The Other World

Happy birthday to me!

(Garfield is amazingly flexible...!)

http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com/2008/11/ben-steins-expelled.html

This is a movie narrated by a relatively famous American TV-personality Ben Stein. The whole film is created to promote ID, Intelligent Design. You have to admire the way they use the material and linguistics: showing the Berlin Wall being built between the Germans and using the word freedom over and over again. The point of using 'freedom' is the same as that of George W. Bush: no one can say they think freedom should be put down. Of course not! What they don't differentiate is the division between 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'. Next good word to use in an American production for Americans: the A-word, atheism. There was a survey a while ago which listed the most prestiged and the most despised religions in the US: atheism was second last, only overcome by scientology. Someone once said that it doesn't really matter what you believe in, as long as you have a religion in the US.

The promoters at one point try to excuse some firings by saying these people weren't teaching creationism or ID, but that they were exercising their academic freedom. These people go on about how the evil atheists in the academia are nearly paranoid about the mere mentioning the theory, or ID, in a lecture or an academic paper. Hmmm... perhaps because of this: "If we can get Intelligent Design in the class rooms, we will soon be able to have daily school prayers." Ahhh... didn't you just say the goal wasn't to do that???

There are nicely cut short clips of interviews with known evolution biologists and -of course- people from the Unholy Trinity, that is, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, telling what's wrong with the theory of Intelligent Design and the promotion of bringing it to the science class. To me it would appear the makers of this are attempting only to somehow ridicule them, instead of actually thoroughly answering the criticism presented to them.

One of the funniest parts is a very obviously acted scene where a smart-looking 50's guy looks down on a skull on the table with a typical girl next door wearing a dress looks up to the guy, asks the professor next to them in a veeery broad Deep South accent, how people could have become humans from monkeys when the BIBLE SAYS otherwise. No shit, Sherman. Or: a scientist mixes water, CAFFEINE, etc. and runs electricity through it. No life emerged. Conclusion: life could not have been originated from "primordial soup" without a divine spark. And this: "Richard Dawkins has devoted his entire life to promote the Evolutionary Gospel." This nicely shows their entire language used to deal with evolution is religious-based. No wonder it doesn't work!

All the way to the end they gather men and women in front of the camera to tell the audience how they were wrongly accused. "I mentioned ID in some of my slides." "I mentioned ID in my academic paper." "I was fired because in my academic paper I questioned the usefulness of the evolution theory since mathematical sequences don't work when applied to the mutations of animal species." Quantitative methodology doesn't work for drawing conclusions from qualitative material. Again: no shit, Sherman! They march in numerous people with fancy academic titles to back up that ID really is science. “Evolutionary debates are no longer abut science but it has become a religious War.” You brought in God -> yo brought in religion -> you’re going to have to suck up the consequences of your action, boy! The same thing goes on : some people say that evolution promotes atheism, which “has no moral foundation, no afterlife, no nothing”. Read the chapter seven of ‘The God Delusion’: if people’s moral foundation is the Bible, we’re fucked. Just look at the Old Testament, or even the New Testament. And don’t try to say that some stories are allegories and some true: on what grounds do you decide which ones are true and which are not? That’s not in the Bible. You don’t have some innate idea of what morally good, do you? Oh dear, then atheist could have that too!!! Our Father, thou art in heaven…!!! Or as Einstein put it: “If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.” One professor tells about his childhood trauma when studying biology at the university, his evolution teacher in his opinion showed no signs (nor the text book) about there being design as part of Darwinism, which then led him to ID. Well, no, obviously there‘s no invisible design factor in Darwinism, that’s the whole point. Hence the debate between ID and Darwinism. I assume his enthusiasm to speak in this film has nothing to do with the large tumor in his head (he‘s diagnosed with brain cancer).

