Pink Prozac - a luscious cocktail

Belief without Reason

Monkey Girl

I started a new book today called Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and The Battle For America's Soul. by Edward Humes.

On the jacket it says Told from the perspectives of all side of the battle, Monkey Girl is about what happens when science and religion collide.

I'm only on chapter three but the book is very interesting so far. I'm not all that familiar with the details of the recent wars over evolution in Dover, PA. This book takes you behind the scenes.

Some notable quotes from the book:

• "he (a religious member of the school board) fails to grasp that evolutionary theory is in no way claims that man descended from apes, but only that today's men and today's apes share a common ancestor in the distant, prehistoric past."
• "he would have explained what a hypothesis and a theory and peer review were all about; how careful observation and data collection can confirm a hypothesis sufficiently to make it a theory; and how a theory is not just a guess or speculation in the world of science, but a robust and tested explanation of natural phenomena."
• "Creationist leaders have read the same surveys as evolution proponents: poll after poll that shows belief in evolution rises with education level, while areas in the United States with the strongest commitment to creationism tend, as a whole, to have the lowest level of education. Decades of Gallop polls unwaveringly reveal a remarkable correlation between education and what Americans believe about origins.
• 65 percent of Americans who attended graduate school believe evolutionary theory is scientific and well supported by the evidence.
• 52 percent of those with bachelor's degrees accept evolution
• Only 20 percent of Americans with high school educations or less believe evolutionary theory is well supported by the facts."

good stuff so far~

There is a designer alright -- it is man

On Monday, May 14, the Future Forum hosted a debate on religion and politics between Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky.

I listened to the debate and wanted to write some of Christopher Hitchens main points. He started off the debate by explaining that he uses the term anti-theism instead of atheism.

• His objection to a higher power comes from the fact that the claims being made are not true.
• Our beliefs stem from the 'infancy of our species'. 'Explanations had to be found in absense of crucial information.' (we were very ignorant about our world and universe - men wanted to come up with an explaination)
• There are those that think they can not only 'know' that God exists but can also explain to us this entity's mind and tell us its intimate and personal wishes. 'Power is given to the speaker (priests ect), he can tell you that he knows these things but not how he knows these things.'

Hitchens suggests a design alright. A design that is man made. A design by human beings themselves. He said that the belief in a higher power was designed in a time of ignorance and gave men an enormous advantage for power in the here and now. He states that its a dictatorial kind of power. One that can tell us what is right or wrong to eat (God doesn't like pork). One that can tell us not only who to have sex with but what kind of sex is allowed.

He says 'what arrogance' to make rules and say its backed up by a divine being.

Olansky took over for a time and mostly talked about Hitchen's book. Olansky tells of many good works done by those that are religious and challenges Hitchens statement that religion poisons everything.

Hitchens comes back with a good point. You don't need religious reasons to help your fellow man. Why would you need an extra reason to help others? He asked the religious..what is your agenda? Do you do what you do to be rewarded at some later time? He has more respect for those that do good things just for the fact that they do it for its own sake.

Hitchens also spoke about the fact that there are atheists out there that wish there was a god but decide that there is not enough evidence so they don't believe. He in fact states -- that he himself is glad there is no god. He is glad that he isn't under 'permanent unchangeable round the clock surveillance.'

Thanks George..I feel so much better

"Today, our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today."

Why would a loving god let this happen? makes no sense.

Senate passes stem cell research bill despite Bush veto warning

better

Bush to veto stem cell research bill

Frustrating..

Congressman says he doesn't believe in God

WASHINGTON — Cue the jokes about godless politicians and Bay Area liberals.

Secular groups Monday applauded a public acknowledgment by Rep. Pete Stark that he does not believe in a supreme being, making the Fremont Democrat the first member of Congress — and the highest-ranking elected official in the U.S. — to publicly acknowledge not believing in God.

The American Humanist Assn. plans to take out an ad in the Washington Post today congratulating the congressman for his public stance and highlighting the contributions of other prominent secular humanists, such as writers Barbara Ehrenreich and Kurt Vonnegut and actress Julia Sweeney.

Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the group, said non-theistic Americans often faced discrimination for their views.

"So often throughout American history, people who are non-theistic or don't believe in a supreme being can't get elected to public office or, if they inform the public of their view, they don't get reelected," he said. "We're trying to increase the acceptance of non-theists as every bit as American as everybody else."

Stark's declaration came in response to a search by the Secular Coalition for America to find the most prominent nonbelieving politician.

The advocacy group, which according to its website calls for extending "religious tolerance … to people of all religions and to those without religious beliefs," offered a $1,000 prize to the person who could identify the "highest-level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of non-theist currently holding elected public office in the United States."

A member of American Atheists California nominated Stark.

Ron Millar, associate director of the Secular Coalition for America, said the group wanted to highlight how hard it was for politicians to take a public stance about not believing in God. He said members were "pleasantly surprised" with Stark's candor.

"We didn't think we'd have any member of Congress come forward," Millar said.

Stark, who has served in Congress since 1973 and chairs the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, clarified his views in an e-mail statement.

"When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being," Stark said. "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."

Unitarian Universalism describes itself as creedless, meaning that it has no underlying authoritative statement of religious belief. Some members believe in God; others do not.

A USA Today/Gallup poll last month found that 45% of respondents said they would vote for a "well qualified" presidential candidate who was an atheist. Ninety-five percent said they would vote for a Catholic candidate, 92% a Jewish candidate and 72% a Mormon candidate.

*