Monkey Girl - Evolution, Education, Religion, And The Battle For America's Soul

I just started reading Edward Humes' book Monkey Girl about the trial in Dover, Pennsylvania which centered around a young earth creationist led school board trying to teach ID in science class while also attempting to pressure science teachers into irresponsibly implying that evolution is less of an accepted scientific theory than it actual is. These teachers were told to focus on the gaps in the fossil record, the questionable aspects of the theory. Make sure the kids know that it is 'just a theory' rather than truthfully teaching that it is one of the three most proven theories in science to date (along side Newtonian mechanics and germ theory).

The book is difficult to read because it delves very personally into the creationist's motivations and ways of thinking, but it's also something that should be read. It's very easy to have a belief and to disregard those who don't share your beliefs as idiotic or willfully ignorant as a whole with little more motivation for their fears beyond an irrational fear of a vengeful sky daddy. While I feel like this is essentially true, I think that it's important to understand the true weight of that fear and to at least try to put yourself on the other side of the argument as much as possible.

I'm not talking about apologetics - I don't think these people deserve to re-define science, re-write history, or turn the world into some kind of one-religion theocracy simply because they're scared and we should feel sorry for them. I do, however, feel like I belong to the same race as they do and that they at least deserve my compassion. I want to understand creationists and IDers better because I truly don't understand them at all.

We see them as kooks, willfully ignorant simpletons, power hungry indoctrinators, etc. They see us as arrogant, tools of the devil, willfully defiant children of a shared creator, etc. While those labels fit the bill some of the time on either side, most religious people are not moronic sheep with cult mentalities and most atheists or people with similar humanist beliefs are not evil minded snobs. We're all people and we have different conclusions brought about by different experiences in our lives.

I recognize in myself an unshakable belief and understanding of science and evolution and I have said that it would most likely take god himself descending from the sky to make me re-consider my lack of belief in a god or gods. I know that there are some religious people that feel the exact same way about their beliefs - an unshakable belief. My beliefs are rooted in science and logic and because of that, I feel that my beliefs are far closer to the truth than religious beliefs which are rooted in faith and spirituality. What I often forget is that there are plenty of people who feel that faith and spirituality supersede logic and reason. In the minds of people who oppose my beliefs, they are just as correct as I am.

At the end of the day, I still feel that religion is pretty obviously a sham. The Bible was a work of fiction written by entirely mortal men without any divine intervention. God is an outdated human invention to explain things we previously didn't and in some cases still don't understand. Religion was at first a means to explain and then a means to control. However, I do feel that the only way people are going to ever really be able to move past this divide between belief and lack of belief is if we try to look at one another as part of the same whole. The ID side may not ever be able to do that since a lot of their beliefs push them to reject non-believers as an entirely evil and dangerous influence outright, but that doesn't mean I have to do the same in return.

This book is a hard read because it does a very good job of showing the human side of the creationist movement without apologizing for their actions or even offering excuses for their way of thinking. It simply shows them as they are - passionately dedicated people who truly believe in their view of reality at the expense of everything else. If I honestly held a real fear in my heart that my darling son might be damned to an eternal torturous hell for believing in evolution, I can't say that I wouldn't act similarly to the folks who tried (and failed) to force a curriculum which would diminish the scientific importance of evolution - regardless of what anyone else on Earth had to say.

Get Out Of My Country!

I don't know about anyone else, but I get a tad bit pissed when someone tells me what my country is supposedly like and that if I don't like it or at least accept it and conform to it, I can get out.

This has come up in my presence a few times at work this season though I was never the recipient of this ridiculous phrase, it bothers me to hear it at all.

Instance 1

National health care came up as a topic and then a debate which led to me, my boss, and two other co-workers in the office talking about this and that. We started to talk about civil rights. I said that I felt that civil rights were paramount and that anyone should be allowed to do anything they please as long as their actions don't hurt anyone else directly. My boss agreed and started talking about gun laws. Yes, just so everyone is clear - Seattle might be the hipster capital of the nation but we regular Washingtonians love our liberal social stances and we love our guns. Personally, I was raised to both respect and detest guns so I'm not big into them, but I also don't oppose other people owning guns outright.

