Convert to Christianity: A Response

Occasionally the Belief Blog on CNN has an article that has a wider reach than to just the religious. The article on the humor of Jesus is one example. As usual a war of words erupted between the faithful and those daring atheists willing to wade into enemy territory (I exaggerate - it takes no courage in the anonymity of the internet to wade into enemy territory). Amongst the comments I found this ... nugget.

Convert to Christianity
Reasons why Atheism is TERRIBLE and unhealthy for our children and living things!

† Atheism makes you stupid, ignorant & blind.
† Atheism is a disease that needs to be treated.
† Atheists are mentally ill, that's why they have no faith.
† Atheism won't take you to kingdom of heaven and paradise.
† Atheism making you agree with Stalin, Mao & other terrible mass murder leaders.
† No traditional family lifestyle, boring and feeling 'outsider'
† Atheist try to convert people over internet because they feel "safer" behind closet.
† Atheists do not really exist, they just pretend that they don't believe in God and argue with religious people.
† Atheists have had terrible life experience, bad childhood and not being loved.
† Most Atheists are uneducated... No Atheists could run for presidency.
† Atheism brought upon the French Revolution, one of the most evil events of all of history.
† Atheism cannot explain the origins of the universe, therefore God exists.
† All atheists believe in evolution, which means they don't believe in morality and think we should all act like animals.
† The Bible says atheism is wrong, and the Bible is always right (see: Genesis 1:1, Psalms 14:1, Psalms 19:1, Romans 1:19-20)
† Atheism have no holidays, no culture, no nothing. Waste of living in this planet...

†† Our Prayers goes to Atheists to be healthy and seek their creator ††

February 9, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Report abuse | Reply

I've maintained as much of the formatting as reasonably possible. Now let me address the bullet-ed points (cute how Convert used little crosses, isn't it?).

Monday, January 16, 2012 - A Day to Reflect

Frederick Douglas spoke:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."--from an Address at a Civil Rights meeting, 1883

Abraham Lincoln said:

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it."-- letter to H.L. Pierce, April 6, 1859.

Martin Luther King, Jr. sang out:

"... And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"-- from his speech on the National Mall in Washington D.C., August 28, 1963.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that many before him shared, but none so eloquently presented, so powerfully delivered, and so impassioned a nation as his "I Have a Dream" speech. You can find the text of the speech at the website for the U.S. Constitution Online. If you can read his words, listen to his speech, or watch him deliver it and be unmoved and unwilling to live up to that dream, you have no place on this planet or as part of humanity. We so often find petty reasons to behave poorly, but listen to Dr. King deliver this speech and dare to live up to the dream.

On "The Fabric of the Cosmos" on PBS

This is a rough idea that came to mind as I watched "The Fabric of the Cosmos" on PBS.  I haven't really fleshed out these thoughts into full paragraphs and haven't done any of the maths to fit the ideas to a framework.

10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions"

Quoted from the National Center for Science Education (October 17th, 2008):

Intelligent design creationist Jonathan Wells has written the insidious "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution." These questions try to encourage students to doubt and distrust evolutionary theory.

Here are 10 brief answers to those questions. Please feel free to copy and distribute this document to teachers, students, parents, and others.

In the sections below, Wells's questions appear in italics.

Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

A: The 1953 studies by Miller and Urey were the first to show that organic molecules could be produced from very simple precursors and inputs of energy. Their experimental apparatus made it possible to investigate the formation of organic compounds under a wide range of conditions. Numerous studies have been conducted since then with various combinations of chemicals thought to have existed on early Earth. Nearly all of these studies have produced some of the building blocks of life. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research. Evolutionary theory can work with just about any model of the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, how life originated is not strictly a question about evolution.

Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian — aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals — but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.

Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently two species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits — mammals — are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology — "evo-devo" — is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel — and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.

Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!

Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point — the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.

Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully — exquisitely — documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!

Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.

Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.

Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresentations of the facts."

