The Washington Post
NASA awards SpaceX, Blue Origin, Dynetics first contracts since 1960s to build spacecraft that would fly astronauts to the moon
Boeing, typically among NASA’s key contractors but whose space program has experienced multiple setbacks and delays, also submitted a bid but was not selected. NASA is trying to meet a 2024 White House-set deadline to return people to the lunar surface.
Thursday, April 30, 2020
I thought this was interesting. A landlady explains why it's important to pay the rent even though people are losing their jobs, and being homeless is not a good thing. One more thing: Gavin Newsom is the governor of California. Another one more thing: Click the link to see Nancy Breir's blog.
What Every Fourth Grader Knows
March 23, 2020
Nancy Brier's blog
Ask any fourth grader. Unfairness is what pisses people off.
It’s not infuriating when no one gets candy. It’s infuriating when one person gets it and another person doesn’t. For no reason.
Injustice is how wars start. Many people have died inflicting it and many others fighting it.
So when Gavin Newsom issued his executive order last week, it’s no wonder I felt the bubble of fury rise from inside and ooze through my blood stream.
The next day, a tenant called me and said he wasn’t going to pay rent. Until June. That’s his plan.
“The governor said I don’t have to,” my tenant said.
That’s not what the governor said, but it’s what my tenant heard. The executive order encourages local governments to forbid evictions until May 31st. It seems reasonable because no one should lose their home over covid. We all have enough to worry about.
But remember that science project you did in elementary school? The one where you drew a chain connecting the polar bear to the wildebeest to the fox to the chicken to the egg to the snake to the bug to the grass… that sacred chain that connects us all, that shows our dependence on each other? That same chain happens in the economy.
Business provides the wage. Wage provides the rent. Rent provides the mortgage. Mortgage provides the tax. Tax provides the infrastructure.
You can’t chuck an axe in the middle of the chain without bolloxing up the entire system. If you do, the ones who suffer first are the ones closest to where the axe lands, but eventually, the resulting chaos spreads to everyone.
It’s ironic that huge multinational banks have access to 0% interest, but American Express can still charge individuals 30% when they buy groceries.
And it’s ironic that Gavin Newsom thinks I can provide housing and not get the income it requires to sustain it.
How does he imagine it will work.
I asked my state rep if I could forgo paying property tax since I won’t get my income. He said the state can’t get by without that income.
Yes, that’s how it works.
We look to our leaders. A republican president flings irrational insults at reporters asking reasonable questions. And a democrat governor callously disregards my livelihood.
But here, towards the bottom of the chain, my hope is that kindness will triumph. That people will have manners. That we’ll pay for the goods and services we need to the best of our ability. And that goodwill and charity will sustain us.
All of us, even the landlords.
An excellent credit rating is a good thing. My credit rating made it possible for me to get 2% cash back for everything I buy using my Citibank credit card.
What is a FICO® Score? — FICO Credit Education Series
Whether you’re buying a home, a car or applying for a credit card – lenders want to know the risk they’re taking by lending you money. FICO® Scores are the credit scores used by 90% of top lenders to determine your credit risk. Your FICO® Scores can affect how much money a lender will lend you and at what terms (interest rate). Higher FICO® Scores can often help you qualify for better rates from lenders – which can save you money!
Morons love their dead Magic Jeebus Man. The stupid, it burns.
 |
| THE MAGIC JEEBUS MAN |
 |
| Bsharri, a mountain hamlet in Lebanon, is known for its beauty. |
 |
| The coronavirus pandemic has put the town on lockdown, after 24 cases were reported in 24 hours. With about 70 cases, Bsharri virus patients make up around 10 percent of the country's total cases. |
Sickness amid the cedars
The Lebanese were watching for the virus. But the outbreak in this secluded and stunningly beautiful place was not what they’d expected.
By Sarah Dadouch
APRIL 27, 2020
BSHARRI, Lebanon — When Lebanon reported its first coronavirus infection in February, the case was a woman who had come from the Muslim holy city of Qom in Iran, which was rapidly becoming the epicenter of the epidemic in the Middle East.
Iran has long been a factor in Lebanon’s highly sectarian politics, and many Lebanese were quick to cast blame on Iran and local Shiite Muslims for Lebanon’s widening outbreak. Avoid Shiite villages and areas, some urged.
So when, weeks later, it emerged that the largest cluster of coronavirus cases in the country was actually in the insular Christian hamlet of Bsharri in the mountains above Beirut, the irony was not lost on many in Lebanon. Bsharri is known for its devout Maronite Christian inhabitants and as a bastion of right-wing Christian militiamen during the country’s long civil war.
Bsharri is also famous for being beautiful. It is widely celebrated for its cedar trees, some of the oldest in the world — called the “Cedars of God” — and the national emblem of Lebanon. Below the town’s newly inaugurated government hospital perched atop a hill extends a lush valley. Streams, waterfalls and water springs abound, filling the silence with a permanent gurgling. Mountains, both green and snow-capped, encircle the town, giving an impression of nature-mandated isolation.
Today, however, the isolation is government imposed. Bsharri is the only town in Lebanon to have been placed under complete quarantine, after 24 cases of the coronavirus were recorded in a 24-hour period early this month. About 70 of the town’s 5,500 residents have now contracted the virus, around 10 percent of all the cases in the country.
[Stirrings of unrest around the world could portend turmoil as economies collapse]
The government has closed off the surrounding Bsharri district, which includes 22 towns and villages, allowing only supplies and police and other official personnel in and out. The emptied streets in the picturesque town look like an abandoned Hollywood set.
Residents are not permitted out of their homes except individually to go shopping. A rotation has been set for restaurants so one is open each day to feed hospital staff and policemen. Policemen are stationed outside markets to limit crowding. “You either wear the mask or quit,” one growled at a grocer.
A sectarian struggle
Lebanon continues to struggle with the religious differences that have long divided it, at times violently, and religious affiliations that define so much of the country’s politics.
The mountains extending north of the capital Beirut are mainly populated by Christians, while the northernmost part of the country is majority Sunni Muslim. Shiites dominate in the south and the northeast of the country and are the base of support for the militant Hezbollah group, backed by Iran.
Top political posts are assigned based on religion, and sectarianism plays a role in the access to public goods and services and availability of jobs, which are becoming ever scarcer as the country struggles with its worst economic crisis in a generation.
Though some Lebanese protested that the coronavirus has no sect, it was perhaps no surprise that the outbreak would also be widely viewed through a sectarian lens, especially given the size of the epidemic in Iran.
“It is as if what Iran already bestows upon Lebanon and the Lebanese isn’t enough,” a newscaster sarcastically began his news segment after Lebanon reported its first case of the virus. “So now it has sent us corona to finish its good deeds. Thank you, Iran.”
