Sunday, April 24, 2011

Easter Bible Quiz!

I do not take credit for this content. It is taken from bornatheist.com. I have hyperlinked the Bible verses cited to skepticsannotatedbible.com, which is an unedited KJV. Enjoy!
Christ’s resurrection is the central event of Christianity, a fundamental truth that must be reaffirmed with vigor at all times, as to deny it in different ways, as has been attempted and continues to be attempted, or to transform it into a merely spiritual event is to make our faith vain. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and . . .  faith is in vain.(1)
Pope Benedict XVI
The Jesus coming-back-from-the-dead story is Christianity’s
most important myth. You might think they would have their
story straight, especially since they had years to rehearse it
before writing the Bible. But if you think so, you are wrong.
Take this multiple choice quiz about the Jesus rising story:

1. What time of day was an empty tomb found?    A.    While it was still dark (John 20:1)
   B.    Very early in the morning (Luke 24:1)
   C.    At dawn (Matthew 28:1)
   D.    After sunrise (Mark 16:2)
   E.    All of the above

2. Who first went to Jesus’ tomb?    A.    Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)
   B.    Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1)
   C.    Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1)
   D.    Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna and the others with them (Luke 24:10)
   E.    All of the above

3. Did the woman or women meet anyone at the tomb?    A.    Yes, a young man dressed in white was already sitting in the tomb (Mark 16:5)
   B.    Yes, two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning were not there initially but quickly appeared (Luke 24:4)
   C.    Yes, an angel who rolled away a stone from the tomb entrance and some guards who were standing there (Matthew 28:2-4)
   D.    Not at first, but later that day two angels appeared inside the tomb and talked to Mary Magdalene (John 20:12)
   E.    All of the above

4. To whom did Jesus speak first?    A.    Two disciples (Luke 24:13)
   B.    Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:9)
   C.    To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9)
   D.    In the presence of two angels, to Mary Magdalene, who first thought Jesus was a gardener (John 20:14-15)
   E.    All of the above

5. How long did Jesus hang around before heading up to heaven?    A.    Only one day (Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51)
   B.    An unspecified period of time, but at least long enough for his disciples to get to Galilee (probably several days walk)(Matthew 28:16)
   C.    More than a week (John 20:26, 21:1-25)
   D.    Forty days (Acts 1:3)
   E.    All of the above
My guess is that you answered “all of the above” to each. That
means either you are a cynic, a Bible scholar, or you figured
the citations next to each answer means that I read the Bible
passages and reported the answers accurately. The correct
answer is “all of the above.”
It is difficult to believe that almost one-third of Americans
(2) think the Bible is the inerrant word of God when the story
tellers cannot even keep their most important story straight.
If the “testimony” of the Bible were presented in court, the
case would be dismissed for lack of reliable evidence. Religion
requires faith because it lacks facts. The great mystery is why
so many people let these poorly constructed ancient myths
dictate their modern behavior.
----------
1. “Pope Benedict on the Resurrection,” Catholic Online, May 1,
2006, (sub-quotation marks omitted),
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3246

2.  “One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible is Literally
True,” Gallup News Service, May 25, 2007,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Victory Is Determined By Strength

I had bought my son a pair of Nerf swords for some holiday or other a couple of years ago; he loves swinging them around, as well as lightsabers, because they’re just too cool. Lately, he’s been prone to say that he “knows all sorts of attacks”. Perhaps he’s been watching me play Soulcalibur too much.

I was feeling nostagic today and found this article by a man named Tom Junod while searching the internet for things about Mr. Rogers. A portion of this article is a story about how Mr. Rogers met a little boy with a sword. I get the feeling that if Fred Rogers were alive today, and had met my son, this is almost exactly how things would have went down if I was the mother.

Once upon a time, a little boy with a big sword went into battle against Mister Rogers. Or maybe, if the truth be told, Mister Rogers went into battle against a little boy with a big sword, for Mister Rogers didn't like the big sword. It was one of those swords that really isn't a sword at all; it was a big plastic contraption with lights and sound effects, and it was the kind of sword used in defense of the universe by the heroes of the television shows that the little boy liked to watch. The little boy with the big sword did not watch Mister Rogers. In fact, the little boy with the big sword didn't know who Mister Rogers was, and so when Mister Rogers knelt down in front of him, the little boy with the big sword looked past him and through him, and when Mister Rogers said, "Oh, my, that's a big sword you have," the boy didn't answer, and finally his mother got embarrassed and said, "Oh, honey, c'mon, that's Mister Rogers," and felt his head for fever. Of course, she knew who Mister Rogers was, because she had grown up with him, and she knew that he was good for her son, and so now, with her little boy zombie-eyed under his blond bangs, she apologized, saying to Mister Rogers that she knew he was in a rush and that she knew he was here in Penn Station taping his program and that her son usually wasn't like this, he was probably just tired. ... Except that Mister Rogers wasn't going anywhere. Yes, sure, he was taping, and right there, in Penn Station in New York City, were rings of other children wiggling in wait for him, but right now his patient gray eyes were fixed on the little boy with the big sword, and so he stayed there, on one knee, until the little boy's eyes finally focused on Mister Rogers, and he said, "It's not a sword; it's a death ray." A death ray! Oh, honey, Mommy knew you could do it … And so now, encouraged, Mommy said, "Do you want to give Mister Rogers a hug, honey?" But the boy was shaking his head no, and Mister Rogers was sneaking his face past the big sword and the armor of the little boy's eyes and whispering something in his ear—something that, while not changing his mind about the hug, made the little boy look at Mister Rogers in a new way, with the eyes of a child at last, and nod his head yes.

