The Ignorance--It Burns!

I don't know why, but sometime I feel the need to look at the material produced by creationists and evangelicals, just to see if there are arguments worth taking a look at. Some people are certainly smart, such as William Craig, while others are truly bottom-of-the-barrel arguers, such as those found on YouTube. What usually makes these in the latter group so terrible to me is their complete ignorance of the topics at hand, demonstrated by false statements and little or no references to sources, and are unwilling to figure out that there is something terribly wrong in their statements. One example must be Kent Hovind who is masterful in his abilities to misrepresent every aspect of science.

However, there is some concentrated stupid that can be found via the evangelical organization Way of the Master, which has the faces of Kirk Cameron, a former child actor, and Ray Comfort, a minister from New Zealand with no formal theological training at a seminary as far as a I can find. Obviously, neither of them are scientists and have minimal exposure to it in schooling. Yet Ray has seen himself fit to write over fifty books and tracts, many of which touch on scientific facts and attack the extremely well-verified theory of evolution. His general ignorance was well on display when the dynamic duo agreed to debate members of the Rational Response Squad, namely Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor; more correctly, Ray et. al. challenged the RRS. The general pwnage is still talked about today. After all, Ray also argued the banana was evidence for design in nature when most the details of the banana that make it so great for consumption are the product of artificial selection. In other words, the banana (more correctly, the plant the banana comes from, the banana tree) is evidence for the abilities of evolution by small modifications and selection, either natural or artificial.

So, why would I waste 5 more minutes on this guy? Apparently, what he spreads is popular on the web and his blog only adds to it. There again his general lack of knowledge about science and history can be found. So, I think it worth while to do a proper dissection of one of his posts where he claims that (modern) science proves the Bible. He also states how science has changed to conform to the Bible, meaning the Bible was write all along and it can be seen to be the product of an amazingly knowledgeable mind. He does not seem to bother with the facts that are completely contrary to a literal reading of the Bible, such as the ~6000 year old Earth, the Earth forming before the Sun, the Moon being a light source in itself, whales before land animals, etc. And let's not forget that the Bible is full of cases of the laws of nature being broken, the miracles in the Bible innumerable. So, just to start this post of his requires forgetting so much and can only be done by the shear will power of someone trying to evangelize instead of critically think.

And it gets all the worse as the post actually starts. In his 12 points where sciences confirms the Bible and contradicts previously held views in science, the stupidity actually hurts. He has a formula as such: firstly "THE BIBLE", secondly "SCIENCE NOW", finally "SCIENCE THEN". This very setup is erroneous since such a way suggests science is simply a monolith to be read, written by the Prophets of the Laboratory. (Hey, that sounds like a cool band name!) What exists in science is a lot of evidence, sorted out by very able minds in an attempt to best explain the universe. Science nor scientists claim neither absolute nor unchangeable positions; the findings of science won't change unless a significant amount of evidence points to another hypothesis that better explains the situation. Further, what one scientists says can easily contradict another. For example, Aristotle thought that comets were disturbances in the atmosphere, while centuries later Seneca challenged the idea since this idea did not conform well to the understandings of weather. (If comets were in the atmosphere, why does the wind not force their tales to point in another direction, like a weather vane?) We know better now that comets are far away, though Aristotle's position was understandable with his knowledge then. Of course, Christian theologians were of little help in this matter; for example, Clement of Alexandria thought like Aristotle did (Protrepticus 10--hey, look at that, a reference!).

Now, on the the stupid:

1. According to Isaiah 40:22, the earth is a sphere, at least by Ray's reading of things. Too bad that past Christians did not think it that way and stated the world was flat, people such as John Chrysostom (4th century CE) in Homilies Concerning the Statutes 9.7-8, stating the world is flat and floats on water; Lactantius (245–325); St. Athanasius (c.293–373); Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394); Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408). In fact, Lactantius was ridiculed by Copernicus himself in his work on the heliocentric model. Also, in a more recent piece of scholarship, it has been argued that Augustine of Hippo himself may have been a flat-earther, and he was smart enough to tell Christians not to argue with pages about science because they know much better about these matters (Leo Ferrari, "Augustine's Cosmology". Augustine Studies 27, 2 (1996): 129-77). So, if the meaning of this passage was for a flat earth, it was missed by these persons.

In fact, the Gospels would suggest a flat earth as well. In Matt 4:18 we read as follows: "Again, the devil took him [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." Because of the shape of the Earth, not counting clouds or obstacles, one can see for about 20+ miles. On even the highest mountains it is still limited. One certainly cannot see on the other side of the earth or even across the sea. For Jesus to be able to see each kingdom of the world while on top of a mountain, the geometry of the Earth would need to be flat. Rome alone is hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem and so was the capitol of the Parthian empire, let alone in China and any civilizations in the Americas. It does not matter if Jesus has perfect eyesight since you cannot look through rocks.