They interview the author of ‘The Dawkins Delusion’ and conclude that ID is about explaining ‘why’, not ‘how‘. No; Dawkins says in ‘The God Delusion’ that explaining the ‘how’ through Darwinism also answer the question ‘why’. These people just want to lift their hands up and explain everything at the present time unexplainable or difficult with the sentence ‘God designed it‘. It never ceases to amaze me how easily the ID supporters are lacking any curiosity, they just want to check everything out as ‘God made it’. And the best argument: ‘Of course the carbon measurements state that the rock is ten thousand years old, that’s how God designer it.” So let me get this straight: God designer the rock to appear to be older than what it really is? Vintage stones? For what, to test the faith of the people? ‘Let’s see if the father is willing to burn his own son, Isaac, on the stake alive.‘ ‘I bet he will!’ ‘Hell no! It’s his own son!’ Well, he did try but an angel intervened just in time to save the son’s day and life. Hahahaaa… what an excellent joke! That is so funny!!! Not.

“What is being presented to the public is [that] first comes the science, and then comes the world view. I would like to argue that that might not be the case that it may actually be the other way around. That the world view comes first and it influences the interpretation of science.” No, it wasn’t Tapio Puolimatka speaking (the name and the authority of the speaker is unknown since it is not shown in the part it is said [the film is divided into eleven parts]) “I think it is sending a really bad message to religious people who are interested in science that -- in order to do science credibly they have to leave their religious beliefs at the door.” (Dr. Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology, University of xxxxwlok) That’s because it’s true. It’s not science if you attempt to prove something by a divine factor.

Okay. So life cannot begin if the possibility is one in a fantazillion. That one is nothing, there must be God evolved. Yeah, obviously... Just because something *appears* miraculous, doesn't mean it's designed by God. This goes right back to the Watchmaker thing (see Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker'). And just because modern science cannot explain something now, doesn't mean that's how it's going to remain the same forever. Technology evolves (ooh.. the E-word... sorry, my bad). Aristotle thought human health was due to the balance of slime, bile (=sappi), black bile and blood. Doesn't work today, does it?

These people seem to label evolution theory (swearing again...) as something static when in reality Darwinism is under constant scrutiny. The definition of fundamentalism is that a person refuses to change their views even when presented the strongest evidence possible proving the opposite. From my point of view, the Christian Right which promotes the ID theory and attempts to include it to school curricula (and sometimes succeeding as in Kansas, see www.venganza.org). Of course universities won't let Intelligent Design intervene the curricula and pose as science; if given the change, I doubt there will be an end until were in pre-Darwinian age when religion rules the academia. There must be a zero tolerance.

Let me know if you had the stomach to watch the whole thing all the way to the end. I think it was the seventh part after which I ended. It kept repeating the same things all over again, and getting sidetracked even more from the ID theory towards the Evil Atheist Conspiracy Who Try To Lure Our Young Into Forsaking God. The title of the film is perfect, I just think it's perfect for different reasons that the film makers.

I think I'll watch the Four Apocalyptic Horsemen discussing next: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2025,THE-FOUR-HORSEMEN,Discussions-With-Richard-Dawkins-Episode-1-RDFRS

Or 'Expelled Exposed' (a counter-strike to the film at hand) if I can find it.

http://uutiset.msn.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Törkeä%20insestitapaus%20järkyttää%20Britanniaa/1135241416991?ref=msn

Someone presented a question what would be the consequences if this was revealed in Finland and brought to court. My guess: the guy would be officially condemned and given a harsh sentence (something like five years in jail, which in practise would be two to three years if the guy's a first timer), unofficially other men would be admiring him and asking if the daughters had tight pussies.

In the HS discussion forum (http://www.hs.fi/keskustelu/thread.jspa;jsessionid=091BF5DA5610E7A9686E36C7E81C3973.forums2?threadID=154727&messageID=2673192&;) the suspected Finnish sentences are even more realistic than mine: unconditional sentences, fines, "motion denied" cases due to the lack of "harsh" (read: something that no one can logically in any way dismiss as circumstantial) evidence.

And let us not ignore the mitigating factors:
the father has a job -> sentence easesns
the victims were women -> sentence easens
the father didn't use "force" = didn't lock them up in a cellar/keep them in chains -> sentence easens
the daughters didn't report the abuse = "they must have wanted it" -> sentence easens
the father gets unwanted publicity and crap from the media and the public = "he has suffered enough already, the daughters should know their fucking place and shut up and spread their legs" -> sentence easens
the victims know the perpetrator -> sentence easens
the daughters were wearing clothes considered lustful by male courtpersons = "they wanted it" -> sentence easens
the father has no previous convictions -> sentence easens
the crime was committed over 25 years = "it wasn't even that long" -> sentence easens
the perpatrator has underage children -> sentence easens

Result: daughters get jailed for "rikokseen yllyttäminen" and "väärä ilmianto".

