Lie like an Editor

Despite the fact that the Evidence 4 Faith podcast is on hiatus, the site’s Facebook page is alive and well. I was recently directed to a post containing the following graphic.

If you have trouble reading the text, it says:

Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline. … you probably will get beaten.

That’s quite a statement from the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). It sounds like an open admission of some rather significant flaws in evolutionary theory. The tenor changes a bit when you read the full quote.

"*Avoid Debates*. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten. In such a forum, scientific experts often try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor. Creationist debaters know better. They come well prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive anti-evolutionary arguments--fallacious ones, yes, but far too many for you to answer in the time provided. Even if you win the debate in some technical sense, most of the audience will still walk away from it convinced that your opponent has a great new science that the schools should hear about. Teachers have enough problems. Above all else, do no harm."

I’ve bolded the portions that were cut out of the cute creationist graphic. Notice how the meaning changes dramatically when you look at the rest of the quote. Far from admitting any factual failings, it makes some rather insightful and unflattering observations about how Creationists tend to debate. Having been a Creationist when I was younger, I’m quite familiar with the tactics she’s discussing.

The graphic is a spectacular example of how to lie through editing. The true genius of this form of deception is that the people defending the graphic can use the technical fact that these were her words, moving the goalposts away from the fact that they were edited to radically change their original meaning.

Despite my moral objection to lying, I have to confess the person who edited the quote as it appears in the graphic is a master of deception. Satan would be proud of how they’ve created a half-truth.

I tried discussing my concerns with the folks at Evidence 4 Faith, but they deleted my comments and banned me from their page. Frankly, I’m not surprised. Kirk Hastings is among their number, and he does have a tendency to do just that whenever he’s confronted with a question he can’t answer or a criticism that’s over his head.

Not long after my comments were deleted, Freedom From Atheistic Scientism made the following post:

It's the original quote with some commentary added by an individual assumed to be Kirk Hastings. The additions are bolded below:

Freedom From Atheistic Scientism wrote: "Of course, now atheists are falsely claiming posting the quote above is "quote mining". Here is the full quote by Scott: "Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution,' please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences (NOTE: AND ATHEISTS WOULDN'T DO THIS IF THEY COULD?). Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team (ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF MOST DEBATES?). And you probably will get beaten (RIGHT!). In such a forum, scientific experts often try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor (THIS IS ALL TOTAL BIASED B.S.!). Creationist debaters know better. They come well prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive anti-evolutionary arguments (RIGHT!)--fallacious ones, yes (NO--ANOTHER FALSE, TOTALLY BIASED STATEMENT), but far too many for you to answer in the time provided (LIKE ATHEISTS NEVER TRY TO DO THE SAME THING?). Even if you win the debate in some technical sense (WHICH EVOLUTIONISTS NEVER DO), most of the audience will still walk away from it convinced that your opponent has a great new science that the schools should hear about (BECAUSE CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS MAKE SENSE AND ARE COHERENT AND SCIENTIFIC!). Teachers have enough problems (SO WHAT?). Above all else, do no harm (RIGHT--THAT'S WHY EVOLUTIONISTS SHOULD NOT DEBATE; THEY CAUSE TOO MUCH INTELLECTUAL HARM).""

Let's take a closer look at each of these rants.

Of course, now atheists are falsely claiming posting the quote above is "quote mining". Here is the full quote by Scott:

The first thing I noticed was, aside from the claim that the accusations of quote-mining were false, there's nothing in the rant that attempts to refute the accusation of quote-mining.

There's nothing false about the accusation. It is quote-mining. As an aside, I was one of the people making the accusation but I'm not an atheist. Kirk Hastings seems to have trouble comprehending the fact that there are people who disagree with him who do not conform to the straw man image he has of his opponents.

(NOTE: AND ATHEISTS WOULDN'T DO THIS IF THEY COULD?)

It's sad to see a grown adult using the "Well, I think they're doing it so I can too!" defense, formally known as the tu quoque logical fallacy. If you're going to claim a moral high ground, an ethical superiority over your opponents, as Kirk tries to do in his "Questions to Darwinists," you should actually hold yourself to a higher moral standard. With a single line, Kirk is admitting he lacks any kind of moral high ground over the people he's attacking. "I have become what I beheld and I am content that I have done right!" may be a fine line for a movie about Prohibition-era mob crime, but it's not a moral standard for an alleged apologist supposedly trying to engage in evangelism. Admitting you're willing to engage in a Pious Fraud if your opponent does the same is stooping to their level, not the act of a righteous man.

Just because your opponent is willing to do it is no reason to do it yourself, especially if you claim to have  a moral high ground against that opponent.

ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF MOST DEBATES?