We were heading back to his apartment in a taxi when I asked him what he had said.

"Oh, I just knew that whenever you see a little boy carrying something like that, it means that he wants to show people that he's strong on the outside.

"I just wanted to let him know that he was strong on the inside, too.

"And so that's what I told him.

"I said, 'Do you know that you're strong on the inside, too?'"

"Maybe it was something he needed to hear."

RIP, Mr. Rogers. The world is a better place today because at one point, you were a part of it.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Reverend Red Mage vs. Kissthepilot

Here’s a backstory for you. I’m a regular contributor to Yahoo! Answers under my usual cyber-pseudonym. I had answered a question citing examples of poor “design” of a supposedly omnipotent god/’designer’ as one of my answers. Not too long after, I received a message from a user who goes by the name Kissthepilot. Since replying to that first one, I have received quite a few more, as I guess he’s wanting to bait me into a debate with him. Here is the description in his bio:

I'm a young earth creation believer who has done so much research on evolution that I cannot believe anyone still follows that stuff anymore. I am a real christian, and I love debating with atheists. I just wish they would follow their own logic!

I know what you’re thinking. Headache waiting to happen. Believe me, I still think it, but in terms of my wrists, because right now I have a lot of typing to do. I hope you’ll join me on this journey and provide a little insight if you can.

Now, I’m not a scientist, I just play one on the radio. I’m not going to claim to be one, either. I don’t exactly have the debating skills or articulation of people like Matt Dillahunty or Richard Dawkins, but I’d like to consider myself at least well-learned enough in basic scientific concepts and logic that I can counter pretty much anything a YEC like Kissthepilot could throw at me.

Yes, Kissthepilot is notified about this blog post, as sending messages is only a 1500 character limit with Yahoo!. I have a little more wiggle room on my own blog, and by wiggle room I mean all the space I want to address everything that needs addressing.

…which is everything. So here we go.

Intelligent Design is a search for design in nature, and I believe it has good evidence of a designer. Since it's science, it says nothing about who the designer is.

Here’s where the siren went off, right off the bat. Other than the fact that Intelligent Design isn’t science; heck, it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis. The whole thing is one gigantic argumentum ad ignorantium, but more on that later.

Design in nature is easily found; heck, if you cut down a tree and look at the rings, there’s a pretty circular design. Organs in our body are “designed” to perform certain functions. I get it. However, this is because evolution is the designer. There are plenty of instances in nature where such design is inefficient; for example, the holes in my throat that lead to my respiratory system and digestive system are aligned in such a way that choking on food is a risk for me.

I’ve heard YEC’s and other creationists cite the design of the eye as a great example of Intelligent Design (ID) or God’s handiwork. In other species, this is not the case. We have a blind spot in our eyes that is caused by where the bunching of optic nerves enter the retina. Squids do not have this.

But here’s what Kissthepilot (Ktp) has to say.

Also, all of the examples I've been shown of apparently poor design in nature are explainable as actually good design. For example, the mammalian eye. People say the blood vessels are on the wrong side, and the octopus has a better design. Well, how well to octopusses see? When we say someone can see well, we dont' call them octopuss eyed. We call them eagle eyed. Eagles have the same design that humans and other mammals do.

First, I want you all to spot the first rationalization, and I’m going to tell you why it backfires. Ktp has managed to try to explain examples of ostensibly bad design as good design, by referencing the eagle. Yes, Ktp, when someone can see well, we do call them eagle-eyed. Do you know why? It’s because an eagle has such ocular acuity, it can identify a rabbit moving at a mile away. An eagle’s eyesight is four times better than a human’s. Now, you would agree that this is good design, but I’m not an eagle. I’m a human. Why wasn’t my eye designed to have the same acuity as an eagle’s? I’ll tell you why. Because I don’t need eyes like an eagle. My environment has dictated that my eyesight should have a certain range, focus, and clarity. In my case, I’m worse off than others because I actually have to wear glasses to correct my vision. That’s not design, that’s a natural flaw.

Here is the heart of the argument with ID.

We can see design in nature. If something is designed wrong, in your opinion, why a designer would do that is an interesting question but has nothing to do with if there was a designer.

I’ll agree with the fact that we can see design in nature. Ktp forgets, however, that design is a subjective term; what one certain biologist might consider a thing of beauty, like squids and other cephalopods, I consider to be ugly. (Sorry, PZ… nothing against you.) What YECs like Ktp might consider to be good design, like eagle eyes, is quite frankly a missed opportunity in other species. Imagine the strides we could have made if our vision was like that bird of prey!