Way to go, Finland!

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/pdf/human_rights.pdf

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that human rights apply to all people equally, 'without
distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language…or any other status'."

"Human rights have long been understood to apply universally—to all people, at all times, in all places."

"Violence against women is rooted in a global culture that discriminates against women and denies them equal rights with men. Women today earn less than men, own less property than men, and have less access to education, employment, housing and health care. This global culture of discrimination against women denies women their fundamental human rights and legitimizes the violent appropriation of women’s bodies for individual gratification or political ends."

Are we human yet?

-----

Today is the 25th of November, International Day Against Violence Against Women. It is the start for sixteen days during which activism against gender violence.

http://www.womankind.org.uk/16-days-of-activism.html (EN)
http://www.zonta.fi/pub/doc/press_release_n.doc (FI)

Don't forget to sign the 'Say NO to Violence' site at http://www.saynotoviolence.org/

Watched Idols last night. Voted five times for Ansku. Didn't watch teh result programme since I thought it would be clearly Kalle who'd leave. Ansku's version of 'Joutsenet' continued to go on in my mental jukebox (as it is still going doing).

Now I read from MTV3 Idols site that Ansku had to leave. I mean what the fuck?! Is this the 'Antti Tuisku' thing all over again? It is a real shame to kick out someone so good as Ansku. Come on, kids: just because you have a crush on a singer doesn't mean their objectively "the best"!

Hyvä, että on järkeviä ihmisiä puolustamassa järkeä valtion ja näin kirkkoon kuulumattomienkin veronmaksajienkin tukemaa huuhaata vastaan.

Vaste Puolimatkalle 22.11. Elisa Järnefelt, Helsingin yliopiston uskontotieteen laitoksen tutkija, väitöskirja luomisuskomuksista ja evoluutioteoriasta

http://www.hs.fi/paakirjoitus/artikkeli/Uskonnolliset%20opit%20mukailevat%20monilta%20osin%20arkiajattelua/1135241309755

Vasteita Mielipide-osastolle ovat kirjoittaneet myös 18.11. Juha Mikola ja 19.11. Maija Ahtee.

Ja kaikki siis lähti 15.11.2008 seuraavasta Tapio Puolimatkan (jonka kurssikirja meilläkin on; hyvä tietää, mitä kontekstia vasten tarkastella tuota teosta...), kasvatuksen teorian ja tradition professori Jyväskylän yliopistossa (huom; ei minkäänlaista akteemista auktoriteettia), Vieraskynä-kirjoituksesta Hesarissa kreationismin ottamisesta tasa-arvoiseksi osaksi biologian opetusta näin ikään:

http://www.hs.fi/paakirjoitus/artikkeli/Evoluutioteoriaa+on+opetettava++kriittisesti+avoimella+tavalla/HS20081115SI1MA0140x

Tänään Mielipide-osastolla Perttu Kivivuori, kasvatustieteiden maisteri, puoltaa Puolimatkaa, vaikkei kummallakaan ole minkäänlaista auktoriteettia päättää mitä opetetaan ja millä tunnilla. Herrat voivat puolestani pakata laukkunsa ja painua USA:n Keskilänteen, siellä kun tämä heidän ideaalimaailmansa jo on pystyssä. Sayonara, suckers.

"Malaysia's top Islamic body on Saturday ruled against Muslims practicing yoga, saying it had elements of other religions that could corrupt Muslims."

Funny. That's exactly the same thing my religion teacher said in 9th grade, just replacing 'Muslims' with 'Christians'. I rest my case: monotheistic, Abraham-based religions have so much in common I can't believe they don't see it themselves.

"Recently, the council issued an edict banning tomboys, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam."

Seriously, don't they have anything better to do. Be concerned of any genuine problems? Climatic shift, or poverty, or the lack of education, perhaps???