Hezbollah’s television channel responded, calling the sectarian attacks “an amoral pandemic that is also difficult to cure.”
When the Hezbollah-aligned health minister recommended isolating two predominantly Christian areas, a member of parliament from one of the areas angrily tweeted, asking the minister to explain rumors about a hospital in a Shiite part of Beirut instead of “deeming our area infested.”
Hezbollah’s response to the uproar was swift, dispatching trucks to spray its areas with disinfectant and enlisting volunteers to stand outside villages, taking temperatures. “The battle against the corona pandemic is a human battle, and does not have a religious, political, or racial affiliation,” said Hezbollah’s leader, Hasan Nasrallah, in a speech.
These steps contained the spread of the epidemic in Shiite areas, while public health measures elsewhere in the country were less aggressive.
[As men wage bloody battle for Syrian province, women sew face masks to fight the next threat]
“The direct political pressure was ugly, because they only shed the spotlight on those coming from Iran,” said a senior doctor at one of the country’s leading hospitals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “But in other communities, because those coming from Italy and Egypt and the United Kingdom were not treated with the same scientific approach … what happened, happened.”
The result is reflected in a map issued by the health ministry depicting the spread of the virus across the country. The majority-Christian areas north of Beirut are colored in various shades of blues indicating higher case numbers.
Life under quarantine
The first two confirmed cases in Bsharri were doctors in the town’s hospital, according to Mayor Freddy Kairouz, but no one’s saying where they caught the virus.
Antoine Geagea, the hospital’s chief executive, says health authorities have a pretty good idea who imported it into Bsharri but wouldn’t disclose the individual’s identity, saying it could expose that person to retribution or ridicule.
As news of the Bsharri outbreak spread, the government announced the new containment measures. Food parcels were sent to those in need. Bsharri natives residing elsewhere donated money for virus tests, and district officials began conducting rapid random testing.
“We took the decision to attack the virus,” Kairouz said. “We decided to shut down the area and do mass tests.” He added that more than 11 percent of residents have been tested so far and this wide net may help explain why so many cases have been detected locally.
The decision to shut the town during Easter was not an easy one.
“It’s annoying, and it’s boring,” said Amal Geagea, a sprightly resident. She still sees her son, who lives down the street, but not her daughter, who lives elsewhere in the district. Her only excursion out is to the grocery store.
“I haven’t left the house in two, three weeks; I came out today to get some bread,” said Therese al-Khoury, 76, while shopping for her canned tuna dinner. “I only leave when it’s necessary.”
Police have been posted at checkpoints outside the district’s population centers to curtail travel.
During a recent visit by Washington Post journalists, a police officer forced one driver to retreat. “He wanted to go on a joyride with his friend. Can you imagine the audacity?” the officer said, shaking his head.
[Lebanon is in a big mess. But on coronavirus, it’s doing something right.]
A little earlier, the town’s silence had been broken as an ambulance raced through the streets, pulling up at a hospital directly across from the childhood home of Lebanese writer Gibran Khalil Gibran. An old man was taken in on a stretcher, one of two new cases that day.
Father Charbel Makhlouf has been live-streaming sermons to his parish via Facebook. “It’s a spiritual meeting: You are doing a new strong test [to your faith].” His voice echoed in his large, beautiful church, completely empty. Outside, a recently printed sign: “Please keep a meter and a half between the believers.”
Makhlouf has found strength in a bible passage he sends every morning to his bible study group via messaging app WhatsApp. “Whenever I hold back the rain or send locusts to eat up the crops or send an epidemic on my people,” he read from a worn piece of paper, “if they pray to me and repent and turn away from the evil they have been doing, then I will hear them in heaven, forgive their sins, and make their land prosperous again.”
Others in town are also turning to their faith.
“We’re at the edge of the world, and God is protecting us,” said a local butcher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he also works as a police officer. But when he thought about the economic crisis that could follow the epidemic, he turned glum.
“After corona, we’ll have famine,” he said.
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
What I wrote at the Wall Street Journal about our insane moron president.
"The 2020 election may have been decided the moment the makers of Lysol felt obliged to issue a statement disavowing an incumbent president who offhandedly said something about using disinfectant internally to kill coronavirus. That will be one for the history books."
That's reason enough to not vote for Trump.
Another thing I didn't like was Trump's attack against the Post Office. He wants them to raise prices for Amazon. That's a good reason for Amazon to use UPS or someone else to deliver stuff. Trump is too dense to figure that out.
I don't like Biden but I'm voting for him.
That's reason enough to not vote for Trump.
Another thing I didn't like was Trump's attack against the Post Office. He wants them to raise prices for Amazon. That's a good reason for Amazon to use UPS or someone else to deliver stuff. Trump is too dense to figure that out.
I don't like Biden but I'm voting for him.
I was in the 2,000's for a month. That's over with as usual. Today was a disaster.
Played 19 Rapid games197928
Played 18 Rapid games20075
Played 19 Rapid games20125
Played 23 Rapid games20076
Played 14 Rapid games200111
Played 15 Rapid games20126
Played 18 Rapid games200624
I wrote this about 2 years ago. It's about assholes who use censorship to defend religious stupidity.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Richard Dawkins wrote this after 3,000 Americans were murdered for Allah on September 11, 2001: "Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different after September 11th. Let's stop being so damned respectful!"
I recently wrote this comment at New York Times article about the Catholic Church's out of control child abuse problem: "The Catholic Church doesn't need to be fixed. The Catholic Church needs to be completely destroyed."
My comment was not published, probably because what I wrote might offend the stupid fucking assholes who belong to the world's largest child abuse organization.
If I wrote "Islam must be completely destroyed" the New York Times would probably not publish it because I might offend terrorists.
There is a stupid idea that says it's OK to criticize anything and anyone but it's not OK to criticize the extreme stupidity of the fucktards who think a Magic Man is real. In other words it's wrong to hurt the sentiments of god soaked morons. This is suppressing freedom of speech to defend bullshit.
Fortunately at this blog I can write anything I want, for example "We should nuke Mecca."
Should we nuke Mecca? Probably not because crybabies would call it genocide. So while I'm against the idea I think it would be fun to watch.
Richard Dawkins wrote this after 3,000 Americans were murdered for Allah on September 11, 2001: "Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different after September 11th. Let's stop being so damned respectful!"
I recently wrote this comment at New York Times article about the Catholic Church's out of control child abuse problem: "The Catholic Church doesn't need to be fixed. The Catholic Church needs to be completely destroyed."