Back to the story, my boss then continues to say that our manager doesn't believe in public gun ownership but does support gay marriage. Essentially, my manager wants his rights and will cry persecution and civil liberties and everything else in order to get his equal rights, yet he feels he can tell someone else that they can't own a gun - a topic which is specifically mentioned in our nation's constitution. I thought that was a good point, though the comparison of marriage rights to ownership of a deadly weapon seemed fuzzy to me and I started mulling it over when my boss made that terribly American mis-step:

"The constitution protects our gun rights. If he [our boss] doesn't like it, he can get out of my country."

Instance 2

My sweetie and I were outside talking to another co-worker and the topic of drug legislature and punishments assigned to drug related crimes came up. My co-worker was arguing that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' and should be treated as harshly as heroine or cocaine. My sweetie brought up how much more destructive alcohol is and how the only destructive aspects of marijuana currently are the issues which are directly caused by the substance being illegal to posses in most states. His argument was that the punishment created the only existing issues which are often sited by police and government sources when asked why marijuana should be kept illegal. If negatives affects on the user can be sited as reason to keep a substance illegal, how can alcohol possibly be kept legal while weed is against the law?

My co-worker looked at him and said; "Well, that's how this country works. If you don't like it, you can just get out. Get out of my country."

This is not your country to pick and choose what you want it to be and have always been, regardless of what your personal logic or specific interpretation of history tells you. America is supposed to be for everyone. Majority is not supposed to rule here, we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

Benjamin Franklin once said: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

We are a nation whose focus is liberty, not majority rule. No law is too absolute to question and no group is so large that it is allowed elevated importance over even the tiniest minority. At least that's how it's supposed to be. Liberty and justice for all.

A Excerpt of Dawkins' Book Inspires Idiocy

Times Online has posted an article which in an excerpt - a sneak peek at Richard Dawkins' newest effort The Greatest Show On Earth. The post in and of itself is a great little taste of what to expect from Show, but the comments the post inspired are riddled with the usual atheist/creationist bickering, support for Dawkins as well as abject rejection and disdain. I picked out a few of the more interesting comments to share/discuss. Keep in mind that these are the comments as they were posted, any spelling and grammar errors are theirs.

Mr. Dale wrote:

It would be interesting to find out what Dawkins actually believes.

He seems to believe in absolute morality, which is near impossible in the atheist world view.

Recognises the argument from fine tuning for God's existence but down plays it somewhat eventhough he himself uses argumentation from inference for his views.

Attacks the denial of history but in the God Delusion denys the existence of Jesus - a fact.

He recognises that the philsophy of science has just about proved science to be a faith based enterprise BUT attempts make little of this.

He seems to like the culture of Christianity, is pleased when some of its teachers agree with him but simultaneously can't seemingly quite bring himself round to agreeing with them!

I sense in his writing a man who doesn't really know what he believes, except for evolution.

August 25, 2009 10:24 PM

My only response to this is - how could you possibly take the evidence for the existence of Jesus and consider that a fact while simultaneously rejecting evolution on the basis that there are not enough evidence to back it up? I understand that this fella didn't specifically deny evolution in his comment, but I've seen it over and over again in other instances.

Evidence for Jesus is overwhelming! Evidence for evolution? I'm just not convinced...

That's because you don't care about evidence. Evidence is a means to an end. If the evidence says what you want it to say, you're all about it. If it doesn't say what you want it to say you reject that evidence. If you applied the same strict restraints on everything else that you apply to evolution, you would reject a vast majority of everything we know to be true.

Sylvia Baker wrote:

To reply to some of those who have responded to my earlier posts:

Richard Dawkins is presenting what is, in his opinion, the best interpretation of the evidence. For the debate to be open and fair, creationists should be permitted to do the same.

Species diversity can be fully explained by those taking a creationist position. They believe that living organisms are pre-programmed to be able to adapt to environmental conditions but that there are set boundaries to the possible extent of this variation. This view was held by Linnaeus in the 18th century and Mendel in the 19th. It was this creationist position which motivated and directed their work and which therefore gave rise to modern genetics. Modern-day creationists build on their work.

Creationists have no problem with the idea of natural selection. It presents no threat to them at all and may be involved in producing variety. However, there are many evolutionists who would deny that it has a role in evolution because they do not see any evidence that it does. It probably mainly acts to stabilise populations; this was known before Darwin.