So, what does Isaiah 40:22 even say? "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Okay, firstly, for the geometry fans: a circle is NOT a sphere. The Hebrew word is chuwg (חוג), which can mean mean circle, circuit, or compass. If the prophet wanted to me clearer about the spherical nature of things, he could have used duwr (דור), which can mean ball, which is used in Isaiah 22:18. Further, the passages suggests flatness when in context. Isaiah goes on to say in chapter 40 that God sees people on the ground "like grasshoppers." This tells us God is a man in the sky and can look down and see all the people. Job 22:14 confirms God to be in the sky and can be hidden by clouds. However, for God to be "above", in the case of a sphere this is meaningless. A person in China has the exact opposite direction of up as a person in New York City. And as for chuwg, the meaning of its circularity and not spherical nature is confirmed in Proverb 8:27: "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth." It is not possible to inscribe a sphere onto the surface of water (the Deep), and this laid the foundations of heaven. From further examination of the Bible and other sources, the universe of the ancients looked something like this:






Firstly, this is how the Babylonians say the universe, created mostly out of the carcass of the monster Tiamat, killed by the god Marduk.









Now, the Hebrew version:










You can get more details in the video produced by the Infidel Guy and Robert M. Price here. Also, see Browning, W.R.F. Dictionary of the Bible. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)

So now, what about science? Let's see: Aristotle thought the Earth was round, as did Strabo, both giving good arguments for this; Eratosthenes measured the size of the earth rather accurately in the late 2nd century BCE. Anaximander did not believe in a flat earth, but his geometry of the planet was not correct (as a cylinder). In fact, Strabo used Homer as evidence for the phenomena of the spherical nature of the earth (see Odyssey, V: 393: "As he rose on the swell he looked eagerly ahead, and could see land quite near.") Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE) claimed that everyone believed the Earth to be spherical (Natural History 2.64). Ptolemy also gave reasons. So, when the scientists were really coming into their own, they said the earth was round. Even during the time the Gospels were being written, then, science knew better and yet Matthew gets is wrong. And as for science today, well, everyone should know the earth to be spherical.


2. Jeremiah 33:22 says the stars are uncountable. So, if the verse is supposed to be scientific, it is avoiding scientific terminology. "Uncountable" could be very vague and is. Is it just exhausting to go through all the stars and number them? Is the number actually infinite? In set theory, "uncountable" refers to sets of numbers that are "larger" than the set of natural numbers. There are not that many stars in the sky. The observable universe is finite and so are the number of stars. And since it is unlikely Jeremiah was using advanced mathematical language, he seems to suggest that the number is very large.

Modern science points out that there are many, many stars. Our galaxy alone has on the order of 400 billion stars (4*10^10). There are billions of galaxies. It is estimated that the number of stars in the observable universe is on par with the number of grains of sand on the surface of the earth. So, in effect, the number has been counted. One could say that modern science has contradicted Jeremiah, but that would take the meaning of the passage much more literally than it should be. But, since that is what Ray does, taking things literally when it is obviously not, the charge can apply to him. As for the statement about science saying the number of stars is only 1100, this number at least comes from somewhere if you look. Ptolemy cataloged about this many stars in his Almagest. That is a lot of stars and I would call that "uncountable" since I lack the will power to count them all. But, to say that science said there were only 1100 stars is without evidence, especially if it comes from the statement of only one person, espeically when philosophers argued in the past. Anaxagoras (5th century BCE) argued for an infinite universe with an infinite number of atoms. Such a belief makes is easy to accept there to be more stars than those visible. The proof that there are not an infinite number of stars in an infinitely old universe with a constant density was demonstrated in the Olber paradox. So, Ray is simply wrong in his statements about the state of science in the past and his literal reading of a statement that cannot be literal only shows his agenda.


3. According to Job 26:7, the Earth free floats in space. More correctly, the passage says that the Earth is hung from nothing. Well sure. After all, the Earth pushed up by pillars, not hung from above (Job 9:6, 26:11, Psalm 75:3). So, how can we understand Job 26:7 will the 11th verse tells us the Heavens are held up by pillars and the Earth earlier in Job? Well, the Hebrew word 'erets (ארץ) can refer to the underworld, also known as Sheol, which was mentioned in the previous verse (Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering (RSV)). And as pointed out in the pictures above, Sheol is in the region below the Earth with its inhabitants. So, this 'erets could mean that the Earth is above the nothingness that is Sheol. It is hard to properly gauge the meaning of the word "nothingness" in the Hebrew since it used only here in the entire Old Testament. However, since poetry seems to be in use here it is not difficult to believe that Job is referring to Sheol, the subterranean place of darkness, as "nothingness". And the progression of Job 26 becomes sensible, since we have a sort of bottom-up on the Creation: Sheol, Earth, The Sky with clouds, the highest reaches heaven where the Moon is.

Now, does the Earth actually free-float in space? This is certainly a very improper way to refer to the nature of things. After all, the Earth is not "free" since it is gravitationally bounded by the Sun. Also, floating gives the impression of the Earth being in water while space is rather empty. (As an aside, if you had a large enough bathtub and a gravitational force under it, Saturn would float in it since its density is less then that of water. Cool!) Also, the text in Job says the Earth is "over nothing." Over implies a downward direction, but this makes no sense with a spherical earth as the frame of reference cannot be made universal over the earth's surface; not everyone can point with the same vector and call it "down". So, more evidence of a flat earth in the Bible and not well connected to the findings of science.

