One of my biggest concerns is the blatant inequality of wealth in many societies and how that often translates into total injustice. Those who are raised in wealthy families tend to remain wealthy. And where there is wealth, there is also power. Meanwhile, those who come from poor families tend to remain poor. Because there are a finite range of resources in any society, those who already have wealth also have access to the highest technologies sooner than others, thus enabling them to maintain and even increase their wealth still further at the expense of the impoverished. And I’m not just talking about individuals, but about nations as well. The United States is far, far richer than Afghanistan and will probably always remain so. Thus, while America is on the cutting edge of technology, the people of Afghanistan still live largely like they did a century ago, because they simply cannot afford the latest computers, cars, or private jets.In a capitalist economic system without any restraints, the rich will get richer and the poor remain poor until finally you have a few ultra rich and masses of the poor that will never have a chance to get better. And because cash flow then drops to minimal levels due to the tendency of the rich to hoard their fiances while the poor cannot even spend much money, the capitalist system collapses under its own weight.Karl Marx forsaw this. His mistake was to assume there was no way to prevent this and it was actually a good thing. Wrong! A restrained capitalism in which the government taxes the rich highly to prevent them accumulating too much wealth for themselves and does not tax the poor at all is both just and more productive in the long run. That is why I cringe whenever I heard about President Bush taking credit for his tax cuts for the wealthy helping the economy grow. Such growth will not last forever, of course. I’d rather have economic JUSTICE and STABILITY rather than merely GROWTH.
Why did Communism fail?
When I look at Communism, I see a system that had entirely good intentions in the beginning but also had flaws that became more and more obvious as it was put into practice. It is ironic to me that the proposed solution to the abuses of capitalism, resulting as they did from the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, was to take that wealth and power and transfer it all to the GOVERNMENT! That’s a bit like treating a burn by putting the burn victim into boiling water. So the whole point of Communism was a farce from the start, but those who followed it acted like religious fanatics, never allowing its contradictions to really impact their minds until it was too late. Yet they claimed to be atheists? What HYPOCRITES!!!
Communism failed because it had the same results as extreme capitalism, concentrating power in the hands of a few elitists. If the cure is as bad as the disease, why bother?
A critical test of common descent (evolution)
While there are ways to experimentally test the process of evolution, known as natural selection, by mimicking it artificially, ways to test the historical issue of evolution, known as common descent, must rely on making observations and making predictions of the outcome of those observations.Inside the cells of all Eukaryota (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) are organelles called mitochondria. Likewise, inside the cells of plants are organelles called chloroplasts. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and are thought to be descended from bacteria that took up residence inside the larger cells. In any case, the DNA in those organelles are completely different from the DNA in the nuclei of those same cells.
We can take the DNA of cell nuclei and check them to see if the differences between those of various organisms can enable us for build a family tree of those organisms. The more similar their nuclear DNA is, the more closely related they are. But since mitochondria and chloroplasts also have DNA, we could also take them and check to see if we could build up a family tree that is the same as the one we would build up with the nuclear DNA.
Indeed, there is no reason, if all life was produced by a single recent act of creation, for the DNA of the mitochondria of all animals to be significantly different from each other. So if I was a Creationist, especially of the young Earth kind, I would predict that it would be impossible to make a family tree from mitochondria DNA, or if I did, it would be completely different from the nuclear DNA. But if I was testing the theory of common decent, I would predict that the readings in animals of both their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA would produce the SAME FAMILY TREE in all cases! This would make perfect sense if the mitochondria and the rest of the cells have been evolving together ever since they first came together over a billion years ago.
Mitochondrial DNA is already used in forensics to determine who the mother of a child is, while nuclear DNA must be used to determine the father of that same child. This would only be an extension of that function, since the parents of the child must be of the same species, or at least very closely related, to even produce offspring at all.
Fired from a hosting job for NO LOGICAL REASON!
For the sake of privacy, I’m leaving real personal names completely out of this. Instead, I will use pseudonyms.
A Real Skeptic vs. a Denialist
A skeptic is defined as someone who reserves judgement on an issue until enough evidence is found to support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt and also clearly defines what would make him disbelieve a claim. This is scientific thinking.
By contrast, a denialist has no such defined limits, either of belief or disbelief. The denialist starts from a position of dogma, asserting opposition to an idea by presenting a contrary idea as absolute truth and interpreting all evidence according to that unalterable dogma, rather than draw conclusions based only on the evidence. This is the opposite of scientific thinking, although denialists often use scientific terminology to make their positions seem legitimate to fool the ignorant.
Denialism vs geuine skepticism is found in debates over evolution vs. Creationism, global warming, religion, and politics. If there were no denialists, most of those debates would have either ended long ago, or would be a lot more cordial than they tend to be.
Why the term “species” should be abolished
The term “species” has a clear definition in biology: a group of organisms that breed only among themselves and do not breed with members of any other group. Thus, as far as we can tell, humans are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens.
