left biblioblography

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The Blogging Code of Conduct Is Out - Whooo, boy!

Due to a lady blogger's death threats (I reported on that here), a gentleman named Tim O'Reilly has his first draft out on the Blogger's Code of Conduct.

So, as usual, it takes the actions of a few eggsuckers to wreck it for everyone else. Here's the badge:


Here's the draft:

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.

We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others

We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.

When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.

6. We ignore the trolls.

We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.

I doubt that I'll adhere to much of it.

#1 - I'm big on taking responsibility, but I can't really 'control' commenters. Presently, I'm moderating (again), since some mentally defective yahoo decides to drop by sporadically and make asinine commentary (poo-poo pee-pee, I said boobie! I can hear Beavis 'n Butthead sniggering in the background), but I intend to turn it back off at some date in time (hopefully, my 'nemesis' will have passed puberty by then). Hmmm...I'll have to think on that.

#2 - Yes, I'm big on that. You betcha, I'd not say it online without saying it face-to-face.

#3 - See, I don't get an email address on 'other' or anonymous, so that's out.

#4 - That depends. Most of my readers are pretty capable of defending themselves.

#5 - This is sounding better as I think about it.

#6 - Nuh-uh. I actually enjoy wrestling in the mud with trolls (I fancy that most of them cry 'uncle' by the time I'm done with them, but they rarely bother me here).

So, any thoughts?

Read More...

Monday, April 09, 2007

The Roots of Risibility - Cameron's Hotly Contested Concept

(Cross-posted at God is for Suckers)

I have encountered all sorts of varied nonsense when debating theists about gay rights. From accusations of pedophilia to bestiality to outright criminality.

I've discussed this elsewhere, but since then, have run into more than a few people who have accused the APA of being a left-wing organization, due to the fact that they removed homosexuality from the DSM as a result of political pressure (which seems to be okay for THEM to exercise, but no one else is allowed - how typical).

One of these ubiquitous Urban Legend propagandists is Paul Cameron. The Wiki entry shows that he has a wealth of degrees:

"Paul Cameron was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (USA), on November 9, 1939. He received a BA from Los Angeles Pacific College in 1961, an MA from California State University in Los Angeles the following year and a PhD from the University of Colorado in 1966. He has been associated with various schools including Wayne State University (1967-68), University of Louisville (1970-73), Fuller Graduate School of Psychology (part of the Fuller Theological Seminary) (1976-79), and the University of Nebraska (1979-80)."

That second to last association makes me extremely queasy: it seems that, whenever I run into some wack-a-do, they seem to be extremely well-educated, and an appeal to authority is well-suited. But that...word. Theological. It smacks of confirmation bias. And every time I encounter it in someone's credentials, sure enough, the 'uh-oh!' is duly warranted.

"Dr. Cameron is currently the chairperson of the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cameron's research is controversial as its detractors claim that it casts homosexuals as criminals, killers, deviants, and perverts. Cameron's work receives criticism from other researchers and organizations over what are seen as questionable methodologies. Nonetheless, his publications continue to be cited as support by some groups who oppose same-sex marriage and foster or adoptive parents privileges for homosexuals."

And here's why he shouldn't be listened to:

"The American Psychological Association (APA) expelled Cameron on December 2, 1983 for allegedly refusing to cooperate with their investigation of a complaint filed by psychologists at the University of Nebraska, which is a violation of the Preamble of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists[1]. However, Cameron has responded that he had already resigned, and did so without protest from the organization[2], citing letters he sent to the APA resigning his membership as well as the APA president's letter accepting his resignation, which were both apparently sent before his formal expulsion[3]. In his resignation letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor[4], Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal political action committee" than a professional society[5].

"The American Sociological Association has also strongly criticized Dr. Cameron stating that "Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

Here's one letter published in the APA Monitor. Note that he was increasingly agitated about the ERA, then abortion, and then sexual orientation was the proverbial straw.

Here's an interesting little faux pas:

"Court testimony

Paul Cameron testified in the case Baker v. Wade (1985). Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas accused Dr. Cameron of making incorrect statements in his affidavits submitted to the Court. (Donald F. BAKER, Plaintiff v. Henry WADE, Defendant. Retrieved on March 03, 2005.(p.536).9.) Dr. Cameron has disputed Judge Buchmeyer's findings and placed the relevant portions of his affidavits on the web. Cameron's rebuttal Judge Buchmeyer's decision was later overturned by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc. Baker v. Wade, 769 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1985)."

