Prophesying A Powerless God

Ancient of Days, William Blake

A god which can accurately prophesy the future is an utterly powerless god and a powerless god is no more worthy of worship than a pebble.

Leaving aside debate about whether gods exist or not, and whether the absence of evidence for them is evidence of their absence, like it is for just about everything else, neither Christians nor Muslims seem to know what sort of god they believe in. They will often cite as 'proof' that their favourite holy book was divinely inspired by quoting some passage or other which can, usually at a stretch, be presented as some sort of prophesy of the future.

These 'prophecies' normally fall into three sort:

1. Imaginary prophecies: Those they claim have been fulfilled, for which they normally have to ignore the context of the 'prophecy', make claims about history which are not born out by the facts, and/or stretch reason beyond breaking point to map the 'prophecy' onto real events. Prophets of these events never manage to foretell the exact year.
2. Retrospective prophecies: 'Prophecies' written after the events they supposedly prophesied. A bit like prophesying what you ate for dinner yesterday or who won World War II
3. 'Gunner be' prophecies: 'Prophecies' which have not actually been fulfilled, but we are assured are 'gunner be', at some point, and often "real soon... you'll see!"

Like the 'prophecies' of Nostradamus, Biblical and Koranic prophecies seem particularly good at predicting the past but are singularly inept at predicting the future. For example, Muslims will tell you that the Koran predicted all the scientific discoveries, yet they can never look in it to find out what the next discovery will be. As always, it's usefulness as a predictive tool seems to have ended last week.

But there is something which proponents of these prophesying gods don't seem to have worked out, despite having 2500-3000 or more years to think about the problem. You see, to prophesy the future you need to know not only the future, but everything leading up to that future, and nothing at all could change, or the future would be different and the prophecy would fail. This is no less true for a god than for a person or a computer. You can only prophesy the future if the future is absolutely fixed and unchangeable and that means the present is also fixed and unchangeable. A god which lived in a universe in which everything is fixed and unchangeable is a powerless god, indistinguishable from an absent one.

A universe with a fixed, unchangeable future is indistinguishable from a universe with no god in it.

I'll let former evangelical Christian Dan Barker, author of 'Losing Faith In Faith' and founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, say it far more eloquently than I ever could hope to in the transcription of a radio interview phone-in he did on a Christian radio show hosted by creationist loon, Jason Gastrich. It's a bit long but worth the read, as is the even longer transcript of the complete interview:

Dan: You're saying that there is a god that knows the future, and that this god is a personal being with free will who can make decisions, right?

Jason: Hmm . . . I'm sorry, I'm sorry, we're getting away from the question, but let's go ahead. Go ahead and tell me . .

Dan: Well, you're talking about prophecy, right?

Jason: I was talking about a specific prophecy, but let's talk about what you're saying. Go ahead.

Dan: Well, if this god exists . . .

Jason: Uh-huh.

Dan: . . . and if he knows the future, like you pretend he knows here, . . .

Jason: Right.

Dan: . . . that means that the set of future facts is fixed. It cannot be changed. If God knows it in advance, then the future is fixed and unchangeable. Otherwise, God wouldn't be omniscient. He wouldn't be able to predict the future.

Jason: Um-huh.

Dan: If the future is fixed, then that sets some limits on God's power. And also, how can a personal being with free will have any ability to make any decisions if the future is already fixed. God Himself cannot even make any decisions, because he can't do what he knows that he's not going to do. Therefore, if this kind of god exists, philosophically, this god is not a personal free being. He's more like a robot or something.

Jason: I think you jump from God knowing the future to the point where you asserted that God controls the actions, all the actions of human beings.

Dan: No, I'm talking about God's own actions, not human beings.

Jason: Ok.

Dan: I'm talking about God . . . If God knows what he's going to do . . .

Jason: Ok.

Dan: . . . tomorrow at twelve noon, right?

Jason: Uh-huh.

Dan: Then God can't change in the meantime what he's going to do between now and then. He knows it.

Jason: Well, I think there's an instance in Jonah, where God had told Jonah to tell Nineveh that Nineveh is going to be wiped out because of their sin. And then Nineveh decided to repent with weeping and fasting, and God decided to exercise his perfect mercy on them.

Dan: Yeah, but that was clearly conditional. That was a supposed conditional prophecy. I'm talking about these prophecies that are supposedly clear prophecies of something that will happen.

Jason: I don't know if that was conditional. In Jonah there's only four chapters, but um, as far as I could tell, it was God telling them judgement will come on you. And some people have said that looks like God has changed his mind, or changed. How could this happen with a changeless god? But in reality, he decided to use his perfect mercy instead of his judgement.

Dan: So, before he exercised his mercy, did he have one idea of what the future would be like, but after he exercised his mercy, he changed his mind and had a different idea of what the future would be like? In other words, was he not omniscient to begin with? Was the set of future facts changeable or fixed? [Do] you know what I'm saying? If it's changeable, then God doesn't know the future.

Jason: Why is that?

Dan: Because he doesn't know how the ball is going to bounce. He doesn't know. He's like you and me, right?

Jason: Um-huh.

Dan: So if God doesn't know the future, then he can't prophesy anything, because anything can happen between now and then. Do you see the philosophical problem here? He's either a free being that can make decisions openly, or else he knows a fixed future that cannot be changed. He can't have it both ways. He might be omniscient, in which case he's not omnipotent. Or he might be prescient, in which case he's not a free being, and he's not worthy of my worship if he's like a robot or a computer program or something.

Jason: Ok, I see what you're saying, I think. And um, I think that the rub is just because God doesn't step in and do the things that you do think he should do if he were to exist. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's not there, or not powerful or couldn't do something.

