IDiots and FUX News

Conservatives appear to believe in free speech only so long as it benefits them. Both FUX (or FAUX) News and the so-called Discovery Institute have recently filed DMCA claims against critical videos. In the case of DI – brought to you by IDiocy – these are false DMCA claims. In the videos made by DiscoveryInstituteID, NONE of the DI-like material is owned by the DI, and nor is the material owned by FUX News that appears in DonExodus2's video (critiquing Casey Luskin's lies). It is against the law to file false DMCA claims, as dprjones points out.



The IDiots at the so-called Discovery Institute would have been wise to know the difference between a tuber's photoshop creation and their own images. They would have been very wise to know the difference between DI and FUX.

The result of their control-freak stupidity is pages of mirrored videos, which are uploaded purely to support those exposing lies and to thwart the intended impact of false DMCA claims. So we risk losing a channel, so what! Tubers have repeatedly demonstrated that, like the mythical Jesusian event, users resurrect themselves within days. The only inconvenience is re-uploading videos and contacting subscribers.

Too funny!

He actually seems like a sweet guy, but one expects him to pull out a banjo at any moment.

Disappointment at lack of banjos aside, I particuluarly loved his use of charts and schematics and his imaginative use of colour-coordinated props. Someone ought to tell him that ID's ridiculous argument from analogy relies upon unfounded comparisons between biological complexity and designed complexity (in materials that, unlike the chemicals of life, lack the capacity for self-replication).



Unfortunately, I was laughing so hard that I missed much of what he said. OminousVoice is, imo, hilarious, but this kid has him beat. The difference is that OminousVoice is consciously amusing.

I thought that the video above was the funniest, but the video below greatly tickled my beloved's fancy. It's a journey into pathos as he says goodbye to one of his props.

Suffer the Little Children

Pariahjane on Information Paradox provides a link to a poll of opinions among 16 to 29-yr olds, conducted by a religiously affiliated special-interest group.

The good news is that young people are more skeptical than older people about the respectability of Christianity. And rightly so, I might add. Eventually, fundamentalists of any faith almost invariably earn their religion a bad name.

However, this poll was not conducted to offer hope of a more sanely secular society in the future, it was undoubtedly intended as a prompt to increase child-oriented evangelical efforts. "THE ENEMY HAS PLANS FOR YOUR CHILDREN— DO YOU?" It's amusing that they shout at one another in caps too. Perhaps they fear that readers will only consider something True if it is Capitalized.

The enemy has plans for your children? What, a good, rational education? Encouragement to think for oneself? Recognition of human rights? No wonder all creationists have hitched their wagon to the IDiocy campaign. At the heart of all fundamentalisms is fear, which is hardly surprising because fear-mongering is at the heart of what Dawkins decries as religionist child abuse.

I want to comment on this section:

"The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%), has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%)."

Let's look at a segment of the above:

"The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%)"

I would not actually consider that a positive! Presumably the designation of "positive" for this question was pre-assigned by the pollsters. Those interviewed were probably best acquainted with the Abrahamic religions, which make similar claims of beneficence, but which ultimately all derive from the same original OT patent of rule-by-divine-terror.

Recent studies have shown that most practicing Christians know little about the tenets of their own faith (not tenants, as so many Christians miswrite). Obviously, this suggests that they probably know even less about the history of Christianity and still less about the tenets of other faiths. So, particularly considering the age group polled, this 82% can hardly be assumed to reflect educated opinion. (This would cause no worry to the participants or the pollsters, American religionist society has been raised to believe that all opinion, no matter how ill-informed, matters.)

The poll invites a philosophical tension alert:

It's interesting that positives and negatives contradict one another, rather than being proportionally inverse. How can people simultaneously think that Christianity is judgmental (87%) and hypocritical (85%), yet has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%)?

In view of the post-Scopes resurgance of fundamentalist political-power ploys, I think that the negatives probably relate to the in-your-face-bigotry of fundamentalists. The positives probably reflect the claims that religious devotees make for Christianity, but which the church increasingly fails to deliver. Let's be generous to the intelligence of those polled, though. The apparent discrepancy may also reflect awareness of the huge, hypocritical disparities across Christian denominations. Some denominations actually do preach tolerance and love.

bigotry, child abuse, Christianity, fundamentalism, intelligent design, religion, Richard Dawkins,

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

More discussion surrounding the gross misrepresentations of atheist arguments and arguments for appeasement by atheistic scientists is to be found here in response to Mary Midgley argues that opponents of intelligent design are driving people to accept it. In response to Midgley's preposterous contention that, "scientific atheism and Darwinism which are pernicious moral doctrines", PZ Myers provides an amusing argument from ridicule.

Mary Midgley appears not to have read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and yet has critiqued things that Dawkins never said in the first place.

On his own website, Dawkins clarifies:

1. I have never said that there are no positions available except for my own and creatonism.
2. I have frequently said that natural selection is NOT the only source of evolution. I have written enthusiastically about Kimura's neutral theory of evolution.
3. I have frequently emphasized that natural selection favours cooperation and 'using something that others are not'.
4. I have repeatedly repudiated the worship of Thatcherite competition.
5. I have never said that religion MAKES people do appalling things, only that it frequently IS used to justify doing appalling things, just as ideologies such as Marxism are.
6. Far from being angry with anyone who says there are mysteries, I frequently and passionately invoke mystery as an inspiration for science, and I frequently state that science cannot answer some questions.