It would help the debate greatly if people were more familiar with what crestionists are actually saying.

August 25, 2009 1:19 PM

The difference between a scientific explanation for something and what Sylvia is doing here is Sylvia is making shit up that sounds plausible without offering any kind of scientific data to back up her claims. While at one point people looked and a chimp and thought 'we seem a lot like those guys' that initial thought is not what links us scientifically to chimpanzees. Decades of study in biology and genetics have provided us with the scientific data which indicates that we are very closely related to chimpanzees. You have the first bit, you're just missing the decades of confirmed experiments and data collected from countless unaffiliated sources. Dawkins isn't ignoring a similarly valid scientific theory, Dawkins is ignoring unsubstatiated scientifically presented mythology.

Ok, one more -

Bob Ganert wrote:

Mr. Dawkins, Had opportunity to spend some time to contemplate your recent writings concerning your views on evolution. And although I can follow your flow of argument I cannot accept it.
Yes admittedly we live in a secular society. But to deny the facts of history pointing to the reasonableness of a created universe is regrettably sad on your part.
It has been said that if a lie is repeated often enough and load enough it can be believed. Your reteric and analogies using the Roman deniers and then holocost deniers and then to move the reader to accept your dogma that Christians (the 40%'ers) are on par with with such is wayward in the least, if not abomniable.
I agree with you in that we live in a age of compromise. Where all view points are said to be “respected”. The sad thing about it all is that the proponents of Satanic doctrine is given such prominent press.
Evolution does happen all around us. It is a fact. But if you would study the Bible you would conclude it is the Word of God. In the Holy Scriptures. Once endorsed by the King of England. It has the genealogy of famous men such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth.
Perhaps next you will be denying the existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. History is measured from this man. You should read His words. One day you will meet Him face to face.

August 25, 2009 12:11 AM

...Satanic doctrine? Denying facts of history that point to a created universe? What facts? Is this one of those 'well first you have to accept that the bible is a factual record' things because I don't and the reason I don't is that I understand at least minimally what constitutes something as a historical record and the Bible doesn't cut it. You'll have to re-define history just like you have to re-define science in order to prove your points - essentially eliminating the institutions which you are trying to gain acceptance for your views within.

Tithe - A Divine Insurance Payment

I am so excited. At work today I found a tithe envelope! Now, I have explained at length on this blog about how I wasn't raised in a religious atmosphere, so there's a lot of things about religion that I know next to nothing about. When I found out that tithe was supposed to be 10% of your income I was truly flabbergasted. 10% toward an imaginary friend? Cheese-sauce, that seems a bit steep. Now that I've been to a few churches and I see the expensive cars a lot of pastors have and the nice tailored suits, I understand why (the word of god doesn't come cheap, evidently) but I still didn't understand why someone would actually fork over 10% of their income to a church as if that's what Jesus wanted. Didn't he bust up a church at some point, calling the leaders out for being crooks and telling people they didn't have to go to any specific place to worship? Yeah yeah, I know, I just don't 'get' it, whatever.

I found this tithe envelope for Seventh-day Adventists. The image on the front of the envelope is thoroughly christian, it's two hand overlapped holding with bloody nails out as if in offering. Hello, would you like these bloody nails? Why no thank you, sir. The writing on the front of the envelope says "Tithe Love Offerings" in pretty quasi-cursive font. I appreciate when being swindled out of my money to have it done via nice fonts. No Comic Sans BS, that's for sure.

On the inside flap of the envelope there is quite a bit of writing. First in bold and prominent lettering you see a truncated bible verse. It reads:

A tenth...is holy to God. Lev. 27:32

The actual bible verse reads:

And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. Lev. 27:32 (KJV)

Ok, so that adds up. The text under the heading is bit more clear and references another bible verse to back up their logic:

Tithe, the first 10% of our income, serves as evidence of our covenant relationship with God and our desire to place Him first in our lives (Matt 6:33). Tithe is used for the benefit of the ministry of the church and support of gospel workers.