Dan: I'm not saying that at all. That wasn't my point. My point was that if your definition is right, then something's got to give. You have a mutually incompatible definition of a god: one who knows the future, and yet is also a free personal being. I'm not telling him what to do. If there's a God, he can do what he wants to. But I'm just saying that you have a problem with an incompatibility in your definition of what God is like. According to you, Ezekiel 38 tells, predicts a future which will happen, right?

Jason: Uh-huh. Right.

Dan: And there's no way that you or I, or even God can change that.

Jason: Um-huh.

Dan: Right? It's predicting something. And if God can't change that, then God has limits on his power and on his freedom.

Jason: Ok.

Dan: Therefore, he is something less than the being that you claim to worship.

Jason: Ok, well yeah, the argument that you're using is much more tied into what I said than you realize, because it's the same kind of argument that atheists have used before to say, "if God can't lie, if God can't steal, if God can't do evil. If he can't do these things, then we're not worshipping an omnipotent god." But um, it's just I think how much this argument stems from a lack of understanding.

Dan: I'm not saying that either, but -- I've heard atheists say that, and I disagree with it -- because if there is a god, he has a nature, right? And he would want to act in accordance with his nature, so I'm not saying that.

Jason: Right.

Dan: I know enough about theology and the Bible to know that this god that Christians worship has a particular nature that he usually acts in accordance with. Not always, but . . .

Jason: That doesn't mean that he's not omnipotent, it just means that he's not doing the things that you, or someone else, would see as a complete, powerful, all-powerful god.

Dan: Well, [Laughs] then it's not just omnipotence, but it's freedom. If, if . . . in order for you to make a decision . . Let's say you're going to make a choice about who-knows-what. Let's say you're going to have coffee or tea, or you're going to chose a mate, or whatever. In order to have freedom, or the illusion of freedom, you have to have at least more than one option available to you, each of which could be freely chosen or rejected, and there has to be a period of time during which there's an uncertainty during which you could change your mind, right?

Jason: Yeah, all humanly speaking you're correct, I think.

Dan: Yeah, and so that's the definition of "free will" and freedom.

Jason: Um-huh.

Dan: If there is a god who is a person, and [being a] person requires this freedom to make decisions, then this also applies to God. He also has to have the freedom during a period of uncertainty to be able to change his mind and to exercise mercy or justice or to change . . . Do you know what I mean? Otherwise, he's not a free being, right?

Jason: Hmm.

Dan: He has to have that period of potential, but . .

Jason: I think God has just bound Himself to the promises he has made to us. If you want to say that that makes him less omnipotent than some other god, then maybe you could say that.

Dan: I'm not saying [less] omnipotent. I'm saying less of a person, less of a free person. As a personality, he's more like a robot than . . He might be totally omnipotent, but he's not the kind of person that I would find admirable to worship as a person. He's more like this force of a huge computer program or something. Do you know what I'm saying? He's not a being. He's not a personal being if he knows the future. He can't be because he has no freedom, no choice, no period of potential to change his mind and be and to be merciful or warm or friendly. Do you know what I mean? He's not like you and me. He's some sort of a weird creature up there who's running things in a colder kind of impersonal way, and that's the kind of creature that I could not worship or respect.

Jason: But on a human level, it's possible to know the future and then, I mean, to an extent, and still be loving, or . . . Isn't it?

Dan: Well, none of us knows the future. We get lucky a lot.

Jason: Yeah, I just mean like I'm going to go to [laughs] to work today, or I'm going to do this, or I'm going to do that, or my kid's going to do this tonight . . .

Dan: Yeah, but on the way to work you still have the option, you probably wouldn't exercise it, but you could still change your mind and go somewhere else, right?

Jason: Yeah.

Dan: That's what makes you free.

Jason: Um-huh. Dan: But if you did not have that option, you wouldn't be free. Your hands would drive to work no matter what. You wouldn't be, you wouldn't have free will. You wouldn't . . .

Jason: I suppose it would give me, it's given me even more of a respect for God, realizing now, that he has laid down his omnipotence in order to give humans comfort by promising them things.

Dan: So he's not omnipotent, you just said?

Jason: Well he's surely omnipotent, but his type of omnipotence is different from the type of omnipotence that you want him to be, apparently.

Dan: I don't want him to be anything. I'm just trying to make sense of this Bible. I don't want God to be anything at all. If he exists, he can be whatever he wants to be. I mean, that's not up to me to decide. I'm trying to decide whether or not I think he, first of all, exists at all, and secondly, even if he did, if he is worthy of my admiration. Because I have the free will to choose, don't I?

Jason: Right.

Dan: I don't have to like him do I? But I don't have to respect him. You know, I could denounce him if I choose. That's part of my freedom, right? And so it's my choice whether or not I find this kind of a being worthy of my respect. And I find him unworthy of my respect. I mean, what's wrong with me exercising my judgement, based on moral intellectual principles, to say such a thing?

Jason: Ok.

See 'Barker Tears A New One' for a full transcription.

Love that different type of omnipotence, Jason!

So, as Dan Barker so patiently explained to the hapless Jason, "You have a mutually incompatible definition of a god: one who knows the future, and yet is also a free personal being." Not for the first time do we find religion requires it's believers to hold two or more mutually incompatible views simultaneously.

So, Christians and Muslims, and anyone else who has an omnipotent, omniscient god who makes accurate prophecies, how do you square that circle and have both an omnipotent, omniscient god who is bound irredeemably by his own inerrantly omniscient foresight and so is utterly powerless?

---

How Creationists Lie To One-another

There are few spectacles in the world of fraud quite so satisfying as watching two snake-oil salesmen arguing over who has the best scam, especially when one is complaining that the other has pinched all his lies and so shouldn't be trusted.