This is a fascinating line, because it tells us how Kirk sees debates. To him, it appears to be not about laying out the facts, but defeating his opponent. There's no indication of a willingness or desire to learn on his part. By this point in his mini-rant, he has admitted he not only has an agenda but he's willing to do anything he thinks his opponent is doing in order to achieve it. This extreme moral flexibility is even more alarming given the complete failure of Kirk Hastings to understand science or his critics,

RIGHT!

This is probably the most innocuous line in his mini-rant, because all he's really doing is agreeing with Ms. Scott. They of course have very different reasons for this moment of agreement, but that's to be expected given their opposing viewpoints.

THIS IS ALL TOTAL BIASED B.S.!

It's important to note what, specifically, Kirk is calling B.S. here.

In such a forum, scientific experts often try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor - Eugenie Scott

As illustrated numerous times in my series of articles responding to Kirk's "Ten Questions for Darwinists" he simply does not understand the science he's trying to use against the theory of Evolution. It is therefore unsurprising that he lacks the self-awareness necessary to realize the need to educate an audience to help them see the flaws in Creationist responses to Evolution. It's unsurprising that someone using a profound misunderstanding of science to argue science would consider the education needed to understand science to be "B.S."

RIGHT!

Another moment of agreement.

 NO--ANOTHER FALSE, TOTALLY BIASED STATEMENT

It's not surprising Kirk is getting ruffled by his arguments being called "fallacious." This is the kind of willful ignorance and refusal to learn he demonstrated in his replies to Charles Morrison's review of Kirk's "What is Truth." his replies were, frankly, an embarrassment. Charles gave thoughtful, articulate criticisms of specific statements from Kirk's book. Kirk's replies, particularly on the topics of Thermodynamics and Statistics, gave the impression of not only an unwillingness to learn and improve, but a flat out refusal to even try. Read the exchanges for yourself and be amazed.

LIKE ATHEISTS NEVER TRY TO DO THE SAME THING?

Again, a return to the grotesquely immoral "Well, they do it too!" defense. I'm disgusted to see such willful debasement of morality from a man who claims to be religious. This is the same justification used when Americans used torture as an interrogation tactic during George W. Bush's presidency. How, exactly, does Kirk Hastings expect to be blessed by God if he's willing to jettison objective morality so easily and completely?

The specific behavior Hastings is trying to defend is the Gish Gallop, named for its creator, creationist Duane Gish

...the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."
The formal debating term for this is spreading.^[1][2] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common. - Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop is one reason I don't do live debates myself. I prefer the opportunity to take my time and address each of my opponent's arguments, instead of letting them gain an rhetorical edge by being able to lie faster than I can tell the truth. Since Hastings has already admitted he's happy to use whatever tactics he believes his opponents to be using and he's accused others of using the same tactic, it's quite clear that he can't be trusted to avoid the tactic in his own debates.

WHICH EVOLUTIONISTS NEVER DO

Sadly for Kirk, Evolutions do win debates with Creationists.

Even A Christian Website Poll Says Bill Nye Pummeled Ken Ham In The Creation Debate

BECAUSE CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS MAKE SENSE AND ARE COHERENT AND SCIENTIFIC!

A fascinating claim from a man who, as evidenced by his own words in the content linked to form this post, does not understand science in any meaningful way. He is in no position to judge the coherence of Creationism, because he himself does not understand the science he is trying to argue against.

SO WHAT?

The callous disregard for his fellow human beings is sickening. He is very vocal about admitting he does not care that "Teachers have enough problems." Who cares if you make a teacher's job harder by engaging in a fruitless debate about if religious dogma belongs in science class? I care, you may care, but according to his own words, Kirk Hastings does not.

Naturally, Scott cares, because she is an educator, speaking about the problems of educators.

RIGHT--THAT'S WHY EVOLUTIONISTS SHOULD NOT DEBATE; THEY CAUSE TOO MUCH INTELLECTUAL HARM

I'd already long believed that Kirk Hastings wishes to silence debate instead of engage in it. His responses to the criticism from Charles Morrison provides evidence of this tendency, as does his habit of banning  people from the assorted pages he creates on Facebook.

The overall moral picture offered by the Kirk's mini-rant is not a flattering one. We see a complete disregard for the open exchange of ideas, hostility towards divergent viewpoints, and a refusal to learn, all combined with gleefully bragging about his lack of objective morality. He succinctly mirrors the behavior an attitudes he accuses "Darwinsists" of having, apparently oblivious to his hypocrisy.

Kirk presumably set out to defend himself from accusations of quote-mining, but ended up giving us rationalizations to justify the very quote-mining he denies. He is, in essence, declaring, "I didn't do it, but I was right to do it and there was nothing wrong with doing it."