To give this verse a bit of context, Matt 6:31-33 reads:

(6:31)Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(6:32)(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
(6:33)But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

So basically, they're referencing a part of the bible where people are being told not to worry about food or clothing - basic needs - as long as you believe in god, you'll be provided for. This pamphlet seems to indicate that belief in god is good, but you have to put your money where your mouth is and keep up with tithe. What if you need the tithe money to buy food and clothes for yourself?

It seems to me like tithe is the equivalent of an insurance payment. God is on your side, watching over you and caring for you as long as you believe in him with all your heart - and pay your bill. God takes 10% off the top. You know, like the mafia.

The envelope is not done! The envelope is asking if you can't afford just a little more. The next bold heading reads:

Responding to God's goodness. Ps. 116:12

Ps. 116:12 reads:

What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me? Ps. 116:12 (KJV)

Wait, didn't I just give 10% of my paycheck to god? I'd say I already did my rendering. No, the envelope insists, you should give a bit more.

In response to God's blessings, He asks us to give an offering out of our heart as an extra measure of supporting church ministry in our community and around the world.

The percentage recommendation is: 4-7% for local church expenses; 2% for conference ministries - evangelism, Christain Education and Sunset Lake; and 2-3% for world missions such as television and radio ministry, disaster and famine relief, and higher education.

There are no biblical verses attached to justify this secondary request for funds. I have to wonder, if the additional 4-7% is for local church expenses, what the hell does the first 10% go to? In 2005 the average salary in the US was 31,410 and according to the website (see link) inflation hasn't affected that amount. 10% of 31,410 is 3,141. Divide that by 52 and you're supposed to give 60.40 to the church every Sunday? God is billing you three Jacksons a week for salvation insurance. 241.60 cents a month 'offering', even though offerings were no longer needed with the whole Jesus thing, but whatever. That seems like a lot to me. I know, I know, there is no price too high to pay for salvation, but has it ever occured to the religious people who go in for this scam that they might be getting one put over on them? It seems suspect, I guess that's my point.

They include a very handy and considerate recap of of all of the offerings requested - tithe and local church budget which includes evangelism and conference ministries including evangelism and world budget which...you get it. It looks pretty obviously similar to a bank deposit slip which strikes me as ballsy. This is a pull no punches request for cash.

On the back of the envelope there is a thank you in advance a bit about stewardship:

Stewardship is the personal acknowledgment on our part that God is owner and provider of all the basic goods of life - spiritual, physical and material. As Christians, we are called to be faithfully responsible with the resources entrusted to us by God. We are to manage God-given gifts of time, talents, money and the use of our spiritual strengths.

This entire paragraph is just a reminder that you've done nothing - the only thing that has brought you happiness or prosperity is your belief in god. This is the part where they remind you how comprehensive the God insurance that you're purchasing is. That's how it sounds to me. What's interesting is while a believer might find that kind of message to be uplifting and hopeful, I see it as entirely insulting and condescending. It's difficult for me not to see it as simple manipulation. Maybe I feel that way because they follow it up with this:

Planning for the Future. One practice of stewardship is arranging your estate plan and will. This allows biblical principles of stewardship to continue beyond your life. To talk with professionals and arrange your estate plan and other documents, call xxx.xxx.xxxx

Also...when you die we want your shit.

Claiming Atheism Is A Religion Is Not Only Incorrect, It's Purposefully Insulting

I have a very dear friend who is a man of faith - a Mormon. I enjoy talking to him about religion because he's secure enough in his beliefs to have conversations with me about the issue without getting too upset. We're not trying to change each others mind, we are swapping philosophies and at times challenging the logic behind what the other person believes.

A little personal history before we get on with this. I was raised in a small town in Washington from the time I was in fifth grade to when I graduated high school. After I moved into the area, a Mormon temple was built and Mormons started moving in which gave the local economy a boost and raised the rosters at the local schools quite a bit, causing a need for more schools to be built which created jobs as well. The Mormon immigration was not a bad thing - but you would have thought it was the end of civilization as we knew it. I remember reading about people being singled out and abused because they were Mormons in local shops and at public events and my dad talking about it, saying we're all first hand witnesses to a case of Christians eating one another. It was a lesson I learned about the importance of doctrine to religious people. To this day I can't understand how people rationalize doctrine as divine in any way, but it was eye opening to see at such a young age groups of people who believed in the same god and the same messiah but still stubbornly hated one another because of differences in details.