My comment was not published, probably because what I wrote might offend the stupid fucking assholes who belong to the world's largest child abuse organization.
If I wrote "Islam must be completely destroyed" the New York Times would probably not publish it because I might offend terrorists.
There is a stupid idea that says it's OK to criticize anything and anyone but it's not OK to criticize the extreme stupidity of the fucktards who think a Magic Man is real. In other words it's wrong to hurt the sentiments of god soaked morons. This is suppressing freedom of speech to defend bullshit.
Fortunately at this blog I can write anything I want, for example "We should nuke Mecca."
Should we nuke Mecca? Probably not because crybabies would call it genocide. So while I'm against the idea I think it would be fun to watch.
I found this stuff and I agree with it. It's about agnostic morons.
Do you think one day everyone will be agnostic atheists?
No, there will always be people rational enough to know that agnostic atheism is like being agnostic about Santa. It's stupid to make up special rules for God thingies, just because most people are delusional and believe in them. We humans deal with the preponderance of evidence (not absolutes), so let's not pretend that we have to when dealing with God thingies. God thingies have no more credibility or evidence than the Easter bunny or unicorns. Actually they have less because we know that horses and rabbits exist, so it isn't as much of a stretch. Only a few immutable natural laws are broken for unicorns, but God thingies break every single one of the "unbreakable" natural laws. We can know that Gods don't exist in the same way we can know that any baseless claim is bullshit.
No, there will always be people rational enough to know that agnostic atheism is like being agnostic about Santa. It's stupid to make up special rules for God thingies, just because most people are delusional and believe in them. We humans deal with the preponderance of evidence (not absolutes), so let's not pretend that we have to when dealing with God thingies. God thingies have no more credibility or evidence than the Easter bunny or unicorns. Actually they have less because we know that horses and rabbits exist, so it isn't as much of a stretch. Only a few immutable natural laws are broken for unicorns, but God thingies break every single one of the "unbreakable" natural laws. We can know that Gods don't exist in the same way we can know that any baseless claim is bullshit.
My opponent who lives in Egypt killed me in a game of chess. I looked at his profile and I found something which I will add to my list of favorite quotes.
Muhammed Elhlwany
You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.
Egypt
You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.
Egypt
America is winning. "The United States leading the world in both deaths and infections."
 |
After 100 days, there have been more than one million confirmed infections and a country has been transformed.
It has been 100 days since a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Wash., with a four-day history of cough and fever and tested positive.
His was the first case to be detected. Since then, more than one million people had tested positive in the United States.
Residents in most states in the country — along with more than half of all humanity — have been ordered to shelter in their homes in the hopes of slowing the spread of the highly contagious virus and to try to keep hospital systems from being overwhelmed.
Still, more than 53,000 people across the United States have died — roughly one in four of the 210,000 deaths around the world.
TIMELINE
Read about how the pandemic has unfolded.
Epidemiologists have estimated that the true number of infections may be about 10 times the known number, and preliminary testing of how many people have antibodies seems to support that view. Similarly, the official death toll is likely to vastly underestimate the true number by at least several thousand, according to an analysis of mortality data by The New York Times.
While the timeline for the spread of the virus across the country has shifted as public health authorities find evidence that the pathogen was spreading in communities earlier than believed, the speed at which the world has been transformed is shocking.
The global economy has suffered such a swift and sudden decline that economists have had to reach back to the Great Depression for analogies. More than 26 million people in the United States have lost their jobs.
Masks are becoming an accepted part of public life, which is why there was such a backlash on Tuesday after Vice President Mike Pence flouted the Mayo Clinic’s protocols on wearing a protective face covering on a visit there.
With the United States leading the world in both deaths and infections, the image of the country has taken a beating around the world, and Americans have been forced to re-examine their own self-image.
The country has watched Mr. Trump speak about the pandemic almost every day in ways that were alternately misleading, resentful, insulting, dangerous and, often, sown with self-praise.
But as the country tries to slowly move out of a lockdown and find a way to restore some form of public life, with no vaccine or therapy yet available, the virus is still setting the course.
FIRST CASES
Read about the investigation into the roots of the virus in the U.S. And about the changing understanding of the spread of the virus.
This might be good news.
New York Times
LIVE UPDATES
Coronavirus Live Updates: F.D.A. Plans to Announce Emergency Use of New Drug After a Trial Showed Shortened Recovery
The U.S. economy shrank at a 4.8 percent annual rate in the first quarter. Officially, more than 53,000 have died, according to The Times’s count, but death rates suggest the true toll is far greater.
RIGHT NOW
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci called one study of an experimental virus drug, remdesivir, “very optimistic,” even as another study found no benefit to severely ill patients.
I'm adding this New York Times comment to my list of favorite quotes. It's about religious stupidity.
This is one of many comments about god bullshit at the New York Times.
"Religion does nothing besides create false comfort and tribalism. Christianity, Islam and Judaism collectively contribute nothing to the betterment of our real world. The path to human development must begin with the wholesale abandonment of religion."
"Religion does nothing besides create false comfort and tribalism. Christianity, Islam and Judaism collectively contribute nothing to the betterment of our real world. The path to human development must begin with the wholesale abandonment of religion."
Something I wrote for Christian fucktards.
Atheism is an acceptance of reality.
Theism requires throwing out reality.
Take your pick.
Do you want to be a normal person or do you want to be an uneducated cowardly know-nothing god-soaked moron who hides in the Dark Ages?
Theism requires throwing out reality.
Take your pick.
Do you want to be a normal person or do you want to be an uneducated cowardly know-nothing god-soaked moron who hides in the Dark Ages?
Sometimes the coronavirus is a good thing.
Wikipedia - Pearls Before Swine by Stephan Pastis
The character of Rat came from Pastis's earlier strip, Rat. The character of Pig, who is Rat's opposite, had been featured in The Infirm, which was about an attorney who numbered an evil pig farmer among his clients. Although Pastis had developed the characters, they were still just stick figures with jokes. One day in 1996, Pastis drove to an ice rink in Santa Rosa where Charles Schulz, the creator of Peanuts, had his coffee every day. The meeting did not begin auspiciously, since Pastis blurted out: "Hi, Sparky [Schulz's nickname], my name is Stephan Pastis and I'm a lawyer." Schulz turned pale; he thought Pastis was there to serve him with a subpoena. However, he recovered, and Pastis remembers Schulz's graciousness:
I was a total stranger to him, and he let me sit down at his table and we talked for an hour. I took a picture with him. He looked at some of the strips that I had been doing and gave me some tips. Man, I was on cloud nine.
In addition to Peanuts, Pastis drew inspiration from Dilbert.
