Preachers in glass houses should not throw stones

Posted by a man who accuses atheists of bigotry

In an article in Christian Today, the Reverend David A Robertson, Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland (aka the “Free Kirk” or “Wee Frees”), ostensibly asks “Is Christianity Regressive?”, which purports to be an examination of Christianity, but in reality turns into a tirade against atheists, whom he infers are bigoted and even racist.

I have crossed swords with Rev Robertson many times before; I have tried to reason with him, I have even tried to be friendly towards him. In the end there is no reasoning with this man, due to his own arrogance, his own bigotry, but most of all, the way he attempts to twist and misrepresent the words of others. With quote-mining, statements and data taken completely out of context aplenty, his article in CT is a prime example of this.

Almost from the go, Rev Robertson's attack upon atheists – along with misrepresentation – starts in the second paragraph, when he states that philosopher John Grey was mocking his fellow atheists when he said “the grand march of secular reason would continue, with more and more societies joining the modern west in marginalising religion. Someday, religious belief would be no more important than personal hobbies or ethnic cuisines.” David does not give a source for that quote – another favourite ploy of the quote miner – but no matter, for I have found it, and shall link it below. The statement comes from an article in The Guardian, dated 3 March 2015, titled “What scares the new atheists” and the statement which David quoted was not mocking atheists but actually was speaking of the reaction of many to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So right away, we see that Rev Robertson has quote-mined a statement and twisted it for his own ends. There's plenty more to come.

Why Rev Robertson should quote John Grey is pretty obvious. Grey does indeed describe himself as an atheist, but he is well-known for attacking other atheists and for a dislike of organised atheism, which he sees every bit as odious and dangerous as organised religion. Whilst I don't agree with much of what John Grey says, on that matter I not only wholly agree with him, I would suggest that there is no 'atheist movement', for the simple fact that because every atheist is a free-thinker who came to the conclusion there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) through their own experience and observations, it never can be a concerted movement. A few years ago there was the advent of 'atheist churches', which I said was a silly idea at the time for the above reasons, and sure enough there has been extremely poor take-up of the concept. Atheism is not and cannot ever be an organised movement because while many atheists may agree on many things, there's always going to be sticking points where we differ. Ironically, John Grey's very antipathy towards his fellow atheists is actually a prime example of this.

But of course, quoting John Grey's words suits Rev Robertson's agenda of asserting that atheism is a religion, faith, or creed, which he repeats in the CT article, in which he calls atheism an “unrealistic faith”. Religions, religious faiths, and religious creeds have deities they worship and clergy they look up to for guidance. Entering a religion needs some rite, whether that be through prayer, baptism, circumcision, or other ceremony. Within religions there are rules and codes of conduct expected of the faithful, and if they contravene these, then individuals can be cast out and cut off from their religious community. Atheism has no deities to worship, no clergy to give guidance, there are no rites or ceremonies to become an atheist, there are no rules or codes of conduct to atheism and all atheist opinions are valid on their own merits, and because every atheist is a free-thinker, there will inevitably be disagreements, falling-outs even, but as there is no official atheist community, no-one can be cast out and cut off.

I need not ask David if atheism is a religion, just who is our god, and who are our clergy, because I asked him that once before – and I still await an answer.

Hoping he's scored a point, in the CT article David quotes a Pew Research poll, stating “A Pew research study shows that by 2050 it is expected that only 13 per cent of the world's population will not be religious, compared to 16 per cent today. Although the growth of the non-religious is expected to continue in the West.” Again, no citation for this little gem, again, I found it myself, and in what is supposed to be an article about Christianity, what Rev Robertson fails to mention is that Christianity is indeed on the decline (a 2013 poll in Scotland showed that 39% count themselves as "No Religion" - a rise of 10% in the past decade), while it is Islam which is the fastest growing religion worldwide. Even then, given the brutality of some Islamic regimes, one has to ask how many have converted to Islam through free choice, how many have converted because it was demanded of them under threat of violence, and how many Islamic countries are massaging the figures to make it appear that more or all of their citizens are Muslim. So if David wants to gloat over the Pew Research poll, I'm afraid it is a Pyrrhic victory, as his own faith is most certainly on the decline. Meanwhile, even a cursory look around the internet throws up an increasing number of very brave atheist commentators and bloggers in oppressive religious regimes who are demanding to be heard.

But maybe Rev Robertson has picked up on the fact that Christianity is on the decline, for it is western society which he blames for this decline, and it is in that attack that he alludes to atheism and atheists being racist. Without a citation again, David quotes Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin's Bulldog” (not “Bull” as David mistakenly states) once saying “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior of, of the white man.” Again there is no citation when he quotes the claim oft voiced by theists that H.G. Wells, discussing how 'inferior' races would be treated in New Republic replied “Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. Yes, Huxley and Wells may well have said these things. In their time one would have been hard-pushed to find a white person who did not consider non-whites to be inferior. And meanwhile, Karl Marx kept a slave girl, whom Engels referred to by the N word, and George Bernard Shaw and Marie Stopes, among others intellectuals, were firm advocates of the twisted psuedoscience of Eugenics. And all of the above people have three things in common; a, they were all wrong, b, they were all speaking and writing in the late 19^th – early 20^th century, and c, they're all long bloody dead. I completely fail to see how the writings and comments of people from 100 to 150 years ago is in any way responsible for the rise in atheism and the subsequent fall in Christianity in modern-day western society.

It may hearten David a little however to find that not all intellectuals of the Victorian era had such twisted views. There was one very learned naturalist, who was a member of the Methodist Church, who was a firm advocate and campaigner for the abolition of slavery. When this young man went to study at the University of Edinburgh, he befriended the university's taxidermist, a freed slave named John Edmonstone, with whom he would talk at length about animals, and from whom he learned his own not-inconsiderable taxidermy skills. So who was this fine young Victorian gentleman who treated all races as equal and befriended a freed slave? Charles Darwin, that's who.

Why should Rev Robertson bother about that? Well in his CT article, while attacking western society, he also spits his vitriol at the Theory of Evolution, and makes a complete ass of himself in doing so; “My main problem with this Western narrative is that it is so inherently smug, superior, self-destructive and indeed racist. It presupposes that Western Liberal values are at the top of the evolutionary tree.” Anyone who has studied Darwin's model of the Theory of Evolution, which is the standard model (because it works, and has been proven without doubt) knows that evolution is not an upward spiral, and there is no “top of the evolutionary tree”. I suspect that David is attempting to claim that evolution is based upon “survival of the fittest”, which he is taking out of context to mean that only the strongest survive – I've seen him do just that in public forums. In fact, the Theory of Evolution says no such thing, and the phrase “Survival of the fittest” was not even coined by Charles Darwin (or even Patrick Matthew of Gowrie, who beat him to defining natural selection by over 30 years), but rather by biologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, who was an exponent of Lamarckism, which mistakenly does see evolution as an upward spiral.  Also, when Spencer came out with the phrase, he was adapting his mistaken ideas about evolution to the dog-eat-dog world of economics and suggesting a 'weakest to the wall' philosophy.