Parenting Win

Last might I decided to kill some time before a social event by browsing a bit at Microcenter. I passed a father and his daughter. The daughter looked about 14.  The father was very focused on picking out case fans when the daughter asked him a question. 

"That's a cute little fan. What's it for? A laptop?"

"Hmmm? Oh. That. No, it goes on a CPU heat sync for active cooling. Give me a minute and I'll show you the case fans. Go see if they have the video card you wanted while I do this."

The daughter then happily skipped off to the video card section, referencing a piece of crumpled, smudged notebook paper.

Later on I saw the two of them heading to the checkout. The daughter was giddy with glee at the pile of parts before her and her father was reminding her she'd have to wait until the weekend for them to put it together. They were going to build the computer together. 

Answering Kirk Hastings: Seventh Question for Darwinists

This post is part of the ongoing saga to answer the questions asked by Kirk Hastings of the defunct Evidence 4 Faith podcast. This post addresses the fifth question of Kirk's "Top Ten Questions for Darwinists."

7) If Darwinian evolution is true, then why did life ever evolve at all? Simple matter and energy have no need of it in order to continue to persist and function, and all living things only live a relatively short period of time, die, and then cease to exist. According to the rules of evolution, this is highly inefficient, and totally unnecessary to the continued existence of the universe. In the end, complexity only serves to complicate "survival". Then why does evolution seek this kind of complexity at all?

Yet again, Kirk is anthropomorphizing and assuming an agenda where none exists. Why would a volcano “bother” to erupt if the magma will merely cool into rock on the surface? The answer is that the volcano never “bothered” to do anything, it is merely the end result of natural phenomena that had no special agenda in and of itself.

“Simple matter and energy have no need of it in order to continue to persist and function,”

Rock has no special need of being melted, yet that’s exactly what happens under the surface of the Earth. Kirk is doggedly insisting that there’s an agenda implied by science where none exists. To answer his question however, it’s being theorized that life arose because it was an efficient means of heat dissipation. This theory, one of many, speculates that non-living matter was organized into the first self-replicating chemicals as a result of the action of heat dissipation. To call back to Kirk’s question about the second law of Thermodynamics, this supposed “Got-ya!” law of physics may in fact be the explanation for the origin of life itself.

As Derek Lowe wrote in the excellent blog post Thermodynamics of Life

...the development of self-organizing and replicating systems would be "baked in" to thermodynamics under the right conditions. Combine that with the organic chemistry that seems to obtain under astrophysical conditions, and we should, in theory, not be a bit surprised to find living creatures hopping around, full of amino acids and carbohydrates, using sunlight and chemical energy to do their thing.

The lack of a “why” to the existence of life is frustrating to be sure, but the universe does not owe us a purpose or meaning. The fact that rocks don’t “need” life around is irrelevant.

“all living things only live a relatively short period of time, die, and then cease to exist”

Again, this is a non-argument. It basically boils down to Kirk whining “I’m not immortal so God must exist!” which is an absurd apologetic at best. If life exists as a consequence of thermodynamics, there’s no particular reason for an individual organism to have a prolonged life, because the dead matter is simply food for other organisms. The process of thermodynamic heat transfer is still happening, regardless of if a particular organism is alive and doing the work itself, or dead and being consumed by other organisms.

If life is not a natural consequence of thermodynamics, there’s still no particular reason for a particular organism to have a long life or a short life.

“In the end, complexity only serves to complicate "survival".”

That portion of the question is entirely too vague to be of any value. What “complexity” that supposedly complicates survival is Kirk referring too? A weed is more complex than a bacterium, and the weed will typically live longer than an individual bacterium. It can also sustain more damage in relation to biomass than the bacterium. Eat a dandelion leaves and the root will still grow. Eat the top half of a bacteria, and the bottom half won’t do anything other than die.

“Then why does evolution seek this kind of complexity at all?”

It doesn’t. Complexity arises from random genetic mutations. Sometimes that complexity gives an organism and advantage over others. Most of the time it does not. Kirk is insisting upon a decision process, a logic, a driving force that does not exist and is neither implied nor required by evolutionary theory. Rhetorical anthropomorphization sounds good when speaking to people who already agree with you, but in an actual discussion about the topics at hand, it just reveals that Kirk simply does not understand the theory of Evolution in any way, shape or form. He opposes that which he does not understand. In the end his arguments against Evolution are as absurd and ill-informed as the Romans who executed Christians because they thought taking Communion was an act of cannibalism.

Return to the Index
Eighth Question for Darwinists

It seems the Snooze Button is evil

Let me get this straight.

When my wife and I joke about needing to "boot up" in the morning we're actually describing the process of waking up fairly accurately.

Hitting the "Snooze" button is a bit like turning off a computer while it's booting up, which any computer tech worth their salt will tell you can cause a host of problems.