The lesser black backed gull and the herring gull of Britain, however, act like separate species, yet are connected to each other by a ring of subspecies that extend all around the Northern Hemisphere and can interbreed with their neighbors. So in the sense I stated above, the definition of species breaks down.
The issue of species also fails when asexual life forms are considered, including bacteria, most protists, a few populations of beetles, a population of lizards, and an entire class of rotifers called Bdelloidea. The lizards, beetles and rotifers in question are all females, while among the single celled organisms the issue of gender identity is meaningless.
Suppose we have a population of 400 asexually reproducing lizards which are genetically and physically almost identical. One at a glance would assume they are members of the same species. But because the lizards do not swap genes via sexual reproduction, they would just as well be considered 400 separate species.
The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs.
I would therefore argue that the term “species” is really useless and should be abolished completely, because it is a source of unnecessary confusion.
A racist blog on WordPress
Racism has always disturbed me, but I have discovered a blog that seems to take special delight in the suffering of white people, especially at the hands of black people.
http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/
This message celebrates the robbing and murder of a white girl by black men: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/families-savage-slave-history-avenged-in-pursejacking-slaying-of-privileged-daughter-by-slave-ancestor/
This message says that white girls are fit to be raped and murdered by black men: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/special-feature-its-the-new-in-thing-white-girls-the-black-death-by-sexual-torture-death-wish-was-channon-christian-emily-haddock-asking-for-it/
This message blames Jews for Micheal Jackson losing Neverland: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/michael-jackson-lashes-out-jews-stole-neverland/
This message pokes fun at white people’s skin: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/white-peoples-skin-looking-worse-worse/
This message attacks communication expert Dr Lillian Glass, calling her racist for no reason: http://ghettobraggingrights.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/dr-lillian-glass-thinks-all-blacks-look-alike-worse/
And I thought the Ku Klux Klan was hateful! This blog actually makes the Klan look respectable! And maybe that’s the actual point.
No one deserves “ghetto bragging rights”, whatever that means. The very idea is ridiculous. As human beings, we need to do all we can to lift each other up, not tear each other down. Indeed, I seriously doubt that blog was made by a person of African descent. It looks instead like the sort of thing a white racist would make to depict black people in the worst possible light. How sad.
The Absurdity of Denialism
I’d like to plug this blog, which is one of my favorites:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/
Denialism is defined and explained in some detail here:
A useless debate
The crazy thing about debating with Creationist hypocrites is that they have ZERO facts that actually support their case, but plenty of rhetorical tricks. I was reminded of that by a “Sirius Knott” who plastered some lame comments on one of my blogs. Here’s the confrontation between him (SK) and me (DH), for those who care to follow it:
Do NOT beat your kids!
The saying “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is a tragic misunderstanding of a passage of the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 13:24). The rod referred to that used by shepherds in ancient times to guide sheep to go in a certain direction, but NOT to ever BEAT them! Beating children with anything should be considered abuse, because adults are stronger than children. Therefore, the only thing kids can learn from being beaten is that bullying is acceptable and thus they can get ahead by bulling weaker and smaller people!
Amphibians as a Support for Evolution
I am always amused by Creationists’ denials that transitional forms exist among either fossil organisms or living species. After all, the definition of “transitional” depends on the existence and forms of two other organisms that the transitional form is being compared to. Thus Archeopteryx is called transitional because it has characteristics of both birds and theropod dinosaurs, which are reptiles. But if neither birds nor reptiles existed, then Archaeopteryx would not be transitional to anything.
It is the same with amphibians. Their very existence as a class is evidence of evolution, for they are clearly transitional between fishes (which are almost entirely confined to water, breath through gills, have fins instead of legs, and lay jelly-like eggs), and reptiles (which often have legs, can thrive even in dry deserts because they breath through lungs, and lay hard or leathery shelled eggs on land). Most amphibians as adults can live on land by walking on legs and breath air through lungs, but they lay eggs like those of fish and have a larval stage that lives in water and breaths through gills. So one could argue that a salamander is a modified fish or that a lizard is a modified salamander, thus regarding the salamander as a transitional form having characteristics of both.
One might also think a Creator of all living things from scratch would not bother to make animals with such lifestyles as amphibians. What would be the point, except to trick us into accepting evolution?
The forms of living amphibians also give us some insights into how evolution works:
- The Urodeles include the news and salamanders which have short and weak limbs, long bodies and tails, and a larval form that resembles the adult.
- Anuarans (frogs and toads) have very short bodies, powerful limbs, and no tails as adults, but have a very different larval form with a strong tail for swimming and no limbs. They are the most common amphibians.
- Gymnophiores, also known as caecilians, have no limbs at all and have extremely long bodies but little or no tail and live almost entirely underground. Indeed, they resemble giant earthworms.
It is easy to see how both frogs and caecilians could have evolved from salamanders by going in completely different directions. One might also suspect that salamanders are a transitional form between frogs and caecilians, but in fact the salamanders are the primitive forms most closely resembling the fish and lizards mentioned earlier, while the other amphibian forms resemble neither fish nor lizards, but are more specialized in their lifestyles.