Should Rev Robertson be in any doubt about evolution being about how certain organisms are best suited to their own particular environment, whereas they would perish in others, he's more than welcome to jump from one of the Tay Bridges, see how he does flying on the way down, and then how well he can breathe at the bottom of the River Tay.  On a side note, whilst he has never openly admitted it, if Rev Robertson doubts evolution, then it seems he has just outed himself as a young earth creationist, who believes the Bible account of creation, that the universe, the earth, and all living things were created in six days, 6000 years ago. Ohhh, that's gonna burn David.

Not sounding in any way “smug” or “superior” (Heaven forfend), Rev Robertson makes an apparent concession to 'western society', “Of course every good Western liberal now deplores racism based on biology, (it's good that they have finally caught up with the Christian teaching that all human beings are created equal!), but there is a cultural type of racism which is still seen in this kind of superior attitude.” I think that he'll find however, that most of us terrible western 'liberals' do not treat other races as equal 'based on biology', but rather simply because they are equal. And interestingly enough, this particular 'liberal' (diehard socialist actually, slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky) was reading an intriguing article recently which suggests that the 'out of Africa' hypothesis may be wrong, that mankind may have come Asia, or that there may have been two rises of Hominids in the two continents. While I don't accept that, as it's not yet proven, it does not denigrate Africans (or Asians) one iota, and I look forward to reading further findings. So much for the biology argument.

As for Christianity treating all as equal, that is highly questionable. I am willing to concede that the Bible in fact makes absolutely no mention of race, or denigrates any race (unless you count Canaanites as a race, whom the Old Testament actually calls for the destruction of, and even Jesus would only help the Canaanite woman after she shamed him into doing so), the treatment of others by the Christian churches has a long history of bigotry. Crusaders going to the Holy Land were told that Mohammedans were devils, not human, and killing them was the road to Heaven. White Europeans went all around the globe, Bible in one hand, sword or gun in the other, slaughtering millions of natives, whom they saw as subhuman, apostate and heathen. Some Christians boast of the fact they were instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the UK. So they bloody well should have been, considering that it was Christians who introduced it in the first place, and often used the Bible to back up slave ownership. Most slave owners were 'good Christians' who honestly believed they were doing Africans a good turn, by giving them jobs to do, a roof over their heads, and food to eat. But were those same slaves allowed to attend the same churches as their white masters? With some notable exceptions, such as the Methodist Church, like hell they were. Well into the late 20^th century, Black Africans under the apartheid regime in South Africa were forbade from entering the state churches and had their own churches they had to attend. In the USA and even in England (particularly in London) even today, there are churches with predominantly black memberships, purely because they have been made to feel unwelcome in churches with predominantly white parishioners.

But according to Rev Robertson, it is we atheists whom he is alluding are the racists. Well, I don't take being miscalled lightly, and as David has chosen to take his gloves off, I see absolutely no reason to keep mine on, so let's just have a look at where he stands in the bigotry stakes.

Rev Robertson was – and remains – deeply opposed to the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scotland. Maintaining that marriage is a Christian institution, meant for procreation between one woman and one man, David stated “This is the position that Western Society has held and on which our culture has been based on for almost 2000 years. I object to being called homophobic just because I continue to hold to that view.” (Herald Scotland, 15 October 2014). Of course, marriage is not purely Christian, and if it were, then Rev Robertson would have to concede that not only atheists, but those of other faiths are not married. Furthermore, if it were only for procreation and bringing up children, then David must as a clergyman refuse to marry couples who are incapable of having children. Yet, I can go further. I have actually seen Rev Robertson in a Facebook forum claim that same-sex marriage would lead to, among other things, polygamy – which is of course the most common form of marriage found in the Bible.

LGBT+ campaigners Dan Littauer of Kaleidoscot, and Peter Tatchell have been among many voicing their concerns over Rev Robertson's views concerning LGBT+ people.

On 14 June 2015, in his podcast Quantum of Solas (No.32), Rev Robertson and another Wee Free preacher launched into a frankly shameful tirade against transgender people. Concentrating upon Caitlyn Jenner in a podcast from which I lifted the photo accompanying this article, they derided, insulted and belittled the transgender former Olympic athlete, referring to her by her 'deadname' “Bruce”, and male pronouns, calling her and other transgender people 'delusional', 'wrong-headed thinking', and 'disgusting'.

And if David has a problem with me copying his SOLAS photograph, perhaps he could inform me just how many musicians he approached and asked permission to play their music on his podcasts?

Writing for the SOLAS Centre for Public Christianity, Rev Robertson in a comment article in The Scotsman of 11 April 2016, wrote; “Apparently it has now become the accepted norm amongst our political elites that we get to choose our own gender, in the same way that we get to choose our name. We have one assigned to us at birth, and if we don’t like it later on we can just change it. All of sudden by government dictate humanity, made male and female in the image of God, has been shattered into a thousand different genders.”

Then there was the little incident of the Polish atheist woman who moved into the village of Rosemarkie, north-east Scotland. The said woman approached the Scottish Secular Society for help, writing on their Facebook group forum page, Secular Scotland, that her children attending a non-denominational state school had been forced to say prayers before school dinners, effectively saying grace, against her wishes. Rev Robertson, who was a regular contributor to the group at the time, immediately rounded upon her, calling her a “white settler” and ranting about “incomers” attempting to “impose their will” upon highland culture.

For those not in the know, “white settler” is an odious hate speech term used by a tiny minority of Scots bigots, opposed to anyone from outside their community, mainly English people, moving into their neighbourhood. It was commonly used in the late 1970s-early 1980s by an anti-English would-be paramilitary group, “Settler Watch”. When I pointed out to David that it was a hate speech term, for which the former Grampian Police had indeed investigated people, he not only refused to back down, whenever I mentioned it in the future, he steadfastly stood by his words, as he does to this day. And as long as he does, and refuses to apologise for them, I shall continue to bring this episode to the attention of the public.

Just three other points on Rev Robertson's tirade against this woman;

1: She was not attempting to impose her will upon anyone's culture. She merely did not want the culture of others enforced upon her children.

2: Rosemarkie is not even within the Highland Boundary, and it is a good distance from David's native home on the Wee Free dominated Isle of Lewis.

3: Rev Robertson, who has openly stated that he wants all Scottish schools under Christian control, wrote his tirade against this 'assault' on highland culture from his present home in Dundee, in the north-east of the Scottish Central Belt, well outwith the highlands, and almost the opposite side of the country from Wee Free dominance.

I therefore leave it to others to form their own opinions on Rev Robertson's stance on bigotry. But I for one will openly call him a homophobe, a transphobe, intolerant, and deeply parochial.

Trying to move the goalposts, Rev Robertson changes asking if Christianity is regressive, to western society, and states “But what if we are wrong? What if Western society is actually regressing? I heard Professor John Haldane of the University of St Andrew's give a brilliant lecture on this in which he argued that 'progression' has only happened in terms of science, but that it cannot be assumed in terms of morality, art, literature, philosophy, politics and many other spheres of human activity. Anyone with half a brain, a whole eye and a listening ear, watching today's British TV will soon suspect that perhaps music and morality have not progressed much in the past 50 years!”