All this being said, I generally liked the Mormon kids that moved in. They were down to earth, humble, smart, and most of all - they knew that their religion was a whole lot of stuff that to an outsider wounded like complete woo. They understood and Mormonism made sense to Mormons because they were Mormons. Some of them didn't believe it, some of them did. Most of them were like my friend - they generally followed the religion but they also had their own opinions and they didn't fear any repercussions for deviating from strict adherence to the church.

My friend and I were talking about atheism and he brought up that tired old argument that atheism is a religion. I feel like this argument is a derisive one - to tell an atheist that what they believe is religious is like telling a vegetarian that their lifestyle perpetuates the meat industry. I didn't feel like my friend was trying to mean, though, I felt like he probably heard this argument himself and not being terribly big on critical thinking he absorbed it and accepted it without really questioning it.

Dawkins (was it Dawkins who coined this phrase? I'm pretty sure it was...) was spot on when he said that atheism is a religion the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. The assertion that atheism is a religion is ridiculous and not really worth exploring in and of itself. I explained to my friend why atheism isn't a religion and he agreed eventually with some reluctance. His argument ended up hinging on conflating the definition of religion to the point where not only atheism, but the belief or non-belief in anything would be considered a religion. Of course, if the only way you can logically prove an assertion is by creating a personal definition of what something is, you've really only convinced yourself - the one person who doesn't require convincing.

I asked him after the atheism is a religion thing was past, how it made him feel when people called the Mormon religion a cult. He shrugged, told me it didn't really bother him that much because he knew they were just being mean. It was then that I told him that I knew how he felt.

If Mormonism can somehow be considered a cult or not, it doesn't matter. The connotations of the term 'cult' are highly negative and so when you apply it to Mormons or any group of people, you're using the term as an insult while also being able to claim that you're properly applying an apt term to a group. It's the same thing when you insist that atheism is a religion. Atheists make no secret of their general contempt for religion. It's true that some atheists don't care too much about religions, but a good deal of atheists seem to view religion with feelings that range from a mild contempt to a passionate distrust with a myriad of emotions in between, all of which could be considered negative. This is not a fact that only atheists are aware of, this is well known, and so to say that atheism is a religion is a way to insult atheists without openly insulting them. It's a low blow that doesn't have to be answered for which is the worst kind of insult you can throw at someone.

A Childhood Favorite - Donald In Mathmagic Land

Not really an atheist post, but does anyone else remember the magic and wonder that was Donald In Mathmagic Land? Man, I loved this cartoon as a kid! Thanks to YouTube, I can share its wonder with everyone who is interested. Enjoy!

Court Repeals OK Law Requiring Mandatory Ultrasounds And Fetus Descriptions

Ok, so this is good news first of all, but it's still very strange that this was ever even suggested and the act was passed in the first place and it leaves me wondering - WTF Oklahoma?

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma judge on Tuesday overturned a state law that required women seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound and a doctor's description of the fetus.

Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson said the law violated constitutional requirements that legislative measures deal only with one subject. He did not rule on the validity of the ultrasound provisions.

Special Assistant Attorney General Teresa Collett said she will meet with state officials to discuss whether to appeal. The law was passed in 2008, but legal action has prevented it from going into effect.

It seems in 2008 the Oklahoma legislature enacted the Freedom of Conscience Act (full text Word doc). The bill not only contains very broad conscience protections for medical personnel who object to participating in a variety of procedures, but it also requires medical providers, before performing an abortion, to conduct an ultrasound and describe and display in detail the ultrasound image to the woman seeking the abortion.

Now, this is effed up in all kinds of ways, but Stephanie Toti says it best here:

Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Nova, said Oklahoma is the only state in the nation that mandated a physician to both conduct an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient.

"The ultrasound provision takes away a patient's choice about whether or not to view an ultrasound, and it requires physicians to provide information to their patients that the physicians do not believe is medically necessary," Toti said.

"It's an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power, and it's also an intrusion to the physician-patient relationship."