Most fossil amphibians from the Devonian period to the Permian period have the form of salamanders, thus providing support for the hypothesis that salamanders are indeed the primitive form. In the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period, the giant amphibians that had been so common on the land disappeared. Later, one line of smaller amphibians developed into frogs in the Triassic period. Today, with so much competition from reptiles, birds and mammals, the smaller amphibians, numbering only 4,000 species, are a remnant of what the class once was.
Furious in error
I just found a blog that is so outlandish in its statements that I question the blogger’s mental state.
A clueless pro-America zealot
In the Care2 group titled Hot Debates and Shocking News, which is one of the oldest and most respected groups in Care2, a member named Simon W posted a link to a story about supermodel Naomi Campbell visiting Venezuela, ruled by Hugo Chavez, to check out the reforms he has made under his socialist government. While I find some of Chavez’s actions towards his political opponents highly questionable, I found it commendable that someone in America, rather than just take her government’s propaganda at face value, would actually go to Venezuela to check out the facts for herself. But this did not seem to impress one bigoted observer.
Tony S: i didn’t respect her much before … i certainly respect her less now … reminds me of the old billy martin line … ” one’s a born liar, the other convicted”
Later, he said: well i’m sure simon put this post up because he is a fan of chavez … but to me chavez is an enemy to the u.s. and a tyrant in his own country. campbell’s visit to me and other celebs who have gone there, just make me sick. well pretty much most of hollywood makes me sick. but to me it reminds me of hanoi jane cuddling up with the enemy .. maybe not that bad, but close. any visit gives him propaganda and a look of validation. and like i said … chavez is a born liar, campbell convicted… if these are hero’s to anyone that’s pretty sad.
So I answered him with one of my deadly “brief and to the point” replies.
Dale Husband: And you think Bush Jr is any better than Chavez, Tony S? If so, you are no less naive than Naomi Campbell.
Two different Christians and how I dealt with them.
I got into a debate over religion in a Care2 group that is specialized for such things. Based on some of my writings here, its easy for one to conclude that I despise all Christians and regard them as idiots. But in fact I never paint any group of people with the same brush. What’s my REAL problem with some religious people?
Why science education must be naturalistic
One of Creationists’ most serious objections to how science is taught to students in most public schools is that all supernatural explanations (miracles) are rejected out of hand, and this somehow limits the vision of scientists. But the truth is actually the opposite. To explain why, consider this scenario:
Supernatural explanation:
Child: Daddy, what causes lighting and thunder?
Father: God sends lightning bolts and thunder blasts to frighten people into submitting to His will.
Scientific explanation:
Child: Daddy, what causes lighting and thunder?
Father: Lightning is caused by unequal electric charges between two clouds or between a cloud and the ground causing a massive discharge of electricity. Thunder results from lightning heating the air and causing it to expand suddenly, producing powerful sound waves.
OK, Creationists, would you want BOTH these explanations taught in science classrooms regarding how weather occurs? Well that’s about as silly as requiring any form of Creationism taught alongside evolution! There is no evidence whatsoever that God directly causes lighting or thunder, and indeed such an idea might lead to the assumption that anyone struck by lighting was being punished by God. This is “magical thinking” which, if it had not been questioned centuries ago, would have prevented research into finding ways for people to avoid lighting by understanding how it behaves. Thus, any supernatural explanation, one that totally ignores or negates the known laws of physics and chemistry, would be no explanation at all, but merely an argument without evidence. And that is exactly why Creationism can never be scientific, but evolution is. Evolution is consistent with all known scientific laws, it is based on physical evidence, and it leads to more research. Acceptance of Creationism, or even the assumptions that allow for Creationism to be considered credible, would bring scientific advancement on almost any subject to a grinding halt, because you could then simply dismiss any unusual or complex phenomenon by saying “God did it, I believe that, so it’s settled”.
Therefore, there is no place for the supernatural in science education.
Why I quit the Baha’i Faith.
A decade ago, I was a member of a religion known as the Baha’i Faith. This religion teaches that God is called by various names but is still the same all over the world, that all religions teach the same basic message, and that humanity is one and is destined to unite under the banner of the Baha’i Faith in a new age of peace and unity.
The ultimate conflict between Judaism and Christianity
I am always sickened by those who claim that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is God’s Word and that it has no errors and does not contradict itself. Well, maybe if you exclude one of these two verses from it, that may be somewhat true. Otherwise, the Christian fundamentalists should SHUT UP!
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. – Deuteronomy 24:16
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. – Romans 5:8
Conclusion: PAUL WAS A TRAITOR TO THE TORAH! And NO Christian can claim to be a true spiritual descendant of the ancient Hebrews!
