Creationism... To Debate or Not to Debate...

Ever since Bill Nye decided to publicly debate Ken Ham, I have been cringing. Everybody knows, you NEVER NEVER DEBATE A CREATIONIST. There have been many classic points to support this position, many are some that I still hold. Yet there has been some doubt lingering in the back of my mind (can you imagine?!?) and I think it is important to try and understand why a clearly intelligent guy like Nye would choose to do this. He does not need the publicity, or money. So why?

Typically there are a few ideas we need to understand. Debating creationists often gives the false impression that there is actually something to debate. Nope. Creationism in any form is demonstrably wrong, inherently contradictory, and based on a priori assumptions. By bringing attention to Ken Ham and his ilk, Nye not only raised large sums of money for Ham's Creation Museum, which sets out to accomplish the opposite of what Bill intends, but it has the added complication of a rigged match.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/02/ken_ham_bill_nye_debate_science_and_fact_versus_fiction_and_fantasy.html

Scientists have to play by the rules, limited by logic, rationality, and the confines of evidence based reason... Creationists can and do simply make it up as they go along, using faith as a cop-out at every turn.

Going into the debate, I was highly skeptical. Now that the dust has settled, however, I see good ol' Phil Plait, astronomer and science advocate, was the one pointing out something we all missed!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/05/creationism_debate_should_we_engage_anti_science.html

"But I’ve thought about it, and here’s the important thing to remember: Roughly half the population of America does believe in some form of creationism or another. Half. Given that creationism is provably wrong, and science has enjoyed huge overwhelming success over the years, something is clearly broken in our country."

And he is correct. There is something wrong with the way we deliver science to the public, and since the debate itself caused more controversy than we have ever seen coming out of the Discovery Institute, the organization trying to put creationism in the classrooms, perhaps this is an opportunity to illuminate some of the crazy. I would even go so far as to say that by choosing Ken Ham, Bill Bye has embarrassed those with 'faith-based science' all over the country. Pat Robertson of the 700 Club said "Let's be real, let's not make a joke of ourselves."  Perhaps a bit late, Pat.

Biologist Jerry Coyne, initially was strongly against the debate occurring, came out afterwards stating that Nye had clearly won the discussion. In his article, he cites a poll at Christian Today website, 92% of viewers said that Bill Nye won. 92%!!

 http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116478/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-creationism-and-evolution-science-wins

So let us re-think how we approach creationism. Perhaps the apathy I have so chillingly spoke of before has likewise been  offered to ignore creationism. Perhaps we should ask those to honestly defend their position. There is a possibility that the majority of Christians will stand up against this insanity, if only to avoid the embarrassment.

Why I Can't Just Let People Be Happy With Religion

So many in the atheist community have asked me why I cannot simply be satisfied with the position in society of being accepted without bigotry. It is a good question and one I feel that I should take a look at.

In the simplest possible terms, we, as human beings on planet earth, do not live in bubbles insulated from one another. Throughout human history, the studies on ethics, morals, law, philosophy, and of course, theology have strived to find ways we should behave around each other, and have yet to come to a concise solution. Generally, we know that what one believes impacts how we interact, how we vote, how we raise our kids, and how we build for tomorrow.

As an example, if you believe the world is 6000 years old and is a testing ground for the real life after, then you might tend to miss the scarcity and preciousness of this one. You might seek death as a form of delivery. If you think that this world is an illusion, you might be ready to take ever-riskier challenges to test this.

But belief has it's limits, and generally, when confronted by new evidence, beliefs change. Unless, of course, it is based on faith. Faith is the enemy of reason, a grand test of gullibility, and a sacrificial offering of our critical faculties. To distill what is so wrong about the great number of faiths in this world, is no easy task, yet I will attempt it. The essential fanaticism, the consideration of human life as vessels to our reward, as opposed to our sole form of verifiable existence. The fantasy of purity, one which punishes normal human actions as dirty, wrong, or sinful, created sick, and commanded to be well by a cruel designer who has allowed this experiment to go on.

Usually this faith-based creator has an insatiable thirst for uncritical praise, and usually in the manner by which the faithful has come to by his own interpretation of holy writ, and which allows the desired morals to be enacted in the name of said faith.