It seems obvious to me that this is an aggressive tactic meant specifically to bully and browbeat women who are already in a compromising position and often an emotional state. I stay away from posting too much about abortion because I have personal experience with it and find it very difficult to stay emotionally detached enough about the topic but this to me seems like a form of mental abuse. It's like the legislature saying 'We can't stop you from getting an abortion, so instead, we're going to force you and your doctor to have a conversation about the fetus before it's aborted, just so you feel like a real piece of shit for making this decision. And remember, you can always change your mind.'

Is this legislation religiously motivated? Well, it's very cleverly propositioned as a means to 'allow patients to know the full scope of the medical procedure they are requesting.' However, when you look into the political standing and backround of the main author of the bill, Todd Lamb, it's difficult to ignore the importance of religious this man presumes personally and professionally. The fact that this is a seemingly religiously motivated bill which is presented as if it is a medically inspired piece of legislature makes it all the more unsavory.

The presumption that abortion is as easy a decision as what to have for dinner that night is disgusting to me, as is the presumption that women don't understand 'enough' what they're doing by having an abortion. Most women are fully aware and suffer emotionally from making the choice - that doesn't mean they didn't make the right choice for them, the unborn, and society in general.

I'm glad this law was repealed and I have to assume it won't take long before the people who proposed this bill propose similar bills to take its place - ones which can't be dismissed on the same technicality. I can only hope for the people of Oklahoma - women and men - that ya'll have the sanity to stop these kinds of legistlastions in their tracks. How long will it be before the 'ethical protection' of doctors means the only physician in your small town can refuse to sell you condoms because of their religious beliefs? Or refuse to fill your heart medication because they feel medication is a sign of mistrust of their lord? Seriously, this kind of legislation is dangerous for reasons that go above and beyond abortion. Abortion is just the 'easiest' target when it comes to religiously motivated medical ethics legislation.

Atheism And Charity - An Experiment

As some of you may know, I have been trying to figure out a way in which I could become active in my community as an atheist and help promote a more positive image of atheists (if not atheism). I was originally going to try to get a group of atheists together to participate in the Memory Walk - a very worthy fundraiser whose focus is on support for Alzheimer research and support.

I began looking around at different local atheist groups to see if anyone had something similar going on and found out that Tacoma Atheists were planning on participating in the Pierce County AIDS Walk which was happening on the same day as the Memory Walk. Through a few unfortunate turn of events - friends who would have participated with me in the Memory Walk but are out of town on business that day, etc. - I decided to join up with Tacoma Atheists and become a part of their walking team.

My goal was to raise 150.00 for the team and so far I am at 115.00 with a few more people to ask. If you want to sponsor me, that would be awesome! Here's the link you'll need to sponsor - Beth's AIDS walk page.

I am surrounded by people who like me and accept me for who I am, but I was worried that my personal affiliation with atheists might drive people away from sponsoring me. I didn't know if I shouldn't mention atheism at all and hope that my more religious friends wouldn't notice the group I was walking with and sponsor me, not knowing I was walking with an atheist group.

Ultimately I decided against this. I sought out this group as an atheist trying to do something to give back to my community. It seemed dishonest for me to try to hide or ignore this detail when it was such a prominent point of inspiration for my getting involved in the first place.

My personal message on the site reads as follows:

Thank you so much for visiting my page and making the choice to donate a sum of your hard earned income to support an important and noble cause. I have chosen to participate in this particular AIDS walk for two reasons, the most important being this:

1,741 people with HIV/AIDS have come to the Pierce County AIDS Foundation for services, and 638 persons are known to have died from complications related to AIDS as of July 31, 2007. Pierce County has the second highest incidence of AIDS in the State, with 9% of the total number of cases in Washington.

This kind of help is important and it's important that people support these kinds of institutions which are committed to facing and treating a disease which is too often distanced and ignored in our communities because of unfair stigmas which are wrongfully still attached to it.

Additionally, I am proud to join a team of fellow atheists who are intent on proving by example that atheists are just as involved and interested in the community as any other group.

I appreciate your support more than I can express and thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Beth

I have yet to receive any negative feedback from friends or family regarding this endeavor and I'm thankful for that. This is the first time I've appealed to people I know as an atheist and I feel like the reaction could have been far more incendiary than what I've experienced. While there are plenty of people who have not sponsored me, I have yet to receive any emails or had any conversation with people where I'm being told they won't sponsor me because I'm an atheist. While I know a few people who probably have made the decision not to contribute because I'm walking with an atheist group, the fact that no one has felt resolute enough in their position to be vocal about it seems like a good sign - maybe people realize that while it's ok to support or not support as you see fit, it's not ok to take these differences and use them as justification to be purposefully confrontational.