Anyone who has ever tried to engage a creationist in meaningful debate knows just how difficult that can be. It's as though the normal meaning of words like 'evidence', 'reason', 'logic', 'fact', 'science' and 'integrity' have been temporarily suspended and replaced with something resembling exactly the opposite.

If you've never done it, imagine playing a game of tennis with someone who demands the net be lowered to the ground whenever the ball is in their court, but wants it raised to an impossible height when in yours, and of course, the boundary lines can change at will, and points will be declared won without regard to the normal rules of the game, and normally just after you've served an ace or they've double-faulted yet again.

So, it was with some anticipation that I came across this little spat between two well-known creationist frauds over which 'arguments' should still be used and which were too embarrassing even for them. It dates from 2002.

No Faith In The Bible

Why was faith not good enough for the Bible's prophets?

Every single prophet or apostle of Jesus, when they bothered to explain why they believed in a god, quoted evidence. It seems they were never expected, and never expected themselves, to rely on faith alone.

Here's a random sample:

How Creationists Lie To Us - Karl Popper

"When you show the world you know you need to lie for your faith you show the world you know your faith is a lie".

What they say:

Thus the notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false. This is being recognized more and more today, even by evolutionists themselves. Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but is a metaphysical research program. [My emphasis]

Duane Gish, Ph.D, Former Vice-president, Institute for Creation Research
The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins

The truth:

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.²

---

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory – that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

---

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.^1,3

Karl Popper

References:

1. Miller, David. 1985. Popper Selections.
2. Popper, Karl. 1976. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
3. Popper, Karl. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355.

Oop!

One is tempted to ask why creation pseudo-scientists need to use these methods if they are so sure the facts support them, but the answer is probably too obvious.

Further reading:

Claim CA211.1 (The TalkOrigins Archive)

---

How Creationists Lie To Us - The Paluxy Hoax

"When you show the world you know you need to lie for your faith you show the world you know your faith is a lie".

Paluxy River dinosaur tracks, Glen Rose, Texas

What they say:

In the last ten or fifteen years, however, many scientists and laymen alike are waking up to the fact that much solid scientific evidence exists that contradicts evolutionary notions. One of the most shattering pieces of evidence comes from the Paluxy River basin in central Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, where fossilized tracks of man and dinosaur appear together.

John D. Morris, Ph.D., President, Institute for Creation Research.

The truth:

My grandfather was a very good sculptor... During the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by distilling moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils. Each fossil brought $15 to $30. When the supply ran low, George Adams just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in.... My dad [Weldon Eakin] and my grandfather decided one day — I don’t know if it was to make money, or what — to start carving man tracks alongside the dinosaur tracks. They poured acid to make the fossils look like aged limestone. They showed one "all over town" until they heard that a researcher from the Smithsonian Institution wanted to see the track. That worried my grandfather because he didn’t want anybody ever passing it off as real, so he and Daddy took it out and buried it.

Zana Douglas, Granddaughter of George Adams, discoverer of the Paluxy River dinosaur tracks, Glen Rose, Texas.
Interviewed by Bud Kennedy, Fortworth Star-Telegram

It's not nice to laugh at the people who are fooled by creation pseudo-scientists, but you may want to refer them to this when they accuse science of being fooled by hoaxes like Piltdown.

References:

The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy, Glen J. Kuban
Man Tracks? A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy, Glen J. Kuban

---

Ungodly Complexity

An electron micrograph of a cell. Low magnification.

Which of these are designed and which are natural?

You see, the thing about good design is its simplicity.

Something well designed is as simple as it's possible to be whilst still performing the function it was designed to perform. It would be possible to make spear points out of something other than flint - metals, bone, even wood - but you would be hard-pressed to come up with a better shape than those made by neolithic people. The humble garden dibber is hard to better for design. You can take a decent knife or hand-axe to any hedge and probably find a piece of wood which you can make a decent dibber from in a few minutes.

Both the spear point and the dibber are perfectly designed for a purpose and the purpose is obvious. There are no moving parts and minimal maintenance needed.

And this, of course, is how we can, at a glance, tell they were intelligently designed. Their lack of unnecessary complexity gives that away.

Compare that to the design of the human body (or any other living organism, for that matter). The human body is immensely complex compared to a spear point or a dibber.

Foxing Creationists.

Melanistic 'Silver' fox, Vulpes vulpes

Wikimedia Commons

Domesticated 'silver', i.e. melanistic, red fox

Here's a fascinating story which gives an insight into how man may have domesticated wolves and which illustrates a basic principle of evolution - how apparently unrelated characteristics can be linked so that, with the right pressure, a feature evolves for no obvious reason, dragged along with by the evolution of something else, and sometimes unavoidably.

Look at this picture on the right. Is it a dog? A wolf, maybe?

Well, no. It's a fox, Vulpes vulpes.

That's right. That uneatable sentient 'little gentleman in a red jacket' that unspeakable people enjoy pursuing to exhaustion then watching being killed by being torn apart in a tug-o'-war between dogs. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that. I think people who enjoy the suffering of a sentient animal are amongst the lowest forms of human life).

Foxes come in a rare 'siver' (actually, melanistic) form which was prized for its fur, especially in Russia and China. It was in Russia, during the Soviet era, that a program was started to domesticate the silver fox and breed it for its fur.

This video tells the story:

Evolution At Your Fingertips

If you want to understand evolution and the appearance of design, you have the answer at your finger-tips. Understood the right way it will tell you why turtles still breathe air and mammals don't lay eggs.