Well, morality is of course a completely man-made concept, which changes with time and between different cultures. I am old enough to recall being given the tawse (a leather strap divided into two or three prongs) across my hands at school for wrongdoing. It was only as recently as 1976 that the courts deemed that it was possible for a husband to rape his wife, when previously he was merely taking his 'conjugal rights'. Less than 50 years ago, men could still be jailed purely for being gay or transgender. Less than 100 years ago, a man could still beat his wife with a rod “no broader than his thumb” (hence, 'rule of thumb'), and left-handed schoolchildren were still having their left arms tied behind their backs and forced to write with their right hands. We look back upon such things with abject horror and revulsion, and yet each and every one of the things I have mentioned above were all solidly based upon Biblical, Christian, teachings. Seems to me that morality has in fact moved on a great deal for the better, and without any need for god(s).

Art, literature, philosophy and politics do indeed change and move on as society changes and evolves. As to music, it too evolves. Pop rock bands like The Beatles gave way to the psychedelic hippy era, which in turn brought in both glam rock and heavy metal, which gave way to punk, which had a short life and was replaced by new wave and indie. But then, music is thing of very personal taste, and I take no lessons in what I want to listen to from any member of the dour Wee Free's, most of whom seem to think the epitome of music is singing the metrical psalms, without any musical accompaniment (because apparently instruments are the “tools of the devil” - seems some of them forget that the Biblical David was a harpist).

Returning to his assault upon atheists, Rev Robertson states; “But that doesn't stop our atheist friends who are very reluctant to let go of their faith, whatever the evidence, and so the rejoinder comes. "Isn't there an inevitable progression from polytheism to monotheism to atheism?”

“It is part of their creed and one of their stock-in-trade one-liners that 'Christians are atheists to all other gods except Jesus, atheists just go one god more'. The problem with this statement, is that it presupposes that Jesus is just one of the other man made gods. He is not man-made and therefore He cannot be man destroyed! However that does not stop people trying.”

“In the same line of argument is the schoolboy question, "Who made God then?"

Schoolboy arguments are they? Well, let's try this factual statement for size: “In pagan Rome, “atheist” (from the Greek atheos) meant anyone who refused to worship the established pantheon of deities. The term was applied to Christians, who not only refused to worship the gods of the pantheon but demanded exclusive worship of their own god.”

Should anyone be wondering where I got that from, it was stated by philosopher John Grey, in his article in The Guardian, What scares the new atheists; the selfsame article by the selfsame person which Rev Robertson was so eager to quote earlier. Just a word of advice about picking and choosing, David; when you quote-mine someone, you'd best make sure there's nothing in their article which may just come back to bite you firmly on the ass.

Rev Robertson then goes on a rant to try to deflect the question of who or what made God, by claiming that nobody made God as God is beyond space and time. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that for thousands of years the church taught that God was in the sky. But as the receding God continued to be elusive in the light of scientific research, suddenly they were “beyond space and time”. If that's the case, how come the church did not teach that for 2000 years, but only claimed it once science postulated there may be a 'beyond' space and time? And if you are going to argue the first mover, then “who made God?” is a perfectly valid question.

Rev Robertson also claims “God creates ex nihilo (out of nothing).”, and there is a supreme problem with this four-word claim; it assumes that nothing exists beyond the universe, when the fact is science simply does not know if that is the case. There may be another universe, where the laws which govern this universe may or may not pertain to that one. Yes, it may also be a deity, but that is an assumption based on faith, not proof. Sometimes “I don't know.” is not just the only answer one can give, it is the only honest, truthful, accurate and honourable answer. To make an assumption and claim that as fact is not honest or truthful, it cannot be proven to be accurate, and it dishonours not only the listener but also the one making the claim.

Yet Rev Robertson goes right down this very road, and in doing so, quotes William Lane Craig;

“The Kalam cosmological argument, popularised by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, puts it this way.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause,

The universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause”

Well, we can't be for sure if he universe did have a start, or if it's always been there, and eternal. But going by the standard model of the Initial Singularity (commonly known as the Big Bang), then if it had a start, granted it had to have a cause. Where Rev Robertson and William Lane Craig make the huge mistake is by making the sudden jump in assuming that the cause behind the universe had to be their God, when that is simply not known.

I'm also somewhat surprised at Rev Robertson quoting a modern-day evangelist upon the First Cause argument, when it goes back much further and was most famously attributed to Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Five Proofs of God (which all made the same error of assuming that God had to be behind all things, without proof). But then, given that he is the Moderator of a church which steadfastly sticks to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which openly states that the Pope is the Antichrist, perhaps Rev Robertson felt a bit uneasy about quoting one of the poster boys of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that David, who wrote warmly in welcome to Pope Benedict XVI visiting Scotland is in any way sectarian. A good proportion of Wee Frees are indeed sectarian, however, and in his one year tenure as Moderator, he has done nothing to change the Kirk's constitution and move it away from a deeply anti-Roman Catholic basis.

Instead, Rev Robertson chooses to quote William Lane Craig. This of course would be the same William Lane Craig whom, in answering why his god should order the slaughter of innocent Canaanite children replied “God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.” Yep, he really did try to make out that the slaughter of babies and little children was merciful. Not content with coming out with that glib, apologetic piece of crap, in December 2012, Craig went further and came out with a comment which must have appalled other Christians, even conservative ones like him. Speaking on the Sandy Hook school massacre, in which 20 children between 6-7 years old, and seven adult staff were shot dead by crazed gunman Adam Lanza, Craig spoke of it reminding him of the 'original' Christmas, when Herod ordered the killing of the male babies, and went on to say that Sandy Hook was “a reminder really of what Christmas is for, or what it's all about.” and then continued to claim that the massacre was a “message of hope”. Methinks you should choose your friends with a greater deal of care, David.

The next paragraph by Rev Robertson is laughable, in which he claims, “The trouble is that our atheist friends have really bought into an unproveable narrative which they hold on to with all the tenacity of the most frightened fundamentalist and with which they try to 'evangelise' all and sundry. And so the myths/doctrines of inevitable progression and human beings having evolved from polytheism into the light of atheism have become part of the cultural zeitgeist which most of us inhabit.”

Really? We atheists have an “unproveable narrative”, says the man who worships a being whose existence he and every other have the burden of proof for? And notice the language of comparing atheists to fundamentalists trying to 'evangelise' all. This is not surprising, as Rev Robertson has long ranted about “fundamentalist extremist atheists”. He has even attacked the Scottish Secular Society of being a 'fundamentalist', 'extremist', atheist and even anti-theist group, when he knows perfectly well that this is not the case. The Scottish Secular Society is open to all, and while most members are atheists, there are also theist members. As David is well aware of this fact, to then accuse the society of such is more than an out and out lie, it is bearing false witness.