Moving on, Ktp dishes out the second standard Creationist boilerplate fallback:

Evolution is not a fact. Unless you are talking about microevolution, which nobody disputes. Saying micro proves macro is a bait and switch scheme. I'm too smart to be fooled by that kind of logic.

Evolution is a fact. It’s scientifically testable and observable; modern biology and many other sciences (like the medical branch) are based heavily off of evolution.

Micro does prove macroevolution. Parsing these two terms out of evolution is an invention by creationists to rationalize away speciation, which they say cannot be observed. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. Ktp, perhaps you have outsmarted yourself.

After this point, I attempted to reason with Ktp by calling out the Discovery Institute and other “creation scientists” as liars. Ktp countered with what looks to be a plea for me to evaluate “both sides” of the argument.

But that’s the problem here. There isn’t two sides to this. Evolution/creation isn’t a controversy; hell, it’s not even a battle. Evolution is science. ID/Creationism is not. I would have thought that Kitzmiller v. Dover was the final nail in the coffin, but it seems I was wrong.

If you want to find out what ID is really about, I could suggest some reading. So far, nobody who believes like you do has agreed to take up my challenge. I'll even read a book by Dawkins or whoever you want at the same time.

The only reading that Ktp could suggest is by representatives of the Discovery Institute; after all, they coined the term! So no, Ktp. I’m not going to take up your “challenge”, and for good reason. I want you to read whatever books you want, Ktp, but only because you are truly interested in learning the material and forming objective conclusions based on their content. I’m only going to suggest that you read books by real scientists and biologists, such as Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, and The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins. Both lay out an excellent case for evolutionary theory as opposed to what “creation scientists” say.

In case anyone missed it, I’ve been granting that I can very easily spot instances of design in nature. However, it came with a caveat; I also recognize that “design” is a subjective term. It should not be interspersed with “purpose”. Vestigial organs are a case in point of this. Clearly, they once were designed for some use, but no longer have any purpose.

ID is the scientific search for design in nature. It uses the same methods that many sciences use to detect design, sciences you would not object to. However, if we turn that science down to look at biological things, you cry foul and say it's not science. Why?

Ktp, I have said no such thing. I’m not an “evolutionist”, nor am I a scientist, as I stated earlier. If you want us to have a debate, the first thing you need to learn is to not put words in my mouth and build strawmen.

The major problem with ID is what Ktp stated: the “search for design”. This implies the presupposition that nature was designed. Science says life on earth was “designed” through evolution. ID says life on earth was “designed” through… what, exactly?

According to the Discovery Institute, ID “agnostic regarding the source of design”. Right. So what is it? If anyone kept up with Kitzmiller v. Dover like I did, this has statement been exposed as an egregious lie.

This doesn’t sway Ktp, though.

Some examples of similar science are forensics, random number generation, cryptology, reverse engineering, and SETI, the search for extra terrestrial intelligence.

None of these examples are at all the same “scientific search” as ID, Ktp. As a programmer, I can tell you all about random number engineering, but I won’t get into it. Mathematics has nothing to do with subjective opinion. Forensics relies on evaluating microscopic evidence. Cryptology is mathematics- and logic-based, a far cry from what ID can hope to achieve. I need not go on.

If you have never heard any of these arguments, you don't know what ID and the discovery institute is all about. So, are you willing to learn, or are you going to refuse like most of the people I ask?

So far, Ktp, you haven’t really taught me anything. I have heard all of these arguments, and so have many others before me who have refuted it not just online, but in a court of law. We’ll have one of those people, Joshua Rosenau, on the show next week, if you want to tune in.

The remainder of your messages, Ktp, was yet another passive-aggressive assault on my credibility, which I think I have addressed here. But one final thing you said:

One question, what if I told you I only got my information about evolution from answers in genesis? Would you believe I had a balanced view? What's the difference between me saying that, and you only getting yours from talkorigins and Dr Dawkins?

No. I don’t think you have a balanced view at all, despite you having repeatedly claimed that you look at both sides. There’s only one side to this debate, and it’s the one based in scientific fact. I’m sticking to that side, because it’s the side that talkorigins.org and Professor Dawkins are on. However, I understand the motive behind your argument. TalkOrigins and Dawkins are not my final authorities; they are resources. I cite them because they have objective, verifiable, and empirical information that I can verify on my own.

I hate to say it, but the same cannot be said of anyone in the “creation science” camp. “Creation science” is an oxymoron, because creation isn’t science. It’s a presuppositionalist religious assertion.

A comic I once read defined the difference between Creationism and science, and it went like this:

  • Creationism: Here’s the conclusion. *holds up Bible* What evidence can we find that supports it?
  • Science: Here’s the evidence. *displays some natural phenomenon, item, etc.* What conclusions should we draw from it?

If you can’t see why the first part doesn’t work, then I think our discussion should end here.