Rather than seeking an objective truth by finding common ground, the faithful are encouraged to continuously seek personal experiences which reveal a subjective truth, often fulfilling a personal bias they have already had. Rather than maintain curiosity, the faithful tend to close their minds off to other possibilities.

Those with faith tend to answer questions with ambiguous, non-answers. Q: Why?A:  God. Q:Why God? A: God. A:Oh, and Love. Q: Should I believe? A: Faith. These types of answers tend to close the book on learning and have independently never arrived at any further knowledge, objective understanding or information.

Faith tends to infect every aspect of society, often leading to malformed logic regarding Economics, Education, Social Programs, Scientific Advancement, and often leads to the promotion of pseudoscience. Faith is the primitive disease we have the cure for, and despite the attempts to stamp it out, it manages to infiltrate our 21st century society.

Is religion inherently built on Faith? I do not necessarily think so. So what would it take for religion to give up in order to be off my radar as a concern? Let me take from the eternal Christopher Hitchens:

"It would have to give up all supernatural claims... No you are not to do this under the threat of reward, heaven, or the terror of punishment, hell. No, we can not offer you miracles... It would have to give up the idea of an eternal, unalterable authority figure, who is judge, jury, and executioner against whom there could be no appeal, and who wasn't finished with you, even when you died.

That's quite a lot for religion to give up, don't you think?"

Two Approaches, One Theology

I have tried for the last five days to summarize this entry into a short blog post, however my recent interactions today, perhaps I can cement a frustration many atheists have with large religious organizations.

For a long time, I have seen religions all around the world create problems, only to sell the solutions at the behest of the pulpit with threats of damnation and scare tactics. Sin is a perfect example of this. Invent sin, sell purity; Invent hell, offer heaven; Invent the mystery, offer truth.

Another problem emerges all together when you have found ways to intellectually overcome the scare tactics and yet stick with said scare tactics to maintain followers. This is what I have found recently with the Bison Catholics, NDSU's higher-education Catholic group.

After spending Sunday morning and afternoon as a guest of Mass and afterwards, social interaction, I have to speak very highly of my hosts and their tolerance to have an atheist present to play the Devil's Advocate. We discussed a wide range of issues, and throughout a majority of them, there was some level of disagreement, however there was also a level of intellectual honesty that I rarely find. This side of theology is rarely presented in followers of faith-based organizations in my experience, and despite some flawed logic, there was a considerable effort to remain honest to my eyes.

This is a common effect I get when there is a skeptic present, or at least when someone has prepared for a skeptic to be present. It is when no skeptic is expected is when we see the other approach. Last Wednesday, catholic speaker Viki Thorn spoke to a catholic crowd in the Memorial Union on campus and delivered a combination of gender stereotypes, America-centric observations, and complete scientific falsehoods all under the flag of science and medicine.

Using the unscientific language of a layman, she entirely dismissed the nature/nurture discussion by announcing that men and women are born to fill specific roles. Men will never be able to multitask, women are not expected to do anything well while menstruating, and men are unable to process emotion. Using poorly-worded explanations of real scientific studies ("They tested monkeys","Pornography is not sex; pornography is addiction.""From the moment of conception, 'babies' are already communicating their desires."), she laid out why she thinks Pornography leads to rape and sexual deviation, contraception will lead to the destruction of your relationship, it will kill you because of blood clots, and all men hate shopping.

She continued to deliver all manner of unfounded propaganda with assertive and authoritarian tones, while claiming her qualifications for this is that she has had six children. Thankfully, I was sitting with biologists and sexual education experts who COULD tell me how science presents these topics.


So here is the crux of it... After the presentation, many of the people who we talked to often proclaimed ignorance of the knowledge, yet felt she was compelling. In other words, when the echo chamber of religion is thorough, critical thinking does not seem to hold much weight. Yet when we get personally involved, I hear often of how they promote their followers to do their own research. Which is it, and would you please be consistent? What I witnessed on Wednesday was pure catholic propaganda mixed with a dash of science for effect. Today I enjoyed a philosophical discussion that bridged gaps. Let's stop hearing what we want to and engage in critical thinking.