A Little Help?

I need a little help but the current climate is such that one cannot even ask for help in some circles without being branded as "unhelpful." I find that attitude unhelpful so I want to talk this through with you.

You are an educated atheist and you find yourself fielding questions from creationists all the time. It's frustrating and time-consuming. First, you don't know how many of these people are ignorant and how many are just trolling. Second, you aren't an evolutionary biologist so why are they asking you? Third, why don't they look it up themselves instead of being lazy? You tell them to get on Google and just look up the answers instead of wasting your time. I get it - I really do. You don't owe these people one minute of your time. Any information you give them is a kindness on your part - especially since there is a good chance that most of them aren't really interested in learning about evolution or atheism.

But what about the ones who are? You've sent them to Google but they probably don't have enough information to do a good search. If they are particularly uneducated on the subject (as so many Americans are), then they don't know a good source from a bad source. They may google the subject and come up with all kinds of nonsense that is palatable to them but completely untrue. Furthermore, if they do find a reputable source of information, how are they going to digest it? A lot of evolutionary science is very technical and intimidating. Not every article is written with the layperson in mind. It's possible that our honest inquirer may find a good source and then despair at ever understanding it.

How can we fix this? First, we need professional people who are willing to field the same questions repeatedly. Usually, these are writers, speakers, and other activists who are dedicated to a subject (or set of subjects). Second, we need educated laypeople who are willing to do the same kind of outreach but with a more personal touch. Third, we need a list of good sites and sources that are easy for new inquirers to find and understand.

Now let's back this up and apply it to the subjects of sexism and racism. As a woman, I've lived with sexism my whole life but I didn't know squat about feminist theory until recently. I'm still pretty ignorant about the subject. And as a white person (albeit one who grew up with a best friend of color), I'm still terribly ignorant about racism and its effects. In fact, I'm so awash in white privilege that I often don't even know what to ask, much less how to ask it. How can I overcome this?

I need professional people who are willing to speak out. I need laypeople who are willing to help me learn. And I need a place to go to find reputable sources about these subjects so I can do my own heavy-lifting.

Should I expect every professional or layperson to answer my every question? No. They don't owe me any help.

Do they want me to be a good ally for their cause? If so, then I have to know where to go to find the good information and I need people I can talk with about this so I don't go making a fool of myself and hurting others. If I'm going to be your partner in this fight and help educate others, then someone will have to invest in me!

So what I'm saying is this: there are honest actors out here and we need a little help. Telling us to just "google it" isn't always going to cut it. There's too much misinformation and pseudoscience out there to just expect that we're going to find the good stuff on the first try. And we need people who are willing to deal with those of "good faith" I'm not saying everyone should have to do it. I'm not saying we have a right to demand anything of you. I'm simply saying that some of us want to do better and we really hope you will see something in us that is worth investing in.

Not At All Racist Email

I get email and it's not at all racist.

They are referred to as homo slackspine erectus created by natural genetic downward evolution through constant spineless posturing,and spasmatic upper limb gestures, which new research has shown to cause shorter legs and an inability to ambulate other than in an awkward shuffling gait. The "drag-crotch" shape also seems to effect brain function. Expect no eye contact or intelligent verbal communication.

History shows that this species mostly voted for Obama and receives food stamps and full government care. Unfortunately most are highly fertile.

How do I know this is about racism and not just a slam against gang culture? Because the Southern stereotype of a black person is one who wear baggy britches, won't pick up his feet, won't look you in the eye (like a man should), and won't talk white. These same people labor under the delusion that most, if not all, Obama supporters are black people who live off the government and have babies for checks.

First off, this is a gross misrepresentation of evolution and tarnishes good science by linking it to racist caricatures and stereotypes. Evolutionary biology shows that blacks, whites, and all other kinds of people came from the same original stock. We may have different colors and cultures but, at our core, we are far more alike than we are different.

Second, this is a terrible misrepresentation of those who rely on government assistance. Let's  examine the census data for the state of Mississippi in 2009.

There were 2,967,000 people in Mississippi in 2009. Of those ~3 million, 15.6% were disabled. The prevalence of disabled were 13.8% of whites and 17.5% of blacks. That's not the huge difference you'd expect if all blacks were lazy and looking to live off the government (and let's be honest, disability is the best way to go if you are looking for a handout because once you get on it, you're pretty much set).

Nationwide, there were 15,219,000 whites and 3,851,000 blacks disabled in 2009. Again, you can see that our disability program is not being overrun by lazy black people looking for a gravy train to ride.

