Logikan

Prop 8 the Musical

2008-12-04T02:06:00.000-06:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Greatness.

Socialism Is Not A Four-Letter Word

2008-11-26T00:26:00.001-06:00

(This essay first appeared in Trinity Christian College's student newspaper, The Courier a few weeks ago)

On October 3rd, 1993, a date many of us are too young to remember, forces of the Russian army loyal to President Boris Yeltsin opened fire on the Russian parliament.

After his radical and unpopular economic reforms had met resistance in the Russian legislature, Yeltsin had dissolved the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet, the constitutionally-established legislative bodies of the Russian Federation on September 21st. In response to this direct violation of the Russian Constitution, the legislature had impeached Yeltsin, and Yeltsin had refused to leave.

Tank shells eventually resolved the conflict. While the country reeled in shock, Yeltsin rewrote the Russian constitution and pushed through his economic reforms.

These actions were hailed by the West, including U.S. President Bill Clinton, as an important victory for democracy and for capitalism; the democratically-elected legislators were demonized as anti-government communists.

The irony is that despite the wishes of President Yeltsin and Western leaders, the Russian people had it made it clear that they did not want laissez-faire capitalism, what Yeltsin gave them, but a mixed economy welfare state. The principles of democracy state that a government's power lies ultimately with its people, but with the aid of military muscle, President Yeltsin found his way around public opinion and instituted his version of Chicago School economics.

The desires of the Russian people in 1993 were founded upon solid historical evidence. In nation after nation—America in the Great Depression, Chile under Pinochet, Britain in the 1980s—the effects of deregulated capitalism were plain: the rich got richer, the poor got poorer. Their fears have since been confirmed. Today the majority of wealth in Russia is held by a small group of wealthy capitalists, euphemistically known as oligarchs.

In this country, the lessons of the Great Depression are being forgotten. Followers of Milton Friedman, father of the Chicago School of economics, those who adhere to his utopian vision of a free market left entirely to its own devices have consistently attempted to deregulate the American economy. They promise this system will benefit the whole nation. The wealth of the top will trickle down to the rest of us.

The facts tell a different story. In the richest nation on Earth, approximately 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and 37 million are living below the poverty line. Under the Presidency of George W. Bush, a proud proponent of economic deregulation, these numbers have grown.

Opponents to economic regulation, when the trickle-down myth is not enough to satisfy their questioners, will often claim that government regulation in the economy is a form of socialism. Nationalization, too, whether it is of banks or health insurance, is tainted red.

Yet, in the midst of what is being called the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, when deregulated capitalism has again thrown the world into crisis, perhaps we would do well not to reject an idea simply because we have been inundated since birth to regard it as some sort of demon-spawn. Perhaps we would do better to remember the facts.

Bad mortgages began this economic crisis. Banks made risky investments that, had the real estate bubble continued to expand, would have netted them a profit. Rather than expand, however, the bubble popped. Had regulations been in place to prevent banks from offering those bad mortgages, the crisis would not have occurred.

And if those regulations constitute socialism, then socialism would have saved this country $700 billion.

When an industry or other societal faculty is privatized it becomes a for-profit institution. In many cases—IPods, DVDs, Big Macs—this method works. So long as regulations are in place to protect the rights of the workers employed in producing these products, for-profit corporations can meet the needs of their consumers and their employers. But when the discussion moves from commodities to utilities, to the necessities of life, for-profit has proven it is not up to the task.

Six million people die every year from hunger, according the United Nations. Over two billion people live on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank. Yet the capacity to end world hunger and world poverty exist at this very moment.

Why do these injustices persist? Because enough people have bought into the lie of trickle-down wealth and unrestrained capitalism. Because the economy of the West, in service of these principles, venerates the god of Profit before all else. And it is simply not profitable to fight hunger or poverty. Poverty creates cheap workers. Food given to the starving does not yield a profit. So sweatshops remain open for business and stores of surplus food rot in warehouses.

In the face of unrestrained capitalism stands the successful record of mixed economies, Keynesian and social democratic system. It's a simple idea. The free market is a powerful engine, but left alone it turns workers into a resource and seeks profit at their expense. Thus one seeks a balance between free market productivity and workers rights through regulation of the economy. In countries around the world, such a balance has been achieved.

This kind of middle-of-the-road policy is opposed in America because it means smaller profits for the rich, and they've managed to get the rest of us to believe, despite strong evidence to the contrary, in the myth of trickle-down prosperity. While we plunge into economic crisis, the wealthy soar safely overhead on golden parachutes. If the crusade for deregulation continues the situation can only worsen.

The victory of laissez-faire capitalism in America and the counterpart ascension of American oligarchs requires something far less dramatic than tanks. It requires only that we care more about cheap shoes than the plight of sweatshop workers; that we believe the insidious lie that all Americans can be rich if they work hard enough; that we believe the counterpart falsehood that if someone is poor it is his own fault; that we, with our voices or by our silence, continue to support a system that values the bottom line more than the life, liberty and happiness of human beings. To our great detriment, the religion of profit-worship will prevail in this nation unless we, the people, oppose it. And if we fail in this task, when our delusions of the American Dream crumble around us, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Who Says White Guys Can't Dance?

2008-11-19T00:51:00.001-06:00

One of my favorite songs from one of my favorite bands. Live. Gotta love the 80s synth.

Important Advice for Us All

2008-11-08T18:46:00.000-06:00

Here it is, something for which I know we've all been anxiously waiting.

The Mormon guide for overcoming masturbation.

I would have lolled if I weren't presently at work.

Good News About Proposition 8

2008-11-08T12:24:00.005-06:00

Proposition 8 passed in California on Tuesday adding fifteen words to California constitution: "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This after the California supreme court in May overturned an earlier, similar ballet initiative that had banned same-sex marriage. Over 18,000 gay couples have been married in CA since may.

For me, this soured the otherwise euphoric mood on Tuesday night. The total number of states with constitutional or legal bans on same-sex marriage is now up to 40. (Source)

But there is hope.

The ACLU is suing. On several grounds they argue Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. You can read the full complaint here.

There's also a movement to have the IRS revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church, a major player in the campaign to pass Proposition 8. Details here.

Finally, the LGBT community is not taking this one lying down.

I hold out hope that proposition 8 will be short-lived.

Facebook: Post-Election

2008-11-05T08:29:00.003-06:00

I watched it all last night, excited and elated.

This morning I get up and scan Facebook. Not surprisingly most statuses are related to the election. There's plenty of "yes we can" and "Obama wins!" and "I'm so proud to be alive right now."