What worked for me personally was to study the writing of Dilbert. I just bought a bunch of Dilbert books and studied how to write a 3-panel strip. Then I showed them to a group of people who were acquaintances (but not quite friends) in order to get their honest assessment of which ones were funny and which ones weren't. As to the ins and outs of getting syndicated, I bought a book called "Your Career in the Comics" by Lee Nordling.
Pastis drew about 200 strips for the new comic and selected 40 of the best, but fearing more rejection, let them sit on the counter in his basement for the next two years. It was not until 1999, when he visited the grave of a college friend who had been a free spirit and had encouraged him to be the same, that he overcame his fear and submitted them to three different syndicates, including United Features. United took the unprecedented step of first running the strips on its Comics.com Internet site to gauge reader response. When Scott Adams, Dilbert's creator, whom Pastis had never met, endorsed the strip the response "went through the roof".
Pastis also credits Get Fuzzy cartoonist Darby Conley with contributing to the development of the strip. They met through their syndication attorney, and Conley taught him how to color the Sunday strips and add gray tones to the dailies.
Eight months afterwards, Pastis gleefully quit his law practice. Pastis attributes his dissatisfaction with the law in being helpful insofar that "humor is a reaction to and defense against unhappiness", and that wanting to get out of his job provided him with the impetus to create better comic strips so that he could get selected for syndication.
Fifteen years later, Pearls was still one of the fastest-growing comic strips, appearing in more than 650 newspapers worldwide. Pastis generally works five to nine months ahead of deadline, a rarity in the world of newspaper comics.
Pastis lives in Santa Rosa, California, with his wife and two children, where he is on the board of the Charles Schulz Museum, helping with merchandising rights issues and answering questions about Peanuts.
Schulz is to comic strips what Marlon Brando was to acting. It was so revolutionary. Before ‘Peanuts,’ the writing was physical, over the top, but Sparky goes inside the soul. His influence on me is enormous. I’ve taken his backgrounds, the front porch, the beach and the TV beanbag. Rat is Lucy, Goat is Linus and Pig is Charlie Brown. Sparky is a template, whether or not you know it, he’s the template.
In 2011, Pastis cowrote the Peanuts special Happiness Is a Warm Blanket, Charlie Brown.
In June 2014, Pastis collaborated with Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, to do a week-long story line in which a second-grade girl named "Libby" wrote a few of Pastis's cartoon frames for him. After the strips were published, Pastis revealed that the artwork for three of the strips was in fact drawn by Watterson. In the last cartoon of the sequence, Libby explains to Pastis that she would not continue drawing comic strips, saying that "There's a magical world out there," a reference to the words spoken by Calvin in the final strip of Calvin and Hobbes.
This my favorite comic strip. It's about a billionaire who has no moral values, his trophy wife, his homeless friend, and his brilliant daughter who is always getting in trouble.
Barney & Clyde by Gene Weingarten
Wikipedia - Gene Weingarten
Gene Norman Weingarten (born October 2, 1951) is an American syndicated humor columnist at The Washington Post. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and is the only person to win the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing twice. Weingarten is known for both his serious and humorous work. Weingarten's column, "Below the Beltway," is published weekly in The Washington Post magazine and syndicated nationally by The Washington Post Writers Group, which also syndicates Barney & Clyde, a comic strip he co-authors with his son, Dan Weingarten, with illustrations by David Clark.
I published this about 3 years ago. It's about Idiot America and their excuse for being morons. They have faith so who needs evidence. The stupid, it burns.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Someone with the internet name "Methane Mama" wrote some stuff about creationist retards. This is excellent.
Creationists don't have to care about evidence. They have "faith."
"Faith" is the superpower that allows even the most stupid among the God garbage followers to be smarter than everyone else on the planet and renders all of their beliefs to be absolutely true and everyone else wrong at the same time. That is some powerful juju, there.
"Faith" brings a level of certitude unmatched by mere evidence. For example, science does not have enough evidence to declare how the Universe came into existence. But, the God garbage followers need no logic, no reason, no rationality, no evidence, and no effort on their part, whatsoever, to know, for certain, that THEIR God thingy did it. And, no one on the planet can convince them, otherwise. Why? Because they have FAITH.
That's the power of faith, and they will tell you so - just not in those words. And, all they have to do is decide to exercise it. That's it - they just decide that they know the truth. Isn't that easy? Isn't that convenient? And, doesn't it make sense that it would appeal to both the lazy and the stupid?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This blog has 1,414 posts about Idiot America at Idiot America.
Someone with the internet name "Methane Mama" wrote some stuff about creationist retards. This is excellent.
Creationists don't have to care about evidence. They have "faith."
"Faith" is the superpower that allows even the most stupid among the God garbage followers to be smarter than everyone else on the planet and renders all of their beliefs to be absolutely true and everyone else wrong at the same time. That is some powerful juju, there.
"Faith" brings a level of certitude unmatched by mere evidence. For example, science does not have enough evidence to declare how the Universe came into existence. But, the God garbage followers need no logic, no reason, no rationality, no evidence, and no effort on their part, whatsoever, to know, for certain, that THEIR God thingy did it. And, no one on the planet can convince them, otherwise. Why? Because they have FAITH.
That's the power of faith, and they will tell you so - just not in those words. And, all they have to do is decide to exercise it. That's it - they just decide that they know the truth. Isn't that easy? Isn't that convenient? And, doesn't it make sense that it would appeal to both the lazy and the stupid?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This blog has 1,414 posts about Idiot America at Idiot America.
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
I published this a year ago. Here it is again. Several people at the New York Times wrote comments about religious stupidity.
Monday, March 25, 2019
New York Times - "A God Problem" Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent.
I found these comments at the New York Times which are much more interesting than the article.
There were some fucktard comments, for example this gullible moron:
"Philosophical games are fun. But God is not a philosophical concept; He has revealed Himself to us and, as nearly as we could get the message, He said we should think of Him as omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely good and infinitely merciful. And, to really blow tiny little philosophical minds, He revealed that He loves us and wants to help up to attain holiness. The rest of the message can only be learned by dedicating oneself to Him and living in Him."
The comment I wrote: "I have been reading the comments. I never saw so many normal people (aka atheists) in one place before."
"Religion does nothing besides creating false comfort and tribalism. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism collectively contribute nothing to the betterment of our real world. The path to human development must begin with the wholesale abandonment of religion."
"Since humans first swung out of the trees, history is filled with thousands of gods that humankind has created for itself. Starting with the first one they have all been real until the next new god came along and made the previous gods obsolete, right up to the present day. Gods provide simple answers for difficult questions and are provided with mystical and magical powers to rule over everything. Humans have always wanted to believe this nonsense despite the lack of a shred of evidence to prove what they believe. Just remember all gods and religions have been created by man with no proof of their existence. Humankind has been very foolish for millennia."
