favored students – remind them how important stable one man / one woman families are.

—

The top three books that helped change me from a mindless, irrational Darwinist into an ID proponent

—

War and killing – excellent overview of the biblical view

—

Union Fights to Force You into Obamacre While Getting Waivers for Itself – one more reason to dislike unions and Obamacare.  Unions fought hard to make you pay for this but are opting out themselves.  If it is such a swell program, why aren’t they excited to be in it?  If they don’t like it, why did they lobby for it?  This is politics at its worst.

—

EPA Issues First Waiver For New Greenhouse Gas Regulations – shockingly, it goes to a major Obama supporter and a recipient of major government spending.  Where are the Halliburton haters now?

—

Another thing you won’t get from the mainstream media: How The CDC Coverup Now Turns to Bureaucratic Panic when they were caught hiding abortion data.

—

More Assaults From the Supporters of the Homosexual Agenda – be sure to eat more chicken (at Chik-Fil-A, a restaurant with excellent governance that treats its employees well).

—

‘House of Horrors’ abortionist made over $1.8 million/year, now claims to be broke — apparently abortion pays pretty well for those selfless heroes.

According to the grand jury report, a search of Gosnell’s Philadelphia home uncovered $240,000 in cash and a gun hidden in a filing cabinet in his 12-year-old daughter’s bedroom.  Other than that, his income appears to be unaccounted for except for his assets and real estate investments. “The money’s unaccounted for,” District Attorney Joanne Pescatore told the Inquirer. “The only thing we know about is the money taken out of the house.”

According to the Inquirer report, Gosnell and his wife own seventeen properties, a motorboat, a Dodge Durango, a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Ford Expedition.

Despite these assets, Gosnell now claims to be broke . . .

 

—

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Interview with atheist PZ Myers: Pure self-parody

See Evolution News & Views: New Atheist Atheology for Michael Egnor’s interview with and commentary about New Atheist PZ Myers.  As the Wintry Knight noted,

First, I should say that if you don’t know who P.Z. Myers is, you should know that he is an incredibly arrogant and vulgar internet atheist. He is very popular on the Internet with atheists because of his foaming-at-the-mouth, howling-at-the-moon ranting against intelligent design, theism in general and Christianity in particular.

Anyway, Myers is interviewed by Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon and professor of pediatrics, who appeared in the movie “Expelled”. He asks P.Z. Myers questions about the New Atheism, then comments on Myers’ answers.

Here’s a sample:

7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)

Myers’ answer: It doesn’t.  

My answer: Of course objective Moral Law exists. It exists in itself, and we all know that it does. The risible New Atheist assertion that the Moral Law is merely a product of evolution, like earwax, is so far removed from genuine insight that it’s difficult to satirize, let alone defend. Moral Law doesn’t exist? Then why is Richard Dawkins suing fellow New Atheist Josh Timonen — who ran Dawkins’ online store — for embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars? If Moral Law isn’t an objective reality, what right has Dawkins to sue Timonen for merely struggling to survive? If Moral Law is merely an opinion, how can one man’s moral opinion (“it’s ok for me to take Richard Dawkins’ money”) be objectively wrong whereas another man’s opinion (“it’s right for me — Richard Dawkins — to keep my own money”) is objectively right? If the Moral Law doesn’t exist in itself, then all moral opinions are subjective and relative (that’s what “doesn’t exist in itself” means). Torturing babies? Carrying out the Final Solution for a pesky religious group? I think it’s wrong, but who am I to say what’s right for you?

To assert that it’s wrong or right for someone else to do anything is to assert that Moral Law has objective existence independent of individual men. To assert the moral rightness of Moral Relativism is to deny Moral Relativism.

The classical theist understanding of Moral Law is that it is an aspect of Natural Law, which is the manifestation of Divine Law in the natural world. Men have natural ends; human life is teleological. Our natural end is to know and love God, and obedience to Moral Law is part of the path to that end.