But there's also plenty of grade A dumbassery out there. "At least the world won't end until January", posted by a guy whose profile pic is Obama with the word Communist beneath. "I'm now afraid to live in this country." "Just shoot me now..." posted by a guy with a Reagan '08 profile pic.

Then there's the people that are just posting Bible references, mostly Romans 13, which says to obey your authorities. There's others who say something more or less like "God is still in control of this country." My question: if God is in total control, why do you vote? Shouldn't God's will happen anyway?

Oh, and just because it bears repeating, often: we were not founded as a Christian nation. So please stop bringing up the phrase "under God." It's just a typo.

Smartest one I saw was probably "He did it...now let's see what he can do." A tempered response and one I would agree with. Last night was historical and euphoric, but now life goes on. Obama's going to take office with hard times ahead of him. I am hopeful, but I know Obama is not a panacea.

I think they've confused love and hate

2008-10-30T21:46:00.005-05:00

This is truly one of the most terrifying videos I've ever seen.

My revulsion is made all the greater by the realization that not too long ago I would have supported this kind of movement, have been glad to stand in that stadium, fasting and praying that homosexuals might be cured. To my senses, now liberated from fetters of dogma, the very idea of wanting a homosexual to be cured, a notion which implies that a sort of love can be a sickness, makes me ill.

If Proposition 8 passes it will be a drastic step backward for this country.

Two Fascinating Articles from The New Yorker

2008-10-28T17:39:00.002-05:00

First, Red Sex, Blue Sex, how studies show that despite their rhetoric to the contrary, white evangelical Americans have lots of premarital sex and teen pregnancies.

Second, Adam Smith advocated the sort of "sharing the wealth" that Obama is now being criticized for.

The Greatest Achievement In The History Of The World

2008-10-27T11:21:00.002-05:00

Behold! A'cappella Thriller

It's all fun and gaffs until the idiot gets elected.

2008-10-26T18:49:00.005-05:00

You've probably heard this story. Sarah Palin gave her first policy speech the other day. She began by saying something good: education for special needs children needs more funding. To secure the funds for this increase, Palin pointed to earmarks. Her specific example: fruit fly research. Here's the hilarious/tragic part. The research she was referring to at the University of North Carolina is using fruit flies to research a protein that is essential to nerve development. This research may very likely lead to new breakthroughs in the understanding and treatment of autism. But Palin says that's a waste of money.

Oops.

Here's the video.

Edit: It's possible she was referring to this research, which while it is not directly related to autism or any mental condition, is still important scientific research. Palin's offhand dismissal, like McCain on bear DNA and planetarium projectors, shows a callous disregard for science.

Best Logic Ever

2008-10-23T14:27:00.002-05:00

3 down, 47 to go

2008-10-11T13:41:00.003-05:00

Conneticut is now the third state to legalize gay marriage. The ruling came on Friday, just in time for today, National Coming Out Day.

One more important step forward for civil rights.

Myth of the Maverick

2008-10-08T11:03:00.002-05:00

John McCain portrays himself as a maverick, the guy who's not afraid to go against his party. (He also says "friends" far too much.) In reality, McCain's record shows him to be reckless and dishonest.

Tim Dickinson, of Rolling Stone, lays out the full details.

These Lulz Are Clever

2008-10-08T11:00:00.004-05:00

From Edward Current, a YouTube satirist.

Truth Kicks Palin's Ass

2008-10-01T10:33:00.001-05:00

Because of the damage she is doing to the republican party, I love Sarah Palin like I love Bob Barr (a.k.a. the Republican' Nader).

christian rock/folk hilarity

2008-09-30T09:17:00.002-05:00

Props to Sarah for the original post

Well Styled and Profound

2008-09-30T00:19:00.003-05:00

From H.L. Menken, his introduction to his translations of Nietzche's Der Antichrist (which can be translated either "The Antichrist" or "The Antichristian"; both are probably intended) the second-to-last book Nietzsche ever wrote.

Because the average philosophical writer, when he essays to expose his ideas, makes such inordinate drafts upon the parts of speech that the dictionary is almost emptied, these defective observers jump to the conclusion that his intrinsic notions are of corresponding weight. This is not unseldom quite untrue. What makes philosophy so garrulous is not the profundity of philosophers, but their lack of art.

The book itself is equally stunning in its eloquence. As expected from Nietzsche.

My Email to Obama

2008-09-29T21:32:00.005-05:00

Following up on a challenge from Michael Moore, I just sent the following email to Barrack Obama.

Senator Obama,

This morning the House of Representatives scored a major victory against the corporate elite of this nation, those who would transform this great nation into a kelptocracy, when they voted against the proposed $700-billion bailout. As one of the citizens you were elected to the United States Senate to represent, I urge you, Senator Obama, to oppose this legislation if it should come through Congress again. George W. Bush and his cronies have taken enough money from the American people. One more dollar is one dollar too much--let alone 700 billion!

Please, Senator Obama, oppose this attempted redistribution of debt--from Wall Street to everyday taxpayers like me. For too long the rich have run this country, exerted an influence far greater than the number of votes they represent. If your talk of change and hope is more than empty rhetoric, _prove_ it. Stand up to this measure, which is just more of the same, and fight for the change we so desperately need.

Best regards,

Joshua Arnold

New

2008-09-26T23:44:00.006-05:00

I've begun work on a new writing project. The others I've put on hold. This semester I am taking an independent study in "Advanced Creative Writing" (that's at least what it's called on my schedule). My professor has given me interesting assignments. First I was to write a parody of Bartleby the Scrivener.

Next he asked me to bring in excerpts from different projects. Long story short, the project he most liked was the one that I'd done the least work on. Specifically, aside from the 5 page section I wrote for my excerpt, I hadn't done anything else. Still, though it will mean more work for me, I'm glad he's leaning toward that novel.

I think it will give me a good chance to ferret out and then work on my strengths as a writer. From my short stories I've discovered that I do best with character-based stories, stories where the real appeal is the characters, not the setting or the plot. In plenty of my longer projects, the scope and complexity of the world forces my attention away from the simple and powerful elements of human nature.

The story I'm working on now is called Avalon, though that will likely change, possibly to Valentine. It's a science-fiction piece set near enough in the future that modern vocabulary still has relevance. (I can use words like T-shirt and Swedish.) My goal is to keep the plot relatively simple. Like Firefly, this novel takes place mostly on a spaceship and focuses on the handful of people that crew it. A lot of the tension and the conflict is personal, not external. I'm attempting to tell a sort of everyman sci-fi story. More updates to come.