But the last part of this, that science said the Earth sat on a large animal, this is completely false. This idea is from Hindu cosmology where the earth sits on elephants on turtles, etc. Hinduism is not science. I am not even aware of the term "Hindu Science", unlike "Christian Science", to exist. To say that the notion of the earth on elephants was ever considered science is simply an outright lie. It is not simple intellectual dishonesty--it is shear dishonest. (Okay, perhaps Ray is confused about what people said and what science has said, but that just shows his unwillingness to differentiate in order to try to sell Christianity and is still dishonest and projects his inability to understand what science actually is.)


4. Entering the New Testament, Ray says Hebrews 11:3 tells us the world is made of invisible elements. Okay, the Greek word used here is phainō (φαίνω), which means to be evident, to be seen, to meet the eye, shine. In context, the verse tells us that the world was created by the Word of God and a word is not visible.

Going into science, he claims that the world is made of invisible things, atoms. Well, I can see atoms. Otherwise, I would not be able to see my computer which is composed of atoms. And if you want, you can see atoms individually.


Atoms are not invisible; they are just very, very small. But they give off light, which is how we can see anything. If atoms were in fact invisible, I could look through any object. However, many things are opaque, including my computer's keyboard. Further, the text of Hebrews does not say the world is composed of invisible things but that the creation came about by the agency of invisible things. The Greek word used here is ginomai (γίνομαι), a deponent verb meaning to come into existence. It can also mean to happen. Now, the verse is talking about God's creation of the universe, so the context makes clear that the universe came into being via powers invisible. The universe did not come about because of atoms. In fact, in the earliest moments of the universe there were no atoms, but instead a "quark soup". Further, no one could extrapolate from the Bible that the universe is composed of atoms, and even if one did no details about atoms could be given. You can't extrapolate Plank's constant, for example, or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle out of Genesis or Hebrews.

But the last part is again the worst. Originally, it said this "SCIENCE THEN: Science waw ignorant on the subject." Now, this completely ignores Democritus, an pre-Socratic philosopher that argued for the existence of extremely small atoms composing everything in the universe. He believed in atoms and void between atoms; otherwise, if you cut something and there is something in the way, how is it possible? It seems a void is required to be moved through. This was one of his arguments. Against, it doesn't get us to quantum mechanics, but it is very good. Also, Democritus was centuries before the epistle to the Hebrews was ever composed. So, even if the author of Hebrews (no one knows who since no name is on it, though tradition says Paul of Tarsus) did mean to speak of atoms, that was something already thought about. It doesn't demonstrate any divine knowledge at all.

And someone in the comments pointed that out to Mr. Comfort, a person with the handle Rando. First, Ray is smug about the whole thing:

Democritus was born in 460 BC. How did he see atoms so long before Galileo developed the first reliable microscope in 1609 (2,000 years later), and before the advent of the electron microscope in the 1930's? Also, why to you believe everything you read in history books, and doubt anything written in the Bible? I look forward to your reply.

So, he first avoids the problem. There was nothing about seeing them. Also, this is not faith in history books. Just read Aristotle, Diogenes Laërtius, Cicero, Seneca, etc., who talked about Democritus' theories at length and you know that the idea was ancient. Besides, if you could see atoms in the time of Democritus that would disprove Hebrews 11:3, not confirm it. Later, Ray says he now sees the error and makes a fix: "SCIENCE THEN: Science was mostly ignorant on the subject" (emphasis added). This is not the problem actually. It matters not if knowledge of atoms was in its infancy or advanced; the idea of atoms was the key thing. After all, the author of Hebrews gives no details about atoms at all beyond existence (if he was even talking about such things), and there is no contradiction between a lack of exact knowledge and an intricate modern theory of atoms, just progression. If Ray wanted to fix the problem he would have completely deleted this part of the post since it does not support his case at all.

Once again we have an example of a lack of coherent thought and scientific and historic ignorance written up in order to evangelize rather than get the truth out.


5. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:41, each star is different from another. Modern science says the same, that two stars are not identical. No problem. But where in the world did Ray get the idea that ancient astronomers thought all stars were the same? This is without any backing in reality. Heck, a caveman can see that not all stars are the same by simply noticing some stars are brighter than others and some have different colors. Some "stars" even move (the word planet from its Greek roots means "wanderer" or "wandering star"). The observing ability to notice this is bare-minimal--you just need eyes. This is simply a false statement.


6. Job 38:19-20 is somehow supposed to say that light moves. I guess if light can "dwell" someplace it must have the ability to move there. Let's take that as it is, though it is certainly not what a first reading of the text would uncover. And of course, we know today that light moves, extremely fast though (299,792,458 meters/second exactly).

But once again, Ray asserts about ancient science without any history to back him. He says that the ancients believed light did not move. Huh The closest I can find here is from Aristotle's Sense and Sensibility. He stated "That without light vision is impossible has been stated elsewhere; but, whether the medium between the eye and its objects is air or light, vision is caused by a process through this medium." Also, "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement." So, one person in antiquity said that light was some sort of stationary substance. Most others thought otherwise. For example, Euclid had his own work on light and proposed it traveled in straight lines. Euclid also argued about previous theories of how eyes see; his arguments were based on the finite speed of light. (See Euclid's Optica, one of his few works that have survived to the present day.) Before Euclid, Empedocles proposed that the eyes had fire in them and so projected light onto an object which then returned to the eye to be seen. Again, light is said to travel. Some proposed the speed of light to be infinite. Heron of Alexander had done that (1st century CE). Today, we know better.