As to human beings moving from polytheism to atheism, far from a myth, that is fact which is reflected in history. Not far from his Dundee home, I suggest Rev Robertson goes and has a look at the carved stones of the Picts, who worshipped many local gods, and then on the reverse of some, he will find beautiful, intricately-carved crosses, from the time when the one god came to chase out the many. But that was just one more aspect of the 'receding God', who was not found in nature, so he must have been in the sky or space, and when not found there, he must be 'beyond space and time'. That there is a rise in atheism is not part of a cultural zeitgeist, but merely because more and more people are becoming better educated, mostly by using the internet, that the likelihood of god(s) existing is very slim, that all the “holy” books are mostly inaccurate mythology, and that one day, soon, the receding God will have nowhere left to run to. And it is not we atheists who are to blame for that, but rather the theists who have singularly failed to put up convincing counter-arguments, but instead go on the attack of atheists, just as Rev Robertson has done in his CT article. It's called playing the man instead of the ball, David, and it neither fools nor impresses anyone.

In the penultimate paragraph Rev Robertson suggests further reading and tries to punt his own book Engaging with Atheists. I am sorely tempted to actually buy a copy and read it, because this is one atheist who knows that attempting to engage in a debate with David is an exercise in futility. I have proven above how he twists, misrepresents, miscalls, insults and denigrates anyone he claims to be debating. I have even seen his fellow theists refuse to debate him due to arrogance, his untruthfulness, and his insulting behaviour. From the examples and his own words I have outlaid above, is there any reader of this article, atheist or theist, who would wish to enter a debate with the Moderator? I sincerely doubt it.  In fact, I don't know how one would 'debate' with Rev Robertson.  Having twice been on the Secular Scotland forum, on both occasions he spat the dummy and stormed off, claiming "insulting behaviour", purely because people questioned him and pulled him up about his own conduct.  Just a tip, David, a debate is when both sides are heard, not just yours.

But then, from a long rant about what was supposed to be about Christianity being in regression, which descended into a hate-filled rant against atheists, we see that all Rev Robertson wishes to do is promote his own book, which if it is anything like his book, My Wonderful Obsession, then it will be of the same assumptions, insults, misconceptions, twisting of words, misrepresentation, and a bearing false witness which would have given Niccolo Machiavelli a run for his money, and which myself and many others who have come to expect from a man whom I have proven to be nothing more than a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite.

Finally, I would just like to say to other Christians and other theists that this article is by no means any attempt to belittle your faith (although I have no doubt Rev Robertson will attempt to twist my words), which if you have one and are happy in that, I fully respect your right to do so, and would be first to defend.  Rather it is merely to expose one "Holy Wullie" whose tenet seems to be 'Don't do as I do, do as I say.' 

LINKS

Is Christianity Regressive?  David Robertson, Christan Today, 22 April 2016:
 

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.christianity.regressive/84478.htm 

 What scares the new atheists.  John Grey, The Guardian, 2 March 2015:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists

Pew Research Centre article on religious forecasts, 15 April 2015:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/15/europe-projected-to-retain-its-christian-majority-but-religious-minorities-will-grow/

Scots are abandoning their religion.  National Secular Society, 16 April 2013:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/04/scots-are-losing-their-religion

Free Kirk leader hits back at his critics in article for gay website:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13184673.Free_kirk_leader_hits_back_at_his_critics_in_article_for_gay_website/

Quantum of Solas No.32.  The discussion about Caitlyn Jenner starts at 5:35:

http://www.solas-cpc.org/wp/quantum-of-solas/quantum-of-solas-32/

Comment: LGBTI discussion more like a rally than a debate. David Robertson, Scotsman, 11 April 2016:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-lgbti-discussion-more-like-a-rally-than-a-debate-1-4097243

William Lane Craig on the "infinite good" of the Biblical mass slaughter of children and his god's "morally suffcient reasons":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc

 William Lane Craig speaks on the Sandy Hook massascre and the "true meaning" of Christmas:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzg2u3_william-lane-craig-on-the-sandy-hook-massacre_news

An A to Z of Creationist Fallacies: C is for Cambrian Explosion

The Cambrian Explosion was a sudden upsurge in evolution, when previously simple lifeforms suddenly diversified into multifarious and complex species in a relatively short timeframe – keep in mind I am saying “relatively short” here, because it will become very important later. Charles Darwin first wrote of the Cambrian Explosion in 1859, and when he did so, it was indeed a problem that such diverse species should be found in the same timescale. Needless to say, the creationists jumped on this immediately, claiming it was proof of “rapid” creation of life, have done so ever since, still do, and frankly make asses of themselves in the process. My only surprise is that creationists don't think the term “Cambrian Explosion” mean a violent event, with animals blowing all over the place from the blast, in the same way that they continually assert that the 'Big Bang' was a violent explosion.

Okay, let's look at a that relatively short timeframe. The Cambrian Era, and the fossils which come from it – that is the ones which creationists claim show “rapid” creation – in fact began around 545 million years ago, and lasted to until approximately 465 million years ago, giving an 80 million year timescale in which this “explosion” took place. Now, 80 million years is indeed a very long time, but when you are dealing with a 3.8 billion year evolution, it is indeed relatively short. Consider that the genus Homo from which we come evolved 2.8 million years ago, while our own species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is a true Johnny-Come-Lately to this planet, appearing a mere 200,000 years ago. We therefore see that this 'sudden' explosion of lifeforms creationists claim is in fact long enough for civilizations to have risen from the first appearance of the species to mankind's current level some 400 times.

Nonetheless, because it is so long, and because of creationist falsehoods, many palaeontologists are now discarding the term “Explosion” and are instead referring to the period as the “Cambrian Radiation” (no creationists, this has nothing to do with nuclear radiation), “Cambrian Slow Fuse” or the “Cambrian Diversification”. And it is no wonder they are doing so, as some of the creationist claims are ignorant to the point of embarrassment, but nonetheless, they keep getting repeated, and some less well educated and uninformed (and deluded) people are taking their claims as verbatim.

In 2013, Dr Stephen C Meyer PhD, a senior fellow of the pro-creationist Discovery Institute, published his work on the Cambrian Explosion, Darwin's Doubt; The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Asserting that the Cambrian event proves a rapid creation, Meyer in one interview stated “The Cambrian Explosion refers to the geologically sudden or abrupt appearance of the major group of animals early in the fossil record, in a period of time that geologists call the Cambrian.” Notice the language here; “geologically sudden or abrupt”. In a book which deals mainly with palaeontology, Meyer, whose PhD is in Philosophy of Science, is writing on a subject he has absolutely no expertise or academic qualifications in. Sure, neither do I, just as I lack knowledge or qualifications in many things. The difference is I don't go about writing books in which I let my heart rule my head, and come out with farcical assertions.