The history of the qwerty keyboard - almost certainly the one you are using to access this article, and the one I'm using to write it with - is great example of a design which becomes fixed for reasons which have nothing to do with why it is the way it is in the first place. But you will never be able to work out why that keyboard has its basic layout by examining your computer or smart phone, no matter how detailed your examination is or how completely you understand it.

Understanding why this is so helps understand how groups of species, whether families, phyla, orders, or kingdoms - whatever level - get saddled with certain unchangeable basic body plans. The history of the typewriter can he read in this Wikipedia article and of the qwerty keyboard in this one.

Briefly, typewriters were designed for producing a small number of written copies quickly, unlike printing which used type to produce a large number of copies and which needed the type to be set in blocks ready to go into a printing press. You might think that there would be some obvious logic in the way the keys are arranged on the keyboard and yet this appears to be almost random. However, there is, or rather was a logic, though not an obvious one.

Typewriters work by moving the paper past a fixed position where the metal type, mounted on a hammer, and operated by levers fixed to keys, can strike an inked ribbon, which also moves past the print position. The problem is that each piece of typeface has to move into position, hit the ribbon with enough force to transfer the ink to the paper, and clear the way for the next piece of typeface. Typing at 60 words a minute, with an average of five characters per word, a typewriter must cope with five hits per second. This creates a potential for jamming which increases as the typing speed of the user increases and especially if the user happens to hit two keys together.

One solution would have been to lock the other keys as soon as one was pressed but, apart from the hugely complicated engineering this would have needed, it would have slowed typing down to such an extent that any advantage in using a type-writer in the first place would have been mostly lost.

Another Ten Commandments

Continuing the Judeo-Christian story of the 'Ten Commandments'...

In What The 'Ten Commandments' Really Tell Us we saw how the story was almost certainly an attempt to create a convenient 'history' or at least to rewrite it by the winners which had then been grafted onto another invented origin myth.

Here we see yet another attempt to stitch another set of rules into the same narrative. Curiously too, these are the only 'ten commandments' the Bible refers to. Maybe they'll be more useful as the basis of law and morality for a civilised nation than the earlier lot.

We'll take a look a bit later but first a little background.

As we saw in What The 'Ten Commandments' Really Tell Us, the story went that when Moses turned his back on the Israelites, despite all the things they supposedly saw Yahweh do, and despite the fact that they heard him (they weren't allowed to look for some reason) giving out some rules from the top of Mount Sinai, they decided to follow Aaron's new religion. Apparently, Aaron, despite actually going with Moses to see Yahweh on top of Mount Sinai, has set up a new religion based on worshipping a golden calf made out of the women's ear-rings, to which the Israelites had transferred their loyalty (seriously!).

This takeover bid had happened when Moses was away talking to Yahweh on top of a mountain, during which Yahweh had allegedly written the commandments he had earlier announced, on some stone tablets.

Now, Yahweh had noticed this going on and told Moses he was really going to show those Israelites a thing or two, having lost his rag with them.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

What The Ten Commandments Really Tell Us

In this post I'll look at the story of the so-called 'Ten Commandments' to see how well or badly the Bible's authors managed to connect them with their god and so give them the weight of divine authority. It supposedly took place during the mythical escape from Egypt of a tribe of slaves. What we find is perhaps not what the authors intended us to find and certainly not what today's priesthood would like us to see. What we see is just how radically history was re-written, by whom and why.

There is no extra-biblical historical or archaeological evidence for this Israeli origin myth but that's another matter. Leaving that aside, let's look at what the Bible has to say and see what sense can be made of it, if any.

Firstly, there are strong clues about the beliefs of the person or people who were writing this stuff, and they go some way to explain some of the 'Commandments'. Before we get to the tale proper, we have this interesting little snippet:

And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to Israel, whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians. And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.

Exodus 18:9-11

This is said by Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, 'the priest of Midian' (Exodus 18:1) who was presumably wise in these matters, so we can be fairly sure that the Hebrews were polytheistic and just saw Yahweh as maybe the greatest god, but certainly not the only one on offer. It's rather touching that Moses has to be reassured by his father-in-law that he has chosen his god wisely.

Jethro had happened along to offer Moses some advice, which Moses took. Basically, Jethro told Moses he was doing too much and was going to wear himself out if he didn't take things a bit easier. What he needed was a set of rules, and people to enforce these rules then he wouldn't have to make all the decisions, so why not ask Yahweh for some ideas.

And Moses' father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.

Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace. So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said.

Exodus 18:17-24

Moses had a direct line to Yahweh and talked to him on almost a daily basis, yet turned to his father-in-law for advice... Hmmm...

And what does his father advise him to do? Institute democratic, consensual government? Not a bit of it; this is to be a highly centralised, autocratic state where authority spreads downwards from the high priest, who claims to have been appointed by Yahweh himself!

Moving swiftly on...

What Is It With The Ten Commandments?

To hear Christians talking about the 'Ten Commandments' you would think they imagine they form some sort of framework for morality and law and the foundations of Western civilisation. Of course, apart from a few basic rules which are common to just about all societies, and general ideas of good neighbourliness which no urbanised society could succeed without, there is almost nothing in them.

They read more like the diktat of some insecure, petulant little despot who feels he needs to reinforce his authority.

The full lists (there are two slightly different ones in the Bible - God seems to have had a rethink on one of them later) are:

The Darwin Creationist Twit Award 2012

The coveted Darwin Creationist Twit Award is awarded annually for the Twitter tweet by a creationist which, by it's utter ignorant stupidity, is judged to have done most to reduce the incidence of the creationist meme in the human meme pool, so improving the overall fitness of human culture.

Judging will be by popular vote early in October 2012. If no clear winner, there will be a vote off of the top two or three contenders.