I'm now very glad I almost never use the snooze button.




Snoozers Are, in Fact, Losers

Answering Kirk Hastings: A brief interlude

I'm more than halfway done posting my answers to the ten questions of Kirk Hastings. I have some tidying up to do on the unpublished entries and I really should revisit question 4 to flesh it out a bit, but that's about it.

I'm not sure I'm going to dedicate much more effort to responding to Kirk Hastings. I have other projects to work on and, to be honest, Kirk just keeps repeating the same ignorant garbage again and again. It gets repetitive and boring to constantly respond to the same debunked arguments. More to the point, Not many people are interested in a response to Kirk Hastings. His inner circle at Evidence 4 Faith will probably just ignore or dismiss anything I say. He really isn't well known enough for there to be any kind of an audience for content blasting his "arguments" to atoms.

If he were more interesting or capable of actually responding to criticism, it would at least be fun to debate him, even if it isn't profitable. Sadly, the intellectual limits of his "replies" have been insults better suited to the school yard than an exchange between middle-aged adults.

It taxes neither my mind nor my research skills to rebut him. He'll no doubt consider this a "victory" in his own mind, but after trying to have intellectual discussions with him on Facebook, I'm finding it very difficult to care what he has to say. There are only so many times a man can echo the insults of a pre-teen before you dismiss him once and for all.

Answering Kirk Hastings: Sixth Question for Darwinists

This post is part of the ongoing saga to answer the questions asked by Kirk Hastings of the defunct Evidence 4 Faith podcast. This post addresses the fifth question of Kirk's "Top Ten Questions for Darwinists."

6) According to Darwinian evolution there is no Creator God (i.e., no ultimate authority in the universe). Then ultimately there is really nothing more than survival, self-interest, and self-centered personal opinion. There can be no such a thing as moral "right" or "wrong", and there can be no such thing as "justice" and/or "fairness" either, because things either just are, or they aren't. According to Darwinism, all moral standards must be, in the end, nothing more than philosophical junk. We should have the right to do anything we can (rape, murder, lying, stealing, bullying, etc.) in order to survive and reproduce. Why don't we openly admit this?

I’ve always found this “argument” gave me more insight into the morals of the person asking the question then the question itself. It’s disturbing just how many people seem to brag that they refrain from raping, stealing and murdering their way through life largely because they fear a cosmic daddy figure will spank them for all eternity if they do.

This question gets at a fundamental claim the religious use against atheists, that without God you cannot have morality. The problem is, most Christians don’t even get their morals from God. If we really got our morals from the Bible, Christians would be executing non-christians left and right. Ultimately, atheists get their morality from the same place as the religious, from our culture and society. Most human beings have a capacity for empathy and an inherent sense of justice. The religious might argue that God put it there, but our prosperity as a species would suggest that such a capacity is beneficial in and of itself.

This is yet another place where most Creationists fundamentally misunderstand natural selection. Yes, it is a competition for survival, but for tribal animals such as humans, being able to survive as a group has proven a key advantage. Someone who runs around murdering, killing and raping often ends up imprisoned or dead. Dying is the opposite of surviving, and dying before passing on your genetic legacy means your maladaptive, antisocial behavior has been selected against.

Kirk claims that “According to Darwinism, all moral standards must be, in the end, nothing more than philosophical junk.” In saying this, he has lied about Darwinian Evolution. Moral standards are themselves an evolutionary advantage, not philosophical junk. A functional tribe can work together to prepare for the winter and to ward off invaders. Our modern civilization with its social safety net and complex economy can support scientific advances in agriculture, food distribution and medicine that has greatly enhanced the success of the human species. Kirk Hastings sees no value in morality beyond a deity because he fails to see the numerous ways in which morality is beneficial to the tribe.

Kirk makes another error with the line, “We should have the right to do anything we can (rape, murder, lying, stealing, bullying, etc.) in order to survive and reproduce.” such an argument may be true of solitary species who birth their young and abandon them, but it’s not the case with human beings. Squid get along just fine indiscriminately raping everything they can get their tentacles on, but it takes close to two decades to raise a human offspring to adulthood. For human beings to survive, we need the support of the tribe. A nursing mother recovering from a difficult birth cannot hunt down a caribou, but if she’s part of a tribe that’s supporting her, others can take over the duties of procuring food and water while she focuses on raising the next generation.

Kirk’s entire premise, that without God humanity should devolve into barbarism, ignores the fact that a society that dissolves into brutal chaos collapses and dies. Descending into amoral barbarism as he suggests would result in the people who do the descending being at a substantial reproductive and survival disadvantage to those who remain organized and cooperative.

We should have the right to do anything we can (rape, murder, lying, stealing, bullying, etc.) in order to survive and reproduce. Why don't we openly admit this?