I recently went a purchasing spree. I've now completed my Tiesto library (until he releases something new). I've become a bit obsessed with the song "The Force of Gravity" original by BT and remixed by Tiesto in volume 4 of his In Search of Sunrise series. I also bought a DVD of his recent show in Copenhagen, which was part of his Elements of Life World Tour. Watching that DVD has redoubled my conviction that my life will not be complete until I see this man live.

I also watched the debate tonight, but that post will have to wait. Need to digest it first. Initial thoughts: blech.

Exemplars of Absurdism

2008-09-23T23:02:00.004-05:00

I love dance music. By this I mean music that you would find in the "dance" section at a record store, or would hear on a station called Dance Factory, not the broader category of "music one can dance to."

Earlier tonight, whilst on my way to Taco Bell to enjoy a quesadilla, I had my radio turned 99.9 fm, the station of the aforementioned factory. I heard the following lyrics and decided that Dance music is the heir to the Dada Movement. In other words, gloriously absurd.

The lyrics:

I'm a killer
I kill for love
gonna get you alone.

Don't you know that I'm a stripper
gonna strip it off
you got nowhere to go

You better know that I'm a thriller
gonna make you hot
won't take it slow

But did you know that I'm a killer
I kill for love
Won't let you alone.

And here's a YouTube Video of the song with the lyrics...and some pictures of cars.

The song is 100% stereotypical dance music. It sounds almost identical to any other song you might hear on this station.

Is it stupid? Yes. Did it require any talent to produce? No. Is it evidence of some deep-seated creative decay lurking at the heart of our civilization? Maybe.

But does that make me love it any less? Hell no.

This Movie Needs to Come out Yesterday

2008-09-22T12:57:00.002-05:00

And it's sequel needs to come out today.

First concept art of Transformers 2 Megatron. Got the same spiky look as Transformers 1. He's somewhat reminiscent of Galvatron.

(For those who don't speak nerd, just ignore this post.)

Harris 1, Palin 0

2008-09-22T12:32:00.007-05:00

Sam Harris tears Palin to pieces, in a Newsweek article.

Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

Bush ran on this ticket, now Palin is taking it. She's just a regular person like us. Ordinary people are great. But when it comes to serving as Vice President of the United States, ordinary is just not good enough.

Another gem.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance.

Two Pioneering Ideas

2008-09-22T10:11:00.003-05:00

Arthur C. Clarke passed away a few months ago. In November, an international conference will be held in Japan to talk about the possibility of building a space elevator. The idea for such a structure was first proposed by Clarke in his 1979 book, The Fountains of Paradise.

For you Gundam fans out there, aside from recognizing the importance of the year 1979, notice the following blurb in that Telegraph article.

Scientists hope that as well as carrying human passengers, the carriages could also haul huge, solar-powered generators that could power homes and businesses back on Earth.

Gundam 00 fans might find that idea sounds familiar.

The second pioneer, stem cell guru Robert Lanza, is fighting for the right to clone human embryos to create human spare parts. I for one support his efforts.

Some confidence in Obama restored

2008-08-31T22:16:00.005-05:00

The debate never happened, but Barrack Obama has answered fourteen questions posed to him by the same people. It is an inspiring and reassuring read.

A major highlight for me:

I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

He goes on to add:

I am also aware that there have been suggestions that human stem cells of various types, derived from sources other than embryos, make the use of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. I don’t agree. While adult stem cells, such as those harvested from blood or bone marrow, are already used for treatment of some diseases, they do not have the versatility of embryonic stem cells and cannot replace them. Recent discoveries indicate that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells; these are exciting findings that might in the future lead to an alternate source of highly versatile stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells remain the “gold standard,” and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future.

An Ultimatum For Myself

2008-08-27T16:04:00.004-05:00

Some of you out there know the tangled history that is my writing career. I started in July 2001. By Spring 2004, I had completed my first novel, Legacies. It was 142,000 words long and it was a steaming pile of shit. In the years since, I have worked and reworked Legacies. I wrote Legacies Draft Two, completing two of the five intended books. Then I scrapped that project, started Draft Three, which was again restarted and renamed We The Dreamers. (Trust me, that's the brief explanation.)

Anywho, the drastic changes I've made have been for the best. Still, I've always felt bad about what happened to Legacies Draft Two. In particular, I remember my friend Jeff and how much he enjoyed the reading the whole thing during our calculus class. Though the writing of that book is pretty terrible, the story itself is a solid adventure/Bildungsroman.

So, I have decided to resurrect Legacies. The finished product will be a five book fantasy-adventure series, centered around the protagonist Alexander A'Zura.

Here's the ultimatum part: I want to finish book one of Legacies by September 15. By 1:30 PM to be exact. At that date and time I have the first meeting with my adviser for my independent study. If I have the first draft of the book completed, we can then spend the semester working through it.

This feat should not be as difficult as it might sound. The major work--creating the story--is already done for me. I've already re-read Legacies draft two and taken out all the key elements. So long as my determination does not falter, I can do this.

Of course, I must also create the perfect writing playlist. I'm thinking an eclectic mix. Tiesto and Underworld, Jimmy Eat World and Disturbed, some Dragonforce alongside some happy hardcore. I'll throw some eurobeat in there for fun.

18 days. Ready. Go.

The Importance of Savages

2008-08-25T20:34:00.004-05:00

In his Leviathan (Full Text), Thomas Hobbes laid out a pragmatic argument for the necessity of government. Left to their own devices, devoid of societal framework, of structure, human beings are beasts. We savagely attack our neighbors, sometimes for no other reason but then to hit them before they hit us. Baruch de Spinoza expanded upon this idea. Those who are rational can lead a moral life. The irrational majority of humanity needs the helpful restrictions of government and society to help them along.

To a point, I think these two men--and the long list of others who've submitted similar ideas--have got quite a lot right. We H. sapiens have never really gotten completely away from the days when our only king was natural selection. The greatest triumph of our species has been to grow beyond that simple and cruel selection. And civilization is the greatest safeguard we have to keep us from backsliding away from our relatively-newfound compassion.

That being said, compare the societal vision of Hobbes and Spinoza to that of Karl Marx. Hobbes and Spinoza have society in place to control, as it were, the irrational. It is safe to infer from this that they do not hold out much hope for the betterment of these poor irrational savages. To Marx, however, the best hope for total-society reorganization, for movement beyond class-struggle to a newer, better world, is not the intellectual elite. He looks to the poor, the weak--the very slobs Hobbes and Spinoza would have society control.

To my accounting of the progression of philosophical thought, this turn is a major step in the right direction. Breaking free of the constraints of natural selection, thinking beyond the number of grandchildren we will have, embracing the idea of non-zero-sum, putting in place the safeguards to further this growth--this is the triumph of our species. But if this advancement, this civilizing, is reserved for the privileged alone, if only the rich or the smart or the strong can benefit from this humanity--how small does the gain become when we take the mean growth of the species?