And it gets even worse! See this:
Bashing, criticism, and a lie of convenience
My friend Silly Old Bear (SOB) posted this excellent blog about the difference between criticism and bashing: http://dovaryeh.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/when-does-criticism-turn-into-bashing/
He then made a copy of that blog in Care2 and posted dozens of discussions of it in various Care2 groups:
Atheist Morality
This was taken from an anti-Creationist website:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/AtheistMorality.xhtml
One of the most popular creationist attacks upon evolution theory (and science in general) is the moral attack. As the argument goes, science, evolution theory, and atheists are immoral, so they must all be wrong. This is a bizarre and logically indefensible argument; there are a lot of things about nature which are brutal and which may strike us as immoral, but that doesn’t change the fact that they exist!
Even if we were to accept the nonsensical argument that a scientific theory can be judged by the morality of its proponents, would the “moral argument” hold water? In order to for it to hold water, one would have to first show that atheists are immoral, and not only have creationists never produced a shred of evidence, but they’ve never even tried. As far as they’re concerned, it’s an unquestionable truth and no evidence is required.
In “1984”, George Orwell’s totalitarian state altered the language and created “NewSpeak” because its leaders understood that if you can control the language, you can control the way people think. Did Orwell invent that idea? Hardly. Any student of the English language can see that this is precisely how religionists have been subtly influencing people’s thinking for centuries. The growth of the English language has taken place under the care of evangelical Christians, and it should come as no surprise that it was deliberately designed to glorify religion and vilify rationalism. The word “materialism” refers to the idea that the material universe is all that exists (ie- the atheist viewpoint), but it is also synonymous with greed and selfishness. The word “faith” describes religion, but the word “faithful” describes trustworthiness and loyalty. In other words, the English language itself subtly reinforces the idea that religion is virtuous and atheism is immoral!
The English word “atheism” has a literal meaning, which is simply non-theism. Therefore, it is defined in most dictionaries as the absence of theism, or the refusal to believe in a God or gods. However, the Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 1992,1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company) still retains an older definition which happens to be quite convenient for the fundamentalist hate-mongers:
Atheism
Noun.
- Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
- The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
- Godlessness; immorality.
Did you notice the third definition? According to the American Heritage Dictionary as of 1996, atheism is immorality! What is it about America that breeds Christian fundamentalism? Why should it surprise no one that the “American Heritage” dictionary still shows the ancient 18th century definition of atheism as “immorality”? Whatever the reasons, America is a land of overt hostility towards atheism, and the continued use of the above definition is only a minor symptom. Perhaps the Minnesota Atheists put it best:
“Religionists regularly slander atheists as immoral and it goes far beyond a difference of opinion. Because of our supposed immorality, for which no evidence is ever given, we are barred from admission to organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the VFW and the American Legion. We are insulted publicly by clergy of all faiths, who seem to consider us unworthy to be citizens of the United States. A climate of opinion is created in which the chances of a known atheist being elected to office, no matter how ethical and well qualified, are slim to none.”
They aren’t exaggerating. In the 2000 federal election, both prospective leaders loudly and repeatedly bragged about their piety, in an obvious attempt to court the religious bigot vote. Newsweek magazine commented that it doesn’t matter which religion a candidate belongs to, as long as he is religious. The notion that “religious piety = moral fortitude” is deeply ingrained into the public consciousness, and no one ever stops to consider how hateful its consequences are: if piety is morality, then a lack of piety (ie- atheism) must be immorality! And with that, millions of Americans are instantly slandered as immoral, perverse degenerates who are unfit to hold public office. In fact, the state of Texas is one of several states which has even enshrined this bigoted policy into law: its state constitution bars anyone from public office if he does not acknowledge the “existence of a Supreme Being”.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for religionists’ bizarre assumption that atheists are immoral, and while it would be considered hateful to make similar attacks upon Jews or Muslims, no one raises an eyebrow at this continued, public mistreatment of atheists. These pages were written with the goal of explaining, in some detail, the following points:
- Christians have been systematically rewriting history in order to pretend that Christianity versus Atheism is symbolic of Good versus Evil. We are never allowed to forget evil atheists (eg. Stalin), but evil Christians receive a distinctly different treatment. Their crimes are minimized or forgotten, and their religious affiliations are either concealed or misrepresented as atheism.
- You don’t need faith in God in order to be moral.
- Humanist morality is universal, while Biblical morality is not.
- Humanist sexual liberation is not the assault on family values that the fundamentalists seem to think it is.
- Humanists are no more likely to commit immoral acts than Christians.
Personal note by Dale Husband: My own experiences tend to support this. Athiests, as well as Christians, can be either enlightened or bigoted, and religious affiliation, or the lack thereof, seems to have nothing to do with one’s moral character.
The Blunder from Down Under
An Australian member of Care2 known as Freediver has been a pain in my @$$ for nearly 2 1/2 years. He is mentioned in this earlier blog of mine:
https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/three-opponents-three-different-results/
Among other disgraces, he opposes the teaching of evolution as science in high schools, favors the harvesting of wild animals as an alternative to eating meat from factory farmed livestock, and even champions whaling, which is totally unnecessary since all the things that whales provide can come from other sources, whether natural or artificial. His arrogant manner of expression is highly offensive to many other Care2 members, who see him as a useless buffoon. But he somehow is possessed by delusions of grandure typical of sociopaths.
