 the
Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter
39
March 25, 2004
In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend
the knee to custom, is itself a service.--John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
In this issue: A new dictionary entry, some updates, and a few
additions; good news from MetaFilter and James Randi; Newdow takes the
pledge; gays, religion, and marriage; religion in America; the intelligent
design on the stump gains a new ally from another planet; some feedback on
teaching ID in the biology classroom; a howler; did George Harrison
plagiarize Alice in Wonderland; an offer to make some fast cash; and
two nominees for quackery of the hour.
Changes
Since the last newsletter I've added a new entry on
displacement.
I updated the Bigfoot entry.
I posted several comments about science and the Bush administration:
Statement by
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Council on
Bioethics
European
scientists concerned about political interference
Scientists
denied permission to attend conference in Cuba
Chris Mooney
comments
I posted some comments on ID and evolution:
Oklahoma joins the
fray
Darby, Montana
The U.S.
Department of Education Gets Involved
Nice essay on
evolution and science in the Gainesville Times
I posted some comments on a polio vaccine boycott in
Nigeria.
I updated the Dr. Fritz entry to include some comments on the Brazilian
faith healer "John of God."
I added a comment about Phil Plait getting some publicity regarding his
continuing battle with Richard
Hoagland.
I updated the pariedolia
page with two stories: one about a man in Louisiana who found the face of
Jesus in his pecan tree and the other about a Palestinian whose lamb was
born with Arabic markings that look like "Allah" on one side and "Mohammed"
on the other.
Finally, our friends in Iceland have begun posting
translations of SD
entries.
News
We received some very kind words on
MetaFilter recently,
including these from Chris Gregory:
The Skeptic's Dictionary is a wonderful resource for all sentient
individuals....It's where I send people when they start telling me nonsense.
It is also a jolly good read....
But the really good news is that James Randi has announced that Richard
Dawkins will be speaking at TAM3 (The Amazing Meeting 3) to be held once
again in Las Vegas, this time at The Stardust, January 13th to 16th, 2005.
Also speaking will be
Joe Nickell.
***
On March 24th Michael Newdow, a part-time physician and
part-time lawyer, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that
the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional. By
all accounts, he did an excellent job stating his case and answering the
Justices' questions, even though he is not a practicing attorney.
The pledge, as most of you know, was created by a socialist
minister. According to the completely unbiased
Cato Institute,
From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of
devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was
written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as
a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as
"Jesus the Socialist."
Right. Anyway, before the rise of National Socialism in Germany, the pledge was said while raising one's arm in
a gesture that resembled the typical Nazi salute. After the war, putting
one's hand on one's heart became more fashionable. Congress added the "under God" phrase in 1954 as a response to
the "atheistic
communism" of our archenemy, the Soviet Union. Twenty-six states now
require the pledge of allegiance in public schools. Many school districts,
even in states that do not require the pledge, make the pledge a daily
requirement. The Court has already ruled that nobody can be forced to recite
the pledge. However, the question that Newdow raises is: Does
requiring public school children to say "under God" imply that the state is favoring a religious
belief over a non-religious belief? Is the pledge some sort of prayer?
The "under God" issue has brought out some very interesting comments from
defenders of the status quo. For example, Sandra Banning, the mother of
Newdow's daughter in whose name he is carrying on this battle, is quoted as
saying:
What we have here in this country is what other people move here from
other lands seeking. We should be proud of our heritage and history and not
succumb to popular culture.
Banning is a Christian and wants to keep "under God" in the pledge. But
does she really understand what she is saying? The popular culture is on her
side.
Jesse Stines, pastor of the Blue Ridge Mountain Church in Elk Park, N.C.
said, "I want my kids to grow up in a country that acknowledges God. This
whole country was built on the principles of God." Do we really want to live
in a theocracy? It is one thing to allow people the freedom to worship and
believe, or not, as they see fit. It is quite another to unite religious and
secular institutions, as is done in theocracies and as various terrorist
organizations would like to do in their countries. The "under God" in the
pledge or the "in God we trust" on our money or the swearing to tell the
truth "so help me God," etc., may seem like small things to some people. But
they add up. They certainly don't constitute a theocracy or make this a
"country built on the principles of God." You won't find principles like
those embedded in the Bill of Rights in God's principles, at least not as
they are understood by most Christians. God's principles--at least as they
have been put forth by most Christians--are antithetical to freedom of
speech, the press, and religion, due process, equal protection of the law,
and so on.
What I personally find repulsive about the "under God" phrase in the
pledge is the implication that the United States has God on its side. No
concept can be more dangerous than to believe that your nation is protected
by God. Such a view will lead to arrogant leadership and citizenship that is
overly aggressive on the one hand or too complacent on the other. If there
is a God, there is no reason to believe that this nation is more likely than
any other to be "under God."
In any case, it is doubtful that the Court
will rule in Newdow's favor, but if it does, will there be a push for a
constitutional amendment to require an "under God" pledge in all public
schools, public agencies, and athletic contests? Why not?
One Nation, Under Hallmark,
Indivisible - Is the God of the Pledge of Allegiance a deity or a greeting
card? by Dahlia Lithwick (Slate)
***
Speaking of constitutional amendments, the so-called "Marriage Amendment"
got a boost when
President
Bush gave his support to it. The proposed amendment would define
marriage as the union between a man and a woman, effectively banning gay
marriage for the second time. The Marriage Act, a federal law signed by
President Clinton, has already defined marriage as the union between a man
and a woman. The recent action seems to have inspired the
Rhea County (Tennessee) commissioners, as they voted 8-0 to request an
amendment to Tennessee's criminal code so homosexuals could be charged with
crimes against nature. A few days and thousands of outcries later, they
reversed their efforts to ban
homosexuality. On the other hand, a Methodist minister went on trial in her
church for being an avowed lesbian and she was
acquitted.
And Episcopalians recently
ordained an openly
gay bishop. Gay marriages, which were fashionable in San Francisco and a few
other places in recent times, have stopped in most places until the
courts can make some rulings. All of which brings me to the point of
mentioning these things: gay marriage today is what miscegenation was
yesterday, at least in one respect. It's an equal rights issue. Just as
homosexuality is an equal rights issue, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last
June when it overturned Bowers v. Hardwick in
Lawrence v. Texas. On the other hand, it's also a religious issue for many
people in this very religious country, so expect the sparks to fly on this one for
many decades or centuries to come.
***
Speaking of religious issues, the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer
has as its theme "Science & Religion 2004: Turmoil and Tensions." I found
the article by Phil Zuckerman to be of particular interest. It's about the
different religious beliefs and behaviors in Europe and the United States.
Several reasons are given to explain why the U.S. is so much more religious
and churchgoing than Europe. We are a nation of immigrants and people bring
their religion with them. Religion provides some comfort and cultural
continuity. We've never had a state religion, so religions have had to be
very competitive. They advertise, proselytize, sermonize, and evangelize.
This affects our educational system, which kowtows to religious sentiments
when conflicts arise as they have in geology (age of the earth), cosmology
(age of the universe), and biology (origin of species). Zuckerman writes:
"Perhaps the Europeans have done a better job of conveying rational
thinking, scientific methodology, and skeptical inquiry to their children
than have American educators." Finally, there seems to be a correlation between the religiosity in a
country and its social services. The fewer the services the greater the
religiosity. I suspect the same holds true for superstition in general.
Providing a great amount of social services would reduce a large amount of
uncertainty in people's lives regarding employment, shelter, food,
protection, education, health-care needs, etc. Stuart Vyse writes in Believing in
Magic - The Psychology of Superstition: "If there is a universal truth
about superstition, it is that superstitious behavior emerges as a response
to uncertainty--to circumstances that are inherently random and
uncontrollable" (p. 201). If so, we should see a continuing rise in
superstitious belief and thus a greater need for skeptics to counteract the
spiral of irrationality.
***
Speaking of irrationality, there is some very disturbing news
regarding the status of science in this country. I've posted several
comments on the Bush administration's assault on science (see Changes
above). And, as most of you probably know by now, on March 9th the state board of
education in Ohio approved by a 13-5 margin what is called a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan. An early draft of the plan made
an explicit reference to Icons of Evolution, a book by Jonathan
Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the energy behind the
intelligent design movement. The final plan made no mention of Wells or his
book, but critics of the plan say it contains many of the concepts in
Icons. It is likely that the plan will be challenged in court.
Defenders of the decision call it a victory for common sense over scientific
dogmatism. In reality, it is a victory for those who would have politicians
deciding what is proper science. The first question in the "student
reflection" portion of the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" is "Why is it
important for scientists to critically analyze evolution?" We call this a
loaded question in my critical thinking classes. The question assumes that
most scientists haven't or don't critically analyze evolution, or that they
don't realize it is important to do so. It assumes that scientists need to
be reminded of both the question and its importance. To provide students
with a lesson plan that implies that scientists have put forth their views
on evolution without critical analysis would be ludicrous if it weren't so
dangerous. Gary Daniels of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says
the ACLU is considering a lawsuit. The National Academy of
Science and the science faculty of Case Western Reserve University have
criticized the lesson for allowing intelligent design, which both consider
to be a pseudoscientific version of creationism. Bettysue Feuer, regional
director of the Anti-Defamation League, says that the "wedge theory" is at
work here. If you teach that there is a controversy over evolution,
intelligent design advocates get their foot in the door and can push their
religious agenda.
Meanwhile in Missouri Rep. Wayne Cooper has sponsored legislation calling
for the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in public
elementary and secondary schools. Says Cooper: "We just want people to quit
passing on their philosophic bias as though it is the truth when it's not
proven." He also asserts: "If we're just a piece of matter in a meaningless
universe, you're going to treat yourself different than if you're a designed
product." Call me old-fashioned but I can't think of anything more degrading
that being a piece of matter designed to fulfill some divine being's plan. I
don't have quite the admiration Mr. Cooper does for the idea of being
created to worship and obey a master. This might give his life meaning but
it seems demeaning to me.
Finally, this just in from the Raelians:
His Holiness Rael draws the exceptional accuracy of his scientific and
humanitarian vision from the Message He received in 1973 from the Elohim, a
very advanced race of human beings from a distant planet within our galaxy.
The Elohim created all life on Earth scientifically using DNA (including
humans in their image) and were mistaken for God, which explains why the
name Elohim is present in all original Bibles. The Bible is, in fact, an
atheist book describing the scientific creation of life on Earth. The new
concept of "Intelligent Design" fits perfectly with this explanation of our
origins. Thirty years ago the Elohim explained to Rael that human cloning
coupled with memory transfer would one day allow humans to live forever on
Earth. Today this prediction is close to becoming a reality, as it has been
for millennia on the Elohim's planet. It is, in fact, how the Elohim
resurrected Jesus, their messenger, as well as many others whom they sent to
guide humanity and who now live on their planet.
I don't see why a "critical analysis" of evolution shouldn't include
Rael's vision, especially since the master himself thinks ID fits with his
godless religion and an atheistic Bible. Now, that's certainly an
"alternative" viewpoint that you won't find in most science texts. I
recommend that Ohio include it in the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan.
Instead of having our students spend valuable class time discussing ID
and other "critical analyses" of evolution, they should be requiring them to
read articles like this one from The Scientist:
"A single mutation
may have caused gross anatomical changes that spurred human evolution."
Evolution lesson renews intelligent design dispute By: Marrilyn H. Karfeld ClevelandJewishNews.com
Science
teachers wary Fear new lessons based on religion by Crystal Harden
Area educators prepare for 'intelligent design' lessons by Jessica
Burchard
Intelligent design bill unlikely to be an easy sell by Jay Janner
Rael
Feedback
Jeff Stein writes: "I’ve been enjoying skepdic.com for years. Today I read
your recent posts about Intelligent Design. If I were a biology teacher, I
would welcome teaching ID if I had to teach it. I’d use ID to explain the
difference between good scientific reasoning and religion."
Jeff, if ID isn't defeated in the courts, then plan B will have to be to
use it against those who oppose the teaching of evolution. In the
meantime, however, I think the fight has to be try to persuade the public
that politicians shouldn't be deciding how to teach science. The
likelihood that evolution is the only idea in science that hasn't been
critically evaluated enough by scientists so that science teachers need to
be forced to consider "alternatives," i.e., be told that maybe some things
can only be explained by bringing in a skyhook like "intelligent design,"
seems ludicrously implausible. The scientists working in this area are
most likely just as intelligent, dedicated, knowledgeable, and critical as
scientists working in other areas. So, why do politicians need to require
teachers of evolution to "critically analyze" this one area of science? It
has nothing to do with common sense or fairness. It has everything to do
with trying to bring God into the science classroom to combat
materialistic atheism (or is it atheistic materialism?).
If the battle with the politicians (i.e., school boards) is lost, and it
looks like it is being lost, the first response should be a court
challenge where the ID movement and the disingenuous tactics of the
Discovery Institute will be exposed. But, in those states and communities
where "critical analysis" of evolution is being required as part of the
teachers' lesson plans, it would be a good idea for teachers to use the
time to discuss the politics of ID and the danger of letting a few vocal critics
with a religious agenda control the science curriculum. It would be
better, of course, to spend the time studying science, but that is the last
thing the ID folks want.
Howler of the Day
A group of creationist anti-evolutionists who want intelligent design
taught in the biology classroom call themselves Missourians for
Excellence in Science Education. The group is pretty slick. They got Eli
Kintisch of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch to write that intelligent design is "a
relatively new concept that amounts to an intellectual critique of
evolution." (Actually, Kintisch's article is an otherwise fair and balanced account of
the science/creationist debate.)
More Feedback
Julian Workman wrote to let me know that the quote I use from George
Harrison belongs to Lewis Carroll.
Just found your site and will be having a look at it tonight [and] want
to point out however that "if you don't know where your going any road
will get you there" is not George Harrison's. It comes out of "Alice in
Wonderland" and it was the Cheshire Cat's answer to Alice when she asked
him how to get there and he asked her where she wanted to go and she said
that she didn't know. So Lewis Carroll is the owner of that quote.
Actually, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Chapter VI. Pig and Pepper)
reads:
'Cheshire Puss,' she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all
know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little
wider. `Come, it's pleased so far,' thought Alice, and she went on.
`Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
'I don't much care where--' said Alice.
'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.
'--so long as I get SOMEWHERE,' Alice added as an explanation.
'Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, 'if you only walk long
enough.'
Yet, I found several places on the Internet where people attribute to
the Cheshire Cat the line Harrison uses in his song "Any Road."
***
Fast Cash
I received the following e-mail recently with the subject heading New Business Development- Webmasters
Dear Robert,
Our New Business Development team has identified your website as a
constant top performer in Google under "fast cash", and one in whom we are
interested in discussing a partnership with.
comment: It's true. If you do a Google search for fast cash my
Too Good To Be True page
about chain letter scams comes up fourth.
We realize that the effort put forth to garner top positions in the major
search engines under competitive keyword sets is an extremely labor
intensive task and when you reach this plateau, it is critical that your
company immediately maximizes its ROI to ensure that your pay back is
optimal.
To this end SpeedDog Inc. has developed two distinct application forms
for our partners ( a long version that pays you up to $10 per completed
application, and a shortened version which pays up to $5 per completed
application). This gives you the opportunity to split run test each form to
see which one performs the best for your customer set.
Wow! How can I pass this up? Especially if it maximizes my ROI.
Apart from this we offer our partners a variety of free custom and
co-branded initiatives so that you can concentrate all your efforts in
marketing and SEO development. Our recently added IP tracking software shows
you exactly where your customers are coming from and where your advertising
dollars are being best utilized, a welcome addition to any web marketer.
Our accounts payable department reconciles with our payday loan partners
every 7 days, so your money is never very far away
If you are interested in discussing how our two respective companies may
developed possible synergies to maximize traffic and our customer bases to
increased ROI, then we would like to set up an amiable time so that we may
introduce ourselves to you.
Synergies! Maximizing my ROI and SEO! I'm hooked!
We look forward to you quick response as we are limited in the number of
companies we can work with on this new initiative.
Kindest Regards,
Trent Houg
Director of New Business Development - SpeedDog.com
Well, Trent, I'll have to think about it for a millennium or two, but
that bit about synergizing my ROI with an SEO almost hooked me.
***
Quackery of the Hour
1) The Doctor Buteyko method claims that the origin of many
diseases is incorrect breathing. Dr. Buteyko opposes conventional medicine
because it "mechanically tries to eliminate symptoms of an illness using
drugs. It does not touch the origin of illness." This method is the
brainchild of
Konstantin Pavlovich Buteyko of Kiev who became inspired by
observations of the breathing patterns of dying patients.
http://www.buteyko.com/
2) Brandon Bays claims that she has uncovered a means to get "direct
access to the soul" and to the "boundless healing potential inside all of
us." She claims that she was able to use this method to make a tumor the
size of a basketball disappear without the use of drugs or surgery. She has
them waiting in line around to world to learn the craft and to take one of
her programs. I'm thinking of signing up for the Seduced by Enlightenment
weekend, which promises "A retreat offered solely for genuine lovers of
truth who long to sit in the magnifying blaze of grace and have concepts and
limitations stripped away in the obliterating fire of truth." She calls her
work The Journey. I'd call it
something else but this is a family newsletter.
|