Fundies and Science - Fear Of The Dynamic Nature Of The Universe

Twitter is a popular site right now - how long it will remain relevant who knows. One thing I like about twitter is the atheist presence on the site and the ease of link sharing. What I don't like about twitter is the unfair advantage fundies are given when you find yourself going against all better judgment and interacting with them on the site. There's plenty of room to type 'god did it' in 140 characters or less. Explaining evolution - not that easy. Not that you would want to and if you did want to, you would most likely provide informative links rather than try to stuff the theory of evolution into two or three or thirty 140 character messages.

While I have a rule about arguing science with fundies (it's as pointless as arguing aquatic plantlife with birds) I found myself going rounds with a fundie today for the first time since I joined twitter and I found out first hand exactly why this particular forum is useless for debate.

While the fundie's arguments were essentially wordy versions of 'nuh uh' and 'well, that's not good enough for me' my arguments entailed trying to explain the intricacies of aviary speciation and also utilizing animal husbandry as a simple and familiar example of evolution when it's being controlled by people. The animal husbandry comments solicited this response - "Oh, so a cow and a cow make a horse? I don't think so."

This is precisely when my head exploded.

There are a few things I really don't understand about the fundamentalist position that I have run across and it may not be indicative of the majority of the group - this is purely anecdotal experience.

1. Prove evolution is correct.

What? No. Read a damn book. It is not my responsibility to prove anything to you. I'll provide you links, I'll make compelling arguments, and I'll offer my opinions. When you ask someone to prove something to you you're asking for more than this - you;re asking someone to take the time to frame information in a way that you can understand it and to present information which you yourself accept. "Prove evolution is correct" is like asking someone to prove air is correct. There's no right or wrong, it's about reality.

2. I reject your proof. More proof please.

This is initially understandable but ultimately aggravating. My favorite example of evolution in action is animal husbandry. It's a simple, easy to understand example of how one can select for traits and breed animals to eventually exhibit those traits selected for most of the time. As the only 'proof' fundamentalists have for their positions is a single unverifiable document - the bible, I like to give two examples of evolution if I ever find myself in one of these torturous conversations. There you go, you have one thing, I have two things, I'm not trying to change your mind myself but maybe you should look into this more as I have obviously proven your initial statement of there being 'no proof' of evolution false. But no. Invariably you will hear this - I don't accept that proof. What else do you have? My response is initially 'Why don't you accept that as proof?' as I don't accept the bible as proof I feel it's fair to ask this question. I have heard all kinds of reason for fundamentalist rejecting scientific proof -

• "That sounds strange." - ...is...is that an argument?
• "That's too complicated of an explanation." - the complexities of life are not going to be explained in 140 characters or less, sorry friend.
• "I don't get it." - No one gets it right away, but you have to be willing to learn.
• "Science is an invention of the devil" - posted online. Sweet sweet irony.
• "Science does whatever it takes to trick people into believing evolution" - as if science is a physical entity with evil preconceived desires.

I don't know how to reconcile religious fundamentalist thought with science because I don't feel like scientifically minded people are the ones who are causing the need for reconciliation. Good, reputable science does not start out on the road of discovery with an end result in mind. Science takes up all the evidence, studies that evidence vigorously and from the evidence presents conclusions. Not stoic and unchangeable conclusions - nothing science says is an absolute truth in that tomorrow something new could be discovered that changes everything within scientific understanding. Maybe that's what this ridiculous jihad against science from the fundamentalists is all about - the fear of a dynamic reality.

3. Evolution doesn't make any sense.

Yes, It does. This is the most pig headed argument of all. You can classify this as a ridiculous argument when you ask someone how it doesn't make sense and they respond, 'it just doesn't.' or 'crocoduck' or what have you. No amount of pseudoscience and willful ignorance can discredit evolution as not making sense because evolution is just a term we have applied to how life works. No, evolution isn't a fanciful scientific fantasy - it's the term we now use for the progression of life. Look at how dogs can be bred to have thicker or thinner coats. That's an example of evolution but even before evolution was a theory it was still true that if you breed dog a with dog b, litter c will have the traits of a and b. That is an (oversimplified) fact. By saying that evolution doesn't make sense, people are saying that facts like these don't make sense either.