We don’t “openly admit this” Kirk, because it’s not true. Humanity as a whole is not dependant upon fear of cosmic judgement to behave. If we were, then Christianity, with it’s blanket forgiveness after a simple prayer, would have resulted in endless carnage from almost every church member. To highlight this, let’s rephrase Kirk’s question in light of the ease with which Christians receive absolution for God.

According to Christianity, there is no punishment if you ask forgiveness (i.e., no ultimate consequences as long as you accept Jesus). Then ultimately there is really nothing more than survival, self-interest, and self-centered personal opinion. There can be no such a thing as moral "right" or "wrong", and there can be no such thing as "justice" and/or "fairness" either, because no matter what you do, God will forgive you as long as you accept Christ into your heart. According to Christianity, all moral standards must be, in the end, nothing more than philosophical junk, because God forgives you for everything. We should have the right to do anything we can (rape, murder, lying, stealing, bullying, etc.) in order to spread the Gospel, survive and reproduce. Why don't we openly admit this?

If you’re a Christian, do you find the above reworded question to be absurd? Do you find it to be a childish slam that glosses over major aspects of forgiveness? Do you think the way it completely ignores not only the existence of, but the necessity for, repentance to be a fatal flaw in the question? Do you find it so far divorced from reality that the question is too stupid to answer it?

Congratulations. You’ve just seen the reworked question the same way an atheist will see Kirk’s original. Both versions are a pack of nonsense that makes irrational and unfair assumptions about the targeted ideas. Kirk’s question has to lie about the morality of atheists and the reworked question has to lie about the nature of Christian redemption theology to make its case.

Return to the Index
Seventh Question for Darwinists

Answering Kirk Hastings: Fifth Question for Darwinists

This post is part of the ongoing saga to answer the questions asked by Kirk Hastings of the defunct Evidence 4 Faith podcast. This post addresses the fifth question of Kirk's "Top Ten Questions for Darwinists."

5) Why did such a complex thing as higher individual rational consciousness ever bother to "evolve" anyway? Lower animals, plants, insects, bacteria and other microbes survive and reproduce quite well without it!

Here Kirk is confused by the frequent anthropomorphizing of evolution and natural selection in textbooks and popular media. The phrase “ever bother to "evolve" anyway” implies a decision that simply was not made.

The driving engine of evolution is very simple. DNA changes over time. Errors occur when it’s copied, Germ DNA is damaged by environmental factors, viruses embed themselves in the genetic code, causing unpredictable changes. Most of these random changes are going to be detrimental. Most forms of cancer are the result of genetic damage. Many birth defects are the result of mutations or genetic damage. Sometimes however, an inheritable mutation occurs that increases an organism’s chances of reproducing.

The specific example of higher consciousness was something that happened long after complex animals had evolved.

Yet again, we see one of Kirk’s questions, being based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of science, is unanswerable. I might as well ask Kirk Hastings when he stopped beating his wife and demand a specific date as an answer. Such a question assumes Kirk not only once beat his wife, but stopped doing so. The question “When Did Kirk Hastings stop beating his wife?” is therefore fundamentally flawed because it is based upon an unproven major premise.

A rational consciousness never “bothered” to evolve, because the process of evolution does not plan ahead the way Kirk seems to think it has to. The human mind evolved because of a series of random changes that survived natural selection. Our ancestors who evolved bigger brains had a reproductive and survival advantage over those who did not. Our ancestors that evolved better communication and planning capabilities were more effective hunters than their peers. Trade, commerce and the formation of civilization all gave our ancestors an advantage over the competition. There was no mysterious force that planned ahead, that “bothered” to evolve. There was just a series of random changes that were culled over time.

Return to the Index
Continue to the Sixth Question for Darwinists 

Answering Kirk Hastings: Fourth Question for Darwinists

This post is part of the ongoing saga to answer the questions asked by Kirk Hastings of the defunct Evidence 4 Faith podcast. This post addresses the fourth question of Kirk's "Top Ten Questions for Darwinists."

4) If, according to Darwinism, we are nothing but an arbitrary combination of matter, energy, and random processes with no intelligence, direction, or purpose behind it, and our brains are nothing more than a physical organ that randomly evolved from non-living matter, and our thoughts are nothing more than random electrical and/or chemical processes that came about by sheer chance, then how can anyone trust their own so-called "rational" thoughts to accurately tell them the real truth about anything?

Kirk's major problem in this question is his misunderstanding of the role of random change. The question as written has what's called a "major unstated premise."  That premise is that evolution asserts that everything is the result of nothing but random chance. The question restates the old "tornado in a junkyard" metaphor. Imagine for a moment a tornado touches down in an automobile junkyard, throwing every hunk of detritus around and slamming the parts into one another at high speed. The argument goes that human beings evolving from simpler organisms would be tantamount to the tornado assembling a working 747 airliner from the assorted auto parts in the junkyard.