Add your candidate tweets in the comment section. They'll go into the body of the blog in due course.

Please supply

• Your name or Twitter user name
• User name of creationist tweeter
• Date and time of tweet
• The tweet
• A sentence or two in support of your submission (optional).
  

Self-promotion will not be accepted (well, it IS about creationists so some of them might think nomination is an achievement).

Closing date: 10th October 2012

Last year's worthy candidates may be enjoyed here: Darwin Creationist Award 2011

2012 Growing candidate list:

Entry	Details	Candidate Tweet
1	Candidate: @BassimaAlamii 11 July 2012 23:39 RT @MsGrumpy: RT@BassimaAlami: @MsGrumpy @rnistuk u guys are proving YOUR uneducated. I'm gaining the best education. Thanks to God. Sumitted by: @RosaRibicondior This candidate has blocked me. If anyone can supply an image of the original, please tweet me a copy @RosaRibicondior	RT @MsGrumpy: RT@BassimaAlami: @MsGrumpy @rnistuk u guys are proving YOUR uneducated. I'm gaining the best education. Thanks to God." ◄... — PUDCAST245 (@pudcast245) July 11, 2012
2	Candidate: @fxmikey 28 June 2012 1238 Why is woman the weaker sex (physically) than men? Why should it be like this? Refutes Evolution!! #atheist #atheism #atheists Submitted by: @logicalnarwhal Supporting statement: This was the icing on the cake of one of the more ludicrous twitter accounts. It resulted in a very educational, as i'm sure you can imagine, chat with fxmikey and yecistruescience (or whatever he calls himself these days)... Joy.	Why is woman the weaker sex (physically) than men? Why should it be like this? Refutes Evolution!! #atheist #atheism #atheists — Mike the Christian (@fxmikey) June 28, 2012
3	Candidate: @SolasCpc 7 July 2012 20:18 @anarchic_teapot @CV4UK @drpaulmorgan Try reading the BIble.Which says that God is eternal, outwith time etc.Read before you assert. Submitted by: @drpaulmorgan	@anarchic_teapot @CV4UK @drpaulmorgan Try reading the BIble.Which says that God is eternal, outwith time etc.Read before you assert. — Solas CPC (@SolasCpc) July 7, 2012
4	Candidate: @SolasCpc 7 July 2012 09:31 @drpaulmorgan @KeesEngels @CV4UK @anarchic_teapot Try again.He is self-existent. Not dependent on universe. Submitted by: @drpaulmorgan	@drpaulmorgan @KeesEngels @CV4UK @anarchic_teapot Try again.He is self-existent. Not dependent on universe. — Solas CPC (@SolasCpc) July 7, 2012
5	Candidate: @SolasCpc 7 July 2012 09:08 @drpaulmorgan @Crumbsm8 @anarchic_teapot @CV4UKSomething is eternal.We say God - you say matter or nothing.God is more rational. Submitted by: @drpaulmorgan	@drpaulmorgan @Crumbsm8 @anarchic_teapot @CV4UKSomething is eternal.We say God - you say matter or nothing.God is more rational. — Solas CPC (@SolasCpc) July 7, 2012
6	Candidate: @Absird 14 July 2012 10:33 @RosaRubicondior Incorrect. Many interpret the fact that the universe is shaped like an atom as (cont) tl.gd/iapb9r (@RosaRubicondior Incorrect. Many interpret the fact that the universe is shaped like an atom as evidence of God. You see it as mere probability. I can't prove something to you that you don't want to believe) Submtted by: @RosaRubicondior	@RosaRubicondior Incorrect. Many interpret the fact that the universe is shaped like an atom as (cont) tl.gd/iapb9r —Absird Charles (@Absird) July 14, 2012
7	Candidate: @Absird 14 July 2012 22:50 @VorianK @RosaRubicondior which? A galaxy or Boron? twitter.com/Absird/status/… Submitted by: @RosaRubicondior	@VorianK @RosaRubicondior which? A galaxy or Boron? twitter.com/Absird/status/… —Absird Charles (@Absird) July 14, 2012
8	Candidate: @Absird 15 July 2012 01:05 @RosaRubicondior You sir male yourself appear foolish Submitted by: @RosaRubicondior	@RosaRubicondior You sir male yourself appear foolish —Absird Charles (@Absird) July 15, 2012
9	Candidate: @ConversionRadio 17 July 2012 19:07 Darwin earned his living by oppressing black people. @RosaRubicondior Submitted by: @RosaRubicondior	Darwin earned his living by oppressing black people. @RosaRubicondior — Conversion Points (@ConversionRadio) July 17, 2012
10	Candidate: @loadsofducks 17 July 2012 11:11 I find it strange how people give evolution an intelligence as if it decides to grow wings because it decided to fly Submitted by: 'Wayne' (@loadsofducks may be a troll account. Seems to have re-surfaced after deleting an earlier account.)	I find it strange how people give evolution an intelligence as if it decides to grow wings because it decided to fly — Mr Duck (@loadsofducks) July 17, 2012
11	Candidate: @loadsofducks 17 July 2012 11:06 @scouse_dot but how do you grow an ear if you don't know there is anything to hear? Submitted by: 'Wayne' (@loadsofducks may be a troll account. Seems to have re-surfaced after deleting an earlier account.)	@scouse_dot but how do you grow an ear if you don't know there is anything to hear? — Mr Duck (@loadsofducks) July 17, 2012