Let's turn our attention to TANF and SNAP.  In 2009, 24,000 Mississippians received TANF - that's less than 1% of the MS population. It is true that 83% of those recipients were black and 16% were white; however, there are better explanations for that disparity than simply, "They're lazy." Less than 1% of the population is not a significant number of lazy people looking for a free lunch.

As for SNAP (food assistance), there were 790,000 Mississippians eligible for food stamps in 2010. The participation rate was 67% in 2009 and 72% in 2010. Even if all of Mississippi's 37% blacks participated in the program, that leaves over 30% of whites who did too.

Nowhere in these data do we find evidence that black people are lazy, stupid bums living off hard-working white people. We should not allow these claims to go unchecked when the data show that most black people, like everyone else, work and pay their taxes.

I'm not a fan of saggy britches and gang culture - something that people of any color may find appealing. I'm also not a racist. I wonder why someone would think I'd find any of this amusing or insightful.

Christians at the Reason Rally - Part 1

If you were as lucky as we were at the Reason Rally, you either got handed Christian material by drive-by missionaries or else you got directly proselytized by the brave but rather unprepared apologists. The next two posts will be my account of these incidents.

We had not been there very long, sitting wrapped in our clear ponchos and holding our little signs, when the first guy came by. He sort of did a drive-by handout: swooping in long enough to hold out a tract and fleeing as soon as it was in Nathan's hand. I found it interesting that both Christians approached Nathan and not me - perhaps they just assumed that, as the man of the group, he would repent and I naturally would follow his lead. It's dangerous to assume that I, as an atheist female, do not have a functioning brain or a sassy mouth.

Regardless, this tract is the one the guy was handing out. How anyone can pass around this garbage with a straight face is beyond me. If these are the best arguments I could make for my beliefs, I think I'd go home and shoot myself in the head out of shame. It became very clear as I read this why the tract is delivered in a drive-by manner. If the gentleman had stopped and discussed any of these points with us, he would have been laughed all the way back to the port-a-potties (which is where arguments like these belong).

Let's take a look at the "arguments" in this pamphlet. First, we start out with this breathtakingly stupid introduction:

The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

The author proclaims that such a "theory" would be an insult to our intelligence which is true. To use this to try to disprove evolution, however, is even more of an insult. If these people can't tell the difference between living, changing material and an aluminum can, then what hope is there?

Now the test. Let's look at the banana (the one that got Ray Comfort mocked incessantly and then he tried to walk it back and say it was just a joke when clearly it is serious):

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content: Green--too early,
Yellow --just right, Black--too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

I'm not sure if Ray realizes it or not but the same could be said of the human penis. It's shaped for the human hand and is rather non-slip (yet easy enough for a hand or mouth to glide up and down). It's outward appearance can give us an idea whether it is ready to be used. It's definitely shaped for the human mouth and is shaped for easy entry of the vagina (or anus) as well. It's very pleasing for both parties when used right and can be curved toward the face.

Does that mean that God designed the penis for all these uses? I really wish I'd gotten a chance to ask the guy. But the point they are trying to make is that God made the banana just for our consumption. They do this by ignoring the fact that we have artificially bred bananas (as well as other things) for centuries to enhance these traits. 

We get into a series of questions now where they try to trap us into answers by only giving a few, narrow options. Of course we know the Coke can was designed by humans. We have no examples in nature of Coke cans randomly coming into existence. Next, they quote mine Darwin about the complexity of the eye, failing to print any of his answer to the problem and failing even further to note that this "irreducible complexity" argument has been shot down both by scientists and by lawyers during the Dover trial. 

Next we get questions about whether stuff has a maker or designer. It's more Coke can rubbish. Then they ask about order in the universe and was it accidental or design. They use more questions to try to trap us into saying that since we don't have complete knowledge of the universe, then we cannot definitively state that there is no designer (God). They neglect the fact that most atheists do not definitively state that but believe that it's true based on observation and testing.

Then they turn the whole thing back on us by declaring that we have chosen to be atheists because we want to sin. The whole 10 commandments thing is flung at us as if it is some model standard when the first part of it is the very antithesis of the Bill of Rights. The only people who could possibly be convinced by this tripe are those who either already believe or those who haven't bothered to examine any kind of logic. 

One of the last appeals is to listen to our conscience. My conscience tells me that any belief based on such irrationality is wrong. It tells me that belief in Yahweh as he is presented in the Bible is unreasonable and the worship of such a creature is evil. Furthermore, my conscience tells me that if I ever want to save someone from certain peril, I'd better do more than just throw a stupid tract at them. I'd better invest my time in actually helping.

Shame on Ray Comfort for selling these ignorant tracts. And shame on the Christians who gave them out without comment and running away before anyone could say anything. 

Here is a link to Part 2