Meyer's book drew a lot of flak from the scientific community, not least a scathing review from Donald Prothero, who is a palaeontologist;

"His figures (e.g., Figs. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) portray the “explosion” as if it happened all at once, showing that he has paid no attention to the past 70 years of discoveries. He dismisses the Ediacara fauna as not clearly related to living phyla (a point that is still debated among palaeontologists), but its very existence is fatal to the creationist falsehood that multicellular animals appeared all at once in the fossil record with no predecessors. Even more damning, Meyer completely ignores the existence of the first two stages of the Cambrian (nowhere are they even mentioned in the book, or the index) and talks about the Atdabanian stage as if it were the entire Cambrian all by itself. His misleading figures (e.g., Fig. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) imply that there were no modern phyla in existence until the trilobites diversified in the Atdabanian. Sorry, but that’s a flat out lie. Even a casual glance at any modern diagram of life’s diversification (Figure 1) demonstrates that probable arthropods, cnidarians, and echinoderms are present in the Ediacara fauna, molluscs and sponges are well documented from the Nemakit-Daldynian Stage, and brachiopods and archaeocyathids appear in the Tommotian Stage–all millions of years before Meyer’s incorrectly defined “Cambrian explosion” in the Atdabanian. The phyla that he lists in Fig. 2.6 as “explosively” appearing in the Atdabanian stages all actually appeared much earlier–or they are soft-bodied phyla from the Chinese Chengjiang fauna, whose first appearance artificially inflates the count. Meyer deliberately and dishonestly distorts the story by implying that these soft-bodied animals appeared all at once, when he knows that this is an artifact of preservation. It’s just an accident that there are no extraordinary soft-bodied faunas preserved before Chengjiang, so we simply have no fossils demonstrating their true first appearance, which occurred much earlier based on molecular evidence."

Prothero continues;

"Meyer’s distorted and false view of conflating the entire Early Cambrian (545-520 m.y. ago) as consisting of only the third stage of the Early Cambrian (Atdabanian, 530-525 m.y. ago) creates a fundamental lie that falsifies everything else he says in the ensuing chapters. He even attacks me (p. 73) by claiming that during our 2009 debate, it was I who was improperly redefining the Cambrian! Even a cursory glance at any recent palaeontology book on the topic, or even the Wikipedia site for “Cambrian explosion”, shows that it is Meyer who has cherry-picked and distorted the record, completely ignoring the 15 million years of the first two stages of the Cambrian because their existence shoots down his entire false interpretation of the fossil record. Sorry, Steve, but you don’t get to contradict every palaeontologist in the world, ignore the evidence from the first two stages of the Cambrian, and redefine the Early Cambrian as the just the Atdabanian Stage just to fit your fairy tale!"

We therefore see a very common problem with creationists when discussing or writing about the Cambrian Explosion, as with just about everything else they say or write; they are willing to misrepresent and outright lie when they think the ends justify the means. These are the same people who are all too willing to play the unco righteous, to tell you that we are all sinners and deserve eternal torment in Hell, that smugly boast that they are 'saved by the Grace of God' – and yet who will quite readily blaspheme their own faith by breaking the Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Some go even further and come out with utter and complete nonsense. Creationist preacher Jack Wellman, writing in the website What Christians Want to Know, states the following;

“The reason that scientists, archaeologists and palaeontologists call the Cambrian Explosion an “explosion” is because most of the present species that exist today or have ever existed are found in what is known as the Cambrian layer or explosion.”

Science of course says absolutely no such thing about the Cambrian Explosion. What we do know is that the phyla created in the Cambrian Explosion are with us to this day. Whassat? I hear you say. Phyla is the plural form of phylum, which is one step below kingdoms in taxonomic terms of defining lifeforms. Okay, I can sense some people's eyes glazing over. We humans are of the animal kingdom, and as vertebrates, we are of the phylum chordata. For Wellman therefore to try to stretch phyla out to species is unintelligent and dishonest in the extreme. If anyone were to accept Wellman’s claims, you may as well say “I am a penguin.”

Whilst the phyla survived, quite the opposite of species surviving in fact happened. The overwhelming majority of creatures found in the fossil record of the Cambrian Era died in a mass extinction event, one of many whic occurred down throughout prehistory. Take note the Cambrian event not only record an explosion of life, but also an explosion of death.

In among the Cambrian fossils we find no humans, no horses, no sharks, no penguins, no dogs (I have to include dogs because creationists have a weird fascination with them). We will however find trilobites, opabinias, morellas and other species which are now long, long extinct. And of those few which were lucky enough to survive, they adapted to the new environments they found themselves in; they evolved. The Cambrian Explosion does not deny evolution – it absolutely proves it.

But were that not painful enough, Wellman continues with his frankly deluded ranting;

“The Cambrian Explosion is a sudden appearance of all life as we know it. There are exceedingly few that come before this and those that follow the Cambrian show no differences than their ancestral cousins or predecessors that follow. It is like an explosion of life that appears almost instantaneously on earth. What is amazing about the Cambrian layer is what is not there before it and after it. In other words, you will find almost no predecessors or ancestors of the Cambrian creatures; that is, absolutely nothing above or below this layer.”

Oh my giddy aunt. Those are out and out lies. Certainly, Precambrian fossils are very hard to find due to the fact that rocks from that period have metamorphosed from their original state, while others have been destroyed or remain deeply buried beneath the strata of Phanerozoic eon of some 542 million years ago, and what little fossils have been found are of little use. However, the state of them and the few there are is of absolutely no significance here, for the simple fact that they do indeed exist, and that they do exist completely destroys the creationist argument. Moreover this would be true if science had but only one solitary partial Precambrian fossil. If anything came before the Cambrian Era, then there goes the wild claims of Jack Wellman completely out the window. And of course, as for what lies above the Cambrian layer, no Jack, we have “absolutely nothing” - except for the hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils which trace life over the next 540 million years.

So, that's all very well, but the question still remains, how come for over two thirds of life on planet Earth, it was very simple lifeforms, then WHAM! - in 80 million years, a drop in the ocean of time, extremely complex life was all over the planet? There are a number of hypotheses which may have allowed diversity, and which may have worked in concert with each other. These include the accumulation of sufficient oxygen to allow diversification to occur, the appearance of “toolkit genes” such as the Hox gene allowing complex body plans, the eradication of earlier species allowing a niche in which new lifeforms could rise, and many others.

One fascinating hypothesis has been put forward by geologists Robert Gaines and Shanan Peters. One may wonder why geologists should be speaking on palaeontology, but their ideas are worth consideration and quite brilliant in their simplicity. In the geological record there is a huge gap of missing rock, known as “the great unconformity”. This lost rock represents around 1 billion years of the geological timescale, and Gaines and Peters postulate that as the crystalline rock weathered away, it filled the ocean with minerals such as calcium, magnesium, silicon dioxide, phosphates, and bicarbonates. Over time the accumulation of these minerals allowed already primitive bottom-feeding lifeforms to cross the threshold of biomineralisation; enabling them to evolve hard elements such as shells, exoskeletons, bones and teeth, and viola – the gateway to the animal kingdom was opened.

I have read creationists trying to rubbish this idea, calling it arrant fantasy and even asking why we should listen to geologists when we won't listen to creationists and intelligent design proponents. Well, if the creationists are going to refute the Gaines & Peters hypothesis, then they must by equal measure deny basic dietary facts, such as we all need minerals to survive, and that some of them such as calcium, help to build strong teeth and bones. Science does not listen to creationists and ID proponents because a, their fields are not science, no matter how much they try to claim it is, and b, unlike the other sciences, they bring nothing of value to the table. This is but one more beautiful thing about evolutionary biology; many other sciences confirm and support it, and it in turn confirms and supports many other sciences.