New Atheist denial of the objective existence of Moral Law is incoherent self-contradictory gibberish. If you want to know whether P.Z. Myers thinks that Moral Law has objective existence, steal something from him.

Myers can’t go three sentences without making a moral claim, but he denies objective morality.  His whole worldview is a farce.  If he really believed it then he’d “know” that Christians have no choice but to say and act as we do.  After all, if the universe is purely materialistic then the molecules in motion would be the cause of everything.  Nothing immaterial could exist.

Myers is a Romans 1 poster boy (and 1 Corinthians 3 as well).

Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

1 Corinthians 3:19–21 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men.

The conclusion of the link is nice:

New Atheism is an intellectual and moral vacuum. It’s all sneer, mockery, self-contradiction, and juvenilia. New Atheists aren’t defenders of “science and reason.” The inverse is true. They misrepresent science and reason for ideological ends. New Atheists have no answers to the fundamental questions of man. They don’t even have coherent attempts to answer the questions. They don’t understand the profound insights of classical theism. Most New Atheists don’t even understand the questions. And their nihilistic atheist superstition denies even the most basic imperatives of Moral Law.

This is the reason for the raging clash between atheists who are accomodationists and atheists who are confrontationalists. The accomodationists are just as clueless metaphysically, but they know a “framing” nightmare when they see it. Nihilistic Luddites like Myers and Dawkins and Coyne are exposing New Atheism for the intellectual fraud that it is.

Not that I have any problem with that.

 

Roundup

Why do blacks give 90% support to pro-choice politicians?  Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, was buddies with the KKK and aggressively sought to reduce the black population.  But you can totally trust Planned Parenthood today — er, uh, except for their serial statutory rape cover-ups and their destruction of blacks at a rate three times that of whites . . .

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

PP still uses “religious” leaders as useful idiots in advancing their culture of promiscuity and death.

—

Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings Hasn’t Been Fired Yet? – Nope. (Hat tip: The Other McCain)

This isn’t a gay/straight issue. It’s a *creepy, pervvy, cultural Marxist who recommends hardcore kiddie porn to school aged kids being put in charge of “Safe Schools” by Obama and their creepy defenders (Media Mutters)* issue.

—

How PBS uses your tax dollars to distort the evidence for evolution – they use selective images to imply that the appearance of similar embryonic shapes at a point in time somehow prove macro-evolution.  They should be de-funded for this and many other reasons.  If their supporters can’t keep them afloat without taxing those who oppose them then they should die off — you know, that survival of the fittest thing.  Funny how the evolutionists once again aren’t living consistently with their worldview.

What viewers may not know—and PBS does not tell them—is that the interactive exercise shows embryos midway through development. The earliest stages are systematically omitted.

—

Ann Coulter on airline security

An alien from the planet “Not Politically Correct” would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: “You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader — but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. … What? … What did I say?”

—

A great response to the canard that people who leave their spouses to pursue same-sex relationships are “brave”

• There’s nothing brave about marrying a woman when you know you prefer men.
• There’s nothing brave about being unfaithful to her with men.
• There’s nothing brave about taking solemn vows that you know you’re not likely to be able to keep.
• There’s nothing brave about telling your teammates when you know that if any of them express disapproval, warn you of the serious health consequences or even crack a joke they’ll be visited by the police and accused of a hate crime.
• There’s nothing brave about breaking your wife’s heart.
• There’s nothing brave about saying you’ve always been in love with her and are still in love with her when you plainly don’t understand what it means.
• There’s nothing brave about putting ‘the way I want to live my life’ above everybody else’s hurt.
• There’s nothing brave about treating sex as if it’s the most powerful thing in life that cannot be resisted and somehow justifies whatever you want to do.

—

PZ Myers is predictably confused about morality.  Again.  As with many postmoderns and atheists he insists there is no universal morality but can’t go three sentences without making moral claims.  In this case, he can’t even finish a single sentence without contradicting himself. 

In the absence of a god-given absolute morality, all that matters is how we treat one another in this one life we have. What flows naturally to me is not brutality, which requires an absence of awareness of the suffering of others, but recognition of the fact that my fellow human beings really are my equals: we’re all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life, and who am I to deny someone else the same opportunities I’ve been given?

Who “gave” PZ those opportunities?  Things don’t give things, persons give things.  And of course, he is pro-abortion.  What a wonderful way to “treat one another in this one life we have.”

Roundup of stuff the Old Media probably won’t tell you

Cash for Grades?

That controversial “cash for grades” fund raiser at a North Carolina middle school didn’t last too long.

After the scheme to award extra points on tests for $20 appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer, Wayne County district officials today killed the Rosewood Middle School fund raiser.

As easy as it is to mock this school district (what were they thinking?!), my daughters’ schools used to do the same thing, albeit with a middleman of sorts. They would get bonus points for bringing in various things such as supplies for the school. It wasn’t a direct cash payment, but my wallet couldn’t tell the difference.

—

Ex-Planned Parenthood Director given cold should at her church — how ironic that her pro-choice “church” doesn’t approve of her choice to quit PP and expose the truth about abortions.  Maybe those folks should participate in an abortion and watch it on the ultrasound. 

—

Chinese researchers find that abortion results in 17% increased risk of breast cancer – anyone seen any counterpoints to this?  I know the breast cancer link debate is controversial, with each side thinking it has trump-card studies. 

—

PZ Myers has such poor critical thinking skills when it comes to God and morality.  He rants at length as to why there is no such thing as true morality, but like most people positing that he can’t go a paragraph without a moral claim.  He definitely thinks intolerance is wrong.  I tend to agree, if one properly understands the classic definition of the word, but my claim would be consistent with my worldview while his is self-mockery.

Notice his outrage over Christians labeling homosexual behavior as a sin. Well, if there is no real morality saying it is sinful then there is also no real morality saying that it is wrong to call it a sin. He has 0.00 reasons to criticize the morality of Christians.  It is so ironic that they can’t see their hypocrisy.  What a delusional self-parody.  Methinks he doth protest too much.

—

Former Gay Youth Leader Re-Emerges to Tell His Dramatic Conversion Story – another one of those (allegedly) non-existent people.

—

What causes homosexuality? Is there a gay gene?

—

Materialistic philosophy: A heaping mound of FAIL

. . . nobody will ever die from thinking God created the universe or having some doubts about the proposition that hydrogen is a substance which, if you leave it alone for 13.5 billion years, will turn into Angelina Jolie.

Mark Shea (Hat tip: regular commenter LCB)

By materialistic philosophy I don’t mean the “acquire all the things you can” way of life.  I mean the worldview that everything is material and that nothing is spiritual.  It is also called evolutionary, Darwinian, macro-evolutionary, naturalistic and other terms.  Think of it as the nothingness-to-molecules-to-man / elephant / fish / caterpillar-butterfly / etc. worldview (or just meditate on the opening quote).

This worldview has six fatal flaws:

1. It isn’t true.  The facts do not support it — the Cambrian explosion, the rarity of beneficial mutations, irreducible complexity, time required, and so much more.  Twisted facts and unethical suppression of tough questions and the truth prop up the worldview for now, but it is crumbling.

2. Even if evolution could happen the way materialists describe it, it doesn’t prove that it did happen that way.  Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it happened.  Darwinists commit this error daily.

3. Even if it did happen that way, it doesn’t prove that there isn’t a God.  Remember, macro-evolutionary theory  just tries to explain how life evolved.  Despite major efforts it can’t explain how chemicals came to life, let alone how the chemicals came into being in the first place.

This is the top error that people like Richard Dawkins make.  They are quick to assume that support for evolution disproves God’s existence.  Their transparent lack of logic just makes them poster boys for Romans 1.  They aren’t dispassionate scientists.  They are on a mission to ignore God and science is just their tool of choice.

Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

4. Even if it did happen that way and there is no God, then it is the cause of all religious beliefs, including my belief that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the facts agreed to by nearly all historians.  Therefore, pride about not being religious is illogical for materialists .

If all we are is a series of chemical reactions, then life is truly deterministic and I have no choice in any of my decisions.  My chemical makeup and circumstances fated me to go from atheism to Christianity.

5. Even if it did happen that way and there is no God, then there is zero grounding for morality.  Those are just chemical reactions making you think there is such a thing.  Of course, macro-evolutionists rarely go three sentences without making a moral claim, but that inconsistency doesn’t seem to trouble them.

6. Courtesy of commenter Bubba, I offer another fatal flaw:

[Materialistic naturalism] also cannot account for human rationality, which the supposedly rational atheists affirm even if they deny the reality of the moral law.

If human thoughts are merely the result of physical and chemical processes, then they can be no more rational than the by-products of other biological organs — the bile of the liver, or the carbon dioxide from the lungs.

And if human rationality is illusory, then we cannot draw any trustworthy conclusions about the world around us.

Materialism is ultimately an argument that all arguments are invalid, and the philosophy is therefore self-defeating.

Other than that, materialistic philosophy is a great idea.

To recap, materialist / macro-evolutionary / Darwinist philosophy fails because:

1. It is not supported by the evidence.
2. Even if it was possible it doesn’t mean it happened.
3. Even if it did happen it doesn’t disprove God’s existence.
4. Even if it did happen and there is no God then it “created” religious beliefs.
5. Even if it did happen and there is no God it doesn’t ground morality.
6. It can’t account for human rationality.  It selects for survival, not truth.

P.S. Here are some definitions from the good folks at Dictionary.com:

Materialism:  The philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Naturalism:  The view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.  The belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

A classically poor atheistic argument

PZ Myers, one of the “New Atheists” (just like the old ones except rude and lacking reasoning skills) plays the same tricks that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others do.   Richard Dawkins went on the radio show of Hugh Hewitt, who  Myers considers to be a “far right radio wingnut” and a “ridiculous puffed-up blowhard of very little brain.”  What a charming fellow this Myers chap is!  With winsome, well thought out arguments like that you have to know his scientific facts must be right as well. 

The main point of Myers’ post was to re-hash the classic double-play fallacy used by many atheists.  It hinges on the way they use the argument against miracles as synonymous with the argument against God. 

They pretend to be proving that God doesn’t exist, then they assume it and act shocked — shocked, I say! — that people of faith believe in miracles.  Then they dismiss the believers as idiots (just read as much of Myer’s comment thread as you can stomach) and act as if nothing they say can be believed.  See how Dawkins tries to play the game:

Richard Dawkins: Okay, do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?

Hugh Hewitt: Yes.

RD: You seriously do?

HH: Yes.

RD: You actually think that Jesus got water, and made all those molecules turn into wine?

HH: Yes.

RD: My God.

HH: Yes. My God, actually, not yours. But let me…

RD: I’ve realized the kind of person I’m dealing with now.

Note what Dawkins did: He assumed what he should be proving — namely, that God doesn’t exist.  And he turned it into a personal attack as well.  In addition, he probably lied, because unless he is a complete moron he already knew what Hewitt’s beliefs were.  My guess is that he pretended to just figure it out.

So Dawkins’ fallacies were carefully choreographed to demonize his ideological opponent and to pretend that he’d already proved that there is no God.  And Myers and his gang eat it up as if Dawkins actually accomplished something.  Aren’t they bright!

If they really think that this trick proves anything then they are as foolish as they claim Hewitt and other believers are.  If they know how ridiculous their arguments are yet they use them anyway then that demonstrates their lack of character.

Here’s another clip from the interview where Hewitt exposes more misstatements by Dawkins plus examples of Dawkins’ fear of real debates and more of his misstatements.