12	Candidate: @JesusEbook 20 July 2012 19:34 @GoldenGoonaz @rosarubicondior There is a universal dating system. #JESUS is so unique that time is reckoned BEFORE and AFTER Him 20-07-2012 Submitted by: @rosarubicondior	@GoldenGoonaz @rosarubicondior There is a universal dating system. #JESUS is so unique that time is reckoned BEFORE and AFTER Him 20-07-2012 — JESUS eBOOK (e-BOOK) (@JesusEbook) July 20, 2012
13	Candidate: @txlnghrns80 21 July 2012 15:58 @RosaRubicondior @lavoisier_gthu so did you "evolve" from a monkey?And if so why didn't all monkeys evolve into people? #NoLiesNeeded Submitted by: @RosaRubicondior	@RosaRubicondior @lavoisier_gthu so did you "evolve" from a monkey?And if so why didn't all monkeys evolve into people? #NoLiesNeeded — LJ JOHNSON (@txlnghrns80) July 21, 2012
14	Candidate: @AndrewRNixon 22 July 2012 20:18 @RosaRubicondior You are a temporary cosmic accident, your life is valueless, you have no future - what are you afraid of? #atheism #Honesty Submitted by:@RosaRubicondior	@RosaRubicondior You are a temporary cosmic accident, your life is valueless, you have no future - what are you afraid of? #atheism #Honesty — Andrew Nixon (@AndrewRNixon) July 22, 2012
15	Candidate: @MMMikeA 02 August 2012 @rosarubicondior Ark of the Covenant and the Commandment tablets, for two. And show me some respect and answer my Q: Science or religion? Submitted by: @RosaRubicondior Tweeted after repetitive requests to provide evidence for his god which he claimed to have. Apparently this may be seen in Ethiopia. It almost goes without saying that he could not explain how this evidence was authenticated and by whom, and found an excuse to break of the conversation shortly afterwards.	@rosarubicondior Ark of the Covenant and the Commandment tablets, for two. And show me some respect and answer my Q: Science or religion? — Mike Atkins (@MMMikeA) August 2, 2012
16	Candidate: @Yiosue (Joshua Mattocks) 06 August 2012 22:05 @stooshie @j_mills116 Physical evidence of Noah's ark has been found in Turkey. Great vacation spot. (@yiosue @j_mills116 Totally debunked. Even if that were true there wouldn't be enough room for the food for the 14 pandas alone.) @stooshie @j_mills116 Lost their appetite in awe. Submitted by: @@stooshie (A couple of tweets taken together make this an outstanding candidate)	@stooshie @j_mills116 Physical evidence of Noah's ark has been found in Turkey. Great vacation spot. — Joshua Mattocks (@Yiosue) August 6, 2012 @stooshie @j_mills116 Lost their appetite in awe. — Joshua Mattocks (@Yiosue) August 6, 2012
17	Candidate: @QahtaniAziz 18 August 2012 10:53 In order to sense #motion, you must be away from the moving object #Soul #Life #Death #People #Atheist Submitted by: @RosaRubicondior (This must explain why we know a vehicle we are in is accelerating/decelerating then)	In order to sense #motion, you must be away from the moving object #Soul #Life #Death #People #Atheist — Abdulaziz-عبدالعزيز (@QahtaniAziz) August 18, 2012
18	Candidate: @Women_Of_Jannah 01 September 2012 16:13 You believe that we evolved from fish/ape and you think I'm insane! Don't make me laugh!!! #Atheist Submitted By: @RosaRubicondior No comment could give any more support to this candidate that the tweet itself hasn't already provided.	You believe that we evolved from fish/ape and you think I'm insane! Don't make me laugh!!! #Atheist — Women of Jannah (@Women_Of_Jannah) September 1, 2012
19	Candidate: @DebunkEvolution 08 October 2012 17:58 #Evolution is obviously nonsense. Does air make creatures invent wings? LOL! http://t.co/IbRS4psp #science #atheism #truth #Jesus #fact Submitted by: @RosaRubicondior Two things to note here: The total lack of any understanding of what evolution is or how it works, which, with the wealth of information available, can only be wilful or feigned. The lack of confidence necessitating the inclusion of the magic hashtag '#fact' which Creationists believe turns a doubtful claim into a real fact. No link to the actual tweet as @DebunkEvolution is so confident in his/her claims that his/her account is protected. Instead we'll have to make do with a screen clip from my Tweetdeck.
20	Candidate: @jtrubo 12 October 2012 15:39 athiest u are such idiots. u believe intellgent desine by monkys but notGod ?? Submitted by: @Omnisvalidus Nice line in spelling for someone who feels confident to pronounce an entire body of well-established science wrong and scientists idiotic.	athiest u are such idiots. u believe intellgent desine by monkys but notGod ?? — josh (@jtrubo) October 12, 2012