"As a girl, I was raised in a very traditional Roman Catholic house with a father who expected my mother to obey him because that is what she said in her marriage vows to him in the 1950's. I figured out as a teenager that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing and of course male God was most likely created by men to prop up the patriarchy. That the Catholic priesthood was/is all male only cemented the theory for me that the idea of God was made up by men to keep women subservient to them."
"Many of the defensive comments here from Believers are based on assumptions and dogma that are stated as incontrovertible fact (i.e. God is this..., God is that... The Bible says, etc...). In other words, circular reasoning -- deploying their assumptions to demonstrate that their assumptions are true. Yet they also state that God is unknowable, beyond human comprehension (a convenient special pleading, a get-out-of-argument-free card), therefore logic does not apply. So, how can they know any of these attributes of God if God is unknowable?"
"Tony Pratt - Canberra Australia - "Professor Atterton, thank you for your cogent writing here. Once again, we have a demonstration of how silly all this speculation about the existence of god is - especially its multitudinous accompanying dogmas. All of the history of our evolution demonstrates that once human self consciousness emerged we had to ask where did it come from. Since the earliest assessments was that humans could not have evolved consciousness out of our own spectacular brains the next best explanation everywhere was it must have been god in all his and her myriad forms. Everywhere, in all cultures, local humans invented god. Humans' capacity to imagine anything clearly includes the imagining of god. We haven't yet properly got to the implications the awful realisation that we - all sentient humans everywhere for all time - are god - and that we are responsible for everything that emerges out of our consciousness. What happens to us in our world is our responsibility. It has nothing to do with any invented God anytime anywhere."
"After reading in a National Geographic magazine entitled "The Birth of Religion" that religion was created in southern Turkey to keep social order, I felt a sense of relief knowing that it's man made and is inherently flawed. I just wish I didn't spend so much time in my life reading about the many sides of religion."
"If I am a King, or a Preacher, I definitely want an all powerful God defined. God so defined, when I tell 'God's people' what God wants, that same God who speaks only through me, then, hey, they better hop to it. Or else. And don't forget to be back next Sunday and tithe."
"The last words spoken by the pilot were ‘God is great’ as the plane plowed into the ground. With this, and all the wars, all the scandals and abused children. God is not great."
“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man?” - Friedrich Nietzsche It turns out that 'God' is a cruel manmade invention used to wield power over innocents, a fairy tale for vulnerable, naive and frightened minds to be duped by its fancy buildings, its organ music, it costumes, its pageantry and the irrational fear of mortal death. There's a cruelness in religion that teaches people to live for the next life while ignoring or shortchanging the current life. Have you ever seen anything more irrational than belief in the supernatural and religious fairy tales? It's all so embarrassing, so childish and cruel. Off with your mindless head, organized religion."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
There are more than 300 excellent comments at the New York Times. I recommend it. If you don't have a subscription you can still read 5 articles a month for free.
New York Times - "A God Problem" Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent.
I found these comments at the New York Times which are much more interesting than the article.
There were some fucktard comments, for example this gullible moron:
"Philosophical games are fun. But God is not a philosophical concept; He has revealed Himself to us and, as nearly as we could get the message, He said we should think of Him as omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely good and infinitely merciful. And, to really blow tiny little philosophical minds, He revealed that He loves us and wants to help up to attain holiness. The rest of the message can only be learned by dedicating oneself to Him and living in Him."
The comment I wrote: "I have been reading the comments. I never saw so many normal people (aka atheists) in one place before."
"Religion does nothing besides creating false comfort and tribalism. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism collectively contribute nothing to the betterment of our real world. The path to human development must begin with the wholesale abandonment of religion."
"Since humans first swung out of the trees, history is filled with thousands of gods that humankind has created for itself. Starting with the first one they have all been real until the next new god came along and made the previous gods obsolete, right up to the present day. Gods provide simple answers for difficult questions and are provided with mystical and magical powers to rule over everything. Humans have always wanted to believe this nonsense despite the lack of a shred of evidence to prove what they believe. Just remember all gods and religions have been created by man with no proof of their existence. Humankind has been very foolish for millennia."
"As a girl, I was raised in a very traditional Roman Catholic house with a father who expected my mother to obey him because that is what she said in her marriage vows to him in the 1950's. I figured out as a teenager that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing and of course male God was most likely created by men to prop up the patriarchy. That the Catholic priesthood was/is all male only cemented the theory for me that the idea of God was made up by men to keep women subservient to them."
"Many of the defensive comments here from Believers are based on assumptions and dogma that are stated as incontrovertible fact (i.e. God is this..., God is that... The Bible says, etc...). In other words, circular reasoning -- deploying their assumptions to demonstrate that their assumptions are true. Yet they also state that God is unknowable, beyond human comprehension (a convenient special pleading, a get-out-of-argument-free card), therefore logic does not apply. So, how can they know any of these attributes of God if God is unknowable?"
"Tony Pratt - Canberra Australia - "Professor Atterton, thank you for your cogent writing here. Once again, we have a demonstration of how silly all this speculation about the existence of god is - especially its multitudinous accompanying dogmas. All of the history of our evolution demonstrates that once human self consciousness emerged we had to ask where did it come from. Since the earliest assessments was that humans could not have evolved consciousness out of our own spectacular brains the next best explanation everywhere was it must have been god in all his and her myriad forms. Everywhere, in all cultures, local humans invented god. Humans' capacity to imagine anything clearly includes the imagining of god. We haven't yet properly got to the implications the awful realisation that we - all sentient humans everywhere for all time - are god - and that we are responsible for everything that emerges out of our consciousness. What happens to us in our world is our responsibility. It has nothing to do with any invented God anytime anywhere."
"After reading in a National Geographic magazine entitled "The Birth of Religion" that religion was created in southern Turkey to keep social order, I felt a sense of relief knowing that it's man made and is inherently flawed. I just wish I didn't spend so much time in my life reading about the many sides of religion."
"If I am a King, or a Preacher, I definitely want an all powerful God defined. God so defined, when I tell 'God's people' what God wants, that same God who speaks only through me, then, hey, they better hop to it. Or else. And don't forget to be back next Sunday and tithe."
"The last words spoken by the pilot were ‘God is great’ as the plane plowed into the ground. With this, and all the wars, all the scandals and abused children. God is not great."