So, the say-so of one person is not the end-all in science. Further, the ideas of the movement of light in Empedocles are contemporary with the dating of the Book of Job, the 6th to 5th century BCE (see Bergant, Dianne "The Wisdom Books", The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press).


7. Job 28:25 is now claimed to say that air has weight. Sorry, but no. The NIV translators understood that what is being talked about is the force of winds. Ray's understanding of the text is forced, not natural.

Does air have weight? Well, it has mass. It has pressure. However, weight is not a very proper way to talk about air. Firstly, without a gravitational field it is without weight. Here on earth air seems to be without weight since we are immersed in it. But, air does have weight here on earth, for that is how we feel its pressure. But who in the past said air was without weight? I can find no evidence of this, and Ray is not forthcoming with his source.


8. Looking next at Ecclesiastes 1:6, wind is said to blow in cyclones. I think to make better sense of this, it is more accurate to say that Ecclesiastes 1:6 says that there are wind currents that makes turns along the way. Well, there certainly are. Did the ancients say otherwise? I have found nothing to support that. It sounds made-up to me. Ray needs to give some sources around here. Also, wind can blow straight or near-straight. This happens all the time.


9. Leviticus 17:11 says that the life of any creature is in its blood (NIV). Well, if you bleed an animal of its blood then it will likely die. However, not all creatures have blood. For example, flat worms do not have blood, nor do they need it. So, the statement that any creature has blood is a false one. Also, blood is not the source of life, as Ray states. Again, plants and primitive animals show that to be the case.

But then Ray gets into blood letting. This is obsolete because it doesn't work and is usually harmful. The idea was that when you are sick you have too many "humors" in the blood and they must be released. Well, usually you are sick because there is too much of something bad in there, so the idea is not that far-fetched. Now, does the idea of blood-letting contradict the notion that higher animals, such as humans, need blood to survive? Of course not. Otherwise, the doctors of old would simply have taken out all the blood and not thought about it a second time. They prescribed a certain amount of blood to be taken out, leaving some (most, hopefully) for the patient needed it. (Also note that the Talmud gave instructions on when blood-letting should be practiced; Christian writers did the same. See "Bloodletting in Talmudic Times" by Fred Rosner, Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 1986 November; 62(9): 935–946. A quote: "I, blood, am the cause of all illness" (BT Baba Batra 58b) and "much blood produces much leprosy" (Bechorot 44b).)


10. Next we move into the sea with 2 Samuel 22:16 and Jonah 2:6 which say that there were deep mountains and trenches in the oceans. This is a fact today. Did the ancients say otherwise? I have found nothing to make that seem to be the case. (Seeing a trend here?)


11. Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the oceans. They do exist. . . sort of. There are hot vents under water, but they are not springs in the proper sense of the word. Springs form because of melted ice water on land. Volcanic vents do not produce water. Did the ancients ever say theyse vents didn't exist? Not anywhere I can find. It gets pretty ridiculous when Ray can spew this stuff without thinking that something like this does not require the least bit of evidence.


12. Leviticus 15:13 says to wash hands in running water. Not a bad idea. Did ancient scientists say to wash in still water? I can only find evidence to the contrary. "The ancient Egyptians thought that sitting a dusty body in still water, as the Greeks did, was a foul idea." I won't say I have any great authority here, but it is more than Ray's assertions. Also, Muslim practice of Ablution requires moving water. And it seems obvious. If you have a bucket of water and you are dirty then that dirt goes into the water and the next person that uses the water has dirt already in it. Also, Lev 15 here is talking about semen discharges.


So, there is one great load of poor scholarship being passed off in an attempt to try and convince people a iron-age book is in fact a modern science book, though a literal reading of many passages are simply false compared to modern science. Heck, the Bible will even contradict ancient knowledge. For example, Leviticus 11:20-3 says that winged insects have four legs; insects are defined as having six legs. How did this one get passed the editors?

Now, another person in the comments went through a similar analysis, named David W. Irish. So, at least I am not the only person crazy enough to do this, though I think I have more references and pictures and details. But here is the question: will Ray and his ministries retract their work because of these overarching failures? I think we all know better.

Fun Times For Me

I haven't written too much personal stuff, so why not start now?

Over the last few weeks, I have been receiving letters of acceptance (or rejection) from universities across the country for graduate school. Unfortunately, the vast majority have been negative. However, I only needed one positive response, and I have that--thank you Ohio State. There are still a few other universities I am waiting on, but I am suspecting that the turnout will not be the best, so my sites are looking towards Columbus right now.

In other news, the weather has been a bit crazy here in Michigan. The other day a large snowfall hit East Lansing, and the word on the street is that the county has used up almost all the salt because of the large levels of snowfall and icy conditions during this winter. So the roads were really bad when I was picking up my girlfriend. Actually, it caused by first collision with another car!