Beauty, ugliness, and crossed wired thinking!
One of the ugliest incidents I’ve ever seen in the Care2 web community started over…..beauty pageants!
The Absurdity of the Iraq War
What the hell is wrong with America these days?! Is democracy there DEAD?! How else can you explain a war that should never have happened being allowed to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on? Does honor and common sense no longer have any meaning in America?
Think about it! President Bush Jr said in 2002 that we should invade Iraq because it had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and thus was a threat to its neighbors. What idiocy! The Soviet Union had WMDs, including NUCLEAR weapons, and that was actually a good reason NOT to invade it, resulting in a decades long “cold war”. Even Bush Sr refrained from invading Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf War. In 2002, Saddam Hussien was not even threatening to invade any other country, not even Iran or Kuwait that he had attacked before. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Saddam had already allowed the UN weapons inspectors back into his country long before the invasion in 2003, and they had found nothing yet. But Bush wouldn’t wait and he wouldn’t allow the evidence to speak for itself. He and his subordinates ASSUMED that Iraq was a major threat and kept saying so again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. It seems that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes believable. But reality remains the same whatever Bush Jr or anyone else says. Once it became clear Iraq didn’t have WMDs, the whole basis for the Iraq War was nullified. And yet five years later, we still have troops there. It’s simply insane!
Any Republican who is still supporting this war, in which so many of our troops have died for lies and remain virtually imprisoned in Iraq, has no business opposing abortion. Right to life, my @$$!
An anti-Zionist Jew?
A few days ago, another member of Care2 introduced himself to me as “an anti-Zionist Jew” and he stated that Israel “has been a brutal, vicious, occupying, racist bully since day one.”
Since Jews are not a race (the idea that they are a race cames from anti-Semites, not the Jews themselves), the idea that Israel is in any way a racist state is moot. It does have policies favoring Jews over non-Jews, but likewise most Arab states have policies favoring Muslims over non-Muslims. Yet Israel-bashers never discuss that fact.
I looked at his profile and saw that his religion was listed as “Athiest”.
http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=101600802
I would suggest that this person’s hostility to God-centered religions is a bigger factor in his dim view of Israel than anything that Israel might have done in fighting against its Arab enemies. But what do I know? I’m just an agnostic who is wary of all expressions of anti-Semitism.
If the state of Israel had not been founded, the Jews living in the Holy Land would have remained a minority in an Arab dominated state ruling their own ancestral homeland, just as they had been for centuries in the past. Somehow, that makes no sense to me.
A fake evolution site!
I’ve always known that the dogmas of Intelligent Design are unscientific and thus do not belong in any science class, but when I discovered how far some of its promoters were willing to go to trick people into reading their crap, I nearly blew a gasket in my brain!
First, look at this:
The home page has the title, “EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS” but this site is about anything but that. In fact, it contains news of, and arguments to promote, Intelligent Design.
To illustrate the incredible stupidity and dishonesty of the people running this website, I will cut and paste two articles from it. Continue reading
Dale Husband’s Evolution Experiment
One of the objections to the idea that various organisms living today have a common ancestry is that, while one may infer such a thing from fossil, structural, and molecular evidence, one can never actually see such processes of evolution happen because they would take millions of years, and thus human beings could never live long enough to see macroevolution directly. That would indeed be true if we could rely only on natural processes of random mutation and natural selection. But what if it was possible to accelerate the process of evolution, to use artificial selection and genetic engineering to test whether there are limits to how far evolution can go to a line of organisms?
First, we must consider that humans have already done artificial selection to plants and animals for thousands of years, resulting in higher food yields from those domesticated plants and animals we eat as well as various forms that have other purposes to us, including for companionship and for their beauty. Darwin used such cases of artificial selection as examples of evolution, and suggested that natural selection operated in a similar way. It stands to reason that we could use genetic engineering to both make greater changes to domesticated plants and animals and mimic natural selection as it may have happened over millions of years in the past.
Creationists have claimed that lines of organisms can evolve, but only to a certain degree; they could never go beyond the limits of a “created kind”. At present this is entirely an assumption based on dogmas drawn from the Bible. What we need is an experiment that could actually support or falsify that claim, and at the same time demonstrate evolution in action. And I have come up with just such an experiment.