With the Precambrian record being so poor, and the hypotheses of why life suddenly appeared, I fully expect the creationists to rubbish all the above, keep their blinkers on to the fact that their “sudden” explosion of lifeforms was in fact some 80 million years, and continue to claim that it 'proves' creation, some 6000 years ago, brought about all species we know today.

Well, why they continue to close their eyes, put fingers in their ears and shout “LALALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!”, I'll leave them with this somewhat irritating little fact about the Cambrian Explosion which upsets the whole creationist applecart; not only are there no modern animal fossils from the period, but today we tend not to find human beings with gills, horses with flippers, and dogs with fins. You see, in the Cambrian Era, there were as yet no land animals, and each and every one of the fossils is of aquatic creatures.

Waving or drowning, creationists? Waving or drowning?

An A to Z of Creationist Fallacies: B is for Big Bang

As it is with the origins of life, creationists are wont to try to include the “Big Bang” in the Theory of Evolution; which of course merely covers the adaptation of life over time, and has absolutely nothing to do with astrophysics or the apparent point of beginning of the universe. For some creationists this is a misunderstanding. For many, many more, who have already had their misconception explained to them, some of them many times, this is a misrepresentation and deliberate deception. It is bearing false witness, a falsehood – an outright lie.

The most common creationist misconception however is that mass suddenly exploded out of 'nothing' and thus created the universe, thus giving rise to the oft-used creationist analogy of throwing a grenade into a scrapyard and getting a car. This misunderstanding – or misrepresentation – is down to the rather unfortunate phrase “Big Bang”.

For a start, there never was a massive explosion at the supposed birth of the universe, certainly not an 'explosion' in the violent sense that most understand the word; consider that the term 'population explosion' means a huge jump in births, but there is no violence involved (well, yes, there can be some, but that's 9 months previously, it's reciprocal, and a helluva lot of fun). The more correct scientific term for the supposed start of the universe is the Initial Singularity. As the name suggests the Initial Singularity was a singularity of infinite density, which contained all mass, density, and spacetime compressed into a singular point, which expanded and inflated rapidly, creating the universe.

Why should science think this is the case? Because wherever we look in the universe, in whichever direction, all the distant stars and galaxies appear to be regressing away from us at enormous speeds. They are not of course, as the Earth, no matter what the creationists would have you believe, is not the centre of the universe. Therefore, if it's not all the other civilizations in the universe trying to get the hell away from mankind as quickly as possible, the only logical conclusion one is left with is that matter in the universe – including our own Earth, solar system, local star cluster, and our galaxy – must be rushing outwards from an initial singular point where and when it all began.

If some are failing to understand this, perhaps Douglas Adams put it simpler:

“Alright,” said Ford, “forget that. I mean … I mean, look, do you know – do you know how the Universe actually began for a kick off?”

“Probably not,” said Arthur, who wished he’d never embarked on any of this.

“Alright,” said Ford, “imagine this. Right. You get this bath. Right. A large round bath. And it’s made of ebony.”

“Where from?” said Arthur, “Harrods was destroyed by the Vogons.”

“Doesn’t matter.”

“So you keep saying.”

“Listen.”

“Alright.”

“You get this bath, see? Imagine you’ve got this bath. And it’s ebony. And it’s conical.”

“Conical?” said Arthur, “What sort of …”

“Shhh!” said Ford. “It’s conical. So what you do is, you see, you fill it with fine white sand, alright? Or sugar. Fine white sand, and/or sugar. Anything. Doesn’t matter. Sugar’s fine. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out … are you listening?”

“I’m listening.”

“You pull the plug out, and it all just twirls away, twirls away you see, out of the plughole.”

“I see.”

“You don’t see. You don’t see at all. I haven’t got to the clever bit yet. You want to hear the clever bit?”

“Tell me the clever bit.”

“I’ll tell you the clever bit.”

Ford thought for a moment, trying to remember what the clever bit was.

“The clever bit,” he said, “is this. You film it happening.”

“Clever.”

“That’s not the clever bit. This is the clever bit, I remember now that this is the clever bit. The clever bit is that you then thread the film in the projector… backwards!”

“Backwards?”

“Yes. Threading it backwards is definitely the clever bit. So then, you just sit and watch it, and everything just appears to spiral upwards out of the plughole and fill the bath. See?”

“And that’s how the Universe began is it?” said Arthur.

“No,” said Ford, “but it’s a marvellous way to relax.”

(From The Restaurant at the End of the Universe)

The man attributed with coining the phrase “Big Bang”, UK astronomer Fred Hoyle, did not even accept the initial singularity hypothesis, and is claimed to have come out with the words somewhat sarcastically. Hoyle agreed with the Steady State Universe hypothesis; which stated that as galaxies moved apart, new galaxies would be born from matter which was being constantly created. Unfortunately for Hoyle and other proponents of the Steady State Universe, radio signals from low source strengths turned out to be much higher than Steady State predicted. Then when the microwave background radiation of the universe was shown to be the same in all directions, as one would expect to find in a universe expanding from a singular point, that was the end for the Steady State hypothesis.

Now, the reader will notice I have somewhat conveniently skirted over just how the universe expanded out from the Initial Singularity. This is because I am by no means a genius, and I frankly hate quantum physics. However, I'll take a deep breath and give it a go. The hypothesis suggests that quantum fluctuations upset the equilibrium of the singularity. To explain, quantum fluctuations allow the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. According to the model of inflation, these particles existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. This is important, as the vacuum energy of quantum fluctuations may also be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe – the “cosmic constant”.

And if anyone doesn't understand all that, let's not forget this is something which CERN and others are still working day and night upon, and the only honest answer I or anyone can give to the question of how the universe came into being is exactly the same as that which I gave for how life began in my first article in this series, A is for Abiogenesis; “I don't know.” Again, it is not unintelligent, ignorant, shameful, or foolish to say “I don't know.” to questions which are as yet unanswered. Far from it, it is they who claim their assumptions must be the truth who are being ignorant and foolish, and that is precisely what creationists do when they said “God did it”, when they do not have a single shred of evidence to back up that assumption.

Speaking of assumptions about things we do not know the answer to, it is an enormous assumption for the creationists to claim that the universe came from “nothing”. Certainly, nothing as far as our universe and the laws which govern it are concerned, but “nothing” is a strange concept.

As if trying to explain quantum fluctuations weren't enough, I am now going to complete screw the reader's mind up by speaking of “nothing”, as a concept. If I ask you to imagine nothing, what would you picture in your mind? A void perhaps, be it completely black or completely white? Nope. Sorry, you can't have that. A void, of any colour, is still something of substance. Remember, we are talking of a state beyond what we know, and of course to try to imagine nothing in it's truest form - “no thing” - is actually impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

So, now that I've given you all something to keep you awake tonight, let me just compound that by asking who are we to assume that nothing lies beyond our own universe. If you were sitting at home one evening and a drill bit suddenly came through a wall, you would not assume it came out of “nothing”, nor would you assume “God did it.”, and you would be more than a tad upset at your neighbour's over-ambitious attempts at home improvement. So it is to say that nothing lies beyond our universe is a gross assumption when we simply do not know if that is the case. Our universe may be part of a “multiverse”, in which several universes are conjoined to each other, and which share matter with each other. Other dimensions may lay beyond our universe, in which we may be but an experiment of some other creature's Petri dish. The possibilities are countless, and if there is something which lies beyond our universe, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the laws of physics which govern our universe would apply outside of it.