It was an unusual experience when I was coming to a red light, one care already stopped there about 20 feet ahead of me and my brakes fail to slow me down in time--anti-lock brakes are great, but you just can't beat ice's low coefficient of friction. So, I hit the guy in front of me . . . with less that bumper car momentum. Whew. No damage was done; in fact, the guy in front that I bumped never even looked back. Things would have been a lot worse if he hit me from the back since I have a trailer hitch that would screw up his bumper so bad.

Otherwise, things are good. Spring Break starts Friday (and ends next Friday because I have to work at the planetarium), classes are going well, and I'm havin' the time of my life with by feminine acquaintance. And in case she is reading: Ich liebe Dich, mein Schatz!

That Was Fast

Last time I blogged, the Atheist and Agnostic Group on MySpace had been deactivated, apparently by methods that seemed foul. Apparently, just two days after the story hit the press (and I talked about it) the group is back up, though not at 100% since some people are still blocked and MySpace is unable to unblock for some reason.

I don't know if this is because of the media coverage, but since the group went down on January 1st, after being harassed for a month before, and the group came back just a couple of days after the reports went public, it sure is hard to not make such an inference. Further, MySpace has, as of yet, given no reason for the shutdown and return of the group. It sounds like a bunch of people that were not doing their jobs properly and are now trying to rectify those issues without doing too much damage to the ego, let alone appear to be intolerant to certain groups.

Now, perhaps the groups canceling was not motivated by such things and it is inappropriate to jump to the conclusion of someone taking their prejudices out on atheist, as I may have in my last post, to which I should say it seems now to have been a bit over the top on my part. However, there are many unanswered questions: why was the group shut down, why was a petition with 500+ signatures to get the group back ignored, why did the group only return after press coverage, and why was the return of the group not explained as well? Add all of that to the fact that the group was attacked and hacked as well as its moderator and the reaction at MySpace was to kill the group off. It just does not bode well for the people managing the place.

Until some sort of explanation can come to light on the part of the administrators of MySpace, it seems that someone was playing hard and fast with a group that had a contrary philosophy to the person that decided what the fate of the group should be. Note, however, that I do not mean to say there is a conspiracy at that place, as it seems to be implied in my previous post. More likely it was one or two people who got in trouble only when their bosses got word of this when it became big in the media.

A Day That Will Live In Infamy

I would imagine that most people that frequent the blogosphere are very aware of the Internet networking site MySpace. You should also be aware of the fact that in 2005, MySpace was purchased by the conglomeration run by Rupert Murdock (owner of News Corporation), best known for being the owner of Fox News (Faux News or Fox Noise amongst liberals).

If you are reading this then, you need to be aware of the former MySpace group: Atheist and Agnostic Group. Why is this of interest? It was the largest network/collection/community of nonbelievers in the world! At its peak, the A and A group had over 35,000 members and was one of the largest groups in the category of religion and belief on MySpace and also quite large overall. Perhaps you have noticed that I kept using the past tense when talking about this group.

This in because, on the first of January, 2008, the group was shut down by MySpace. I know this because of other blogs, but also because I was a member of that group. I had been inactive for some time, and perhaps that helped this happen to some degree.

I knew the people in the group well, those that were active participants. In fact, in April 2007, a number of us met in Boston for the annual humanist convention at Harvard University. So, I personally came to know the moderator of the Atheist and Agnostic Group, a Mr. Bryan J. Pesta, Ph.D. in cognitive science. A great guy who went by the nickname of Fearless Group Leader (FGL), but also having the screen name of "An Inordinate Fondness of Beetles." I hope you get the joke.

What is less funny is that the group had been shut down before, before I had joined the group in late 2005. Fortunately, FGL personally knew the creator of MySpace, Tom, who returned the group to its former state and promised to keep it alive. That was before the sale of MySpace to News Corp. In November 2007, the group was again shut down, came back to life, and was again (and perhaps permanently) on January 1, 2008, five minutes after notifying FGL of the decision to close the group.

I will now let Bryan say the rest, as he has posted on his MySpace profile page. I do this in case the page is also lost in the near future by other groups.

Update: 1/30/08, 10:00 p.m. EST.

Thanks sincerely to all who sent emails or forwarded the press release (real big thanks to the Secular Student Alliance and the Humanist Chaplain from Harvard). Myspace hasn't yet responded, and our group is still deleted.

Short FAQ based on some of the emails I got:

Q1) How do you know the group was deleted for religious reasons?

A1)I have no smoking gun. I cannot produce any internal Myspace memo saying "crush the heathens".

However, I assert that our group's history up to its recent deletion (1/1/8) establishes a prima facie case that we were deleted for religious reasons:

Note first that I ran the group for almost 3 years, and was very careful to not violate any TOS.

We were deleted two years ago due to complaints from a group called the "Christian Crusaders." They would search Myspace for profiles they found offensive, and then mass complain to customer service.

Their strategy was to send so many emails to customer service that someone, somewhere at Myspace would delete the profile or group.

It worked. They were able to get us deleted for a few weeks til myspace restored us (pre-news corp; Tom Anderson, himself posted to our group offering to protect us). The "Christian Crusaders" also got many other groups and profiles deleted, including a large pro abortion group.

Three months ago, my account was hacked. The hacker took control of the group and renamed it "Jesus is love".

It took almost a month of constant emailing to Myspace just to get them to restore the group. I lost my profile (3000 friends; dozens of blogs), and the hacker banned many regular users.