We are only ever as strong--as civilized--as the weakest among us. The chief goal of any society should not be the advancement of its upper echelons. Rather, the society that seeks to truly bolster itself, to raise up bastions against the savagery and bestiality that will forever lurk in our hearts, must begin from the ground and work its way up. Any notion of trickle-down is a happy delusion. Something to quiet the consciences of the fortuned. Something to placate everyone else.

Sadly, in this nation, we are presently too hopeless caught up in the American ~~Lie~~ Dream, too enamored of the idiotic notion that we all can be Donald Trumps and Bill Gates. And when a politician dares to say that our country has never and will never live up to the promises of its founding principles so long as one person remains in poverty, we listen. At least, until someone starts talking about gay marriage. Then we all promptly snatch up our signs and get to the important business of shouting.

And the nation continues to crumble from the inside out. From the bottom up.

Supposed descendants of Knights Templar seek reperations

2008-08-22T22:47:00.003-05:00

A group claiming descent from the Knights Templar, is suing the Catholic church for $150-billion for harm done to their ancestors when the Templars were forcefully disbanded by Pope Clement V on charges of heresy, devil worship, and sodomy. Another article on the same subject.

Democrats Sell Out

2008-08-22T15:02:00.004-05:00

The Democratic party is trying to widen their appeal. To this end, they're holding a series of inter-faith events at the Convention in Denver. Jews, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists will all participate. Secularists, however, are being ignored.

We're a larger minority than Hispanics or Jews, around 15% of the electorate. And neither party seems to give a damn.

The following lulz are brought to you by catholic morons

2008-08-21T10:18:00.002-05:00

A Catholic response to a preview for Bill Maher's forthcoming documentary, Religilous.

The comments are absolutely hilarious. I particularly enjoy the accusation that Maher is a Mason, and that Karl Marx was a Satanist. Because, you know, people can't just be atheists. They can't just look at a religion and say "there's no evidence for this." No, only by the power of SATAN can anyone say "there is no God."

lmfao.

Why The Fourth Ammendment Matters

2008-08-20T22:44:00.002-05:00

The Eternal Value of Privacy

/signed.

Why I have lost faith in Barrack Obama

2008-08-20T10:42:00.006-05:00

This article says it well.

With less than a week to go until the Democrats officially nominate Obama at their convention in Denver, and with barely two-and-a-half months until the election, the candidate’s speech underscores a stark political reality confronting the American people. Once again this November, the two-party system will offer no means of expressing the massive popular opposition to war, but rather an empty choice between two big business candidates who are committed to the expanded use of militarism in pursuit of US corporate and financial interests.

On issues after issue, from Iraq to the economy, Obama has become a party parrot. Obama and McCain are no longer candidates, no longer men with opinions and beliefs. They are bags of meat, stuffed with the same old bullshit we've seen before. We do not have a choice in this election. We do not have a voice. We have only a familiar illusion--The Power Of The People--to comfort us from the harsh truth. Populism is dead. The voice of the majority means nothing without the cash to back it up. And with John McCain and Barrack Obama taking money from the same people, the next four years in this country will look the same no matter who wins. The fallout from eight years of mismanagement, reckless spending, and a foreign policy reminiscient of a five year-old in a sandbox will hit the country hard. And it won't be the CEOs on Wall Street or the Beuracrats in Washington who pay for it. The burdens of eight years of failure will fall squarely on us, the common people.

Obama promises Change We Can Believe In. But until he delivers change we can see and feel and touch, actual change, he isn't worth shit. The only thing about Barrack Obama that is any different from any other would-be President is the color of his skin. And although his candidacy is an important step forward for this country--as was Hillary Clinton's--it won't put food on anyone's table.

I'll still vote for Obama in November. Because when it comes time to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, he is likely to nominate someone who won't try to overturn Roe V. Wade or undermine the Establishment Clause, the kind of people Bush put on the bench, and the sort John McCain is also likely to pick.

Wisdom from the Purpose Driven Life Guy

2008-08-19T18:36:00.006-05:00

Rick Warren plays an old fallacy: false equation. He tries to turn "atheism" into an arrogance that says "I can lead a country all by myself." Edit: he says he could never vote for someone who "didn't believe in an authority greater than himself." But atheism simply means you don't believe in one possible authority greater than yourself, namely God. But an atheist seeking the presidency could still believe in plenty of authority above him/herself. The Constitution, for example. As is typical of guys like him, Warren can't see beyond his own blinders.

And here's Bill Maher responding to the issue of Candidates' faith with something refreshing. Rationality.

The Argument from Poor Design

2008-08-19T11:10:00.004-05:00

Unitelligent Design.

A piece written in response to Louisiana now permitting the teaching of intelligent design. I'm not sure how the state legislature and the governer think they can get away with this. A Federal Judge ruled the teaching of ID a violation of church and state separation in 2005.

Is McCain another George W. Bush?

2008-08-19T09:43:00.002-05:00

Yes.

The end is particulary adept. Frames the current shitstorm surrounding our country---Bush's legacy to the Union.

Aghanistan--a model of progress

2008-08-18T11:16:00.005-05:00

According an article in the Independent, not only can Afghan women be jailed for having "illegal sexual relations" (for up to 20 years), but the law makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary relations. In other words, women are in Afghan prisons because they were raped.

The justification? Islamic law.

Saddleback

2008-08-17T10:24:00.006-05:00

On Saturday, McCain and Obama met at Saddleback Church in the OC to answer Pastor Rick Warren's questions in a Civil Forum. It was an interesting exchange (you can see video of it here). Warren talked about worldview a lot. And those of you who know me can imagine how much I enjoyed that discussion.

The real gem for me had to be when McCain was speaking about marriage and said he was a federalist, he believes state's should decide issues like marriage, but that if his home state of Arizona decided to permit gay marriage (by the rights he just said they should have), he would then support a marriage amendment. In other words, "I'll leave people alone--until they do what I don't want them to do." The illusion of freedom strikes again. His comment "I don't believe in class-warfare" is perfect evidence of why I won't vote for him (even though, for the record, Obama doesn't thrill me). McCain, true to his party, refuses to acknowledge the realities of this country. Rather than admit the fact that every other industrial nation in the world has instituted universal healthcare and it has worked, he totes out the party line: "The government shouldn't take over healthcare", falsely equating universal healthcare to some sort of Stalinism

This whole exchange can't help but make me think of the debate that didn't happen. A debate that could not be more important to the present and future of this nation.