Both the metaphor and Kirk's question are fundamentally dishonest. Both ignore the role of natural selection, the process by which random changes are filtered so only the advantageous ones survive. Inspired by nature, the power of random change, combined with natural selection, is being used today in software development. Genetic algorithms are processes that are modified randomly over time, just as our DNA is randomly changes from one generation to the next. Those random changes are then tested against an external criteria, just as our genetic changes are tested against the environment. The best known example of genetic algorithms is in stock trading.

Closeted bunny

Clifford likes spending the day camped out in the closet. 

Answering Kirk Hastings: Third Question for Darwinists

This post is part of the ongoing saga to answer the questions asked by Kirk Hastings of the defunct Evidence 4 Faith podcast. This post addresses the third question of Kirk's "Top Ten Questions for Darwinists."

3) Why does science demonstrate that all animal species have strict limits as to how much they (or their DNA) can change into something else, yet Darwinists continue to insist that animals can in fact change over time into almost anything?

Here, Kirk misunderstands DNA at a fairly fundamental level, apparently thinking it’s immutable. The first part of this question, ”Why does science demonstrate that all animal species have strict limits as to how much they (or their DNA) can change into something else” is flat out wrong. Science demonstrates no such limits. All life on Earth is based upon DNA, and there’s not that much difference between the various species. Kirk’s question claims a limit that is not there. Chromosomal fusion, for example, is a major change that can occur in a species that can have a profound impact upon the resulting organism. Genetic mutations, driven by copying errors, radiation or chemical interference, can have a major impact upon an organism.

Kirk’s question has to be discarded, because it assumes a limitation upon DNA’s flexibility that simply is not there. The base assumption in the question is so divorced from reality it’s not even wrong.

Return to the Index
Continue to the Fourth Question for Darwinists

Publishing my writing at long last

I've finally gotten some of my writing up on Kindle. The first book, the bar guide, is published under the name Halleys Comet, because that's the name I use on the Distorted View Podcast's voice-mail line, so it's the name the podcast's fans know me by. The other two are under the pan name Matthew Wunderlich. I'm not trying to hide my identity with the pen name. There are already multiple people in print named "Matthew Miller" so a pen name makes sense so as to avoid confusion.

Unofficial Distorted View Bar Guide by Halleys Comet

What is Truth?: Second Edition by Matthew Wunderlich

My Favorite Fire Alarm: The Flaming Spotted Dick was inevitable Book 0 in the Living the Wiretap series by Matthew Wunderlich.

"Living the Wiretap" is a short story series I'm working on, based upon the Wiretap Practical joke archive which was a source of endless amusement and inspiration to my friends and I in college. I'm going for a vibe somewhere between "The Dog Who Wouldn't Be" and "Animal House." The first published short story has some profanity, but I think I'll clean that up in an updated version.

"What is Truth?" is an effort at a skeptical philosophy book. I plan to evolve it over time. It started as an effort at a parody of self-help and new age advice books, but my actual views kept creeping through.

The bar guide will be updated in time for the "Official" release date of Feb 14. The updates will consist largely of some spit and polish, a few new photos and incorporating a handful of recipes submitted by the band Le SexoFlex.

Finally, I was working on a series to respond to the abysmal apologetic writing of Kirk Hastings, famous largely for being theologically vivisected by Irreligiosophy. I decided that trying to publish it on Kindle was silly, so I'm posting the articles on this blog under the tag "Kirk Hastings."

A lot of this has consisted of tidying up writing projects I'd been plucking at for ages. The bar guide is largely a new creation in just the last few months. My new year's resolution was to average an hour or more of writing a day, and so far I've been sticking to it relatively well, even if I have to count editing and promoting as "writing."

Did Kirk Hastings Perjure Himself?

Kirk Hastings has a book on Amazon.com called "The Infinity Man." It's debated if it's a shoddy Superman / Astroboy mash-up, or a straight-up ripoff of the robot incarnation of the "New Gods" character "Infinity Man" owned by DC Comics. Regardless of the book's merits, or lack thereof, it inspired a parody titled "The Infinity Strain." It languished for months on amazon.com, published through Createspace, doing even worse than Kirk's original book in sales.

Suddenly, Createspace pulled the book due to a copyright claim fro Kirk Hastings. Kirk then contacted the book's author to gloat about it. Check out "The Infinity Saga" blog for the full details and continuing updates on the legal battle, but the short version is Kirk Hastings apparently had to lie on the form he submitted to Createspace to get what he wanted. When the author of the parody tried to reach out to Kirk to settle, Hastings defended himself by asserting the you can only perjure yourself in a court of law. Apparently Kirk Hastings doesn't think lying "counts" unless it's in a court.