Read Cameron's rebuttal. Here's the gap I can find in the logic: are the statistics in question from a specific timeline, and/or are they from states where homosexual behavior is a punishable crime, either back in the day, or today? I trust the reader follows my logic, and I need not hammer the point home.

"Paul Cameron was the chief witness in favor of the failed Virginia Anti-Gay Adoption Bill in 2005. He claims that gay people are predominantly drug users and prostitutes, "disrupt society," and have a much lower life expectancy (he claims that it can be scientifically proven that the average homosexual only lives to be 42). The methodology of his 1994 study of obituaries in gay newspapers is criticized for using data from a convenience sample (which uses whatever individuals are available) to generalize to an entire population."

Chances are, he's right in the second sentence. When you deprive a select group of people of their rights, treat them as mentally defective, lock the closet door (so to speak), based on any of their tendencies (sex, race, gender, etc.), we're talking a massive impact on both the individual's as well as the collective's morale. It doesn't take a sociology degree to figure that one out. And what are we looking at here? Say, 1700 to 1800 years of executions, exiles, therapies that have never worked, the list, it do go on.

For more on this, read here - it's a veritable cornucopia of contestable (and contemptible) concepts.

And as the founder of the Family Research Institute, he of course indulges in the same sort of behavior we've all come to expect from the hairy-eyed fanatic - more sputter and spittle than sense.

"That's only the beginning. In a 1981 debate, Cameron claimed a 4-year-old boy had been sexually mutilated in a Lincoln, Neb., mall rest room as part of a "homosexual act" — but police in Lincoln said no such crime had occurred.

"He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government."

[Note that he claims that the 'extermination' quote was lifted out of context - standard fare. Said that it was only a 'suggestion'. Helluva 'suggestion'.]

This fellow is just one of a long, long list of Christians that just turn my stomach. They lie to suit their agendas (all for the 'common good', I suspect), they violate major rules of their belief system with such regularity, and it's not so much that they lie, but it's compounded by the fact that they've agreed to a set of rules that they only play by as convenience permits (and nobody other than their clique can hold them accountable).

And of course, this has given rise to NARTH - a failed organization specializing in 'reparative therapy' - with a successful track record of exactly ZERO.

These are the people I rage against - not for their belief, but for the imposition of their rules on the rest of us. And the means they use to deploy them. By hook or by crook - all is done in the name of that great cosmic baby-sitter in the sky.

And - I'm sorry (not really) - 'God said NO!' doesn't cut it for those of us who don't believe.

Gunter Eich - "Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, in the machinery of the world."

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Sunday, April 08, 2007

What I Want For Easter Is My Two Front Teeth...

Or do I have my holidays confused? (*WINK*)

Rather than do an in-depth analysis of the pagan sources of Easter (my other peers on the blogosphere have already done so), or castigating the Christian religion (there'll be plenty of time for my usual rants 'n raves the rest of the year), I'll take a walk down memory lane, and share with you all what few memories I have of this distinctly Catholic holiday.

Truth is, I was raised loose Irish Catholic by my mother, and we went down a rather uneventful path towards 'belief'.

My mother was excommunicated from the Holy See, due to the fact she married a divorced Protestant. As to whether or not he divorced a Jewish woman had any bearing on the subject, I am unclear.

And honestly (from what I can remember: I still regret my days of dissolution, as I'm sure those impacted my memory), I rather liked going to church. The large vaunted hallways, the ritual, hearing Latin hymnals, all that rot. We all did the baptism (as infants), Catechism and the Holy Communion - you name it. My only memory of the Confessional was one of "Forgive me, daddy-o, I been a bad boy", and a recitation of some of the most mind-numbing 'sin's'; "I swore at my sister, I hit her, I killed a frog" (Hey, I was a little kid! Gimmee a break!), that sorta thing. At the time, these weighed heavily, but now? I feel sorry for the priest, having to get a whiff of the metaphorical dirty laundry. Now, public confessionals are the in thing (one has only to tune into Jerry Springer or Maury Povich, to see whereof I speak: I wonder if these people act out to act on), but back then we wrestled with our 'demons' in private.