This is why I don't argue with fundies on twitter or really at all. Arguing with a fundie is a lot like arguing with a child - they've made up their mind and all you're doing is wasting your time with illogical arguments that essentially amount to 'nuh uh.' No thanks, just go clean your room.

How To Be An Open Minded Parent Without Putting Your Ego Before Your Kid

The comments left for the post where I talked about my neighbor who asked to take my kid to church generated a lot of support, which I appreciate, and some criticism which I also appreciate. I can't say I would have handled the situation differently - I don't feel comfortable with handing my son over to strangers even if they promise they're going to church and I don't feel like I should expose my son to religion until he asks about it and wants to be exposed. However, the subject of being open minded came up a few times along with the question "why would you try to keep your child from experiencing religion?"

I feel like being open minded as a parent is just as important as my responsibility as a parent to raise my son in a way that I feel is best for him until he is at a point where emotionally and mentally he's ready to make his own choices. He makes choices now, but there are still things that I decide for him. I decide if he can have ice cream or not, I decide where he's going to go to school, and I decide who he can go off with without me. The point in time where a child is mature enough to make decisions regarding religion and faith is different for every child - some people have children who are very reality based when they are 6. My son is very imaginative, creative and fanciful. My child is still dealing with the death of my father who was the second closest person to my son after me. My son is not at the same place emotionally and mentally as anyone else's kid and the best judge for what is good and what is bad for him right now is me. Not only because I'm his mom but because I'm closer to him than anyone else alive right now and I'm responsible for tempering his exposure to complicated and mature aspects of life like religion and sex and violence.

I don't understand how anyone would want to willingly expose their child to the situation that woman was suggesting. It's as if by offering up my boy to that kind of influence I would be proving something about my own open mindedness that needs to be proven to a stranger. I don't care if this woman feels that I am open minded enough or not - she's lucky I wasn't in a more curmudgeonly mood and didn't yell at her to stop listening in on private conversations and trying to indoctrinate my son as if my beliefs were somehow unacceptable.

Being open minded regarding parenting does not mean allowing every kook and nut job who walks by to have influence over your child. It does not mean allowing people to be extremely socially rude out of fear of seeming closed off or unfriendly. It has nothing to do with forcing your child to be exposed to or even have an interest in religion when the kid isn't curious about religion at all.

I feel I'm an open minded parent because when my son asks me if god exists I tell him that no one knows for sure, some people think there's a god and some people don't. He's asked me if I believe in god and I told him I didn't. When he asked me why I told him because I read a whole lot of books and talked to a whole lot of people and looked at all the evidence and decided that I didn't believe in god - but that doesn't mean he has to agree with me. I've asked if he wants to attend a church service and he has no interest. That's good enough for me. I'm not going to force my son into attending church just so I can have the atheist open minded parent merit badge. That would be me using my son as a tool to further my ego, not doing what my son wants, what he's interested in at this time, or what I feel he's ready for.

I think it's awesome that there are some people who make it a point to take their kids to lots of different services to give them exposure to religions but that's not my way. Personally, I feel uncomfortable going to a church when I know I have little interest in the place beyond using it as a sociology experiment for my kid. I don't want to go to a church where they take my son and put him in a closed off and separate Sunday school area where I'm not welcomed to join in and I know for a fact my son isn't going to quietly sit through a sermon without asking to go home after about 20 minutes. I do have quite a bit of respect for people and if and how they choose to worship - I don't want to be that atheist who crashes the party just so I can feel good about exposing my kid to a theology which I can't honestly discuss without having a completely negative perspective.

My son will grow up and he will get curious and when he does, it will be time to deal with religion. It isn't yet that time for us and to have a stranger suggest that she might educate my kid on religion without me being present because she overheard I was an atheist and me rejecting her offer does not make me closed minded and it doesn't mean I'm shielding my son from religion. I'm just not forcing him to be interested in it. I think that's the right thing to do.

And now, the best vid on open mindedness on the web - enjoy!