I've gotten the impression that Kirk Hastings is used to bullying others to get his way, and based upon the e-mail exchanges on the Infinity Saga Blog, having people stand up to him is something he simply cannot handle. Legal proceedings are underway, and the parody's author is resisting the book on other venues.

Good Luck Noah Miller. Be sure to contact Popehat if you need legal help or to raise public awareness of how Kirk Hastings is abusing the system to take down what appears to be a legitimate and legal parody.

Read more about Kirk Hastings at these links:

Answering Kirk Hastings: An ongoing series to answer the questions posed by Kirk's apologetic writing.

Kirk Hastings threatening people who left negative reviews of his book

Kirk Hastings, Sock Puppet

Answering Kirk Hastings: Second Question for Darwinists

This post is part of the ongoing saga to answer the questions asked by Kirk Hastings of the defunct Evidence 4 Faith podcast. This post addresses the second question of Kirk's "Top Ten Questions for Darwinists."

2) According to Darwinism, why do living things become more orderly and complex over time, but everything else in the universe eventually descends into disorder and chaos?

This question has several problems with it. First, it makes a false claim about evolutionary theory. “Darwinism” does not assert that “living things become more orderly and complex over time.” Kirk is exhibiting a common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, that evolution is always an upward progression, a march towards some sort of genetic perfection. In reality, evolution is merely the chronicle of how creatures have changed over time.

The evolution of whales is very well documented in the fossil record. They are spectacular creatures exceedingly well adapted to their environment. Thier ancestors however had functional legs. The loss of those legs is a loss of complexity. Whales lost the ability to walk on land. This is hardly the only example. It’s currently theorized that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. It’s hard to argue that the modern chicken is somehow “more complex” than a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Creationists such as Kirk Hastings confuse being better adapted to an environment with being “more” evolved by some standard.

Of course, Kirk could argue that I’m focusing on semantics, because the misnomer that a better adapted creature is necessarily more complicated is not the REAL issue behind his question. What Kirk is really getting at with this question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law that’s probably misrepresented by Creationists more often than any other. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fascinating topic on its own, but for the purposes of discussing evolution the first line of the Wikipedia article on the law is a good starting point:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy - Wikipedia

The influential Creationist site Answers in Genesis (AiG) discusses Thermodynamics in the article The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Curse. Despite the tradition of Creationist writing using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as “proof” that evolution is impossible, the AiG article gives a fairly even handed summary of the law. It starts with a summary of the kinds of “Systems” involved.

Physicists define three types of thermodynamic systems: isolated, closed, and open. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. A truly isolated system does not exist as a subset of the universe, but we can approximate an isolated system very closely. A closed system can exchange energy but not matter with its surroundings. An open system may exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings.  - Answers in Genesis

The key argument used by Creationists is that the increase in entropy in an isolated system means that the increase in an organism's complexity necessitated by, for example, evolving a compound eye from eye spots, would be impossible, because everything is supposedly in a constant state of decay. This argument hinges upon the idea that the Earth is an isolated system, receiving no new energy from outside. In order for this fundamental principal of the universe to hold, and for evolution to occur, Earth would need to be receiving a steady stream of energy from an outside source, something massive, something that’s been chugging along producing energy for Earth for as long as life has been developing. What could possibly fit the bill?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Oh, right, the Sun.

“why do living things become more orderly and complex over time..?”

The core misunderstanding for Creationists is the fact that the Earth is, by and large, a “closed” system. People who use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to argue that Evolution is impossible are doing so in part because they misunderstand what a “closed” system means. It means the Earth can exchange energy with the universe around it, but not matter, at least not in any meaningful way most of the time. The occasional extinction-level asteroid impact makes us something of an open system, but by and large we get a steady stream of energy from the sun. Life on Earth is able to evolve because of the energy pouring in from the sun. That energy allows for heat disparities which in turn allows for processes to thrive that generate information.

“but everything else in the universe eventually descends into disorder and chaos?”

The universe itself is, so far as we know, is an isolated system. Nothing is reaching in to pump energy or matter into the universe. Everything within it is moving towards energy equilibrium, maximum entropy. 

AiG represents, in many ways, the Creationism mainstream. As a major source of information, other Creationists get their reference points from it. Unfortunately for Kirk, even AiG is moving away from using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against Evolution. They even list the argument on their Arguments Creationists Should Avoid page. Kirk is out of step with his Creationist betters and peers in relying on the, frankly embarrassing, argument of Thermodynamics.