Ma tried to teach us about Lent, but that was a lost cause from the get-go. All three of us volunteered to give up items we disliked, but apparently the concept got lost in the translation. I think I valiantly tried to give up chocolate (don't quote me on that), but that lasted for about a few days.

The concept of the resurrection was pretty much lost on us also. Having no clear idea of death, we had little concept of the mythological 'rebirth'. We prayed at the dinner table occasionally (my dad had a good one: Somebody would insist we say 'Grace', he'd holler 'Grace!' and dig in), but there really wasn't much talk about Jesus, no long lofty dissertations about faith vs. acts, no theological disputes. God was this nebulous other, who didn't seem to be anything more than an abstract we paid lip service to. Cafe Christianity with the papal trappings, in other words.

I went off to Camp St. Francis when I was around 8 or 9. Again, nothing spectacular. No, none of the priests touched me inappropriately, or anything else like that. I suspect that my folks sent me off to get some rest: as I've mentioned before, I was an exhausting little boy to have around. I do distinctly recall this weird game they had us play. It was sort of the Catholic version of poor-man's paintball: we organized into teams (Dolphins vs. Sharks, I was on the side of Flipper), took a bunch of Dixie cups, filled them halfway with sand, twisted them closed, and the teams chucked them at each other. You had to aim for the torso: no head shots. Like the TV show, we beat the sharks. I don't know if the resemblance to stoning was accidental.

But Easter was a warm, fuzzy-wuzzy holiday. Sure, we attended the sporadic Mass, took communion, all that, but we dyed Easter eggs (kinda fun), and went about the Hunt (sans weaponry, of course), and overall, it was just for the kids.

So, I'm not big on the 'War Against Easter', or any other of those 'wars': you don't like? Don't celebrate.

Now, have a few giggles on me:

Does anyone remember Super Chicken?

The Easter Bunny hates you!

Another GOP accident:

And now for the piece de la resistance - Kill Bunny!

Read More...

Thursday, April 05, 2007

'If I Could Turn Back Time'...

No, not a big fan of Cher. Rather, I'd like to share a Gedanken Experiment, one that appears relatively simple, but is a paradox to tax the brain. Somewhere along the lines of the Sound of Thunder, and crossed with Zelazny's short story "The Game of Blood and Dust".

It's really a hoary old chestnut amongst the science fiction genre, but humor an old man, willya?

I hand you a gun. It has one bullet. I can send you back to any point in human history, and you have the option of killing one person of your choice. Who do you choose?

Simple enough, no?

No.

Think about it.

If for example, you elect to go back in time and dust Martin Luther, maybe hundreds of thousands of peasants manage to survive. But the Roman Catholic church, deprived of an antagonist, never undergoes the Reformation, and when you return, not only does the US NOT have Separation of Church and State, but the Vatican is the center of the civilized world.

If you go back, and finish off the attempted assassination of Adolph Hitler, perhaps the Third Reich goes on to conquer the world, and you return to find that you are under arrest as a member of the Resistance.

If you go back, and dust old Adolph while he's a starving street artist, millions will be saved, but Israel will probably never exist, America never becomes a world power, and maybe Germany will find a more benign (or malign, but that's stretching it) way of rising up from under the impact of the Treaty of Versailles.

So chew on it, get back to me.

Read More...

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

The Jury's In: Qiqong is NOT Woo.

I had a recent discussion at Pharyngula about this, which I feel I should share with the rest of you. Comments are #3, 164, 182, 227, 265, respectively. One fellow claimed that it was 'woo' if it exceeded the criterion of being any different than line-dancing or walking one's dog. Likelihood is that said commenter's only exercise was doing the Twinkie curls as he programmed COBOL on an antique mainframe.

In the spirit of esprit de l'escalier, I wished I'd asked if him if he could do this as easily as the two activities he'd mentioned.

Oftentimes, skeptics (myself included) tend to fall into a frame of thinking on matters we can be severely uninformed on - to wit, we scoff sometimes too freely and easily, without taking the measure on a subject.

Case in point: I've been doing Tai Chi for well over a decade now. Most of you probably know what that is. What most people don't realize, is that it is a form of Qiqong, more specifically Nèijiā, a subset of Chi Kung.

(Quit rollin' yer eyes, the answer's not on the ceiling. No, it's not a cult, nor am I a 'wooster'.)