Atheism - The Informed Choice.

How can belief be a choice?

Imagine you're crossing a road and a speeding car comes round the corner towards you. Do you have a choice whether to believe in it? Of course, you may believe you have some power over reality; that somehow it's obliged to conform to your requirements. It might be possible to persuade yourself that you can ignore it, but normally, such people wouldn't be out without responsible adult supervision. You might well have a choice whether to act on the belief or not, and to carry on as though there isn't a car hurtling towards you, but reality is likely to intervene in that delusion. Perhaps too you can choose to believe you're not really lying in the road with broken bones, if you still have the capability of consciously deluding yourself. But you're not disbelieving; you're simply refusing to accept a reality you know exists, otherwise how could you choose to ignore it?

Only A Theory

No one could ever accuse creation pseudo-scientists of not knowing their market or failing to follow the money.

"Evolution is only a theory" is one of their favourite slogans, aimed, as it invariably is, at a scientifically illiterate audience to whom they are selling their latest book or to whom they are pushing an extreme right-wing, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian theocratic political agenda disguised as a moral crusade and intended to keep on side those whom they plan to keep at the bottom of the social peck-order.

It is intended to mislead by playing on the different meanings of the word 'theory' as used by science and by a lay person respectively. It is normally followed by ' - a guess with no supporting evidence', 'not a fact', or 'which has not been proved', all of which intentionally reinforce the misinformation with disinformation. In common parlance, lies.

The Theory of Evolution (which explains the fact of evolution) is of course, as has been repeatedly said, no less a scientific theory than is the Theory of Gravity which explains the fact of gravity. In fact, in the early part of the 20th century, Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity was overthrown by Einsteinian Relativity. But never-the-less, the Theory of Gravity remains 'just' a theory with parts still waiting to be proven. No sane person would doubt gravity because the current theory has a few small gaps, yet the Theory of Evolution is actually more satisfactory than is the Theory of Gravity.

I came across this article on the superb Friends of Charles Darwin website. I'll let its intelligent designer, Richard Carter do the talking:

As with gravity, the effects of Darwinian evolution are all around us. We see them in the pigeons in our streets, the spiders in our bathtubs, and the opposable thumbs on our hands. Yet most of us hardly give them a second's thought. And, as with gravity, precocious young whippersnappers have amended and improved Darwin's original theory, but its original essence is still very recognisable in the latest thinking.

Nature red in beak and claw:
A sparrowhawk eating a sparrow
in my garden last April.
© Richard Carter

But here the comparison begins to break down. Where Darwinian evolution differs from Newtonian (and, indeed, Einsteinian) gravitation, for the time-being at least, is that we do not yet have an observable mechanism for gravity. What actually makes gravity work? Yes, physicists can hypothesise about gravitons and gravitational waves as much as they like, but they have not yet been able to detect either of them in the laboratory (and I will surely never be able to detect them in my bedroom).

Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, certainly does have observable mechanisms driving it: variations amongst the individuals of a species, heredity and—Darwin's big idea—Natural Selection (capital 'N', capital 'S'). We can see all of these mechanisms at work on a daily basis, if we take the trouble to look. We can see them in our streets and gardens, on our bird feeders, and in the cobwebs on our bedroom ceilings. Everywhere we care look, Nature is still red in tooth an claw.

Darwinian evolution does not rely on mysterious, unobservable particles or waves; its mechanisms are in action all around us in our everyday world. Which is why, although Newtonian gravitation has a certain attraction, it seems to me, Darwinian evolution is, in this way at least, a far more satisfactory theory.

A Far More Satisfactory Theory, Richard Carter, FCD (2007)
Friends of Charles Darwin

Of course this was written before the recent announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN, which has gone some way to solving one of the mysteries in the Theory of Gravity by explaining where mass comes from, but the evidence for gravitons or gravity waves is still awaited. They remain 'just a theory'.

Strange then that creationist pseudo-scientists are never found trying to get away with casting doubt on the Theory of Gravity when they don't even need to tell lies; they could just point out the parts which are unproven and to the gaps in the theory which science has not yet closed and then rely on the parochial ignorance of their target audience to conclude that it must have been the locally popular god who did it.

Why don't they do so?

Because they would never get away with it. No sane person would dispute the existence of gravity, so casting doubt on the current scientific theory which explains it would do nothing to convince people that they can fly or jump off high buildings with impunity.

Besides, there is no claim from ancient mythology that gravity was magically created by a magic man who will cause unimaginably nasty things to happen to you if you don't do what the theologians tell you to do, believe what they tell you to believe, vote for those whom they tell you to vote for, make generous donations to those who promulgate these lies and misinformation, and buy their books.

---

How Linnaeus Made A Monkey Of Creationists

Carl Nilsson Linnæus

One of the scientists whom I've always regarded as remarkably lucky was Carl Nilsson Linnæus (23 May 1707 – 10 January 1778), known later as Carl von Linné. Linnæus single-handedly devised the Linnean or binomial nomenclature system of classification which is still used today, albeit slightly modified, to classify all living things and was rightly regarded as one of the greatest men of his time. He was probably also the first person to realise that human being were not only animals but apes and should be classified as such

He was born into a slightly eccentric Swedish Lutheran family in the village of Råshult in Småland and, from the outset, his parents spoke Latin to him so that, so it is said, he learned Latin before he could speak Swedish. He also developed an obsessive early interest in plants which he probably acquired from his father, himself an amateur botanist, and preferred looking at flowers to working at his education. The headmaster of his school, also a botanist, noticed his interest in plants and gave him the run of his garden, he also introduced him to the state doctor of Småland, Johann Rothman another botanist.

Rothman taught him about plant sexuality and introduced him to the Tournefort system of plant classification, a system with many flaws based on almost arbitrary groupings, and clearly in need of revision and rationalisation. But is was the sexuality of plants which seems to have intrigued Linnæus the most, to the point where he became almost obsessed with sex, at least as the basis for classification.

His first thesis was Praeludia Sponsaliorum Plantarum on plant sexuality. This choice as the basis for classification was a more or less arbitrary one in those times as there was no understanding of genetics or evolution, or the role of sexual reproduction as a selective factor in the evolution and divergence of species. In fact, when he came to classify the molluscs, finding no obvious genitalia, he based it on how closely the opening in the shell resembled the human female vulva, which he seems to have studied rather closely. In molluscs of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction.

So there were three stokes of luck here:

1. Knowledge of Latin so he had a basis for nomenclature which had a pan-European understanding and which could be used descriptively as well as binomially to give a systematic naming convention.
2. An interest in botany shared by some influential people.
3. An obsessive interest in sex which had led him by chance to the most sensible basis for classification, given the intimate role played by sexual reproduction and diversification in most multicellular organisms (he did not know of single-celled organisms which had not then been discovered.