More : M. Midgley, ‘Gene-juggling’, Philosophy 54 (October 1979). : In Defence of Selfish Genes by Richard Dawkins : Read the goddamn book!!! : Dawkins needs to read some theology (as though that would convince Dawkins!) :



apologeticsatheismChristianitycreationismintelligent designmoralityphilosophyreligionscienceRichard Dawkinsjonathan haidt

Whine & Cheese

Are you an obstinately ignorant science student? If so, the producers of "Excreta: Men in Diapers" might want to use you. Just think of it, your IDiocy could be immortalized on celluloid! The whole world could know that you are, at least in this regard, a whiny, illogical, uneducated, twit. Here's description of the invitation to inanity:

"Ever sat in class and had your professor straight up challenge your intelligence for suggesting even the possibility of an intelligent design in the universe?

Tired of being labeled merely for questioning aspects of the Darwinian theory of evolution? Ever been scoffed at or ridiculed in front of your peers?

Well, here’s your opportunity to tell your story on our Website AND possibly be in the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”! Tell the world some of the outrageous things your professors say about your questions.

You and your story just might be chosen by our producers to be in the film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”! Let your voice be heard!"

Frankly, I think that any science student who is complaining about such things really ought to be expelled for deliberately failing to meet adequate standards of knowedge in the field. Such IDiocy is the equivalent of suggesting that physicians should revert to opening veins to release 'bad humors'.

The movie, which I have no intention of paying good money, even bad money, to see, is testament to the infantility of the IDiocy movement. (Yes, I suppose that dressing Ben Stein up was a tad infantile – but, in my defense, I say only that it was fun!)

The import of the production appears to be that some poor, unfortunate, badly-done-by, pseudoheroes of IDiocy have been rejected by the legitimate science community for their illogical devotion to bad science and lies. As though the rejection of pseudoscience demonstrates the underlying validity of the pseudoscience. This is no more reasonable than to claim that the driving of Joseph Smith and his polygamous gold-tablet nutters from a series of towns demonstrated that Christians were rejecting a more valid, though newly-invented, mythology. This movie will no more demonstrate that there is a foundation for belief in SkyBrain than does the reported conversion of Anthony Flew to deism.

Of course, the sheep who are devoted followers of ID bleatings will probably flock to the movie and will feel vindicated in their complaints about to-them incomprehensible science.

intelligent design, Expelled, Ben Stein,

A War on Science

Here's a BBC Horizon examination of the culmination of the Scopes 1925 Monkey Trial in the Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board case. Well worth watching if you can understand those with a Scottish accent.

Lawyer and born-again Christian fundamentalist Phillip E. Johnson reveals his motivation in the power conferred by teaching of the selected creation mythology. Stephen Meyer, a CSC lackey, reveals the search for stooges for IDiocy, including irreducibly deceptive Michael Behe and 'filter' mathematician William Dembski. These perfidious, creationist associations resulted in the reworking of Paley's Blind Watchmaker argument that has been repackaged as the sleight of mind dubbed 'intelligent design'. Dawkins correctly states that IDiocy is only finding a place amongst those "who don't know anything."







audiovisual, biological evolution, creationism, intelligent design, science, David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, BBC,

IDiocy on Trial

By "IDiocy", I refer to "intelligent design" creationism.



Yes, after careful consideration of the evidence, I have already reached the conclusion that intelligent design creationism is religiously motivated, pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

November 13, on PBS's NOVA: Watch Online : Nova : Darwin's Predictions : Defining Science : In Defense ofEvolution : Fossil Evidence : WGBH's EvolutionWeb site : Teachers' Domain Resources : Board vs. Teachers : Senior ExecutiveProducer's Story : The Judge Speaks : Video & Audio Extras : In Defense ofIntelligent Design :

h/t Pharyngula: "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial".




atheismaudiovisualbiological evolutioncreationismeducationfundamentalismintelligent designsciencevideos

Should be Expelled

First, take some Gravol or Dramamine, then sit back and watch Pro-ID Ben Stein and yet another cognitive-conservative congratulate one another on shared ignorance and prejudices. Expelled, in case you have managed to avoid knowing of this celluloid travesty, concerns self-designated victims-of-evolutionist-meanies whining about those 'nasty' scientists who refuse to pay heed to creationist pseudoscience.

I have to assume that admittedly science-ignorant Ben Stein actually believes the roborot that he parrots. Stein appears to be reading his lies from cue cards (no, I didn't omit an 'n').

Ben studied economics and law, so perhaps he knows too little science even to invent these more-stupid-than-usual straw man misrepresentations of science. IDiots are typically not only ignorant of the facts of science, but are utterly unaware of what actually constitutes science. One could excuse Ben for not knowing the difference between science and IDiocy, but Judge John Jones is also a lawyer, and he recognized the difference.



Here's the trailer for the movie that could only appeal to the already deluded. "My duty to get the word out, before it's too late . . ."

Clearly a new category is needed to rate movies such as this: "IDiocy Warning: not recommended for audiences with an IQ above 70."