Banning on a Myspace group is oddly permanent / can't be undone. So, I sent more requests asking Myspace to un-ban my regulars.

I got an email back-- finally; after about 3 weeks of requests for help-- saying "thank you for the information. We have scheduled the group for deletion."

Literally 5 minutes later, the group was deleted. I think it's ironic that Myspace's response to my persistent and sincere request for help was to delete the group!

I hope that puts our deletion in context. Add to that, the biggest xtian group here was deleted not too long ago (post news corp) and Myspace Tom personally restored it.

Do I think Myspace is an evil atheist hating conspiracy-- no. Do I think an agent of Myspace deleted my group because it was an atheist group. Yes.

I realize this is circumstantial evidence; but I think the case outlined above is strong enough to warrant my conclusion, and I am waiting to see if Myspace replies.

Q2) You realize that Myspace is privately owned; you have no right to free speech there; they can delete content at will?

A2) I do; but I think Myspace deleting atheist groups is equivalent to a restaurant refusing to serve minorities. Myspace provides a free service, yet it benefits tremendously ($$$) only because users provide content. As a for-profit, I suspect Myspace has some duty of equal protection to all members of protected classes. If Myspace deleted the largest African American group here, no one would tolerate that. Why should we tolerate it for any minority group?

I’m not trying to be dramatic. My experience is nothing like the typical civil rights violation, but I believe it is nonetheless a violation. I’m not sure where the line is drawn between trivial violations and ones-worth-fighting for. I personally think this one’s worth fighting for.

I feel our group had value; we helped give a misunderstood (and often despised) minority a sense of community. The fact that 35,000 people took the proactive step of joining the group (even if most never posted) suggests that it had value. The emails I got today from regulars and strangers suggests that it had value.

Personally, the three years I invested in maintaining the group (and the blogs on my deleted profile) had value to me. So, I think trying to get the group back is a rational investment of my time.

Further, I’m not asking for a march on the capital. I just want our group back.

***

Press release!

January 21, 2008
For Release: Immediately Upon Receipt
Contact: Bryan J. Pesta, Ph.D.,
216-687-4749 b.pesta@csuohio.edu

Myspace Deletes Largest Atheist Group in the World.

Cleveland, OH.— Social networking cite, Myspace.com, panders to religious intolerants by deleting atheist users, groups and content.

Early this month, Myspace again deleted the “Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time Myspace has cancelled the group since November 2007.

What’s unique in this case is that the Atheist and Agnostic Group was the largest collection of organized atheists in the world. The group had its own Wikipedia entry, and in April won the Excellence in Humanist Communication Award (2007) from the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and The Secular Student Alliance.

“Myspace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, Myspace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

“It is an outrage if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the world’s largest social networking site tolerate discrimination against atheists and agnostics-- and if this situation goes unresolved I’ll have little choice but to believe they do,” said Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University. News Corporation, Murdoch’s global media corporation which also includes Fox News, purchased MySpace in 2005.

“My personal profile was deleted as well, and despite weeks of emails to customer service, plus a petition signed by 500 group members, Myspace won’t budge. I think these actions send a clear message to the 30 million godless people in America (and to businesses whose money was spent displaying ads on our group) that we are not welcome on Myspace,” said Pesta.

For a Wikipedia article on the now defunct atheist and agnostic group, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group.

For links to Pesta’s defunct group and profile, visit http://www.myspace.com/aiffb.

###

Needs restoring: Old profile: id=1120061 Old Group: id=100002606
(Link)

Here are some further links:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group
http://www.thenewhumanism.org/?page_id=13
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1201772086310820.xml&coll=2
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/should_i_go_or_should_i_stay.php

It is also interesting to note that the Wikipedia page on the group was edited by a person named GravityExNihilo, who was a member of the group, and not an atheist if that was still the case in December 2007, first wrote about the attacks in December of 2007. Further edits have taken place.

This whole thing burns me. It was a great group, discussing rather low topics (the Boos Thread was particularly long) to rather intellectual discussions (such as the differences between potential and actual infinities and how they may pertain to a deity when applying Russell's Paradox from set theory). The people I met were wonderful in person, and even though many others were not the most amiable in the forums, where still genuinely good people. And now they are being discriminated against.

I want to avoid slippery slope arguments, but if News Corp/MySpace can feel justified in shutting down this group, what other places are atheists not going to be allowed to traverse on the Internet in large numbers? We have all already seen how other groups have tried to use legal muscle to try and silence non-theistic and rational voices, such as with Creation Science Evangelism and the Disco Institute I mentioned previously. Obvously YouTube is also willing to let such materials be taken down. This with the growing efforts to force Intelligent Design into public schools, the Institute for Creation Research trying to get a legitimate degree program in Texas, and not to mention candidates having to pass ipso facto religious tests for office and even promoting changing the Constitution in order to have it conform to Biblical beliefs (thank you Mike Huckabee); all this is becoming rather frightening. I don't worry for my personal safety, but such a reduction in the ability to freely express oneself and to inquire freely is not something that should be tolerated.

Will the group be restored? It may take a lot of prodding. A letter with 500 signatures apparently did nothing to make the operators of MySpace think twice about the decision. It seems obvious to me that it was not an unbiased decision and likely a religiously motivated one. After all, the people of Fox News are conservative in most every sense of the word, including in Christian values/beliefs.