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/malaysia.yoga.banned.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

-----

Since Mormons have continued their dogma of babtising the dead from false religions and bring them into light through babtism by proxy, an initiative has been made to babtise deceased Mormons into the pleasures of homosexuality:

"Dear God of the Homos,

With your great and everlasting love that blessed the covenants of Achilles and Petroclus, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and of Jonathon and David, bless then the soul of Joseph Smith of Sharon, Vermont with your divine penis. Let it pierce the anus of his soul, and let you be forever joined to him, since on this oppressive earth, he was denied the pleasure of the male sex.

Forever and ever, our brother Joseph Smith has now joined our family (We Sing the Hymn to Praise God of the Homos!).

Blessed be God of the Homos,

Amen"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/20/145340/48/889/664239

http://www.lariq.net/soopa/archives/003683.html:

10 syytä miksi homoavioliitot tulisi kieltää:

1. Homous ei ole luonnollista. Samalla tavalla kuin ihmiset ovat kieltäytyneet silmälaseista, muovista ja keskuslämmitteisistä taloista, koska ne eivät ole luonnollisia.

2. Homoavioliitot kannustavat ihmisiä homouteen. Samalla tavalla kuin seurustelu pitkien ihmisten kanssa tekee ihmisistä pitkiä.

3. Homoavioliiton laillistaminen avaisi oven erilaisille oudoille mahdollisuuksille. Jotkut ehkä haluaisivat jopa mennä naimisiin lemmikkieläintensä kanssa koska ne ovat oikeustoimikelpoisia ja voivat allekirjoittaa avioliittosopimuksen.

4. Heteroavioliitto on ollut olemassa pitkään eikä ole muuttunut yhtään. Naiset ovat yhä omaisuutta, avioero on yhä laiton ja pettäminen on yhä määritelty rikoslaissa.

5. Heteroavioliitosta tulee vähemmän merkitsevä jos homoavioliitot sallitaan. Britney Spearsin 55-tunnin avioliiton pyhyys olisi tuhottu.

6. Heteroavioliitot ovat oikein koska ne tuottavat lapsia. Homoparien, hedelmättömien parien ja vanhojen ihmisten ei pidä antaa mennä naimisiin, koska maailmassa ei ole vielä tarpeeksi lapsia.

7. Ilmeisesti homovanhemmat kasvattavat vain homolapsia, koska heterovanhemmat kasvattavat vain heterolapsia.

8. Uskonto ei tue homoavioliittoa. Kaltaisessamme teokratiassa yhden uskonnnon arvot heijastuvat koko maahan. Siksi maassamme on vain yksi uskonto.

9. Lapset eivät voi kasvaa täysipainoisiksi aikuisiksi ilman kotoa löytyviä nais- ja miesroolimalleja. Siksi yksinhuoltajuus on kielletty.

10. Homoavioliitot muuttavat yhteiskuntamme perustaa, emme koskaan voisi sopeutua uusiin sosiaalisiin normeihin. Samaan tapaan kuin emme ole sopeutuneet autoihin, palvelusektoritalouteen tai pidempiin elinaikoihin.

(Tekstissä esiintyvät homo-sanat viittaavat sekä homoihin että lesboihin)

It'll snow tomorrow!!!

And to add a little more pressure on the thesis pressure (since, obviously, there wasn't enough already) was to hear a comment a friend's thesis instructor to their group: "don't think any of you will get a higher grade than magna". Veeeery encouraging, indeed. =/

Apparently the game Little Big World has finally been released. It was taken back due to this incident: http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/10/17/briefly-scee-confirms-little-big-planet-delayed.

So why is it that if something is justified by religion, you can get away with anything? More on that subject see the quick overlook on today's news: child abuse (http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/oikea/id107896.html) and restrictions of freedom of speech (http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Iran+sensuroi+viisi+miljoonaa+internetsivua+moraalittomina/1135241240497). And why do even the non-religious people bow to religion? "I don't share your beliefs but I RESPECT them." And this respect leads to accepting anything on then basis of religion. Like this Little Big World thing: what other religion could restrict the behaviour of those who are not members of that religion as muslims? Why is it that everyone else bows to whatever muslims come up with to ban/restrict/banish/forbid on the basis that it offends their religion?