It is common knowledge that crocodilians are distant relatives of birds, both being members of the Archosaur clade. Dinosaurs are also thought to belong to this same clade. My proposed experiment involves performing genetic engineering on crocodilians to see if one can turn them over several generations into dinosaur-like animals. One must note that while crocodilians are a sister group to dinosaurs and most are generalized in nature, birds are actual descendants of dinosaurs and most of them are highly specialized for flying. One might choose a rather unspecialized and flightless bird, such as an ostrich, for the subject of the experiment, or a typical crocodilian. The ostrich might be less suitable because to make a dinosaur-like creature from it would be both a backward step and would not be a spectacular enough change to demonstrate that there may be no limits to how lines of organisms may change in nature. Therefore, a crocodilian would be better. And in my judgment, the best possible subject would be the American alligator (Alligator mississippians) because it is unspecialized, readily available, and abundant, unlike some other crocodilian species, which are endangered.
Having selected our subject, we may proceed with the next step, which is to determined the entire sequence of the genetic code of the American alligator. After this is done, we then take a population of alligators and make a few changes to the alligator genes, the sort that could happen due to natural mutations. These changes may cause the offspring of the first generation of alligators to still look like members of the crocodile order, but with unusual traits that no current alligator or crocodile today has. Then we make a few further changes to the genes of the members of the second generation of alligators. We repeat this process for every succeeding generation until about a dozen or so generations of alligators have been produced, resulting in creatures that no longer even resemble alligators, but look like dinosaurs.
Anti-evolutionists may argue that while such an experiment may seem to show evolution in action, it would not prove that such changes can occur naturally, and would instead point to intelligent design. This argument, if its premise is accepted, would actually invalidate any experiment, since one could always claim that any experiment may not mimic exactly circumstances and processes that occurred millions of years ago. Also, the intelligent design claim would only be valid if we made the alligator to dinosaur leap in one generation, instead of taking a dozen or more generations as I am proposing.
If it turns out that in fact there is a mechanism which prevents genetic changes to a line of organisms beyond the limits of a “created kind”, then there may come a point in the experiment where attempts to make further changes to the alligator population fail and either the next generation members end up badly deformed or they do not change at all. After several attempts to make the changes have failed, the next logical step would be to find the mechanism and identify exactly how it works. We may then locate this same mechanism in many other species of animals and plants. And the discovery of this mechanism would put evolution as a valid theory to rest forever.
On the other hand, the success of the efforts to make dinosaur-like creatures from alligators would give vital support (but not absolute proof, for in science there is no such thing) to the idea that dinosaurs (and birds) could have evolved from very different animals naturally and would make Creationist claims look even more ridiculous than they already do.
Religious fundamentalism is blasphemy!
2000 years ago, Jesus warned his early followers: “Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do my Father’s will may enter. On the Judgement Day many will say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy, cast out demons, and do many miracles in your name?’ But I will say to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you that do evil!’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)
I would suggest that the thing which will condemn someone to hell, even though they profess to believe in Jesus, will be the person’s placing the Bible above God Himself. Fundamentalists have claimed for over a century that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore infallible. This claim has no support whatsoever. Attempts to support it by references to the Bible are circular reasoning. Only God Himself should ever be seen as infallible, and since we have no direct contact with Him, we have nothing that may be considered infallible. The Bible, the Quran, and other religious books may be inspired by faith in God, but they are still human products, and are thus prone to error like all other human products. The Quran itself condemns the tendency of man to make partners with Allah, so should it be acceptable for any Muslim to make the Quran a partner with Allah?
In this physical world, there is NOTHING and NO ONE that may rightfully be called infallible!
Evolution 101
Evolution is the scientific theory that is intended to explain the diversity of life on Earth. The most basic definition of it is “cumulative change through time”. In biology, it says that populations of organisms are subject to change as a result of environmental factors acting on them and causing them to adapt to specific environmental changes.
Assuming the worst of others
In June of 2007, I learned that a Care2 member had died violently. I was shocked at this news, and wondered if the member’s Care2 profile was to be removed as a result of his death. I asked a question to that effect in Care2 Feedback and Suggestions, and then another member sent me a message calling me a “heartless SOB”. I was amazed at this vulgar language, and sent a reply back to this member stating that “your sarcasm is not appropriate at this time.” I NEVER would have called for the dead member’s profile to be removed, and was disturbed that anyone would even think that of me.
It seems to me that if people already hate me, then anything I might do, however innocent, will be twisted by the haters in the worst possible way simply for the sake of bashing me, and that any attempt I make to defend myself against the haters causes them and those who wrongfully sympathize with the haters to attack me more! To me, this sort of attitude is the same as racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, or any other form of bigotry. It is unethical and should be tempered by reason and tolerance. I’ve just about had it with trying to figure people out and why they make other people targets. If I had defamed the dead person in some way, I’d understand the slamming I got over him. But I firmly beleive that I was lied about by another member and I have no tolerance for that. And my proving that I was lied about should have given the supporters of that other person pause about the position they took, but instead they attacked me again for DEFENDING MYSELF! What they are really saying, in essence, is “Hey, Dale, do the rest of us a favor, and SHUT UP even if we slander you all over the place!” You might as well murder me, then. I don’t lie about anyone, period, and no one can prove otherwise!
