Splendid Elles

Well… more like tomorrow early morning, but according to SpaceWeather.com, the eta Aquarid meteor shower is tonight.

Take it from a student of astronomy, if you really want to see something spectacular, get as far away from the city lights as possible. Me? I’m just going to be in my backyard tomorrow morning, and laughing at all the people who got up even earlier and wasted gas money on driving out all the way…

Kidding. If you really want to do that, I’m sure you’ll have much more fun than I will but I have school.

What I think you really ought to do is get up a few hours before sunrise, make yourself some tea or coffee or a root beer float, get a lawn chair, and look up. Do it at least once before you die.

I’m not ditching, I’m just purposefully arriving late. It’s the most I can get away with when a teacher pisses me off.

On Friday, we had begun talking about Freud in English and a kid reccommended a book, A New Earth, to her because it apparently dealed with the ego. Over the weekend, I went ahead and took a look at it… and it was far from worth reading. The guy who wrote it is a Lamarckian evolutionist. Considering that he accepts evolution, that already puts him ahead of the curve… but Lamarckian evolutionists still go down in my book as idiots.

He also buys into the whole Gaia thing.

Not only that, but he says that everything is made of “vibrating energy fields” and that the reason why we can’t see thoughts is because these vibrating energy fields are vibrating at a higher frequency.

In short, whenever he said something about science, even if it were a correct fact, he managed to twist it around to something completely and utterly dumb.

I was explaining to my English teacher this morning how reading the book wouldn’t be worth her while because the science was wrong. Somehow I also started talking about how The Secret was another exemplary example of somebody twisting scientific jargon to either make a quick buck or comfort themselves, and she said in a rather harsh voice…

“You know what? I think you need to lighten up and deal with a little spirituality.”

She knows I’m a materialist.

Well, I’d have to say that for a materialist, I’m as happy as a lark. There is plenty in the real world to take awe and wonder from. Quantum mechanics on its own is freaking awesome. There’s no need to twist it to add in the spirituality.

I’d rather take happiness from something that’s real than all this ever so hallowed spirituality which needs to distort truth to make people happy.

And with that rant done, I’m going back to English.

Jesus may have done a few alleged miracles in the Bible, and there are people who claim they can heal you just by praying to the Judeo-Christian god, but they haven’t helped thousands of people, and it’s not very consistent.

Science, on the other hand, has developed a way that can help thousands of people who have a condition that causes near-blindness.

It’s the first time gene therapy has been used to cure disease. Cool, eh?

Let me tell you about endangered species, alright? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature… Over 90%, way over 90%, of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone… We didn’t kill them all… They disappear these days at a rate of 25 a day, regardless of our behaviour.

I don’t think he needed to speak much further than that for me to know that Mr. Carlin is a completely bonkers scientifically uninformed idiot.

Funny how later on he mentions that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years and that we’ve been doing industrial stuff for 200. Life has been around for about 3 billion years. I’m not going to do all the math, but I’d be willing to bet that if species disappeared at a rate of 25 per day for 3 billion years regardless of our presence, there would be many, many, many more extinctions than all the species that have ever been alive.

As for meddling with nature, it’s not like nature put a sudden selection pressure against bamboo that’s causing the pandas to lose their food supply that’s causing them to become endangered. I’m sorry, but it’s Chinese who are cutting down bamboo forests and all that jazz.

He keeps talking about how everybody’s talking about “saving the planet.” No, the planet itself doesn’t need saving. Even if we blasted all of our nukes and started a nuclear winter, the rock itself would probably continue cycling on for another few billion years until the sun turns into a red giant. The part that needs saving is the ecosystem. Yes, there were mass extinctions in the past… induced by nature. The one we’re facing is being caused by us and it might just be the worst one in the history of the planet.

It’s not just a matter of the Earth absorbing all our plastic when we’re gone. We also have global warming to deal with. Yes, it’s only 1 or 2 degrees increase in global temperature per year but… that means in 25 years global temperatures will be 50 degrees warmer than they currently are. That’s nowhere near enough time for life to evolve to catch up.

Yes… not all forms of life will die. There are probably plenty of simpler organisms that can survive (extremophiles for example). But… say there is a mass extinction caused by global warming and we’re still around along with a few life forms that were hardy enough to make it… What are we going to eat? It’s a rather good bet that most of the natural resources we rely on won’t be around after that. There’s probably going to be a lot of… other people though.

Y’know, one of the ancient Incan kings apparently liked human thighs with tomato sauce and…

But, I do acknowledge that there are lunatic environmentalists who are only a little educated about what’s going on are kind of dumb. What’s so great about “all natural” food anyway? And they are quite ignorant when it comes to the actual science behind genetically modified food.

Environmentalists are often arrogant about how they’re “helping the planet”. Fair enough. People often worry about stuff for no good reason and try to do stupid stuff to fix it. Fair enough. But, Mr. Carlin, I’m afraid that you are very scientifically uninformed.

Please go fuck yourself.

Those of us who are scientifically informed (not the lunatic environmentalists who don’t know what they’re doing) are going to try to fix this. This is what science is for.

Before I begin this post, I have an announcement to make. It is the end of March and two things have happened.

1. I finally took my Christmas tree down. I put it up in December before I left for China and was too lazy to take it down when I got back. Eventually, I grew so used to seeing it that it blended in with the rest of the furniture until mum came to me and reminded me that it was there. Epic fail!

2. My Teen Vogue horoscope did not come true. I have no idea how I got a subscription to it. One day in the mail I got a sample issue and one of those little cards to fill out to get a subscription and… I didn’t fill it out and Teen Vogues kept coming. I usually just flip through it to laugh at the horoscopes and the last one said that the end of March would be the most romantic time for me the whole year. Well, I’m still boyfriendless. Epic fail!

And now onto more profound news…

I apologize for making such a long blog post that probably doesn’t look like it’s worth reading. I imagine that as you scroll down your attention is already slipping from fear of having to read all that junk. If you do read all of that, all the better, but at the very least watch the video at the bottom. It will most likely anger you without my profound explanation of why it so deeply pains me.

In Break the Science Barrier, Richard Dawkins filmed a scene in the Oxford Museum in a room filled with fossils and other treasures of science. He called the museum a “spiritual home” for him, saying that it was a wonderful place where you could find fascinating things and expand your mind.

Indeed, I as well have a bit of my own “spiritual home” in a museum. Every other weekend, I volunteer in the Space Odyssey exhibit at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. You know what? I love that museum with a passion, and not just for the free food that they occasionally leave in the volunteer lounge. Every time I go there, I have an absolutely splendid time.

The moment you walk in the door, the first thing you see are plesiosaur fossils hanging from the ceiling, and a T-Rex. Upstairs, they have even more fossils in Prehistoric Journey. Further into the museum, they have another ancient creature hanging from the ceiling, this time a fin whale. There’s a small mummy exhibit, a gems and minerals hall filled with shiny crystals and eye candy, an IMAX theater, and the Space Odyssey exhibit and planetarium where I volunteer, but most of the rest of the museum is devoted to diorama halls with taxidermied animals. It’s great fun just to walk through it.

But, I gain even more enjoyment out of volunteering there. DMNS is unique in that it has a small army of volunteers to keep the place from dying with the salaries of staff members. But also, the volunteers function as educators in the exhibits. It provides visitors with a much more interactive visit having an actual person to learn from. Sometimes, I’ll put things in vacuum chambers for them. Other times, I’ll give them a short tour of the Solar System using a computer program that has pictures of all the planets and some of their moons in three dimensions.

It really is quite a wonderful feeling sharing knowledge with other people. Occasionally, I’ll take out the spectroscopy cart. Some people may remember their Chemistry classes when the teacher sent electrical charges through little gas tubes and then gave you a spectroscope or little glasses. In case anybody needs a refresher, what happens is that when you have a lot of energy the electrons in the atoms will jump to a higher level of orbit, and when they come back down they release photons of light at different wavelengths depending on how far the electron fell. The spectroscope or little glasses function as a prism and break down the light released into the wavelengths which it is being released at. If you have, say, Helium, you’ll see two red bars, a yellow bar, a turquiose bar, a blue bar, and an indigo bar. Every element has a different pattern of bars.

I like to start by asking them if they’ve ever wondered how we know what the stars are made of. Of course they wonder how we know. You can’t exactly go to one… they’re millions of light years away! But, if you look at the light they’re emitting through a spectroscope, you can look at the pattern of bars and tell what is inside. I’ll explain this to them, and turn on a hydrogen or helium gas tube and hold up a short chart of elements and their patterns to let them try to guess. With younger children, it’s pretty much just pretty lights and that’s fine, but older children, even adults, will often have sudden moments of understanding.

“That’s so cool…” they say, and they don’t just say it the way you say “that’s so cool” when your friend gets a new cell phone. When they say “that’s so cool” it’s almost as if there’s an entirely different definition because their voices are so saturated with awe and wonder. I suspect that they’re not just saying it because of the pretty lights, but as a way of remarking about how amazed they are that they can understand it. I think that they’re remarking about how simple spectroscopy really is, and how cool science is when you understand it with little effort.

I absolutely love hearing them say it and seeing their eyes light up. It feels like I should be thanking them as they walk away to their planetarium show.

Another wonderful feeling I get is when I go up to Prehistoric Journey. I’ve heard that in some museums, they show dinosaur fossils with little or no mention of evolution. That’s not the case in DMNS. Evolution is everywhere in that exhibit. I love seeing families take their children there. After watching parents turn to their children and say that the universe is 6,000 years old every time I show them a 4.6 billion year old meteorite far too many times, it is deeply refreshing to see them turn to their children at a model of Lucy and say “did you know that humans used to look like that?”

Well, actually that statement is slightly scientifically inaccurate… but I won’t be too nit-picky. I love that exhibit because it educates people about evolution, the true story of how life got on Earth. But… then I saw this video on YouTube.

After watching that, do you feel angry? Annoyed? I assure you, it’s probably nothing compared to what I feel. Those poor children… those cute, poor children… You can tell that they are genuinely interested in science, but they’re having one of the greatest scientific truths kept from them.

I walked through Prehistoric Journey yesterday, recognizing all those places where those poor, poor, sweet children were being lied to and… it honestly brought tears to my eyes. Like I said, DMNS is for me as the Oxford Museum is for Richard Dawkins… a spiritual home. Mine has been invaded and is being tarnished by lying bigots.

We (the volunteers) are told that if somebody ever tries to argue with us about the age of the Earth, we are never going to get anywhere and should therefore get out of the argument as quickly as possible. The next time a parent turns to their child and say “the Earth is 6,000 years old!” I will do that, but not before I make this statement:

It is certainly your right to believe that, and it’s certainly your right to teach your child whatever you want, but I think that it ought to be your child’s right to know the truth, and at the very least it ought to be your child’s right to know that when I say that the Solar System is 4.6 billion years old it’s not a statement of faith but a statement backed up by evidence. Now, if you’re interested in knowing how I know that…

Update:

And in case anybody else decided to infer from my post that I am somehow a fascist, you can see the e-mail I sent to James Randi.

The Denver Museum is NOT ignorant of the BC tours, nor is it choosing to
remain ignorant. I took the opportunity to ask about BC tours after I saw
the video and blogged about it
(http://splendidelles.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/creationists-are-pure-evil/).

They are very aware of BC Tours and they despise them very much.

I once asked one of the staff members what I should do if a visitor insisted
on saying the Earth is 6,000 years old. That’s when he first told me about
BC Tours, and how when they showed up, everybody would say “they’re here” in
a spiteful manner.

Unfortunately, there is nothing they can do. The museum is a public
institution and people can go there and have their own tours if they wish,
so long as they don’t harass anybody in the exhibit. That’s the only time
when they’re allowed to kick the creationists out.

They were able to get them to stop putting the museum logo on their website,
and got one of the “tour guides” to stop wearing a lab coat because they
want to make it clear that BC Tours do not represent the museum.

If there was anything more the museum could do, they would… But, to
protect our freedom of speech, we have to protect theirs.

Alright, provided I don’t forget, this will become a regular thing on my blog. Random facts are fun but hard to come up with. There is no end to the supply of ignunt fools. Even when I run into blog-writer’s-block, I will have a good superfluous supply of ignunt fools to point to… provided I don’t forget that I’m doing this. So, check back every Friday! Friday is a good day.

This week’s ignunt fool of the week is…

Mike Hallet

See that rock he’s standing next to? That’s not actually a rock. That’s a Halletestoneion Zoria. In other words a rock sea dragon which apparently is 540 million years old. Around the skull, he also found several pointy rocks teeth which are made of calcite which is calcium proving that they are teeth!

And now I know what the inside of a rock Halletestoneion tooth looks like.

His book is a great work of science, filled with his analyses of the rocks Halletestoneions that are so advanced I can’t figure out how he came to those conclusions. A quote from it that bowled me over…

Shattering All previous records With Age And Size Halletestoneions are the worlds oldest Biology is Also the worlds most Advanced Biology.

It’s in his book. Seriously.

And now, I’ve gotta wonder… Even the people who see faces in the rocks on Mars (I see it too, and I don’t think much more of it than the smiley face crater) wouldn’t think that those rocks look remotely like dinosaur skulls (or would they?). This man is deluded not in the religious sense, but in the psychiatrist’s use of the word (though religious people can fall under the psychiatrist use too). Also, I doubt that this guy could do all this by himself. Somebody had to be holding the camera for him.

Does this man have friends? Do these friends know that he’s mentally disturbed? If so, it’s their responsibility to not allow him to dwell in his fantasies. They ought to get him the help he needs, however harmless his delusions might be to others.

Update: I think they’re serious. I took the liberty of e-mailing them and said…

I’m curious about how many people are working on this project with you, who they are, and how they got involved.

The reply…

Dear Fish, about 12 major contributers so far in time and money. They have had an open mind and field experience at the zoria graveyards. One must not dissmiss this discovery using dinosaur technology. The proof is in the repeating biological structures. We will soon post such specimens on the site. We have a current lab in Kaysville, Ut. for anyone who is serious about an in depth look and personalized explanation from Mike himself. We have had 5,000 hits from 57 countries on our web site the last 2 days. Ron McEwen, Hallettestoneion Research Project

I’m not sure how I should feel about being called ‘Fish.’

For your information, here’s a brief list of things that science is greater than…

Science > Religion

Science > Pie

Science > Oprah

Science > Chuck Norris

Science > Non-stick frying pans

Science > Italy

Science > UFOs

Science > UFO abductees

Science > Richard Dawkins (blasphemy, I know… send the Atheist Inquisition after me if you really want…)

Science > Horses

Science > Captain James Tiberius Kirk

Science > Jesus Christ

Science > Sex

Science > NASA

Science > Magnets

Science > Flush Toilets

Science > The Secret

Science > Chinese Medicine

Science > Philosophy

Science > Fruit Flies that evolve into Daleks

Science > Harry Potter

This is in response to the 12 counties in Florida that now have anti-evolution resolutions.

I want to express my admiration for those concerned parents and school board members in their continuing fight against scientific orthodoxy, who have been applying pressure on the school boards in Florida to allow their children the right to hear all sides of the story.

We must take this as an opportunity to further the cause of ridding schools of scientific orthodoxy, and continue fighting the enemy and their constant attempts to push their bleak, materialistic view upon our children.

As a student in a Chemistry Honors class, I am appalled to find that our textbook is laced with references to atoms.

The atomic theory of matter is called the atomic theory of matter for a reason. It’s only a theory, not a fact…

They claim that they’ve conducted numerous experiments to prove the existence of atoms, but how can they be sure that their experiments are correct? Satan could be fooling them into thinking that the results they’re getting are true. After all, evidence is subjective.

And yet, my textbook and teacher continue to prat along about these atoms as if there were mountains of empirical evidence for them!

I propose that we teach, instead, Empedocles’ alternative theory of the four elements (earth, air, water, and fire), or, at least, give equal time to Aristotle’s four elements and the atomic theory of matter. After all, this is America! The land of the free! We are a democracy, and we should treat all things with equality, including scientific theories.

While I’m at it, I find it absurd that they still teach the germ theory of disease in Biology classes. Equal evidence can be given that diseases are induced, not by pathogens, but by demons and spirits, as mentioned in the Bible. Just as the evil minions of scientific orthodoxy are pushing God out of the creation, they’re pushing evil out of the cause of disease.

Our children must be aware that if they succumb to the influences of Satan, they will be punished with disease. If they believe that it’s not their fault that they are ill, our society will fall into anarchy, just as if they believe they are animals, they will behave like animals.

So what if you can see bacteria underneath a microscope? You still have to prove that it’s the bacteria that cause the disease. For all we know, God could have just put the bacteria there because He was bored… just like how he left vestigial appendages in us and other animals. He is probably testing our faith.

And in Astronomy, I can not help but notice that they teach us the heliocentric (sun-centered) model of the Solar System. There’s no end to the thirst of the evil minions of scientific orthodoxy’s conspiracy to push God, philosophy, evil, and the divine status of man out of the science curricula of our children.

While all these “scientists” make fun of creationism for not standing up to common sense, my common sense plainly tells me that the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa!

Instead they give us this outrageous model that says that the earth is moving! How is it that when I’m in a moving car, I can feel myself moving, yet here I am on this planet, and I feel perfectly stationary?

Plus, if our children learn that they are not at the center of the universe, just think what effect that will have on their self-esteem! If they do not believe that man is the center of the universe, they won’t feel all chosen-by-God and special anymore!

These hypocrites need to be put in their place!

March onward, soldiers of God. Rage against scientific orthodoxy. Rage against it!

I’ll try to ease up on the sarcasm from here on out…

I’m in a bad mood today. Last night, my friend “Yitaru” (well, that’s obviously not his real name but that’s his name in the chatroom) came into the atheist chatroom and asked the following question:

Why should science replace religion for our morals?

We tried to make clear that we didn’t think that morals should be derived directly from science, but that science and logic should be used to influence moral decisions. The example we used was abstinence-only education. I ran two thought experiments.

Two teenagers who have been educated about safe sex use condoms and therefore do not contract any STDs or have any pregnancies.

Two teenagers who have been through abstinence-only education break their abstinence vows (the average time is 18 months after taking them), have sex, but are told that condoms don’t work and therefore don’t use them. Their chances of contracting STDs or having pregnancies increases.

However, he sort of leeched onto the “philosophy” part of it, calling religion a philosophy just like science. Well, in a sense, science is a philosophy, but it’s different from other philosophies for the following reason.

Evidence. Again. I think I’ve already made a post about evidence being what separates science from Intelligent Design somewhere…

Of course, evidence and logic are the shoes on your two feet. You can get further with both than with just one (that’s a Babylon 5 quote that’s been modified, for the record).

And then he said that logic is subjective (?!?) because what seems logical to one person is illogical to another person. Ha!

And then when we were trying to explain to him why (again) science is not another religion and expressed our frustration, he claimed that we had been personally attacking him and said that we were all like a bunch of Creationists and left (damn… run-on… and I’m too lazy to fix it). When I talked to him privately later, he said that the Creationists and the Atheists are like two children fighting over whose toy is better. That science has no reason to say that other philosophies are wrong because it itself is a philosophy. I then had the pleasure of listening to him flaunt his “agnosticism” and say that he had “seen the light.”

Well, it’s a shame that I have lost an ally to postmodernism, that dreadful enemy of reason. But I think I’ll address the “my toy is better than your toy” analogy.

Let’s take… a Barbieist (supporter of the Barbie doll) and a Legoist (supporter of Legos). Let’s imagine that they support their toys for the same reason that religious people support their religions (in other words, think of a Muslim and a Christian arguing).

Barbiest: My toy is better than your toy.

Legoist: No, my toy is better than your toy.

Barbiest: Is not!

Legoist: Is too!

Now, let’s have the Barbiest ask the Legoist why the Lego is better than the Barbie.

Barbiest: Why are Legos better than Barbie dolls?

Legoist: Because my parents played with Legos.

Barbiest: Well, my parents played with Barbie dolls too!

In other words, they believe what the believe because of tradition. What’s another popular reason why religious people believe? Authority.

Legoist: Well, the CEO of the company that makes Legos says that Legos are better.

Barbiest: Well, the CEO of the company that makes Barbie dolls says that Barbie dolls are better.

The other reason would be revelation…

Legoist: I just have a feeling inside that Legos are better.

Barbiest: I just have a feeling inside that Barbies are better.

I think that this argument seems absurd, and I hope it’s quite obvious why. Richard Dawkins ended his book, A Devil’s Chaplain, with his letter to a ten-year old daughter that highlighted a good reason for believing in something (evidence) and three bad reasons for believing in something (tradition, authority, and revelation). However, when an evolutionist gets in an argument with a creationist, I have found that it almost always ends like this:

Creationist: It’s something called faith! Something that you will never understand!

So let’s change the argument a bit.

Barbiest: I think that Barbie dolls are better than Legos.

Legoist: I think that Legos are better than Barbie dolls and here’s why. You can build stuff with them, building stuff is fun. It’s also useful to develop those skills if you want to become good at Math, or if you want to become an engineer.

Barbiest: I still like Barbie dolls better because I believe they’re better because I believe they’re better.

Bottom line. Science is better because we know why. We know why because of evidence and logic.

But logic is subjective! What’s logical to one person isn’t logical to the rest of us!

That’s about the same as saying that where one person thinks there’s a cliff edge, another person won’t think that there’s a cliff edge. Logical fallacies can be considered subjective, but real logic is objective.

If P then Q, then if P then Q. If you haven’t taken symbolic logic, that might not make a lot of sense… But let’s say that P means that it’s raining. Let’s say that Q means that the sidewalk is getting wet. Therefore, if it is raining, then the sidewalk is getting wet.

However, there is room for fallacy here. If Q then P. If the sidewalk is getting wet, then it must be raining, right?

Not necessarily. The sidewalk could be getting wet because a sprinkler is broken. Maybe a child spilled something. Maybe a block of ice is melting. We can probably figure out which it is by observing the immediate area around the sidewalk, to gain evidence to figure out what is causing the sidewalk to be getting wet.

Let’s take the following “proof”:

1. Richard Dawkins is happily married to Lalla Ward.

2. Richard Dawkins was introduced to Lalla Ward by Douglas Adams.

Conclusion 1: Douglas Adams is a good matchmaker.

3. I have the same birthday as Douglas Adams.

4. If I have the same birthday as Douglas Adams, then I was exposed to the same astrological energies, and Douglas Adams and I are the exact same person.

Conclusion 2: I am a good matchmaker.

5. If I am a good matchmaker and I think that two people would make a good couple, then they will make a good couple.

6. I think that Richard Dawkins and I would make a good couple (Well… not really… there’s sort of a half century and two years age difference).

Conclusion 3: Richard Dawkins and I would make a good couple.

Ergo,

Richard Dawkins and I are meant for each other.

So! Is Richard Dawkins going to read this “logic” proof, divorce his wife, and come marry me?

Of course not! Why? Let’s play spot the fallacies… I think that they’re blatantly obvious, so I’m not going to go through it and pick it apart.

The point is, no matter how logical I think something sounds, that does not mean that it actually is logical.

But philosophy does not necessarily use fallacies!

True, but it doesn’t take evidence into account either. To Aristotle, and to your and my common sense, a ball weighing 100 cubits that is dropped at the same time as a ball weighing 10 cubits will hit the ground before the ball weighing 10 cubits. We know this is not true, however, because of the laws of physics, but also because a little known scientist named Galileo tested that claim. The evidence was that they hit the ground at the same time, and now our laws of physics are more correct.

But who was right? The philosopher? Or the scientist who went out and tested the claim?

You’re right. Science is just another philosophy, but it’s right, and the reason why is because… we tell you why.

Haha. I think that that title’s a bit ironic, him being a defender of reason.

When I first read Skeptical Inquirer magazine, it was in the library at the University of Denver. I had been attending a summer program there for gifted students, and started reading the magazine for an article on quantum mechanics… and then kept reading. I instantly loved it, but it wasn’t until the Fall of my 8th grade year that I finally bothered myself to get a subscription to it. This was probably sparked by my discovery of the infamous website, Answers in Genesis. Through the Center for Inquiry, I began to become exposed to even more new ideas, and a whole new world of skepticism, which held such names as Joe Nickell, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others… But as much as I greatly admire these names, I think that the person I most admire is Richard Dawkins.

The first time I was exposed to him was listening to an episode of Point of Inquiry, and it really was quite nice listening to a voice that I could so whole-heartedly agree with. I hadn’t read any of his books, and wouldn’t get one of them for several more months because I’m just lazy like that, but I already knew that I admired him. He delivered quite a devastating blow to religion, and I liked that…

But, at the same time, I was hearing criticisms of him. Criticisms from fellow skeptics, criticisms from the media…

What really got me writing this blog entry was the most recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer which had an article on him that, though I’m not quite sure it was exactly criticizing him, still used words such as “hostile” and “militant atheist” to describe him. I couldn’t help but start thinking about all those criticisms (I’m getting really sick of the word now) that I had heard before.

I have heard “militant atheist” used to describe him dozens of times, I have heard fellow skeptics say that he comes across as arrogant and pompous, and I have heard theists say that he must be a twisted, lonely man. Also prominent in my mind, the episode of South Park in which Richard Dawkins has sex with Mrs. Garrison, finds out that she’s (it’s?) a trans-sexual, is disgusted, and says “How could I have been so stupid?!?”

Having read many of his articles, and books, and seen videos, and heard him on radio shows, and met him, I have never really been able to know what they were talking about. I suppose I can see how some of the things he has said can be seen to be arrogant, especially when not read in context, but I would like to use this blog entry to argue otherwise.

I think that one need only read one of his books to know that that is far from the truth, and the well-known quote in the beginning of Unweaving the Rainbow, I think, should effectively shut up people who say the man is a twisted, arrogant, pompous ass.

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you, and I, in our ordinariness that are here.”

That entire paragraph is laced with a sort of… spirituality… for lack of a better word. But, I put that last part in bold to point out Dawkins’ lesser-known humbleness. I don’t think that he really does think that he’s better than all of us, though I do admittedly think that he is the coolest person ever (might not take too kindly to reading that if he ever stumbles across this blog), he is nowhere near as egotistic as I am and he could probably justify being egotistic if he was.

Well, I should clear up that last part… I don’t actually think that I am that great. I think that I was lucky enough to have parents who cared about me, who shared their knowledge of the world with me, who encouraged me to gain more knowledge of the world, and sent me to a charter school. Any precociousness that I may seem to demonstrate is not because of a destiny, or my genes, but because of the learning-rich environment in which I was brought up.

Which brings me to something else. Like I said, I don’t think that I’m really that special. I’m just motivated to learn, and this is because I was lucky to be brought up that way (I blame public school for not exposing students to a love of learning like the one I have but that’s a entry for another time…). But if you’ll see my first entry, “I Am Great”, it contains an excerpt from an e-mail that Richard Dawkins sent me shortly after he met me. He told me that I had bowled him over.

Would a pompous ass really be greatly impressed with a 14-year old girl like me? I am not trying to brag at all (for once), but when one of the world’s greatest minds can be bowled over by something so simple as a 14-year old girl who stood up in an Irish pub to give a 5-minute speech about a skepticism club she’s starting at her high school, I think that that has to be one of the most humbling things possible. Would a man who said “How could I be so stupid?” after having sex with a trans-sexual (by the way, I have reasons to doubt that he’d be disgusted by that anyway) say that? I doubt it.

I have often heard fellow skeptics longing for “another Carl Sagan”. I admittedly haven’t read as much of Carl Sagan’s books as I should, though I have seen Cosmos a few times, but I think that Richard Dawkins is another Carl Sagan. Passionate about science and the truth. Utterly fascinated by the world. A remarkable ability to share science with the general public. Highly moral. Eloquent. All one has to do to know this is true is listen to him talk, or read one of his books. He always manages to bring a smile to my face. Richard Dawkins is a defender of reason, and another Carl Sagan, but nominating him for the “Bad Faith” award and supporting the South-Park-Richard-Dawkins impression on the general public is not going to help get the message across.

So, to those who think that Richard Dawkins is ineffective/bad for the cause of skepticism, if you want him to be effective, stop supporting the media’s impression a person that he’s not.

Ok, so I don’t like how I ended that… Let me word it a different way…

Richard Dawkins’ message is beautiful, and persuasive. However, when the theists keep hearing the words “militant”, “hostile”, and “arrogant”, that’s just already biasing them against him. The media does it enough, and it doesn’t help when we do it either.

Mm… no. I don’t like how I ended that either…

I’ll just end with these thought-provoking words…

Boom-shabba-labba-labba.