Should it not be seen as odd what is happening here in another sense. According to the Book of Acts, the Disciples were given the gift of tongues, able to speak any language. Apparently, this was a misreporting on the author's part--the gift was not tongues but the ability to stop the tongues of others. When it comes to spreading dogma, this is just as effective and desired.

I hope anyone that reads this makes some noise. Write letters to MySpace; make blog posts; produce YouTube videos, tell a friend. Just get the word out. Also, protesting in keeping youself away from News Corp products may also be a good idea. I think deleting MySpace pages is a good idea, as well as not watching Fox News (suck it Billo!).

At least I feel safe enough on blogger.com. It is under Google, and they have a simple slogan: Don't be evil. Hopefully, that policy is not based on rules of Leviticus (see Deuteronomy 13).

Why isn't Disco Dead? (not the dance)

A while ago, an organization known as Creation Science Evangelism, founded by the convicted and dishonest (intellectually and not-so-intellectually) Kent Hovind, now apparently run by his son, attempted to have certain videos taken down from YouTube which were critical of the Hovind materials on the web, especially when some of the videos produced by Hovind were included in the YouTube videos. Legally, it was perfectly okay to use CSE material on multiple accounts: the use was for education and not for profit; the material was (on purpose, mind you) NOT copyrighted. So, when CSE tried to take down these videos (some even not using Hovind's lecture videos), there was a big backlash on the web; hopefully some sort of legal action will keep CSE out of the hair of the Internet.

Now, apparently, the almighty Discovery Institute (called the Disco Institute for short) has tried to do much the same thing. One of my favorite video subscriptions is to Extant Dodo. They had done a critique of the video version of Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution; like all their videos, it was very well done, educational, and what I love the most--references. Imagine that, showing your sources in order to make a convincing scholarly case. Well, the Disco people apparently don't like this sort of thing, so they told YouTube to take it down because of copyright infringement. Unlike the CSE case, I am pretty sure their material is copyrighted (though I dare not call it "intellectual property"). However, since Extant Dodo used the material for educational purposes, critical response, and satire as they have done with particularly poor claims on the part of creationists (Thunderf00t does this even more so and very well), such things allow its use on the Internet by the Fair Use policy of US copyright law. Without the ability to use videos for satire or parody, The Daily Show and the Scary Movie movies could not exist.

Now, one would think that the Disco Institute, with all of their lawyers and assets, would be aware of this. Hence, this is obviously a deliberate attempt to silence dissent, even if it requires going to court. Of course Disco will have more money than some PhD candidate that makes YouTube videos, so the move is obviously strategic, not based on proper legal precedent, let alone free inquiry or basic human honor and decency. Of course, that is what the Disco people do.

Honestly though, I have to think: what if this goes to trial in the case court room as the Dover case and under Judge Jones III, which the Disco people have demonized and ridiculed as an activist judge (though he followed Supreme Court precedent on creationism in science and the proper application of the Lemon test) and failed to understand the material (isn't that the fault of Behe and ID witnesses to not be able to give a case that makes logical sense and so they blame the student for "not getting it"?)? I can imagine things would get very interesting. But that is only a dream and would require a lot of circumstances to happen that are probably unlikely, especially since Jones would likely be asked to recuse himself because of his previous work with the Disco people indirectly. Oh well.

For more info on this situation, see Thunderf00t's video on the matter which prompted me to write this at 2 in the morning. Obviously I need to learn how to use a bed.

And how about an ironic quote from John West of the Disco Institute about Judge Jone's decision:

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work.
Link

So, I guess it is okay to shut down open debate when the criticism comes back your way? Perhaps then Ken Miller should also be able to get rid of VenomfangX's videos and Kent Hovind's utter garbage? Oh wait, what is that I hear: special treatment you say? Sorry, but like Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." At this point, the Disco Institute has been no were near the biological kitchen, especially apparent in Behe's newest book, so perhaps I should remind them that Disco is dead, in dance and especially in science, and it isn't coming back (in the latter, it just didn't exist).

I have hit the big time!

I don't know what it takes to be considered "big" on the Internet especially without displaying actions of extreme stupidity, such as those of certain celebrities, but I think I can say that there is one way of doing it in an academic way. Recently, yours truly has been interviewed for a few newspapers, especially for one in Pennsylvania, in the same county that the Dover trial took place, as well as in my homeland. (Note: I don't think the York county link works anymore so you may need to do some work to get to the article.) A few bloggers and amateur astronomy sites make mention to me, as well as a PBS website (on the side). But my big break must be this: I have been referenced on Wikipedia! It is a very short mention and puts me in company with a few other scholars mentioned in the same foot note, but why should I complain? Do note that I did not write myself in, so someone has taken me seriously.

