I thought this type of thing only happened in America?

I'm actually quite shocked by this report from last week's Conservative conference by The Lancashire Secular Humanists:

As John Gummer [Conservative MP for Suffolk Coastal] came upon the British Humanist Association’s campaign stand in the exhibitors gallery at the Winter Gardens this afternoon he was clearly heard to say to his companion “Do you know there is nothing I hate more than these Humanists”.

He then launched into a loud abusive rant in which he complained that The British Humanists Association “had no right to be here” and; with spittle-filled passion he pointed his finger at startled BHA members and declared “The Conservative Party is and always has been a Christian Party” (big emphasis on ‘Christian’) before turning on his heels and storming off without giving those volunteers (me included) an opportunity to respond.

So, there you go - John Gummer: complete raving bigot. That's the way to challenge Tory stereotypes alright :| I'm just hoping he's in a minority of one, and that the Conservatives get rid of him quickly - he's an embarrassment.

There's a discussion of this over at the Suffolk Humanists - apparently he denies everything. What a surprise.

Via Feeding the Fish.

Where I despair that people can think the Catholic Church a force for good in the world

The BBC reports that the head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique has claimed that some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately.

"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose. They want to finish with the African people. This is the programme. They want to colonise until up to now. If we are not careful we will finish in one century's time." - Archbishop Chimoio

Is there any lie they won't tell in their vendetta against small pieces of latex?

Know Your Militants!

With all this talk of the new, 'militant' atheism, I've begun to worry that people will get the many different militant strands of religion confused. As such, I've devised this picture to enable you to tell the difference. So next time you're confronted by a rabid, frothing at the mouth, hate-speech spewing militant, just refer to this handy picture to tell exactly which brand of fundamentalist nut you're talking to.

No need for thanks, this has been a public service announcement.

UPDATE: Cat's Staff has suggested to me that the Dawkins picture with him wearing an 'Atheists for Jesus' picture would work better. I've decided Cat's Staff is right, so I've updated the picture. Thanks!

"God and his monkey army" fiasco latest

So apparently now the two Archaeological Survey directors who prepared the court affidavit have been suspended, and the Culture Minister is offering to resign. Sigh.

(Original story here.)

'Hey, maybe it wasn't God and his monkey army' hypothesis withdrawn from court

The Indian government has withdrawn a report on a shipping canal project that questioned whether a land bridge was indeed made by the Hindu god Ram and his army of monkeys (it pointed to the hypothesis that, you know, just maybe it was a natural formation of sand and stones), after the opposition stated they were questioning the 'faith of a million'. And the US thinks it has it bad when it comes to people interpreting their religious literature literally?

Someone, please make the madness stop.

Censorship and incoherence: the classy way to lose an argument

So, I happened to wander back over to zenbullets' post denying evolution (previously covered here and here) and I noticed that several comments had disappeared. I posted a comment asking what had happened - it disappeared. I posted a comment asking if he was deleting comments. That also disappeared, and I got an e-mail saying that some comments had been 'selected out', but not to worry as none of mine had. Well, I'm flattered, but I'm guessing the people whose comments have been summarily removed without any form of explanation are going to be a bit pissed off, and with good reason. He also informed me a paragraph had been added to the original post clarifying his argument (again with no indication that anything had been changed - time for a blogger ethics course perhaps?). When I tell you that his clarification of the argument has the line

He calls Evolution a science, but this is a common misconception. It is a faith.

followed by

Darwin’s great theory is most probably right on the mark, there is a lot for evidence for it.

you'll probably have some kind of idea of the incisive logic that has led him to take his position. Anyway, the new paragraph consists of something of a climbdown, starting off with the aforementioned acknowledgement that hey, maybe there is some evidence for this evolution thing after all. It then continues with a classic creationist defence, a la Answers in Genesis:

But Evolution is not the kind of theory that can be conclusively proved in the same way gravity, heliocentricism, or a round earth can be proved. You cannot make a prediction of a state that can be measured after time t, which can then be tested at time t to see if it meets the prediction. The fossil record is very incomplete (representing less than 1% of all species who have lived on our planet), so if you were to look at time t for a fossil, it is very unlikely you would find it there.

You hear that, all you geologists, palaeontologists and biologists? You should probably just disband your departments now, hand your grant money back and shuffle out the door nice and quietly. Historical science is just not science any more guys. Alternatively, possibly someone should read some more philosophy of science.

Blake's Law

In the comments on his post denying evolution, zenbullets says:

Your arguments are not as rational, I’m afraid you are the fundamentalists of which I speak. There is a page of objections to evolution on Wikipedia as long as the evidence for page, which only proves that there are many opinions on the subject.

I call Blake's Law. (I know technically it's calling someone a fundamentalist atheist, but the problem is this guy claims he's an atheist, and says scientists are the fundamentalists. So I think it counts.) Do I win now?

WTF?

Okay, after the last atheist denier of evolution turned out to be a hoax, I'm just hoping that this one is the same. Zenbullets accuses Dawkins of giving atheists a bad name, and states:

Richard Dawkins writes upon this subject in his most recent book, The God Delusion. He correctly points out that the human mind is vulnerable to certain types of memetic viruses, those that play on our fear of death, the unknown, and our arrogance as a species. Religions are the most sophisticated and resilient of these memes. But there is hypocrisy to his message, because while he writes eloquently of atheism, he doesn’t acknowledge that he has his own belief system, one that he clings to as desperately, and espouses as vocally, as any evangelical Christian.

Richard Dawkins has been the loudest prophet of Darwinism the world has ever known. He is Saul level. He has been perhaps the most significant single influence in the current popularity of the Theory of Evolution since Darwin himself. He calls Evolution a science, but this is a common misconception. It is a faith.

Eh? Please tell me this is a joke. And if it's not, direct him to talk origins, pronto.

UPDATE: I've just realised I share a blog roll with this person! Zenbullets is on the Atheist Blogroll. While I realise it is logically possible to be an atheist and not believe in evolution, I feel being a member of the atheist blogroll should preclude being a science denying loon. But maybe that's just me.

UPDATE: He said scientists are fundamentalists! I call Blake's Law and win. Ha.

The evils of PoMo

Okay, 5 points if anyone can tell me what this research statement has to do with biology. Or even what it means. Or if it's english. And why, why, why did they give him tenure? Anyone?

(Hat-tip Pharyngula)

Slime-Snake-Monkey-People!

Okay, I'm somewhat late to the party on this one, but creationist Robert Bowie Johnson Jr. has a website where he insists that ancient Greek art portrays biblical characters as historical figures, and advocates name-calling as a prime method of argument:

It's a simple matter of name-calling—accurate name-calling. Forget the euphemistic terms Darwinist, naturalist, and evolutionist. Call them what they imagine they are: Mutants and Slime-Snake-Monkey-People. Sooner or later, with many of them, the idiotic and unscientific nature of Slime-Snake-Monkeyism will sink in. If they object to being called by these names, all we have to do is ask them why.

Classy. But what really gets me is this paragraph, where he portrays possibly the least ability to see things from the other person's point of view ever:

Did ancient Greek architects, sculptors, painters, and laborers toil for 15 years elevating those magnificent sculptures on the Parthenon, believing all the while that the artistic themes represented nothing more than "myths"? Is that our rationale for building monuments today? Elevating "myths"? Only a moron would answer these questions in the affirmative. And yet the academic and scientific worlds today, abetted by mainstream journalists, continue to assert categorically that ancient sculptors and vase-artists spent their entire working lives portraying nothing more than "myths." Why do they believe this?

No wait. He's right. No-one would do that.

(Hat-tip: Stranger Fruit and Pharyngula)