“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man?” - Friedrich Nietzsche It turns out that 'God' is a cruel manmade invention used to wield power over innocents, a fairy tale for vulnerable, naive and frightened minds to be duped by its fancy buildings, its organ music, it costumes, its pageantry and the irrational fear of mortal death. There's a cruelness in religion that teaches people to live for the next life while ignoring or shortchanging the current life. Have you ever seen anything more irrational than belief in the supernatural and religious fairy tales? It's all so embarrassing, so childish and cruel. Off with your mindless head, organized religion."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
There are more than 300 excellent comments at the New York Times. I recommend it. If you don't have a subscription you can still read 5 articles a month for free.
This is one of the reasons Idiot America has millions of morons who want to throw out evolution because they prefer god-did-it.
Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait
You can click the link to see the whole thing.
This is what I'm interested in. It's about America's biology teachers who know nothing about evolution. Some of these assholes for Jeebus teach magical creationism. They get away with it because nobody complains which is typical in Idiot America.
Evolution in the Classroom? It's about the Teachers
Our survey of biology teachers is the first nationally representative, scientific sample survey to examine evolution and creationism in the classroom. Three different survey questions all suggest that between 12% and 16% of the nation's biology teachers are creationist in orientation. Roughly one sixth of all teachers professed a “young earth” personal belief, and about one in eight reported that they teach creationism or intelligent design in a positive light. The number of hours devoted to these alternative theories is typically low—but this nevertheless must surely convey to students that these theories should be accorded respect as scientific perspectives.
The majority of teachers, however, see evolution as central and essential to high school biology courses. Yet the amount of time devoted to evolutionary biology varies substantially from teacher to teacher, and a majority either avoid human evolution altogether or devote only one or two class periods to the topic. We showed that some of these differences were due to personal beliefs about human origins. However, an equally important factor is the science education the teacher received while in college. Additional variance is likely to be rooted in pressures—subtle or otherwise—emerging from parents and community leaders in each school's community, in combination with teachers' confidence in their ability to deal with such pressures [20] given their knowledge of evolution, as well as their personal beliefs.
These findings strongly suggest that victory in the courts is not enough for the scientific community to ensure that evolution is included in high school science courses. Nor is success in persuading states to adopt rigorous content standards consistent with recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations. Scientists concerned about the quality of evolution instruction might have a bigger impact in the classroom by focusing on the certification standards for high school biology teachers. Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments.
You can click the link to see the whole thing.
This is what I'm interested in. It's about America's biology teachers who know nothing about evolution. Some of these assholes for Jeebus teach magical creationism. They get away with it because nobody complains which is typical in Idiot America.
Evolution in the Classroom? It's about the Teachers
Our survey of biology teachers is the first nationally representative, scientific sample survey to examine evolution and creationism in the classroom. Three different survey questions all suggest that between 12% and 16% of the nation's biology teachers are creationist in orientation. Roughly one sixth of all teachers professed a “young earth” personal belief, and about one in eight reported that they teach creationism or intelligent design in a positive light. The number of hours devoted to these alternative theories is typically low—but this nevertheless must surely convey to students that these theories should be accorded respect as scientific perspectives.
The majority of teachers, however, see evolution as central and essential to high school biology courses. Yet the amount of time devoted to evolutionary biology varies substantially from teacher to teacher, and a majority either avoid human evolution altogether or devote only one or two class periods to the topic. We showed that some of these differences were due to personal beliefs about human origins. However, an equally important factor is the science education the teacher received while in college. Additional variance is likely to be rooted in pressures—subtle or otherwise—emerging from parents and community leaders in each school's community, in combination with teachers' confidence in their ability to deal with such pressures [20] given their knowledge of evolution, as well as their personal beliefs.
These findings strongly suggest that victory in the courts is not enough for the scientific community to ensure that evolution is included in high school science courses. Nor is success in persuading states to adopt rigorous content standards consistent with recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations. Scientists concerned about the quality of evolution instruction might have a bigger impact in the classroom by focusing on the certification standards for high school biology teachers. Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments.
The cover story in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic
Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It's also deeply persuasive -- a theory you can take to the bank. The essential points are slightly more complicated than most people assume, but not so complicated that they can't be comprehended by any attentive person. Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks, and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies. No one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith.
-- National Geographic
-- National Geographic
One more time to help agnostic fucktards understand.
THE FUCKTARD WROTE THIS BULLSHIT:
"As an agnostic, I have to ask how the hell you theists and atheists can be so certain in your position on gods? It cannot be known?"
THIS IS WHAT I WROTE FOR THE MORON:
Is supernatural magic real or not?
You're too fucking dense to be able to figure it out.
Same thing for the Easter Bunny.
Grow up and make a decision FFS.
"As an agnostic, I have to ask how the hell you theists and atheists can be so certain in your position on gods? It cannot be known?"
THIS IS WHAT I WROTE FOR THE MORON:
Is supernatural magic real or not?
You're too fucking dense to be able to figure it out.
Same thing for the Easter Bunny.
Grow up and make a decision FFS.
The paradise where I live in northwestern Illinois
Every spring, without me doing anything, in 5 places in my yard, numerous beautiful plants start growing out of the ground. The people who lived here before created a paradise. They really knew what they were doing because these are the most beautiful plants I have ever seen.
For this spring I created 2 small habitats in the yard for birds and other creatures. I'm waiting for Amazon to deliver bird food which I would put outside my favorite window (which is by my apple desktop computer) and watch birds get fat.
Christian fucktards think they will have a magical 2nd life in a magical heaven somewhere in the universe. The paradise called "Earth" is not good enough for them.
They can have their moronic ridiculous fantasy. I prefer reality. Reality is much more interesting than religious bullshit, and reality has the advantage of being real.
For this spring I created 2 small habitats in the yard for birds and other creatures. I'm waiting for Amazon to deliver bird food which I would put outside my favorite window (which is by my apple desktop computer) and watch birds get fat.
Christian fucktards think they will have a magical 2nd life in a magical heaven somewhere in the universe. The paradise called "Earth" is not good enough for them.
They can have their moronic ridiculous fantasy. I prefer reality. Reality is much more interesting than religious bullshit, and reality has the advantage of being real.
Monday, April 27, 2020
Some more evidence for the idea that Trump is a fucking moron. Reading makes him cry. The stupidity is overwhelming.
This is from the Washington Post:
U.S. intelligence agencies issued warnings about the novel coronavirus in more than a dozen classified briefings prepared for President Trump in January and February, months during which he continued to play down the threat, according to current and former U.S. officials.
The repeated warnings were conveyed in issues of the President’s Daily Brief, a sensitive report that is produced before dawn each day and designed to call the president’s attention to the most significant global developments and security threats.
For weeks, the PDB — as the report is known — traced the virus’s spread around the globe, made clear that China was suppressing information about the contagion’s transmissibility and lethal toll, and raised the prospect of dire political and economic consequences.