For the record, I don't 'believe' in acupuncture (tried it, didn't work), hypnosis (I'm too self-aware, apparently, didn't work either), Reiki, or any of those other wonky New Age placebos. I'm a firm proponent of 'if it don't work, scrap it'.

Let's cover the concept of 'Chi' briefly. Roughly translated, it means 'breath'. Holy crap, even Answers.com renders the translation in terms of woo! I interpret it thusly: it's your life energy. Bio-chemical neurotransmitters firing. Simple enough.

There's a plague (both here and in the Orient) where all the snake-oil salesmen (and women - SHEESH!) are jumping on the bandwagon, hoping to make a fast easy buck off the gullible. Hell, I've run into a couple (I attended a demo where this fellow claimed to be able to knock people over from a distance with his 'chi', but get this: IT ONLY WORKS ON HIS TRAINED STUDENTS! Talk about re-affirmed confirmation bias. Personally, I think he's fulla crap.) The New Age stoners borrow freely, and play mix 'n match to their little hearts' content.

Where's the double-blind studies, you ask? That's an impossibility in this case, since you have to actually perform said activity before an accurate measurement can be taken. But hold onto your hats: "Researchers have found that long-term T'ai Chi practice had favorable effects on the promotion of balance control, flexibility and cardiovascular fitness and reduced the risk of falls in elders. The studies also reported reduced pain, stress and anxiety in healthy subjects. Other studies have indicated improved cardiovascular and respiratory function in healthy subjects as well as those who had undergone coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients also benefited from T'ai Chi who suffered from heart failure, high blood pressure, heart attacks, arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

"T'ai Chi has also been shown to reduce the symptoms of young Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) sufferers. T'ai Chi's gentle, low impact movements surprisingly burn more calories than surfing and nearly as many as downhill skiing. T'ai Chi also boosts aspects of the immune system's function very significantly, and has been shown to reduce the incidence of anxiety, depression, and overall mood disturbance. (See research citations listed below.)

"A pilot study has found evidence that T'ai Chi and related qigong helps reduce the severity of diabetes.[2]"

There's more on this in regards to Qiqong - again, I repeat: don't take my word for it, research it for yourself. Better yet, just try it out for yourself. Proof's in the pudding, they say.

Let's take a few ganders at some of the information available:

"Criticisms of qigong

"Much of the criticism of qigong involves its claimed method of operation. Both traditional Chinese and Western medicine practitioners have little argument with the notion that qigong can improve and in many cases maintain health by encouraging movement, increasing range of motion, and improving joint flexibility and resilience. However, the benefits of qigong become much more controversial when it is asserted that qigong derives its benefits from qi acting as a kind of "biological plasma" that cannot be detected by scientific instruments. Many biologists and physicists are skeptical of these claims and regard them as pseudoscientific. The early shamanic aspects of qigong have added to this criticism. Some experts in China have warned against the more pseudoscientific or shamanic aspects of qigong, such as evoking demons, and worshipping deity forms during qigong, and to focus on the strengthening and stretching aspects instead."

I'm with the biologists and physicists on this one.

"Many proponents of qigong claim that they can directly detect and manipulate this energy. Others, including some traditional Chinese practitioners, believe that qi can be viewed as a metaphor for biological processes, and the effectiveness of qigong can also be explained in terms more familiar to Western medicine such as stress management."

I fall into the above category.

And of course, there's these items that fall well outside of the 'It's all good, dog!' category:

"Stories of unguided practitioners or inexpertly guided students developing chronic mental and physical health problems as a result of such training are not uncommon. A term used by English speaking practitioners and teachers for one example of this syndrome is "Qigong Psychosis" (Now included in the DSM-IV as a culture-bound syndrome: Qi-Gong Psychotic Reaction: DSM-IV General Information: Appendix I, Outline for Cultural Formulation and Glossary of Culture-Bound Syndromes). Another function of improper training involves frauds and deliberate charlatans who promote themselves as qigong "healers" promising miracle cures of any conceivable affliction for the right amount of money. Traditionally, qigong is considered more of a health maintenance regimen, and any promises of miracle cures should be viewed with suspicion, according to traditional teachers and practitioners."

I can indeed provide some proofs on this area. Qiqong (the garden-variety) is usually beneficial, it's not likely that if you do, say, the Wild Goose Chi Kung exercises, that you'll end up being Charley Manson. It's a fairly benign series of exercises. Just as there's a wide divergence between riding your bicycle in the park, and doing bicycle motocross.