Three opponents, three different results
A few months ago, I started a discussion in a Care2 group on the need to use scientific methods to test ethical standards. Before you begin reading that, look at this:
https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/we-need-a-scientific-not-religious-approach-to-ethics/
Now we will proceed with the discussion itself:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=5462&pst=706123&archival=1&posts=74
I had to deal with three different opponents in this discussion, as well as several others who did not oppose me outright but merely asked questions or made helpful comments. The first opponent was CheWorks L, who is also known as Ted K. His comments were as follows:
CheWorks: “how can we base ethics on what may be a myth? religion has no place in ethics.”
I saw this and went “HUH???” until I remembered that CheWorks was a Communist, who thus regards all religion as serving the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes and thus unethical. Of course, people like Dr Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi might strongly disagree with that simplistic view. I’m always amazed that Communists regard all religion as irrational, yet they themselves are so dogmatic about what Karl Marx wrote.
Dale Husband: “Religion was the ONLY basis for ethics in most ancient societies because there was no conception of science or scientific methods in them back then. So religion served a good purpose then. My argument is that we need to go beyond that now.”
CherWorks: “Maybe you are mixing up religion with spirituality, Dale. Science proves there are ethical standards such as recycling. Would God tell us to recycle? No. But nature, a spiritualist, would tell us that we need to respect the environment. Nowhere more than in the Judeo-Christian tradition do I see a pathetic God trying to gain respect. This has nothing to do with ethics. Nopwadays religion supports wealth at any cost, which menas enslaving 99% of the human population. This is hardly ethical.” (sic)
Later, CheWorks said: “You seem to be everywhere at the same time and rather confusing. Science cannot dictate ethics, but it can demonstrate that some ethical acts are good for the public. For example, free health care provides for a healthy population. I’m not sure if you’re in agreement.”
Dale Husband: “I’m certainly not asking that anyone dictate ethics dogmatically. That’s what religions do. Scientists should not. What I’m calling for is that any ethical ideas be tested scientifically before they be proclaimed to be valid by anyone. Only fear of their values being discredited would motivate, for example, laws against gay marriage by people who insist that homosexuality is immoral without actually dealing with homosexuals as people. If empirical analysis proves that tolerance of homosexuality leads to social disruption, then the anti-gay bigots would have a case. [And] ethical standards of some kind, such as honesty or open-mindedness, are essential for scientists to do their work. That’s why I trust the findings of the scientific commmunity above any religious dogma, because they tend to go where the evidence leads them and are not afraid to challenge conventional ideas, even among themselves. That’s the opposite of what religious communities are known for. Hope that clears things up!”
CheWorks: “We seem to be on a similar page. Can you please explain how science can help homophobes? Is it by showing that they are of the same chromosomes as heterosexuals?”
Interesting that he accepts my premise as valid and moves the discussion forward by bringing in an issue for which it would be a good demonstration of the truth of my idea.
Dale Husband: “Science is still investigating the causes of homosexuality, but if a physical cause was indeed found, it would blow away forever the notion that gays follow a lifestyle that is their free choice, and then there would be no legal basis for them to be punished for expressing their true nature. Homosexuality could no longer rightfully be called a “sin”. But since so many people do not accept evolution as true for religious reasons, they won’t accept those findings either.”
I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned evolution, because I also had to deal with an anti-evolutionist named Freediver who has been a routine thorn in my side for over two years.
Freediver: “Science has no contribution to make to ethics. Those scientists who belive it does just have delusions of grandeur. Stephen Jay Gould agrees with me on this.”
Right from that opening statement, Freediver had already lost the debate. Quite simply, it is a fallacy to make personal attacks against either your opponent or anyone else instead of really dealing with the issues. And appealing to a supposed authority figure like Dr. Gould is another common fallacy. Plus, didn’t Freediver know that Gould is already DEAD?! Finally, for Freediver to state that Gould agrees with HIM about anything seems to stem from an attitude of extreme egotism. I considered ignoring the idiot, but I decided to engage him for a while instead to give him more rope to hang himself with. And as it turned out, I was not disappointed.
Freediver: “Now you definitely don’t know what you are talking about.” “…appeals to reason tend not to work with Dale, who constantly insists that I provide examples of other people who agree with me, rather than focussing on the merits of the argument. It is kind of ironic (or is that hypocritical?) that he would commit this fallacy repeatedly, in it’s truest form, despite me continuously pointing out his error, then pull me up the first time I come close to using it. It shows that he recognises the error, just not when he commits it.”
Freediver was lying here. What I have demanded he do is support his claims about evolution not being a scientific theory by showing websites or other references that indicate that most scientists agree with him about how he defines science, to prove he didn’t make his definition all up on his own. He never did, except for a website he created to showcase his own writings on evolution and other subjects. He knows quite well that most of the references he’d have to make otherwise would be Creationist websites. Most scientists do not follow his narrow standard of what science is, of course.