Return to the Index
Continue to the Third Question for Darwinsists

Answering Kirk Hastings: Introduction

While I originally intended to publish the following series of short essays as an ebook, I realized the market for apologetic writing pointing out the flaws of Religion 4 Faith's Kirk Hastings is very, very small. No one is going to pay $0.99 for an book addressing the host of a defunct podcast. As a result of this realization I will post the essays to this blog as I finish them. This has the advantage of giving  Kirk's defenders, should he have any, an opportunity to respond.

First Question for Darwinists
Second Question for Darwinists
Third Question for Darwinists
Fourth Question for Darwinists
Fifth Question for Darwinists
Sixth Question for Darwinists
Seventh Question for Darwinists
Eighth Question for Darwinists
Ninth Question for Darwinists
Tenth Question for Darwinists
Now avaialbe as an Ebook on Amazon.com
Kirk Hastings Sorta Responds

Introduction

I first became aware of Kirk Hastings when he taunted the hosts of the Irreligiosophy podcast with a copy of his self-published Christian apologetic "What Is Truth?: A Handbook for Separating Fact from Fiction in a Propaganda-Filled World" The hosts replied with a multi-episode review of the book, picking apart it’s scientific errors, logical fallacies and overall poor construction.

111: Kirk Hastings’ "What Is Truth?"

112: What Is Truth? II

113: "WIT" III: The Reliability of the Bible

114: "WIT" IV: The Case for Christ

One of the hosts then posted a review of the book to Amazon.com titled There are intelligent defenses of Christianity. This is not one of them.

Kirk’s response was embarrassing. He ranted and raved about atheist conspiracies and replied to his critics not with a rational debate, but with insults. Eventually he devolved into posting the same reply to multiple reviewers. A few months later, he went back and posted a Biblically themed word soup of divine revenge fantasy to all his critics in the Amazon reviews.

My garden

Gourd or pumpkin seedlings have invaded my coffee trees. Yes, this is my garden. 

Answering Kirk Hastings: First Question for Darwinists

I have a handful of writing and editing projects in the works. What is Truth? is a philosophy book I've been editing that is already available in the Kindle store. A major update is coming out on February 7, 2014. The "Unofficial Distorted View Bar Guide" will be published as a Kindle exclusive on February 14. Both books will be getting a handful of updates over the next few months before print editions become available.

One project that does not yet have a scheduled release date is "Answering Kirk Hastings." Kirk is an interesting fellow who may very well be the single worst English speaking Apologetic writer today. He has a series of Facebook pages where he posts assorted rants and then bans anyone who asks him difficult questions. I've decided it would be fun, in an MST3K sort of way, to publish replies to some of his questions. The full book will eventually be published as a Kindle Exclusive, with print and other eBook formats becoming available after I've responded to Kirk's more coherent posts. Below is a selection from the chapter "Top Ten Questions for Darwinists," where I respond to ten questions Kirk seems to think are slam-dunk "You can't answer it!" challenges.

Florida man allegedly attacked pregnant sister during fight over chicken nuggets

“I will punch you down,” Gordon barked at the woman before grabbing her neck and tossing her into a nightstand, the report said.

Kareem Gordon, 28, allegedly pounced his 25-year-old sister, who was four months pregnant, after he saw her eating the fast food treat inside their mother's Orlando home, according to a report. Gordon was booked on charges that include aggravated battery.

Apparently chicken Nuggets are tastier on Florida, if they're worth beating up your pregnant sister.

On the topic of men who should not be allowed anywhere near women, take the following steps to improve your Internet experience:

Use Notepad to open the following file on your computer:
c:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts

Add the following lines to the bottom:

127.0.0.1 www.returnofkings.com
127.0.0.1 returnofkings.com

Save the changes

Florida man smuggles 13 bottles of liquor in sweat pants

On Thursday, November 14 around 8 a.m., security cameras captured the man (above, left; also, below left) wearing a gray t-shirt and sneakers as he walked out with possibly the chunkiest pair of black sweatpants in all of Fort Myers that hour

I don't think I've ever owned a pair of sweatpants that had the structural integrity for a heist, especially one of that magnitude. Whoever made those sweatpants might want to use this news item as part of their advertising to brag about how durable the clothing it.

Then again, such advertising might be seen as encouraging the use of the clothing as a aid to larceny, so it might not be such a great idea to use it in marketing materials.

Woman sues officer who repeatedly applied mace to her genitals

Woman sues officer who repeatedly applied mace to her genitals

I'm at a loss to understand the "logic" that lead a police office to repeatedly spray a caustic chemical onto a person's most sensitive parts. If his goal was to retrieve the plastic bag, then his course of action was downright idiotic. If you spray someone's genitals with mace, they're going to clamp their legs together and clench up, possibly drawing the alleged contraband further into their body.