The only scientific issues discussed at Saddleback:
--stem cell research
--John McCain citing $3-million spent to study the DNA of bears in Montana as a misuse of taxpayer money. Of course, he never talked about what that research was doing. He simply dismissed it, affording no thought to the science at work, and took advantage of a cheap laugh line about bear paternity tests.

We All Knew It Happened

2008-08-16T10:38:00.001-05:00

Matt Taibbi Articles

2008-08-12T11:53:00.012-05:00

Speculation

2008-06-13T15:57:00.004-05:00

"Imagine there's no religion," John Lennon's Imagine famously invites. What if we went further? What if we imagined there had never been religion at all? That's probably too extreme of a hypothetical. The nature of the human species, mainly our inclination toward pattern recognition, seems to make the development of religion, at least in our infancy as a species, inevitable. But what if we imagine what the world would be like without one specific religion? Say, Christianity?

Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most gifted stylist of the German language and a fascinating philosopher, believed Christianity to be a profound betrayal of the natural order. Born from Judaism, the originator of slave morality (see The Genealogy of Morals), Christianity inverts the natural moral order, replacing the correct dichotomy of good/bad (strength/weakness) with good/evil, changing the moral focus from results to intention. Christianity, after all, famously advances submission, meekness, nonviolence, caring for the poor, etc., all things that run counter to survival of the fittest. Nietzsche hated the religion so much he devoted the first fourth of his planned magnum opus, The Will To Power, to refuting it. This first part, The Antichrist, was all he ever wrote of the planned four books.

So what if Christianity had never existed? Would the western world be in a better state now? There's no way to know for certain, obviously. Chaos theory makes it clear that any change in starting conditions will dramatically and unpredictably alter the final result.

Perhaps a more useful question is will the human race be better off ten, one hundred, one thousand years from now if Christianity goes away? Plenty of thinkers have believed so--Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx, Mill, Ingersoll, Asimov, Clarke, Sagan, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. Moreover, all those men believed the condition of the human race would be much improved if all religion went away. And I think I'd have to add my name to that list.

An interesting question to mull over, regardless of one's beliefs on the subject.

If You Want To Understand Bullshit, Study Rhetoric

2008-06-03T10:56:00.006-05:00

I first found the following video through PZ Myers' excellent blog. In this excerpt from a message by Louie Giglio, Mr. Giglio makes a case for God's greatness by pointing to a protein molecule called Laminin that looks like a cross. He then ties this to Colossians, which says "In Him [Christ] all things hold together." The audience and the commentors on the YouTube video, eat this shit up.

Now, for the truth of the matter. In his post on the video Dr. Myers rightly points out that Laminin is a "floppy" molecule, capable of folding into many different patterns (notice, when Giglio shows the electron microscope picture of laminin, it doesn't look much like a cross anymore), and the cross shape is by no means rare in the natural world. One might argue that since intersections hold the highway system together and are cross-shaped, therefore Jesus holds the highway system together. A fun addition: a reader asked Dr. Myers if any molecules in the cell are swastika-shaped. Potassium Channel fits the bill pretty well.

My point in sharing this is not (only) to give us all a good laugh at silly creationists. I share this because while most people either watch Giglio's video and praise Jesus or laugh, I watched in rapt appall at its manipulative aspirations and achievements.

I've studied enough rhetoric to recognize these tricks. I've studied enough history to know that Giglio, like many religious apologists and speakers, employs the same rhetorical devices as all the best demagogues in history. The piano in the background is an especially nice touch. Evangelicals aren't Hitlerian in their oratory--that's more the cup of tea for black liberation theologians like Jeremiah Wright--but they're still manipulative, still disingenuous, still false. Giglio manages to make utter lunacy--this protein looks like a cross, therefore Jesus holds the world together--look legitimate. Any rational, clear-thinking immediately spots the flaw of this logic. Why Jesus? Why not one of the many, many others who died on Roman crosses? Further still, there are so many cruciform objects in the world. Notice in this Holocaust Memorial several of the bodies are arrange across each other...just like crosses. Jesus was part of the Holocaust! Oh.

Language is a wonderful thing. It's ability to move our spirits, to send our emotions soaring or plummeting, stands unmatched in its efficacy. Used well, this is a boon to our species. Used to promote unashamed idiocy, it tears us apart at the seems. Divorced from truth, rhetoric kills. Just take it from the words of one of the greatest demagogues of all time.

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

From millions of men . . . one man must step forward who with apodictic force will form granite principles from the wavering idea-world of the broad masses and take up the struggle for their sole correctness, until from the shifting waves of a fre thought-world there will arise a brazen cliff of solid unity in faith and will.

--Adolph Hitler

Progress--some people just hate it

2008-05-15T19:26:00.004-05:00

Today, California took a big step forward on the road to equality. Their supreme court has overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriages. And, of course, the movement to undo this ruling through a constitution ammendment in California has started.

I don't know. To me, this issue seems so clear cut. No matter what I feel or believe, who the hell am I to tell you what to do? If what you're doing is hurting someone, of course I have the right to try to stop you. But a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman does absolutely nothing to me. It does not endanger my heterosexuality, and contrary to Robertson and friends, it's not going to cause any natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

For me to tell you how you must live your life is just plain arrogant. And it's wrong. It says I do not respect you and your right to live your life. It's intervention by paternalistic justification. It says I know better than you how you should live your life.

I have to wonder where this country is going. The evangelical movement continues to grow, and the voice of reason is getting swallowed up. Freedom, fairness, and facts are being made to yield to a book. Words on paper have trumped reality.

The Large Hadron Collider and the meaning of life

2008-05-06T00:29:00.002-05:00

One of the most inspiring videos I have ever seen. Also one of the most lucid descriptions of Quantum Theory.

On Epigraphs and Angel Wings

2008-04-28T23:09:00.006-05:00

I am a fan of epigraphs. I have seen them used to great affect in novels I admire (American Psycho, for example.) And for my own novel--We, The Dreamers--I may have found a perfect choice.

We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.
--- Lucretius.

Considering one of the central themes of the novel, and the larger work of which it is a part, is human solidarity (without need of anything to succeed but H. sapiens), and since there is an angel-wing motif in there (designed to evoke the idea of the angelic figure in Italian sonnets, not anything religious), the quote might fit very well.

The quote might also come off as too cheesy. The point of the inclusion would not be a sappy, romantic notion of "finding the one who completes you." The point is human solidarity, divorced of all other prerequisites.