But when you start doing bizarre breathing exercises without supervision like tortoise breathing, or reverse breathing, or even some of the sexual Chi Kungs (such as taught by Mantak Chia without being 'spotted', there's going to be some major adverse results. Kumar Frantzis recounts in his 'Opening the Energy Gates of the Body', that he did a White Crane chi kung that enabled him to break a brick with the slap of his hand. The unfortunate side-effect? He found that he began losing empathy, and that it was making him psychotic.

And think on this: breathing changes your physiology. Not radically (say, on a genetic level: that's just silly), but it impacts your emotional responses. When you panic and hyperventilate, a good cure is to inhale and exhale into a paper bag (for a more simplistic example).

On a personal level, I do Tai Chi far more often than I do a stationary form of Chi Kung. The stationary forms are difficult on a different level. It requires standing stock still, and emptying the mind, focusing on the breathing, and trust you me, that's way harder than it sounds.

So, to nutshell it: there is something to be said in regards these sets of exercises - learning to breathe properly, learning to let go of all the multiple stress factors of our day-to-day lives (if only a brief escape; who can argue with that?), teaching oneself to relax, and perhaps getting a bit of exercise and improving the circulation, that's all well and good.

But if some yobbo promises you supernatural miracles (such as Falun Gong), or make wild promises about how the practice will impact your life dramatically (daimoku), or some unsubstantiated unprovable crap about using their energy to impact your energy (Reiki), you have my permission to laugh loudly in their face, or they can just drop by here, and I'll be more than happy to drub them soundly.

And that, dear readers, is my nickel's worth: be careful how you spend it.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Profiles in Atheism - The Good Baron

"Baron d'Holbach (1723 to 1789)

"The philosopher, Baron d'Holbach, (originally named Paul Heinrich Dietrich) was born in Heidelsheim, Germany. At a young age, he relocated to Paris and in 1749 he became a naturalized French citizen. In tribute to his uncle, F.A. d'Holbach, from whom he inherited property, money and title, he adopted the last name of d'Holbach (in French, he was sometimes referred to as Paul Henri Thiry). Baron d'Holbach Jr. used his inheritance to entertain French Philosophes. He advocated atheism, determinism and materialism and rejected absolute monarchy, feudal privilege, the notion of predestination and organized religion. Holbach wrote widely on these topics but published anonymously and under a pseudonym in Holland from fear of retribution. Examples of his work are Christianisme Devoile (1767), Le Systeme de la Nature (1770), Bon Sens, ou Idees Naturelles Opposees aux Idees Surnaturelles (1772), Systeme Social (1773), Politique Naturelle (1773 - 74) and Morale Universelle (1776)."

The Encyclopedia says, "Although a native of the Palatinate, he lived in Paris from childhood. He became a member of a group of notable thinkers and literary men including Diderot, Helvétius, Condorcet, and Rousseau. A supporter of naturalistic and materialistic views, he was a vigorous opponent of Christianity and all positive forms of religion. His best-known work is Système de la nature (1770), first published under the name of Mirabaud."

From Good Sense:

"When we examine the opinions of men, we find that nothing is more uncommon, than common sense; or, in other words, they lack judgment to discover plain truths, or to reject absurdities, and palpable contradictions. We have an example of this in Theology, a system revered in all countries by a great number of men; an object regarded by them as most important, and indispensable to happiness. An examination of the principles upon which this pretended system is founded, forces us to acknowledge, that these principles are only suppositions, imagined by ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm or knavery, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by custom which never reasons, and revered solely because not understood."

And from his The System of Nature:

"The source of man's unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error. He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:--He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him. To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courage--it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigour and impartiality the opinions he has adopted. He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colours; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots."

And of course, some quotes to top it off:

""All children are atheists - they have no idea of God."
"What has been said of [God] is either unintelligible or perfectly contradictory; and for this reason must appear impossible to every man of common sense."
"Tolerance and freedom of thought are the veritable antidotes to religious fanaticism."
"All religions are ancient monuments to superstition, ignorance, ferocity; and modern religions are only ancient follies."
"All religious notions are uniformly founded on authority; all the religions the world forbid examination, and are not disposed that men should reason upon them."

