Hmm. Not bad.

See it in context

omni is at it again: How we found dinosaurs, etc., but no “missing link” that should have existed millions of years more recently, and therefore should be no problem to find.

I could patiently explain how the process of fossilization guarantees that there will be gaps in the record. I could explain that over two dozen transitional fossils have been found–just not for the primate branch. I could point you to the paper about a species of flatworm which has a recognizable proto-eye, thus roasting that old chestnut once and for all. I could produce other demonstrations that you, like anyone else in a fundamentalist torpor simply don’t know what you’re talking about, but there’s no point.

Instead, I’ll narrow down to one assertion–one talking point, really, that you creationists keep returning to. Not because it’s true, but because it’s difficult to explain to the satisfaction of a scientifically illiterate person like you. I don’t expect to convince you because you’re going to do the fundamentalist equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting “la la la I can’t hear you”, rather than re-examine the “evidence” which (doesn’t) support your faith. However, if I can make this point publicly, then at least the next creationist twit who pops up here can get properly bitch-slapped with “asked and answered, idiot!”

Continue reading

WHY AGNOSTICS MAKE POOR CONSUMERS

I envy congregations;
rivers of faith
who, pouring their waters into narrow channels,
know the thrill of flow, turbulence and direction.
Kept in line by the banks of certainty and the shores of Hell,
oblivious to the sediments they stir,
clouding their waters, obscuring their vision,
their restless motion turns ecclesiastical turbines.

This much water requires
certain, righteous, inspired men
for, left untended,
it will overflow its banks and carve new boundaries.
Thus Engineers are Chosen
to make straight what wants to curve,
to contain what wants to spill,
to direct, to dam, to damn.

Maybe it’s an accident of terrain,
but the flow passes through my uncertain waters;
feeding one end then draining from the other,
rarely sounding my depths.
I am warmed by the sun, tugged by the moon
and no Engineer has managed to channel me,
though many consider me damned.

If I was a river,
I could surrender to direction;
lose myself in the race of the chosen
toward the ocean afterlife,
but my motions turn no turbines.

So I contemplate my depths
then watch what the Engineers do with the power
their rivers generate.

Well, start with this:

I subscribe to metaphysical naturalism. That is, I start with the ad hoc assumption that the most probable explanation for everything we see around us is that “this” is all there is. You may need to think of that position in terms of belief, and I’m not sure that I could completely disabuse you of that notion but I think of it as an ontological position and not a belief. My main reason for doing so is that we don’t need to a priori exclude the supernatural–we’re justified in a forteriori ruling its existence as improbable because thousands of years of investigation, involving millions of person-hours of observation, cataloguing and analysis has yet to yield any proof, even strongly suggestive, that there is a supernatural substrate over which our world is cast like a veil.
Continue reading