Just for shits and giggles, I considered:

We may now summarize our characterization of authentic Being-towards-death as we have projected it existentially: anticipation reveals to Dasein its lostness in the they-self, and brings it face to face with the possibility of being itself, primarily unsupported by concernful solitude, but of being itself, rather, in an impassioned freedom towards death--a freedom which has been released from the Illusions of the "They", and which is factical, certain of itself, and anxious.
--- Heidegger

I don't think it would work very well, but for the record I think that sentence of Being and Time is absolutely incredible. I can honestly say it changed my life.

The Fight of Words

2008-04-26T22:48:00.005-05:00

In the battle against Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates, who together are part of the larger American traditional of anti-intellectualism, and the cult of ignorance that, as Isaac Asimov said, misunderstands democracy to mean "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge", we who stand with evidence and with reason must realize that we are not fighting enemies who will agree to our terms. We ask for evidence and they respond with ad hominem attacks. They create false dichotomies, and defend themselves by endlessly moving goal posts and asserting that there is no true scotsman. Their weapons are not facts--they have none--but words.

Reality is on our side. Pragmatism favors us overwhelmingly (ID does not enhance science's ability to do anything). But I for one desire a stronger, swifter victory. To quote Isaac Asimov again

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.

To accomplish this, we must recognize the linguistic nature of this battle, and we must equip ourselves accordingly.

Some language we cannot help. The false dichotomy drawn between "Fact" and "Theory" is simply a misunderstanding (or deliberate muddling) of otherwise clearly distinguishable scientific nomenclature. Fact is not a higher order of truth than theory. Fact is simply a piece of data. A Theory is an idea, generated and supported through repeated demonstration and testing, and forever buffeted by the storm of peer review. A Law, just to clarify, also does not trump a theory. It is not any truer. Rather, a law is a simple concept (relatively speaking) that can be expressed in a formula. Newton's law of motion (F=MA), the ideal gas law (PV=nRT). Theories have a larger scope and cannot be quantified into an equation. Aside from Evolution, notable theories (which are not laws) include: the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Planetary Motion, the Theory of Electromagnetism, and so on. These facts should be common knowledge. That they are not testifies to the present inadequacies of our education system.

In other areas of language, we can make clear gains over our opponents. We need simply wake up. For example, we must cease using the word Worldview immediately. We must forever strike that hideous construction from our thoughts and name it anathema. We will do this because we understand the way the human mind works.

Some of my friends swear by IPods. Others by Zunes. If I call them both MP3 Players, I bestow some measure of equality on them. I place them on equal footing. And in response to this, both sides of the debate would protest and declare their side superior.

To call both modern science and Pastafarianism worldviews places them on equal standing to those not familiar with their intricacies. This particular case is obviously and intentionally absurd. But it is directly analogous to what happens when well-meaning scientists talk about the scientific worldview while the Discovery Institute speaks of the Intelligent Design worldview, and postmodern thinkers start to classify everything from Christianity to Astrology to Nihilism as worldviews. Equality is created where it does not belong. Irredemably foolish notions like "In the lab, my Christian worldview is as good as your science" start to make sense.

Let the IDiots and the Fundies talk about worldview all they wish. Let the postmoderns put more and more under its arms. But for us, who call ourselves rational and who place our trust in evidence, in reality, let us take a stand against nonsense and irrationality and refuse the label.

Science is not a worldview.

Evolution Observed in the Wild

2008-04-23T11:03:00.006-05:00

A common demand made of evolutionists is for evolution observed in the wild.

Here is a National Geographic Article that documents just that. Drastic change in a species within about 30 generations.

And here's PZ Myers' on the same research.

And here's Science Daily too.

Really cool stuff.

Profiting on Falsity and Fallacy

2008-04-14T20:12:00.005-05:00

A new film is due out soon. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed makes itself out to be a plea for academic freedom, a cry for the recognition of legitimate science. In actual execution, Expelled is yet another evolution-basher that attempts to legitimize the pseudoscience of intelligent design. And of course, like all pro-ID movies and books out there, it offers not one shred of evidence for ID.

Expelled's basic premise is that Darwinism has become the presiding dogma of academia and anyone opposed to it is disposed of (a la Inquisition). Michael Shermer, interviewed for the film, says he knows of no case where someone was fired or denied tenure for being pro-ID. In every case where a pro-ID professor was fired or denied tenure, it was for entirely legitimate reasons.

Expelled does more, however, than try to make the case for wronged scientists. With no degree of subtlety, the film attempts to link Darwinism with Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust. To draw lines of causality between the two is absurd in the highest degree. And to claim that the Holocaust could not have happened without Darwin is more idiotic still. Antisemitism is a long and established tradition, far out-dating Darwin.

In short, Expelled tries to make it appear like Nazi storm troopers wore belt-buckles that read "Darwin mit uns." In actual fact, they read "Gott mit uns." God with us.

On top of this, Expelled has blatantly stolen a video from a Harvard-based group. And it's supposed to be an all-around poorly-made film to boot.

I'm sure Michael Behe and William Dembsky will love.

Course, that should tell you all you need to know right there.

The Problem with "Worldview"

2008-04-07T13:25:00.006-05:00

It is a word whose construction I like. Worldview, derived from "view of the world", follows a trend I like. Much as in German (a language I love unashamedly) it is a simply constructed compound. It is similar to a word I did not come up with, but which I use in my writing and thus hope to win it acceptance: mindstate (i.e. "state of mind").

But the word worldview, like all words, is more than its construction. Worldview matters because of how it is used. And it is in some of these uses that I find a problem.

I am a freethinker. Unapologetically so. If you are ever going to see the world as it really is (or as close as human perception and faculties can facilitate) you must step outside your preconceived notions and inherited prejudices and opinions. An analogy: from the moment you were born your parents put a pair of goggles over your eyes. You have spent your life seeing the world through those goggles. They have colored your every experience. And that's fine. But. If you want to know what the world really is and how it really works, you have to take those goggles off. Moreover, you have to try looking through other sets of goggles and from the input create a composite image of the world (especially of the people who inhabit it).

Here the concept of worldview complicates matters. Worldview, as a notion, is is the result of a well-intended effort. In the vein of thinking (mis)labeled as post modernism, worldview is an attempt to understand that we all have lived different lives, we are characters in different, sometimes overlapping narratives, and we need to recognize and accept this aspect of our interactions if we are to begin to understand each other. To this end we categorize similar narratives under headings that we call worldviews. The problem arises when we make the mistake of assuming from this process that all these worldviews are equally legitimate, that they all have, more or less, the same justifications and qualifications. This is just not the case. Some worldviews are based on the world, on experience of the real thing. And many others are based, self-evidently, on fantasy, delusion, wish-thinking, and plenty of flawed logic. The danger of worldview as an idea is its power to place all points-of-view on a level playing field and thus destroy all standards of legitimacy and realism.