But the alarms appear to have failed to register with the president, who routinely skips reading the PDB and has at times shown little patience for even the oral summary he takes two or three times per week, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material.
U.S. intelligence agencies issued warnings about the novel coronavirus in more than a dozen classified briefings prepared for President Trump in January and February, months during which he continued to play down the threat, according to current and former U.S. officials.
The repeated warnings were conveyed in issues of the President’s Daily Brief, a sensitive report that is produced before dawn each day and designed to call the president’s attention to the most significant global developments and security threats.
For weeks, the PDB — as the report is known — traced the virus’s spread around the globe, made clear that China was suppressing information about the contagion’s transmissibility and lethal toll, and raised the prospect of dire political and economic consequences.
But the alarms appear to have failed to register with the president, who routinely skips reading the PDB and has at times shown little patience for even the oral summary he takes two or three times per week, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material.
This article is about Fucktard Trump and also it's about Idiot America's creationist assholes. Trump is fucking insane. We need to get rid of this fucking moron.
Adam Laats: Trump Is Not Fighting Science, He’s Stealing Its Authority
By Adam Laats, History News Network
April 27, 2020
Adam Laats is Professor of Education and History (by courtesy) at Binghamton University (State University of New York). He is the author of Creationism USA (Oxford University Press, coming Fall 2020), Fundamentalist U (Oxford University Press, 2018), and The Other School Reformers (Harvard University Press, 2015).
If it were still just reality TV, it might be funny. In his discussions of coronavirus, President Trump has veered between spouting wildly inaccurate statements and making claims of super-human knowledge. It is tempting to accuse Trump of being anti-science, but as the history of American creationism shows, Trump is doing something else, something much more dangerous.
It’s not that President Trump is fond of traditional mainstream scientific expertise. Even Trump’s biggest fans might agree that the President does not follow the rules of mainstream scientific thinking. In the face of scientific fact, President Trump has claimed that coronavirus will “miraculously” disappear in warmer weather. He has implied that antibiotics have something to do with viruses. He has claimed an ability to make life-or-death public health decisions based on his superior mental abilities, using the “metrics” in his head instead of the usual data. Perhaps most strangely of all, President Trump has suggested absurd remedies such as blasting victims with ultraviolet light and subjecting them to injections of “the disinfectant.”
Yet these claims and untruths do not mean Trump is fighting against science itself. Like today’s struggle against coronavirus, America’s long history of conflicts over science would be very different if they were actually a struggle for or against science itself. Instead, battles about science are usually battles to claim the prestige of capital-s “Science.” Fights against science itself tend to lose, but fights for the right to call bad ideas “Science” can go on for generations.
Nothing illustrates this distinction better than America’s long-running battle over the science of evolution. For over a century now, creationists have confounded Americans’ scientific knowledge of evolution by claiming to have better science on their side. Creationists have hardly ever attacked science itself. Rather, they have insisted that their religious ideas have given them better science.
Nearly a century ago, for example, in the lead-up to the infamous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Tennessee, celebrity prosecutor William Jennings Bryan insisted that his creationism made him a superior scientist. In 1921, Bryan attacked the science of Darwinism as nothing but an “absurd hypothesis.” Unlike real science, Bryan insisted, which is built on facts, Darwinian evolution was only a string of guesses held together by bitterness and atheism.
A generation later, creationists such as Bernard Ramm continued the fight. Like Bryan’s crusade, Ramm’s campaign was not a fight against science, but rather a struggle to define science. As Ramm put it in 1954, science only has a chance at explaining the realities of life if it is infused with “the light of revelation.” The pretenders to modern science, Ramm argued, had foolishly abandoned the vital questions of first cause and final goals. Only a real science based in true religion had a chance to answer the big questions.
In the 21st century, even the most radical creationists fight for science, not against it. For example, when arch-creationist Ken Ham debated Science Guy Bill Nye in 2014, Ham did not say he opposed science. As Ham argued in his opening statement, “the word ‘science’ has been hijacked by secularists.” Like generations of creationists before him, Ham wanted to take back science. Ham tried to make a distinction—a distinction recognized by no mainstream scientists—between authentic “observational” science and false “historical” science. For Ham, real science could only make claims based on what it directly observed, not on evidence left behind from millions of years of evolution.
Creationists’ long battle to call their religious ideas “Science” has direct and damaging policy implications. Having failed in their attempts to push creationism into public-school science classes, creationists these days try to water down the kinds of science schools will include. In the past decade, creationist lawmakers have introduced dozens of “academic freedom” bills in state legislatures. These bills often call for science teachers to teach “the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.” The range of views taught would presumably include the mainstream science of evolution along with religion-friendly ideas such as intelligent design.
These bills do not claim to fight against science. If they did, they would lose. Few parents want their children to miss out on learning about science. Instead, these bills confuse and distort the issue by pretending that non-mainstream views about evolution have equal intellectual credibility. They insist that their religious views have earned scientific legitimacy. As have creationists for over a century, today’s activists fight for science, for the right to call their ideas truly scientific. Then they offer those ideas to public schools as better science.
Trump is doing something similar and similarly harmful. When President Trump says his decisions will be based on a “hunch,” he is repeating the tactics of generations of creationists. It might sound at first like he is rejecting the need for scientific credentials or expertise. In fact, though, Trump is positioning himself as superior to those experts, not against them. Like creationists, Trump does not deride the authority of science itself. Instead, he portrays himself as the best arbiter of the meaning of scientific details, the perspicacious decider-in-chief.
For instance, just after his pronouncement that he had a “hunch” about the true nature of coronavirus, Trump explained that his hunch was
based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this, and it’s very mild. They will get better very rapidly. They don’t even see a doctor.
Concealed within Trump’s ramblings is a claim to know science better than experts, better than “a lot of people that do this.” Similarly, when Trump announced that he will make decisions about re-opening society based on the “metrics” in his head, it might sound as if he is throwing out the need for consultations with real scientists. But that’s not what Trump was saying. As Trump continued,
I can listen to thirty-five people. At the end, I gotta make a decision.
Even if “thirty-five” scientists make their best cases, in other words, they still need someone like Trump to figure out the truth behind their claims.
Trump’s statements make for terrible science, but they are not anti-science. An anti-science approach would dispute the validity of careful evidence, expert review, and cautious claims. Trump does not dispute science; he only disrupts science and makes the communication of scientific information far more difficult. By standing athwart the scientific process and shouting “Look at me,” Trump’s antics are far worse than if he were merely anti-science. As mainstream scientists and public-health experts do their best to communicate evidence-based information to the public, Trump is getting in their way. He is mixing good science with bad, diluting evidence-based facts with personal fantasies and magical thinking. Worst of all, Trump is claiming the ability to choose between and among scientific evidence and scientific experts to find the real truth.