Creationists are first to scoff at any such ideas, which I personally find strange, considering that they nowadays are the first to claim that their God is outside of space and time. And I say nowadays because of the Receding God. For anyone unfamiliar with this term, it goes like this; First local gods were found in all things in nature around mankind, then when they were not found, the gods were found in the sky, which became the accepted view when the one God came to chase out the many. When God was not found in the sky, it was claimed he was in space. But since we know God is not in space, now the faithful claim that their God lies beyond space and time. I can therefore see why the idea of something outside of our universe may upset the faithful, as it would leave their God with nowhere left to run to. But they miss a point here; that while as an atheist I sincerely doubt it, given that there are limitless possibilities of what may lie beyond our universe, maybe, just maybe, our universe was created by a deity – perhaps even their own God.

But then, that just throws up another problem. For if the creationists insist that the “Big Bang” could not have come from “nothing”, then just what or who created their God, and when? But that's perhaps a subject for another article.

An A to Z of Creationist Fallacies: A is for Abiogenesis

4,1 bn year old biogenic carbon?
Do we come from a land down-under?

One of the most common fallacies voiced by creationists is that you cannot get life from non-life, and that evolution cannot explain how life began. And know what? They are absolutely correct. I could not agree more, nor could anyone who is involved or even has the slightest interest in evolutionary biology.

But before the creationists get too smug, the simple fact is that the science of evolutionary biology does not only not seek to explain the origins of life, it does not actually cover that field. Evolution covers only the adaptation of lifeforms over time, and how life came about on this planet is a complete irrelevance to the subject.

Berkeley University defines evolutionary biology, or biological evolution as they call it (trust the Americans to be ornery) thus;

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

Got that? The descent of different species from a common ancestor. Nowhere does it seek to explain where the original common ancestor came from. A simple synonym for 'evolution' is 'change'.

When creationists and others speak of the origins of life from non-living matter, they are not talking about evolution, they are talking of abiogenesis. It was Cornish physiologist Henry Charlton Bastian (1837-1875) who coined the word biogenesis, which he defined of the rise of life from non-life, which he claimed to have witnessed. Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) however, chose the more grammatically correct term 'abiogenesis' for such (that 'a' in front makes all the difference) and redefined biogenesis to mean lifeforms evolving from early living organisms.

The most widely accepted model of abiogenesis is that of the “primordial soup” of the early Earth. This postulates that around 3.8 billion years ago, certain chemicals abounding on the planet in an oxygenless atmosphere could have been reduced by sunlight to create simple organic molecules, from which all life has evolved.

Using this hypothesis, in 1952 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey of the University of Chicago carried out an experiment mixing chemicals believed to have been present in the early Earth. These were water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, which were sealed in a sterile 5 litre flask, which in turn was connected to a smaller flask. Water in the smaller flask was heated to create evaporation, and the chemicals were bombarded with electrical sparks, replicating lightning. After only one week amino acids, the very building blocks of life, were found in the compound. Creationists are quick to point out that the Miller-Urey experiment produced only left-handed amino acids. That however was only after the initial findings. The experiment, which is still ongoing, has since produced both left and right-handed molecules, as have other similar experiments. After Stanley Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining the vials from the original experiment found in excess of 20 amino acids, many more than the original findings, and more than the 20 required for life.

Another hypothesis is that of panspermia; that the early Earth was seeded with life from outer space. One of the greatest mysteries surrounding the origins of life on Earth is just how sudden it occurred, and panspermia postulates that shards of comets and asteroids carrying microbial life could have smashed into the earth (this ties in with the known heavy bombardment the early Earth received from space), spreading life, which flourished in conditions perfect for it to do so. The panspermia hypothesis suggests that the biochemistry of life could have taken place in space in a 'habitable epoch', 10-17 million years ago, and carried life throughout the universe. The implications of this are enormous, for if it were correct, then while our planet is the only place known to host living beings, panspermia suggests that life may in fact be common throughout the entire universe – another huge headache for the creationist.

Another possibility is that life hitched here from another planet. This is not as absurd as it sounds. Consider the meteorite found in Alaska in 1984, ALH84001, which may have come from Mars and which appears to have microscopic fossils of bacteria. When mankind does go to Mars, those who are lucky enough may well be 'going home' for all we know. Consider also that we owe every molecule in our bodies to outer space, and the atoms in our left hand may come from a different exploding star in our right hand. The late, great Carl Sagan was right; we ARE star stuff. Or as Sam Neill put it in the BBC documentary space, “If anyone asks where you come from, tell them outer space – formed in the heart of an exploding star.”

The earliest – undisputed – life on Earth occurred in the Eoarchean Era, some 3.5 billion years ago, after a geological crust formed after the earlier Haldean Eon, when the proto-Earth was still in a molten state. Microbial mat fossils have been found in yellow sandstone in Western Australia, dated 3.48 billion years old, 3.7 billion year old graphite in metasedimentary rock in Greenland has revealed physical evidence of a biogenic substance, and pushing the boundary even further back, biogenic carbon may have been found in zircon from Western Australia, dated at an astonishing 4.1 billion years old (Strewth mate! Look's like we may all be Aussies).

I have heard many creationists mocking and ridiculing the findings of these remnants of early life, as well as scoffing at both the primordial soup and panspermia hypotheses, using language like “absurd”, “nonsensical”, “fantasy” and “impossible”.

Life rising from inorganic material is absurd, nonsensical, fantasy and impossible, is it? Hmm.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7, KJV)

Seems some creationists should be very careful of what they say.

But of course, some creationists are mistaken about what they think abiogenesis means, and others, whom have had it explained to them time and time again, are just outright dishonest about it. It does not mean getting “a dog from a rock” (what is this creationist obsession with dogs?) as I have heard more than one put it. Creationists who claim that abiogenesis means modern living beings magically appearing from rocks - or that evolution claims to explain the origins of life - are not merely dishonest, they are shysters and charlatans, willing to lie if the end justifies the means. When they do so however, they are bearing false witness, which is breaking the Ninth Commandment and thereby blaspheming their own faith, as well as doing the Christian faith a gross disservice. I could add that they dishonour themselves into the bargain, but I reckon anyone who behaves in that manner has no honour in the first place.

Similarly some will note that all I have written above about the origins of life are hypothetical; they are not scientific theories, they are not facts. LIfe could have originated from the primordial soup, it could have been through panspermia, and – although I sincerely doubt it – life may even have been started by some deity. The simple fact is that there is only one honest, truthful, accurate, and honourable three word answer to the question of how life began, and that is “I don't know.” Anyone who says any otherwise is not being honest, truthful, accurate, nor honourable towards others or to themselves for that matter.