And because of this, people mistakenly think they really understand the world even though they've never taken off those goggles. Since it's all just a question of worldview, why does it really matter which ones you pick? And why does it matter how many lenses you've tried?

That is the problem with worldview.

My Argument with Kant

2008-04-02T22:21:00.010-05:00

Immanuel Kant is an extremely important philosopher, likely one of the most influential in the last 500 years. He brought together rationalism and empiricism, the two main streams of philosophy for 200 years before him, and forever changed modern philosophy. More specifically, Kant did much to articulate the separation between observer and subject, and his methodology (or bits of it) remained and remain foundational for most philosophy after him.

Another specific. Kant rejected the ontological argument for God, an argument going back at least to Aquinas and his Five Proofs for the existence of God and also as presented by Descartes in both his Meditations and his Method. Kant, however, did not go the way of Spinoza or Hume, but instead formulated a new argument for God. A moralistic argument.

It goes something like this.

(1)Reason has a sense of right and wrong.
(2)This sense holds within it the idea of justice.
(3)Justice is never attained or actualized in this world.
(4)Therefore, there must be a world after this and a perfect judge in that world who will make sure everyone earns his just rewards (and punishments)

There's nothing formally wrong this argument. Informally, however, I think there's plenty wrong to point out.

Premise (1) I won't deny. Human beings clearly have a moral sense. The origins of this sense, though not directly addressed by Kant, are an important issue. The evidence before us today points to a natural origin of morality. The evolutionary benefits of such a faculty are clearly demonstrable. And in our closest cousins, the great apes, we observe a similar faculty in operation. They work together in a community. (For more on the evolution of morality, I recommend Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.)

Premise (2) is also not a problem. The human mind has obviously constructed an idea, we generally call it "fairness", where good deeds are rewarded, wicked deed are punished. And I think we'd all agree with premise (3) that this idea is never actualized. Good people get hurt all the time. Bad people sometimes end up doing quite well for themselves. As all our parents probably told us a hundred times: Life isn't fair.

And Premise (4) is not necessarily flawed. If fairness must be achieved, I agree that there must another world wherein dwells a powerful judge. But what reason is there to think that fairness must be achieved? The ontological argument (which Kant was decidedly against) would say the idea must exist somewhere since we have the idea (living post-Kant, this probably strikes all of us as silly prima facie). But beyond the rejected ontological argument, there is no reason to assume that fairness must ever be actualized. There is only the self-centered, arrogant longing of human beings, who feel themselves unjustly wronged, for some form of ultimate vindication. "That kid stole my lunch money and got away with is. But some day God will make him pay."

I have to wonder if Kant's parents never told him that life isn't fair, or if, perhaps, Kant simply never listened.

There's another element at work here. For Kant, there must be a designer (and therefore, design) because that is the only explanation for the world that establishes not only why it is possible for the world to be as it is, but why it must be that way. Kant and others are not satisfied with explanations that establish only the possibility of the world being as we now see it. Obviously, they would have all sorts of problems with modern science. Evolutionary theory, for example, makes it very clear that homo sapiens are not a necessary result of evolution. Quite the opposite, any one species is statistically a very unlikely result. Had the first vertebrates died out millions of years ago, none of us would be here. It's the same story with languages. There is no reason why modern Midwest American English (my native tongue and dialect) needs to exist. Languages, like organisms, arise through blind natural processes.

I suppose it's comfortable and flattering to believe human beings are the pinnacle of evolution (or of God's/the gods' creation, if that's your cup of tea), but the evidence doesn't point in that direction. Such a conclusion is the result of hubris, not sound reason.

Well, I laughed

2008-04-01T16:02:00.002-05:00

I think it's a good April Fool's.

Jacob Bronowski Has It Exactly Right

2008-03-25T19:11:00.003-05:00

Darwin's Place

2008-03-25T18:33:00.005-05:00

The theory of evolution, first proposed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago, is arguably the most important and powerful idea in the history of biology. Amongst all the sciences, it is difficult to imagine any idea more revolutionary in its promises, more satisfying in its rewards. Evolution unites the massive quantity of observed facts of the natural world into a whole. It takes modern life, the structure of the cell, the fossil record, etc. and from them tells a story.

Like so many powerful ideas, evolution has been misused, applied where it does belong. The results are not pretty. In particular I'm thinking of Social Darwinism. Essentially, this notion took Darwinian evolution and used it to rationalize prejudices of all varieties. Evolution says nothing about race or gender superiority/inferiority. It is also not hard to imagine evolutionary thought being taken further still, expanded to campaigns of mass euthanasia and sterilization. The history of eugenics in first half of the twentieth century shows clearly the harm that happens when perfectly legitimate ideas (like the natural survival of the fit and culling of the weak) and uses them to rationalize all manner of wickedness. It is the key observation of that doomed campaign of compulsory sterilization that the categories for the procedure were not based in any evidence, nor on any rationally supportable criteria. The poor and the non-white were the victims of this atrocity, instead of those who possessed actual genetic defect.

So what then are the bounds of Darwinism? What line divides legitimate and wicked applications of evolution? Simple. The natural world is Darwinian in structure. Evolution falls under the sphere of biology. This fact we must not lose sight of. Within biological considerations it's power is immense. Outside of the life sciences, it is often a tool poorly suited to the tasks before it. Our political theory ought not to be based upon an idea of evolutionary fitness. Instead we must follow that evolved compass of ours, morality.

To construct a society by Darwinian terms is non Darwinian.

Homo sapiens are communal creatures. The evolved faculties of compassion and morality and our insatiable desire for solidarity serve to unite us to stand together. We must not think of evolution in terms of organism. Rather we ought to think in terms of genes. A parent dying for a child makes sense because the genes will live. Further, it is basic biology that no species can survive or prosper with a too small gene pool. Thus we must (and have evolved to) consider more than our immediate offspring when making moral calculations.

Philosophy, my core discipline, does well to be productive. To return useful and applicable ideas is the greatest triumph the lovers of wisdom can achieve. So allow me to be plain.

We do not need an absolute code, divorced from human hands and minds, to rule us. By this I mean both religious doctrines and misapplications of scientific theories. We are evolved beings. This point is certain. And we will do well to trust those faculties evolution has yielded to us. Further, we should take advantage of the rich heritage available to us. Thinkers of all varieties have pondered over deep, difficult questions for thousands of years. If we trust our own moral sense, if we are honest about who and what we are (mammals capable of both greatness and depravity), and if we stand with each other, upon the shoulders of those who have come before us, then I suspect there is little we cannot achieve. The potential of the human species to better itself and its world is, practically speaking, without limit. We have only to make the choice to move in that direction.