If Trump mocked Science, very few people would listen. But when he insists that he has a better, more authentic Science on his side—one based only on his own superior charisma and powers of discernment—he has a much better chance to keep people’s attention. Instead of communicating a clear, unified message about current best knowledge and best practices, Trump’s fantasy science makes the coronavirus crisis far more dangerous.
Republished from the History News Network: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/175180
By Adam Laats, History News Network
April 27, 2020
Adam Laats is Professor of Education and History (by courtesy) at Binghamton University (State University of New York). He is the author of Creationism USA (Oxford University Press, coming Fall 2020), Fundamentalist U (Oxford University Press, 2018), and The Other School Reformers (Harvard University Press, 2015).
If it were still just reality TV, it might be funny. In his discussions of coronavirus, President Trump has veered between spouting wildly inaccurate statements and making claims of super-human knowledge. It is tempting to accuse Trump of being anti-science, but as the history of American creationism shows, Trump is doing something else, something much more dangerous.
It’s not that President Trump is fond of traditional mainstream scientific expertise. Even Trump’s biggest fans might agree that the President does not follow the rules of mainstream scientific thinking. In the face of scientific fact, President Trump has claimed that coronavirus will “miraculously” disappear in warmer weather. He has implied that antibiotics have something to do with viruses. He has claimed an ability to make life-or-death public health decisions based on his superior mental abilities, using the “metrics” in his head instead of the usual data. Perhaps most strangely of all, President Trump has suggested absurd remedies such as blasting victims with ultraviolet light and subjecting them to injections of “the disinfectant.”
Yet these claims and untruths do not mean Trump is fighting against science itself. Like today’s struggle against coronavirus, America’s long history of conflicts over science would be very different if they were actually a struggle for or against science itself. Instead, battles about science are usually battles to claim the prestige of capital-s “Science.” Fights against science itself tend to lose, but fights for the right to call bad ideas “Science” can go on for generations.
Nothing illustrates this distinction better than America’s long-running battle over the science of evolution. For over a century now, creationists have confounded Americans’ scientific knowledge of evolution by claiming to have better science on their side. Creationists have hardly ever attacked science itself. Rather, they have insisted that their religious ideas have given them better science.
Nearly a century ago, for example, in the lead-up to the infamous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Tennessee, celebrity prosecutor William Jennings Bryan insisted that his creationism made him a superior scientist. In 1921, Bryan attacked the science of Darwinism as nothing but an “absurd hypothesis.” Unlike real science, Bryan insisted, which is built on facts, Darwinian evolution was only a string of guesses held together by bitterness and atheism.
A generation later, creationists such as Bernard Ramm continued the fight. Like Bryan’s crusade, Ramm’s campaign was not a fight against science, but rather a struggle to define science. As Ramm put it in 1954, science only has a chance at explaining the realities of life if it is infused with “the light of revelation.” The pretenders to modern science, Ramm argued, had foolishly abandoned the vital questions of first cause and final goals. Only a real science based in true religion had a chance to answer the big questions.
In the 21st century, even the most radical creationists fight for science, not against it. For example, when arch-creationist Ken Ham debated Science Guy Bill Nye in 2014, Ham did not say he opposed science. As Ham argued in his opening statement, “the word ‘science’ has been hijacked by secularists.” Like generations of creationists before him, Ham wanted to take back science. Ham tried to make a distinction—a distinction recognized by no mainstream scientists—between authentic “observational” science and false “historical” science. For Ham, real science could only make claims based on what it directly observed, not on evidence left behind from millions of years of evolution.
Creationists’ long battle to call their religious ideas “Science” has direct and damaging policy implications. Having failed in their attempts to push creationism into public-school science classes, creationists these days try to water down the kinds of science schools will include. In the past decade, creationist lawmakers have introduced dozens of “academic freedom” bills in state legislatures. These bills often call for science teachers to teach “the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.” The range of views taught would presumably include the mainstream science of evolution along with religion-friendly ideas such as intelligent design.
These bills do not claim to fight against science. If they did, they would lose. Few parents want their children to miss out on learning about science. Instead, these bills confuse and distort the issue by pretending that non-mainstream views about evolution have equal intellectual credibility. They insist that their religious views have earned scientific legitimacy. As have creationists for over a century, today’s activists fight for science, for the right to call their ideas truly scientific. Then they offer those ideas to public schools as better science.
Trump is doing something similar and similarly harmful. When President Trump says his decisions will be based on a “hunch,” he is repeating the tactics of generations of creationists. It might sound at first like he is rejecting the need for scientific credentials or expertise. In fact, though, Trump is positioning himself as superior to those experts, not against them. Like creationists, Trump does not deride the authority of science itself. Instead, he portrays himself as the best arbiter of the meaning of scientific details, the perspicacious decider-in-chief.
For instance, just after his pronouncement that he had a “hunch” about the true nature of coronavirus, Trump explained that his hunch was
based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this, and it’s very mild. They will get better very rapidly. They don’t even see a doctor.
Concealed within Trump’s ramblings is a claim to know science better than experts, better than “a lot of people that do this.” Similarly, when Trump announced that he will make decisions about re-opening society based on the “metrics” in his head, it might sound as if he is throwing out the need for consultations with real scientists. But that’s not what Trump was saying. As Trump continued,
I can listen to thirty-five people. At the end, I gotta make a decision.
Even if “thirty-five” scientists make their best cases, in other words, they still need someone like Trump to figure out the truth behind their claims.
Trump’s statements make for terrible science, but they are not anti-science. An anti-science approach would dispute the validity of careful evidence, expert review, and cautious claims. Trump does not dispute science; he only disrupts science and makes the communication of scientific information far more difficult. By standing athwart the scientific process and shouting “Look at me,” Trump’s antics are far worse than if he were merely anti-science. As mainstream scientists and public-health experts do their best to communicate evidence-based information to the public, Trump is getting in their way. He is mixing good science with bad, diluting evidence-based facts with personal fantasies and magical thinking. Worst of all, Trump is claiming the ability to choose between and among scientific evidence and scientific experts to find the real truth.
If Trump mocked Science, very few people would listen. But when he insists that he has a better, more authentic Science on his side—one based only on his own superior charisma and powers of discernment—he has a much better chance to keep people’s attention. Instead of communicating a clear, unified message about current best knowledge and best practices, Trump’s fantasy science makes the coronavirus crisis far more dangerous.
Republished from the History News Network: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/175180