Read More...

Monday, April 02, 2007

Evolutionary Tract (Redux)

I thank everyone for their encouragements, critiques, and suggestions on this - and the final draft is available on my Google account.

I have also received suggestions that I didn't take, not to mention a touch of flack as to the wording.

So let's recap:

  1. Yeah, yeah, I know that Intelligent Design isn't a philosophy: it's nothing more than a PR machine: yes, I do know that it's Paley's Watchmaker re-framed. Anyone familiar with my writings knows this, so gimmee a break, willya? This was an effort to be gracious: we're trying to keep it out of the science classrooms. What it does elsewhere isn't really the pivotal concern.
  2. Yes, philosophy and science are in a symbiotic relationship of sorts: but the average Joe Schmoe doesn't know this, does he? (or Joann Schmoe, if you're gonna give me grief on the PC thing.) The point is, that they're usually taught in separate classes in the middle- to high-school levels, are they not? That can wait till college. What kids are learning is fundamentals. Basic cornerstones. Mixing and matching can wait.
  3. Yes, there are philosophers that make a living at philosophy: I'm not slamming them, or trying to infer some pejorative about the field. Pick ten random people on the street, and ask them for a list of ten philosophers. I'm betting that most'll fum-fah, or have no answer. Maybe one will mention Socrates. Yeah, it sucks: yeah, it means our educational system is deficient. The whole point of this tract is to appeal to Everyman.
  4. I received some suggestions about points we argue over here on the blogosphere - I glossed over them because

A. I want to keep it simple,

B. I'm operating on the premise that most of said readers haven't a clue about the ongoing debate outside a vague mention on the news,

C. I'm trying to keep it down to one page, and

D. Being overly pedantic will simply suck the life right out of it.

I'm still open to constructive criticism: just please bear in mind that this is aimed at a specific demographic, one that is probably severely uninformed as to the controversy of the subject. Talking points that we're achingly familiar with are likely completely foreign to the uninformed.

Anyways, here it is:

Whether or not you as an individual appreciate or agree, or have philosophical or religious reservations over the theory of evolution – the fact remains: it’s a reality, and no amount of dispute or debate can change that.

Here are the FACTS about this so-called ‘theory’:

DID YOU KNOW - That evolution is a science, that deals with categorizations based on observation - that it is not a philosophy, religion, dogma or doctrine?

DID YOU KNOW – That evolution is the backbone of modern biology?

DID YOU KNOW – That prior to Darwin’s Origin of the Species, one hundred percent of the scientists in the 19th century believed in the creation theory – in the 21st century, it is now one percent?

DID YOU KNOW – Without this ‘theory’, we wouldn’t have the benefit of modern medicine: items such as antibiotics, flu shots, or a multitude of other life-saving procedures? That the constant evolution of flu viruses is why there are new flu shots every year?

DID YOU KNOW – Most modern agriculture relies heavily on evolutionary ‘theory’? This includes crops as well as animal husbandry.

DID YOU KNOW – That the ‘failure of evolutionary theory’ has been incorrectly predicted as far back as 1871?

DID YOU KNOW – That without evolutionary ‘theory’, most forensic labs would be unable to function? That’s right – forensic criminologists would be unable to do things like rebuild the bodies of victims, or use DNA to tell suspects apart.

DID YOU KNOW – That evolution has had a widespread, positive impact on our quality of life, longevity, health, as well as leading to a better understanding of the world around us?

DID YOU KNOW – That Pope John Paul II recognized the theory as correct science in 1996?

The concept of INTELLIGENT DESIGN is a fine philosophy – that is for people to decide for themselves. But a philosophy is just that – only philosophy. Science deals with facts, with reality, with the measurable impact on our daily lives. And until this philosophy contributes measurably to the way we live our lives, it must and should remain in a philosophy class, not in a scientific lab or classroom.

Because philosophy doesn’t save lives. It doesn’t vaccinate our children against the flu, or teach the surgeon to wield a scalpel. It doesn’t lead us to the perpetrator of a heinous crime, or protect our children from the ravages of disease.

Science does.

Science is not something we vote on - if it works, it works, and no amount of argument can change that.

For more information visit the following website's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/

http://www.talkorigins.org/

I'm all up for a neat graphic, but for the life of me, can't seem to find (or think of) one that's appropriate.

Read More...