Perhaps the third in the above list needs to be explained a little more. For individuals to reproduce successfully, their genitalia need to match or else reproduction would be impossible. Hence the reproductive organs tend to vary only slightly between closely related species, more so between more distantly related species and more so still between even more distantly related species.

So, by doing what Linnæus did and classifying plants on the basis of their fundamental flower structure, such as the number of stamens and pistils, number of petals, form of the inflorescence, etc, he had unwittingly linked his classification to the evolution of the species before there was a general awareness of evolution and before it was the accepted principle under-pinning the whole of biology that it is today.

Linnæus didn't always get it right - indeed how could he with no knowledge of evolution and genetics - but it is a tribute to his system that it gave the first clues to people like Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin that there might be a reason why these varieties, subspecies and species, when arranged in orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms, looked like the branches of a tree. (Linnæus never included families; these were added later)
One of Linnæus' more subtle contributions to science was his insistence that not only should humans be classified as animals but that they should be included in a grouping which includes apes and monkeys.

Linnaeus classified humans among the primates (as they were later called) beginning with the first edition of Systema Naturae. During his time at Hartekamp, he had the opportunity to examine several monkeys and noted similarities between them and man. He pointed out both species basically have the same anatomy; except for speech, he found no other differences. Thus he placed man and monkeys under the same category, Anthropomorpha, meaning "manlike." This classification received criticism from other biologists such as Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, Jacob Theodor Klein and Johann Georg Gmelin on the ground that it is illogical to describe a human as 'like a man'. In a letter to Gmelin from 1747, Linnaeus replied:

"It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline".

The theological concerns were twofold: first, putting man at the same level as monkeys or apes would lower the spiritually higher position that man was assumed to have in the great chain of being, and second, because the Bible says man was created in the image of God (theomorphism), if monkeys/apes and humans were not distinctly and separately designed, that would mean monkeys and apes were created in the image of God as well. This was something many could not accept....

After such criticism, Linnaeus felt he needed to explain himself more clearly. The 10th edition of Systema Naturae introduced new terms, including Mammalia and Primates, the latter of which would replace Anthropomorpha as well as giving humans the full binomial Homo sapiens. The new classification received less criticism, but many natural historians still believed he had demoted humans from their former place to rule over nature, not be a part of it. Linnaeus believed that man biologically belongs to the animal kingdom and had to be included in it. In his book Dieta Naturalis, he said,

"One should not vent one's wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a soul and that the animals are mere 'aoutomata mechanica,' but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility."

From Wikipedia

Even in those days it seems die-hard theologians were insisting that science conform to their theology and were complaining when it didn't, and scientists were having to contend with their arrogant bullying and cat-calling from the side-lines.

Now, of course, we know that theology is wrong because it doesn't conform to what science tells us is right. Science, not theology, has proved a far superior tool for determining truth to the extent that it is now accepted by normal people as a tool for validating theology, or not, and not vice versa.

You will even find fundamentalist creationists frantically trying to use science, albeit usually a bastardised parody version of it, to lend credence to their myths and superstitions, as science, paradoxically, closes more and more gaps into which they try to fit their diminishing little gods.

Partly in honour of his insistence on this classification for mankind, in 1959, Carl Linnaeus was designated as the lectotype for Homo sapiens, which means that following the nomenclatural rules, Homo sapiens was validly defined as the animal species to which Carl Nilsson Linnaeus belonged.

It is more than a little ironic that, when Darwin and Wallace presented their seminal papers on evolution, which did so much to explain why Linnean nomenclature works, to the Linnean Society of London, it went almost unnoticed.

---

Christians - Try Not To Think About Matthew.

No Lusting!

What was it with Matthew, or whoever it was writing the stuff attributed to him in the Bible?

Later on in the Bible, Matthew seems to present Jesus as a foolish man and a false prophet, and seems to be trying to warn us about him (Foolish Jesus And The Ravening Wolves). He even goes on to refute the notion that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses (Hey Christians! Is Matthew For Real?) but here he is making him look like a fool who knows nothing of human psychology, or even as someone cynically trying to trap people.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:27-28

I wonder if it's okay for a woman to look on a man to lust after him. Maybe it hadn't occurred to the man who wrote that stuff that women have those sorts of thoughts too... But that's by the by.

Don't think about the elephants!

Try this little exercise. Close your eyes for ten minutes and try hard not to think about elephants. Remember, whatever you do you mustn't think about elephants otherwise something really bad might happen, so you'll need to concentrate. If you think of elephants even once, no matter how briefly, you'll lose and the game will be over so don't let your mind wander just in case.

How long did you last? Did you remember right at the start what you were supposed not to be thinking about?

So you lost right then.

You see, there is no way you can remember not to think about elephants without thinking about elephants, just as there is no way to remember not to lust after someone without thinking about lusting after them. Go on! Try it!

No sane, intelligent, compassionate, loving god would impose a ludicrously impossibly puritanical rule like that on humans and then condemn them if they broke it.

Mind you, a malignant god would. So would a writer who is trying to make this god out to be malignant.

And so, which is far more likely, would a writer who wants to make you feel trapped and riddled with guilt for merely being human and doing what humans can't avoid doing. He might just as well have condemned you for just being born.

Oh! He did that too, of course.

---

Other sections of Matthew that Christians might like to try not to think about are:

Matthew 1:23 where Matthew gives the game away about the 'Jesus' prophesy being made up.
Matthew 27: 51-53 Where Matthew makes the entire crucifixion story look like a bad scifi story.
Matthew 2 where Matthew makes the birth of Jesus look like another silly attempt to create myth on the hoof.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.