The Power in a Name: Atheist

First, my apologizes for not getting to my second numbers in astronomy post.  I will eventually.  I have no excuses, only that I've been busy living life and blogging hasn't been a part of that.

I read an article recently about atheists coming out of the closet and why it's so difficult and rare.  Add to that the recent set of articles complaining about people like me shying away from the skeptical and atheist communities (they call us tone trolls and worse).  So, a confluence of reading brings me to a need to blog this.

The title atheist when presented in mixed company, in company of skeptics and non-skeptics, of theists and non-theists, and any number of similar sets is a door closer.  I see the religious literally shut their ears to a person when they find out that person is an atheist.  I already have a hard time being heard, I don't need to make things more difficult.  So in my day-to-day living I don't use the title. 

When people ask me which church I belong to I answer that I usually don't go to church and don't add that's it's because I am a non-believer.  That last closes the door to further communications fast.  More moderate people will still listen, but they aren't the powerful voting block that I'd like to convince need to be more accepting of secular issues, they already are.  We do need to be able to talk to the fundamentalists and evangelicals about secular issues because they have money (you've heard about the Mega Churches I bet) and put people in power to run and ruin things (Texas Board of Education for example).   Fortunately the courts have worked in our favor so far.  Lately the Religious Right has been working on "fixing" that, too.

The Tea Party and Religious (often the very same people) need to hear our message and not automatically shut it out.  There will still be those that don't listen, but I don't want to shut out those that will and who can then echo our message in our stead.


You won't see me at atheist or skeptical events and now you know why.

Americans Are Ghouls

I've seen an enormous clatter on the web of people declaring President Obama must release the death images of Osama bin Laden otherwise they believe the President is lying to us.  Here are my thoughts:

In this day of photo-shop image hacking, no image released to the media should be convincing evidence, either way.  If Osama is dead, a picture of him dead does not change that.  If he is not dead, a picture of him dead doesn't prove he is.  We've seen pictures of Osama dead before - they were hoaxes.  Someone even resent one of the hoax images as proof for this event.

Why does the public demand to see the images of the dead Osama bin Laden?  Because we're ghouls.  We like seeing the bad guy beaten up and killed (well, some of us - I'm not in a particular hurry to see such images).  We certainly don't gain the high ground posting the images - the modern day equivalent to heads on spikes at the city gates to show the enemy we have no mercy. 

Some say that Osama was killed years ago and President Obama has just trotted out the dead bin Laden to boost his ratings.  If so, this is bad timing!  Any ratings boost will last a week, maybe two.  Certainly by the time of the elections in November of 2012 any gains from such a stunt would have long worn off.  I seriously doubt any such stunt is in progress now.

I reserve judgement on this issue.  I suspect President Obama is telling us the truth now for several reasons, not the least of which there would need to be a vast conspiracy of monumental proportions if this is a lie.  If such a conspiracy is really in progress, it will break down shortly.

Finally, in the big picture of things, this is a small event.  One man is dead that has caused Americans a great deal of pain.  That pain will not cease now just because he's dead.  There are others excited and willing to carry on his goals and will do so with out a doubt.

Finally, was Justice served?  Maybe.  If I were given a choice, I'd have said he should stand trial and spend years and months as a caged animal waiting for judgement and then finally spending the rest of his days confined to a small and dark corner somewhere to be forgotten and lost.  Now he will be a martyr for his cause - a cause that revels in martyrs.

Now I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, so I neither take comfort that he is spending time in The Fire or spending his time with the promised 72 virgins.  I don't take comfort in his death, though perhaps I take a small amount of satisfaction that there is one less in the world committed to doing evil.  This isn't mission accomplished; this is milestone met.  On to the next milestone as we've a long way before the mission is accomplished.

Astronomy Math

As a beginning astronomer, you run into a lot of numbers and sometimes you have no clue what they mean. I intend to help remedy some of that.

Numbers in Astronomy range from astoundingly large to really very small. Ranging from Billions of Light Years to fractions of an arcsecond, it's no wonder people sometimes feel intimidated.