Another person that I have been communicating with is a Dr. Michael Covington at the University of Georgia. I came across his blog and have had a short amount of back and forth about the issue. Hopefully it will be productive since this person seems to know Greek and Hebrew (and more C.S. Lewis than I think is worth while). This already then is more of a plus in credentials than another professor I have been talking with, Dr. Michael Molnar, formerly of Rutgers and author of his own book (1999) and articles on the subject. At this point, there has been a lull in the amount of back and forth between us, but that is probably because Dr. Molnar is enjoying his vacation, as everyone should be this time of year, but it seems that there is a significant amount of friction between the two of us, especially in that he feels I have misrepresented his work. Of course I disagree, but that is why I want to keep the conversation going, especially if he writes more articles or has more TV/radio interviews, as he has recently for FOX News. (I wonder why FOX didn't get in contact with me? Could it be that I did not line up with what conservative audiences would want to hear?)

Perhaps more attention will come my way if and when I publish an entire book on the subject. (The "if" factor is the condition that a publisher would take the time to print such a work.)

Moderate Muslims

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch parliament member and Muslim apostate, has written an amazing op-ed for the New York Times the other day. This woman, who at one time condemned to death Salman Rushdie, who left the Islamic faith on her own will, seems to make the excellent and knock-down point about the nature of the Islamic religion and justice system. The question that I beg to have answered: Where are the moderate Muslims that do not agree with the fanatics and fundamentalists? When some Christian fundamentalist, such as Jerry Falwell, makes insane statements many moderate or liberal Christians are more than willing to distance themselves from such people and even demand apologies. A majority of Christians are not in favor of killing abortion doctors even if they are totally opposed to the practice.

Then where, pray tell, are those in the Islamic world condemning or distancing from those that inspire hate? Because of the recent cases of unreasonable "justice," such as the arrest of a woman that allowed a teddy bear to be named Muhammad, another woman sentences to a severe beating for being raped after being with another man who was not a relative of hers, and so on, one would hope that there would be some faction of Islam that would make clear that this is not representative of the faith (be that true or not). Instead . . .

. . . silence.

Nothing.

Does not such passivity mean that the majority, the moderates, are just hunky-dory with these decisions? Worse, the only protests that are heard are of those that demand even harsher treatments. Apparently, the only problem that people have is the majority of the Islamic world is that their system is not barbaric enough.

It would appear to me that "moderate" has a different meaning that it does here. After all, moderates seem to be in the middle of positions; if the positions are all skewed in one direction, then so is the middle. Hence, the middle in the Islamic world would appear to be far away from anything those in the West would call just or fair or reasonable. Some may of course jump to the cultural relativism bandwagon, but as far as I care to think about it relativism is self-defeating and inherently self-contradicting--the outs of the philosophy seem like nothing but sophistry to me. If the words such as "justice" are supposed to be meaningful then they must be applied to all cultures and all parts of the world.

What has been happening is obviously silly at best, cruel in other cases, and disgusting at worst. (Actually, it may still be worse.) Mind you, also, that these are just recent examples. In the late 1980s, there was the call for the death of Salman Rushdie; a few years ago a similar call was for Danish cartoonists. There are the many years of terrorist attacks all around the world, including the Middle East and Israel, Africa, Asia, and lest we every forget, America. There was also the killing of a film-maker in the Netherlands because one faithful Muslim didn't care for its contents, which has kept Ali on the run and under protection since. I must agree with Sam Harris that this all cannot be related so simply to Western policy but must be something to do with the greater mindset of those that have accepted this religion.

Of course, other belief structures can be equally dangerous. Christianity cannot rid itself of its deeds of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the eradication of Native Americans (especially apparent with the Inca), the numerous within-Christian wars and conflicts. Yet, such things have become extremely rare. Sure, Ireland has issues today, but that it rather modest compared to the 12th century. But it seems that there still exists much of this issue in nations that profess Allah and Muhammad as his profit/prophet (Freudian slip?). Why?

The most obvious answer would seem to be that Enlightenment values have to come to fruition in the Islamic world. Why this is the case, I don't know. One suspicion of mine is that because there had not existed a great, single authority on the religion, such as the Pope and Catholic Church for Christianity, there was no such body to revolt against and attempt to have an independent way of looking at the same body of work or belief structure. Now, I would not say that Protestantism is responsible for the Enlightenment, at least not directly, but that sort of spirit of searching for answers outside of single authoritative figures and instead by one's own reasoning, a step away from submission, helped propel Europe into the philosophical powerhouse it is today with a history thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Hume, Hobbes, Kant, Locke, and so many others that opened the way to freer thoughts.

The trail away from submission to authority, especially authority that is only supported by the shear fact that it says it is the authority, is a good one. I don't know if the Islamic faith can follow the trail. This is because of the word "Islam" itself. Many say it means peace. But peace by what? Submission! Sure, things will be okay in the future because no one will dare raise a finger against the despot--just look at how wonderful North Korea is!

But it should at least be possible to convince the faithful en masse to embrace Enlightenment values. After all, I have met those of such a faith and they in fact can accept the philosophies of equality and reason over dogma. And even when there are Christians in the U.S. today that seem to forget these things in pushing for a "Christian Nation," they still don't seem to go out of their way to kill homosexuals, and neither do orthodox rabbis in Israel. Obviously better sense makes such actions difficult, even if that simply be obedience/fear to/of the law. Sure, it seems that cognitive dissonance would be required to keep both mindsets in the same head, but humans seem to be very good at that. I prefer clear thinking, but progress is progress.

Please read Ali's essay. It is more than just "Islamophobia."