Dale Husband: “Is it possible that you are motivated, in your opposition to me on both evolution and ethical issues, by your extreme religious bias? In any case, I’m not going to waste any more time attempting to explain what should have been obvious. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your business.” “You don’t appeal to reason, really. You appeal only to the prejudices you happen to have and hope that some people in your audience happen to share. In many cases, you fail to make an impression precisely because most people see right through your empty claims for what they really are. I don’t believe you are really stupid, but you seem to think most of us are if you keep putting out arguments like you’ve been doing all these years and expect them to be taken seriously. You overestimate your own powers of reason by blindly assuming whatever you say must be right. You never learn anything from others with that attitude.”
There followed a long period in which Freediver threw out one argument after another in a desperate effort to save his position. Clearly he was growing frustrated.
Freediver: “I use very simple arguments for you because you can’t follow logic.”
Yep, another personal attack.
Dale Husband: “By the way, Freediver, your constant attitude of absolutist dogmatism is the exact opposite of scientific thinking, a contradiction I’ve always noticed.”
Finally, my third opponent arrived. This one was known as Shadow Bear or Silly Old Bear. Unlike the first two, this one was a friend of mine. He is also Jewish.
Silly Old Bear: “This has me a little concerned – because this reduces a person down to what he or she can produce in terms of what is beneficial to Society. It opens a whole lot of cans, I’d rather see kept closed. It raises the question “Who is to decide what is beneficial to Society?” That has been tried – it didn’t work from a Humane point of view – both the Nazis and the Fascists used this “touch stone” in their politics, and it destroyed a lot of knowledge, experience and human history. The idea that what is good for Society is what a human is worth only works if Society’s basic ethical and moral standards are such that they take into account that we do not always know what is good for Society. What then should be the scientific test to determine this? How do you scientifically measure that which cannot be measured?”
Dale Husband: “As I see it, the Nazis and fascists made a point of judging other races of people as inferior without any empirical justification. That was the opposite of scientific thinking and led to their downfall when they were proven wrong. It is true that we do not know the potential value of people and it cannot be measured empirically. But if we do not come up with an empirical reason to prohibit murder, what can we say to a person who rejects all religion and wants a reason to justify whatever he wishes to do, including murder? And keep in mind that many senseless killings have been done in the name of religion. There is the potential for corruption in all things, which is why free inquiry is so important. If we cannot question authority, it can destroy us.”
Silly Old Bear: “That is not quite true – both the Fascists and the Nazis based their ideas about races of people, disabled – both mental and physical , homosexuals, political and religious beliefs on what they considered to be empirical evidence – such as homosexuals not being likely to reproduce, Jews being a genetic contamination, mental and physically disabled not being productive etc. All based on the science they had access to. Those empirical evidence might not be satisfactory to you and me, but that is only because you and I are measuring the evidence using another scale – based in what we consider ethical. Not because of the science as such.” “Religion is not necessary for making sound ethical decisions or f.i not to murder. I have not always been a religious man – still I have always held the opinion that all people are equal with equal rights to life. This can be arrived at by simple logical deduction. Atheists and Secular Humanists are not unethical, murderous or amoral. It doesn’t exclude that there certainly do exist such atheists or secular humanists, just as there are unethical, murderous or amoral religious people. Let’s not make Science another religion, Dale – it is quite defendable without needing all the trimmings of religion. Simple logic is enough.” “Scientifically it cannot be proven that Homosexuality is not a choice, so if all I had to go on was science I might be inclined to agree with the fundamentalists that homosexuality is indeed a sin according to Torah. There would be nothing to tell me otherwise. But because I do indeed choose what dogmas to incorporate in my ethics I have gone out of my way to find other ways to view homosexuality and Torah, so that the two do not contradict each other. Where there are no scientific data, we still have to make a choice as to how to act ethically.”
Because Silly Old Bear didn’t use personal attacks or other stupid fallacies like Freediver had, I was able to end the debate on a civil note with him.
Misusing the term “intellectual”???
Today I was accused by an enemy of mine of misusing the term “intellectual” by applying it to myself. That would only be valid if in fact someone could prove that I was not intellectual. First we need definitions of “intellectual”:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual
An intellectual is one who tries to use his or her intellect to work, study, reflect, speculate on, or ask and answer questions with regard to a variety of different ideas.
There are, broadly, three modern definitions at work in discussions about intellectuals. First, ‘intellectuals’ as those deeply involved in ideas, books, the life of the mind. Second, ‘intellectuals’ as a recognizable occupational class consisting of lecturers, professors, lawyers, doctors, scientist, engineers, etc. Third, cultural “intellectuals” are those of notable expertise in culture and the arts, expertise which allows them some cultural authority, and who then use that authority to speak in public on other matters.
Some people, including the one who attacked me today, seem to think that intellecuals must express no emotions, like the Vulcans of Star Trek. That strikes me as unrealistic, since all humans do have emotions. It is the combination of intellect and emotions in people that make their characters what they are. To call myself intellectual is hardly unethical, if one can read my writings and see for themselves what I am capable of.
Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants 