From the creator of Video Skepdude

Expelled and “Academic Freedom” bill slamed by the Wall Street Journal!

Yet another negative article for Mr. Stein and the hordes of morons that give him standing ovations (according to….Mr. Stein himself.). This one is at the Wall Street Journal. I’m actually being unfair to Mr. Stein, but that’s only because I can’t stand him. The article actually only mentions Expelled as a new creationist tactic and it mostly criticizes the “Academic Freedom” bills that have been sprouting like worms after rain lately. If you have been reading the new you may have heard that Florida recently shot one of these dead in the water (but only on a technicality, they’re going on summer vacation. It is probable it the bill will be resurrected when they come back, nice and tanned!) . Here’s a sampling of what you can find if you follow the link above and head over to the Wall Street Journal site.

They have spent years working school boards, with only minimal success. Now critics of evolution are turning to a higher authority: state legislators.

In a bid to shape biology lessons, they are promoting what they call “academic freedom” bills that would encourage or require public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science.


The common goal: To expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution. Most of this material is produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism, the belief that God created man in his present form.

The legislative push builds on an emerging strategy developed by conservative Christians who consider evolution ungodly and a small group of scientists who find it implausible.

In the scientific community, while there may be debate about the details, the grand sweep of evolution is unassailable. “There’s no controversy,” said Jay Labov, a senior adviser for education and communication with the National Academy of Sciences.

Nice. This is the kind of writing that almost makes me subscribe to the WSJ. But then I remember that there are plenty of good news sources out there and I don’t. News should be free, don’t you think?


May 4, 2008 Posted by | Evolution, Intelligent Design, Uncategorized | , , | Leave a comment

Alien Pareidolia

Aaaahhhh, pareidolia. Don’t you just love it? This one comes from Alberta, Canada. I thougth Canadians were smarter than this. They have figured out how to provide everyone with affordable (free I think) healthcare, so on that count they’re doing better than their southern cousins. But I guess no one is immune from teh stooopidity (I apologize to the Bad Astronomer for steeling his “teh stooopid” line, but I just find it too damn funny. I hope he doesn’t have a trademark on it!). I actually don’t see aliens. The one on the right, kinda looks like one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to me. The one on the left looks like a bad drawing of me my 9 month old daughter is bound to produce in the next 3-4 years.

The funny thing, according to the NBC10 article, is that these things only appear between 4:30 PM and 6:00 PM. And get this “The only sure way the image goes away — clouds.” So I think the Sun may be to blame. Probably wrong, though as we cynical skeptics usually are!

The scary thing is that there are probably people, besides the little whiny kids in the story, grown ups, who believe it. Now why would aliens, who are so advanced to travel across the universe, choose to project themselves on a window, when there are plenty other suitable choices, such as TV, Internet, holography beats me. Furthermore, they seem in desperate need of photography, video and/or projecting tutoring, because I am not impressed with the quality of their work.

May 4, 2008 Posted by | Critical Thinking, Funny | | Leave a comment

Follow up on “Investigating Atheism”

A few days ago, I posted an entry called “Investigating Atheism” in which I directed readers to the website. At that time I had not had a chance to read the website. I have now read, through half the material I have printed and these are my opinions.

In setting up the site, the purpose of Cambridge University seems to have been to present atheism in an unbiased manner. That means that as you read through the History, or Arguments portions, they try to simply present the atheist views without giving an opinion on them.

So if you are an atheist looking for a place where you can go and have your views and non-beliefs enforced look somewhere else. If you are a religious person looking for a place where atheists are being bashed, as the hell bound heathens they are, look somewhere else (I was being cynical by the way, I’m an atheist myself and I don’t think I’m hell bound, for there is no such thing as Hell, except right here on Earth!)

Bottom line: It’s a useless website! It’s not useful to atheists nor religious people. Everyone has an opinion one way or another about us. This website does nothing! What is the point of writing up a website about a controversial subject and not submit YOUR OPINION? The worst, that I have read so far, is the Atheism & Morality page where they make statements such as:

In the strict sense atheism only entails disbelief in God, so in principle atheists can hold a range of ethical beliefs from various forms of secular moral objectivism to moral nihilism. New Atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are vigorous in their denial that atheism must lead to moral nihilism and lend their support to the Enlightenment project of a secular autonomous ethics. However, the suspicion endures that atheism must lead to immorality, and public atheists past and present must devote a significant amount of their time to addressing this charge.

In principle we can be moral? The suspicion endures that atheism must lead to immorality? Whose suspicion endures? How about also saying that “the conviction endures that the ones being suspicious are stupid”. Would that not be more balanced? If you’re going to mention the suspicions of some, why not mention the counter-suspicions (if such word even exists) of others? Now, I can understand that when someone is trying to be unbiased they will try to incorporate both points of view, but where does that leave intellectual honesty? Can a writer be so unbiased as to write something they believe to be STOOOOPID, in the name of fairness? I can’t! It would take a real coward to do that.

Either that,or they do believe that such “enduring” suspicions are warranted, in which case that would cast serious doubt upon the intellectual capabilities of Cambridge University.

The point is that you must have a point. What good would do if someone started writing about racism and said only things such:

Some people believe racism is still widespread in the USA. However, there is an enduring suspicion that this is not the case. Other people are convinced racism has been eradicated, and the above mentioned people are cry babies.

What would that say about the actual state of racial discrimination? Absolutely nothing. This sort of reporting is a waste of their, and most importantly, our time. Save your time and don’t spend more than 5 minutes, if even that, on this website.

Next it would be interesting if the University of Cambridge would set up a website called “Investigating Religion” and start reporting, in an unbiased fashion, about the child molestation in the catholic church, the genital mutilation in the muslim world, terrorism, child indoctrination, their constant fight against science etc, etc, etc.

Something tells me nothing like this will be coming along any time soon. Not from Cambridge University anyway.

May 4, 2008 Posted by | Atheism, Critical Thinking, Logic, Religion, Uncategorized | | 4 Comments