Recently a friend of mine had an exchange on the internet with an atheist during which he asked what compelling evidence for an omnipotent (supernatural) deity might change the atheist's mind. My friend received this answer in reply: If all the stars were rearranged in the sky to spell "this is God communicating with you" and that everyone around the world could see it in their own language at the same time, then that would really make me change my mind. It's a good thing, knowing the standard for evidence of God has been set so low! (For the tone deaf, that was practically dripping with sarcasm.) I wondered to myself: does this person apply the same level of skepticism to climate change, or the theory of evolution? Was this person even being serious? After all, sciency types and the evangelists of scientism like to huff and puff about insufficient evidence for belief in a supernatural God, but they typically become quite vague or absurd when asked what it would specifically take to pass their personal threshold of disbelief. Then I remembered the wisdom of G.K. Chesterton, who said, "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." At some point it occurred to me that this particular atheist might be thinking of author Douglas Adams as some sort of god. The evidence requested can be found on the pages of Adams's classic novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. However, in that hilarious book, God's message was not conveyed to humanity by reorganizing stars to spell words, … [Read more...]
Bill Nye, the sciency guy
Before I get started with this post, let me first say that I was a big fan of "Bill Nye, the Science Guy" when my kids were young -- anything remotely educational was better than "Pokemon" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" -- cartoons that weren't mercifully killing brain cells, they were torturing them to death. It's virtually impossible to dislike the public persona. As an added benefit was the catchy jingle for the show intro: "Bill Nye the science guy -- Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!" turned out to be infinitely more pleasant to have permanently etched into your brain than "...heroes on a half shell - Turtle power!" However, even back then I realized that Bill Nye was not actually a science guy, but a television personality playing the role of a science educator of young children. Bill Nye had been an engineer before he entered the world of entertainment as a stand-up comic. "Bill Nye the Science Guy" was literally born on a comedy ensemble show -- it was a character he created that turned out to be a long running joke that people now take very seriously. At a website called Big Think where Nye answers questions from viewers, he is listed in their roster of "experts" as Television Host and Science Educator -- and that catchy, rhyming title of "Bill Nye the Science Guy" appears to give him instant credibility. Basically, Bill Nye merely regurgitates what he's learned from reading popular science books and tries to sound really smart while occasionally reminding his followers that he once was a student of Carl Sagan, presumably to borrow from Sagan's credibility as … [Read more...]
Critical thinking versus indoctrination
I feel compelled to say something about an article published by American Thinker yesterday -- an article strangely critical of critical thinking, titled "The Great Critical Thinking Dodge." The article describes critical thinking as the means by which liberals "shut out and shout down" the scientific method but in my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. Liberal academics absolutely love the scientific method, and actually use it as a weapon to discourage critical thinking skills. Liberal teachers don't want to teach their students to think for themselves -- they want students to simply believe what they have been taught. In July of 1925 the Scopes Monkey Trial was held because critical thinking in schools was literally illegal -- students could only be taught creationism in science class, not Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. From September to November of 2005, the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was held because critical thinking is still illegal -- students can only be taught the theory of evolution in science (not philosophy) class, and teaching intelligent design is illegal. Apparently the goal of education isn't really to teach young people how to think, but what to believe. Indoctrination is not optional. Most people believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is true, well supported by copious amounts of scientific evidence. Biologist Jerry Coyne even wrote a book titled Why Evolution is True. An overwhelming consensus of biologists agree that the evidence is overwhelming. "Critical thinking" about the theory of evolution … [Read more...]
When Game of Thrones jumped the shark
SPOILER ALERT: if you haven't yet watched Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 5, titled "The Door," and you don't want to know any plot spoilers (yet), don't read any further. In the opinion of a majority of the show's audience, Happy Days became unwatchable when Fonzie jumped over a shark on water skis, taking the tough-guy persona from being somewhat difficult-to-believe well into the theater of the absurd. The idiom "jumping the shark" became famous soon thereafter, and was used to describe the point in any television series when far-fetched plot twists began being included merely for the sake of novelty, which tended to mark the beginning of a sharp decline in the show's quality of writing. To be brutally honest, I'm afraid that Game of Thrones jumped the shark in last night's episode. For whatever reason, I was reminded of that approximate point when Twin Peaks stopped being interesting, and started getting stupid. Now I suppose I'll eventually watch "Blood of my Blood" (the next installment in Game of Thrones) out of morbid curiosity, and the hope Ramsey Bolton might be killed off, but the plot twists in last night's episode pretty much ruined the plot line for the entire series, in my opinion. I don't know how the writers can fix it. In essence, Bran Stark learned that the Children had created the either the first White Walker or the Night's King by shoving what looked like a wooden blade deep into a captive human's chest. But then asked to explain why they had created the first White Walker, the spokesperson for the Children claimed that their reason … [Read more...]
Speciesism and Animal Liberation
Speciesism is a term used by so-called animal rights activists to belittle the belief a hierarchy exists within the animal kingdom, and that human beings are a superior form of life lording over the food chain. The extremists have decreed speciesism to be just as bad as racism or sexism. By their definition, I am a speciesist. To the average animal rights activist, a human being is just another animal -- nothing special. As People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) founder Ingrid Newkirk famously said, "When it comes to having a central nervous system and the ability to feel pain, hunger and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Therein lies my problem with PETA -- members of that organization obviously fail to recognize that the lives of some creatures are clearly more valuable than others. And on that critical point, I strongly beg to differ. Of course, Newkirk is right about one thing -- animals can feel pain. So what? Animals can get hungry, and thirsty, just like a human being. Yet when a human suffers a mortal or life-threatening wound, they often go into shock, which ultimately causes them to experience less pain. By the same token, why can't we assume the same thing happens with other animals, that they might also go into shock when death becomes imminent? The animal liberation movement began with noble intentions -- opposing the barbaric practice of using of kittens and puppies for laboratory testing or medical experiments. But a rat is vermin. A pig might be served for dinner. And a dog is man's best friend, as this story … [Read more...]