And creationists, just because science cannot (yet) explain how life came about does not mean your God wins by default. Do not point me to your book of Bronze Age goat herders campfire tales, for that is not evidence, it is the claim, we don't know who wrote those claims, and the entire book has already been proven to be grossly inaccurate.

There is no shame in saying “I don't know.”, neither is it an unintelligent answer. Sometimes it is the only answer we can give to that which surpasses understanding. The big difference is that where the scientific community does not know or understand something, they work on that passionately day and night to try to find the answers, or at the least a greater understanding.

The one thing science does not do when faced with an unknown is to automatically assume, claim and dogmatically assert “God did it.” To make such claims is indeed unintelligent to the point of foolishness, and exhibits exactly the same level of logic and understanding as our early ancestors who saw a volcanic eruption and said “The Mountain Gods are angry.”

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Marble Church, Copenhagen - state funded

It's all about the money.

A story in Christian Today, dated Sunday, 10 April 2016, tells how a campaign by the Danish Atheist Society to leave the Church of Denmark is having remarkable success.

The move is apparently causing 'concern' to the Danish state church, not least because, gasp, the Danish Atheist Society – Ateistisk Selskab, as well as having an advertising campaign, have had the nerve to set up a website which automatically forwards the necessary paperwork to those wishing to leave the church. How dare they!

Needless to say, the faithful are up in arms about this story and it is being skewed to make Ateistisk Selskab look like they are being anti-theist and are openly pursuing an anti-Christian agenda. That is until you look a little further into the story, and realise the logic of what they are doing is a move against deeply unfair Danish legislation.

Under Danish Law every child, EVERY child, has to have their birth recorded not in a registry office, but rather in parish registers. This means that every birth has to be registered in the parents local church. And it matter not if the parents are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, couldn't-care-less, whateva – every birth is recorded in the parish register, and as such automatically is also registered as a member of the Church of Denmark.

So what? Some might say. It's little different from does or has happened in many countries, where the religion of the child (based upon that of the parents) is stated on the birth certificate, so if you don't believe, what should that matter? That's a fair point. I am a Scot and a diehard atheist, yet my birth certificate clearly states “Protestant”. Well, firstly Scotland has never imposed the Christian faith on the birth certificates of children of other faiths, but more importantly, neither I nor anyone else pays taxes to the Church of Scotland (Oh, let them jist bluidy weel try).

Herein lies the rub; the Church of Denmark is funded by state taxes, which are imposed on each and every church member. Are you following me here? Read again the bit above about every birth being recorded in parish registers. This means that every Danish citizen, unless they apply to leave, is automatically a member of the Church of Denmark, and as such, they are liable to pay the church tax on their earnings, which are collected by the Danish tax authorities.

THAT is what Ateistisk Selskab are objecting to, highlighting to the Danish people, and informing and empowering them to avoid this unfair tax.

As explained on the Ateistisk Selskab website:

We have a ministry for the Danish state church, paid for by all Danish taxpayers. The church is funded by a church tax on its members, collected by the Danish tax authority, and gets a large subsidy from the state. Christians or not, everybody pays for the ministry, the tax collection and the subsidy through ordinary taxes.

Registration of births, deaths and changing names is still done in the parish register, not in the city hall where peoples addresses and cpr-numbers (sort of social security number) are kept. Atheist, Muslim or Jew, you still have to go to the church when your child is born (and sometimes get a book about the blessings of baptism).

Imagine looking at your payslip one day and discovering a tax on it you weren't aware of, and finding out that was to fund a religion you were neither a member of, nor indeed agreed with. Imagine having a child and having to register the birth with that faith against your wishes. Imagine that religion having your personal details, including any change of name (which of course would cover most marriages) and your social security / National Insurance number.

For what is supposedly an 'enlightened' and developed western democracy, these laws smack of some sort of backwards theocracy.

So we now see just why the Church of Denmark is crying foul – they are losing money which they were never entitled to take in the first place. Anders Stjernholm, a member of Ateistisk Selskab, told the Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad that the campaign which tells how each Dane applying can save around 133,000 Kroner (UK£14,000 / US$20,000) in a lifetime, has already been enormously successful, with approximately 3000 users visiting the website. And in a debate on thelogical.dk, he stated;

"We are satisfied with results so far. The bus campaign invites a discussion about faith, while the [website] withdrawal campaign is aimed at the many Danes who have long thought about leaving the church but have not done so because it is too much trouble,"

Needless to say, not everyone is happy. Thomas Frank, Dean of Viborg Diocese told Kristeligt Dagblad, “Every single withdrawal means something for us as a church. It is concerning that it is so easy these days to click ourselves away from each other online... ...I have nothing against campaigns that encourage discussions about faith, but providing tools for withdrawal such as Atheist Society's website is, for me, wrong and ill-mannered,"

Yes, Dean Frank, I am quite sure it means something for you as a church – like several million somethings with the word “Kroner” printed across them. And if informing and empowering people to leave a church is “wrong and ill-mannered”, just what is proselytising, preaching, and shoving your faith in the face of others, whether they are interested or not, or indeed downright opposed? Indeed, just how well-mannered is it to register every child as a member of the Church of Denmark, regardless of the beliefs of the parents? How right is it for the church to demand the personal details, including change of name and social security number, of every Danish citizen? How righteous and well-mannered is it of the Church of Denmark to impose a state levy upon every citizen, whether they be Christian, any other faith, atheist, or could not care less?

Of course, in their typical rhetoric of playing the martyr and crying persecution against Christians, Christian Today try to skew the story by stating, “A group of Danish atheists has gone beyond questioning the existence of God by launching a campaign to encourage the faithful to leave the Church of Denmark”. Ateist Selskad have not of course done any such thing. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, they are not encouraging nor enforcing anyone; they are merely making people already interested in leaving the church and thereby avoiding an unfair tax of their options. Informing people who do not identify as Christian is going beyond questioning the existence of god(s). If Christian Today or the Church of Denmark are so very sure of their faith, then they should have nothing to fear. Just what would they prefer? Having a smaller number of faithful believers being active church members, or retaining members who have no faith or belief in church teachings against their will? A word of advice; Europe has been down the latter road before – it was called the Holy Roman Inquisition.

And in reporting which any red top tabloid editor may be envious of, Christian Today states “The Church of Denmark has already seen declining membership over the years. During the first quarter of this year, it has less than 4.4 million members or 76.9 percent of the population. Ten years ago, the church had a membership of 83.1 percent of the Danish population.” Firstly, if every child is registered as a member of the Church of Denmark, then it automatically follows that church membership is going to stay steady with every birth. Secondly, in a country with a population of only 5.6 million, to have a church membership of 4.4 million is remarkable to say the least. But then, when it is enforced upon all, it should be.

And why are the 'unco righteous' of  Christian Today publishing stories on the Sabbath anyway?

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

(William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV)

Link to the story in Christian Today:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheists.campaign.for.christians.to.give.up.their.faith.worries.church.of.denmark/83663.htm

Link to the Danish Atheist Society, Ateistisk Selskab:

http://www.ateist.dk/content/178-About-the-Danish-Atheist-Society