This was the hope of those optimistic and visionary thinkers, like Clarke and Asimov, and it is most assuredly no fool's hope. It is the hope of all those who believe that more than darkness, something wonderful lies in the heart of man.

Easter

2008-03-23T18:25:00.005-05:00

Scrolling through Facebook today, most statuses were something to the effect of "thinking about His love" or some other sentimental such.

Personally, I find so much more fulfillment from a song (currently Close to You from Tiesto's album In My Memory) than from reminiscing upon even the idea of redemption through vicarious human sacrifice.

Perhaps when discussing the proposed love of this fictional deity, we would do well to ask ourselves "Whatever happened to all those Canaanites?" Oh yes. God-Is-Love ordered his faithful to slaughter them down every last man, woman, and child, sparing the virgin girls for the butchers. "But save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:18, NIV)

I think I'll stick with chocolate eggs.

False Causality

2008-03-22T12:25:00.006-05:00

Andrew Sullivan informs us today that Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev is a Christian. This is all well and good, an interesting piece of information that really doesn't amount to much. I'm sure it will make an interesting chapter in Gorbachev's biography, but does this really matter? Sullivan sure thinks so. He ends his post:

What a lovely final rebuke to Karl Marx.

Karl Marx was, of course, a staunch atheist and opponent to religion. And although the Soviet Union was much more the brainchild of Leninist interpretation of Marxism combined with Stalinist strong-arming, the link to Marxism is undeniable.

So what are we to infer from Sullivan's comments on this "rebuke?" Are we suppose to believe it was Gorbachev's faith in a bronze age myth that convinced him to dismantle the Soviet Bloc? Are we supposed to see this as another example of god striking down the wicked? Sure, Gorbachev's closet Christianity does prove that you can't force someone to not believe, that faith can survive exterior pressure. But that isn't anything new. There's a whole litany of martyrs whose stories make the same point.

Or should we take the rational path and view this information as just that. Information. Gorbachev was a Christian. Big deal. What matters is not which imaginary friend he prayed to at night. Taking down the Berlin Wall (Contrary to popular myth, the Wall was not torn down by Raegan with a axe), dismantling the Soviet Union. These things matter.

Sullivan's post is another example of trying to draw false lines of causality--the same fallacious reasoning that links atheism to Auschwitz and Stalin's gulags. This is a classic move from the believer camp. And it's utter rubbish.

The Logical Sins of the Intelligent Design Movement

2008-03-21T15:50:00.001-05:00

Yesterday evening, Professor PZ Myers reported on his blog that he had been expelled from a screening of the soon-to-debut film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", a documentary which argues that Intelligent Design(ID) is presently suppressed in the mainstream by Big Science and which deserves to be taken seriously. In the frenzy of comments to follow this post (1000+) one responder posted a link. The poster offered it, colorfully, with "have you seen this bullshit, btw?" The link led to a supposed list of ID-based research. (Notice the mascot of the ID advocates, the bacterial flagellum, on the flag.) The research offered as evidence illustrates well a common practice amongst the ID crowd. Parading fallacious arguments and capitalizing on general ignorance of logical validity.

Allow me to clarify.

The argument presented on site claims

The following is an edited extract from a Nature paper. It is an example of real ID research. Notice that the designers only used evolutionary techniques to very slightly tweak the enzymes scaffold structure that had been designed with “borrowed components” from existing enzymes tacked together. The novel active site was completely intelligently designed.

Let's translate this to argument form:

(1)The structure created by these scientists was designed intelligently.
(2)This structure is complex and alive.
(3)Therefore, all things which are complex and alive are designed.

It's the watchmaker argument all over again. Essentially, this poster has taken the compositional fallacy and enlarged it to cosmological scale. Both the watchmaker argument and this poster's claim make the same error.

(1)X possesses properties A and B.
(2)Y possesses property A.
(3)Therefore, Y possesses property B.

An absolute, complete non sequitur. By this same fallacious logic, all women are male since they both sexes are human (possess the property of humanity). All arguments based on complexity that intend to prove design--and Percy Bysshe Shelley pointed out in his 1811 essay "The Necessity of Atheism", for which we he was kicked out of Oxford, we cannot even begin talking about a designer until we can prove design--all such arguments eventually break down to this sort of fallacy.

The famous watchmaker argument comes from William Paley. He argued that if one found a watch, one would assume someone had made it. Design was a priori apparent from the structure of the watch. From this we are, by analogy, supposed to move to a conclusion that all complexity requires a designer. This is blatantly fallacious. Just because all watches have watchmakers, and all shoes have shoemakers, does not mean all universes must have universe-makers.

What about the alternative? Does natural explanation fair any better on logical grounds? Unsurprisingly, it does.

The argument against design is founded on a 700 year-old principle called Ockham's Razor. "Given two explanations of a phenommenon, choose the one that entails the least premises." This idea makes intuitive sense to all rational individuals. If I say to you "I can't find my keys. Either I misplaced them, or someone broke into my house, stole the keys, did not take anything else, and perfectly covered his/her tracks" you would tell me I probably just lost them by applying the principles of the Razor.

The Razor is the heart of the argument against design. By explaining the phenomena we observe around us without invoking a god, any supernatural power is rendered an unnecessary premise and is thus removed from the equation. There's no fallacy here.

In its quarter-century (or thereabouts) of existence, ID has never provided evidence for itself. ID advocates constantly try to shoot holes in evolution and then say "See? It must have been God!" Forgetting for a moment that their "holes" have been consistently disproved, there remains a fallacy. Even if an ID advocate could one day dismantle evolution and disprove it, this would do absolutely nothing to advance the cause of ID. To argue:

(1)Theory A and theory B attempt to explain phenommenon X.
(2)Theory A is disproved.
(3)Therefore, theory B is correct.

is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy, erroneously assuming there are only two possible explanations of a phenommenon. This argument attempts to look like a disjunctive syllogism.

(1)Either X or Y is true.
(2)X is false
(3)Therefore, Y is true.

A disjunctive syllogism only works if that first premise is sound. And in the case of ID v. evolution it most certainly is not sound.

Of course, none of this will ever dissuade the ID fans out there. Despite the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, as compared to the tiny piles of ultimately fallacious arguments against it; despite the continued failure of ID to provide evidence of design; despite the track record of ID advocates for information distortion and general dirty dealing(for example, drawing the false distinction between macro- and micro-evolution)--the movement remains. So long as people continue to believe faith is a good thing, ID will remain credible to some.

And, of course, to those of us of the rational persuasion, it will always remain laughable.