Revisiting the Theory Of Abiogenesis (The Origin Of Life) And Why Creationists Hate It

The theory of Abiogenesis (which is often erroneously conflated with the theory of evolution) has been problematical for years. What is sought is a basic explanation for how fundamentally non-living matter could acquire the properties and attributes of life, including being able to reproduce.   For a short video presentation, go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=W3ceg--uQKM

In principle this isn't that remarkable a stretch, since we already know there exist living entities at the "margins" - the viruses- which display no attributes of life until they infect a host. Once in a host, they can appropriate its cell machinery to churn out billions of copies of themselves.

All of this, of course, can be done without appeal to supernatural agency.

Enter now an Aussie crackpot named Ken Ham whose Wikipedia profile discloses: "a former president of Answers in Genesis, a creationist apologetics organization that operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. Ham advocates biblical literalism, accepting the Book of Genesis creation narrative as historical fact and believing the universe and the Earth were created together approximately 6,000 years ago."

Naturally such a bozo would no more be  able to process or accept abiogenesis than Darwinian evolution -   since it renders his biblical cartoon deity redundant.  Moreover, Ham remains upset that Neil deGrasse Tyson dared suggest life on earth started without the help of God, in one COSMOS episode years ago. All Tyson did is honestly state that the very origins of life “are not yet understood”. Because abiogenesis has yet to turn up any verifiable results—not that they have claimed any are verifiable—AiG is calling that evidence of a clear flaw. But what’s clear is that Tyson isn’t just a threat to creationists. Their big target is the reputation of science.

AiG  seeks to discredit the underlying biological science, using this standard trope:

“Abiogenesis has never been observed in experimental biology and violates the most fundamental law in biology, the law of  biogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors of the review are confident there was a naturalistic chemical origin for life.” [Biogenesis is the natural law that life comes from reproduction by living things].

However,  in a remarkable find published in The New Scientist (Vol. 209, No. 2794, p. 11) some years ago, two investigators: Kunikho Kaneko and Atsushi Kamimura, made a remarkable breakthrough in devising a testable model that is able to replicate the Abiogenesis process. The two basically solved the problem of how a lipid-coated proto-cell can divide into two (displaying reproduction) when the genetic material replicates. Recall in an earlier blog post where I showed the hypothetical proto-cell reaction wherein a self-sustaining coacervate droplet can use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid or lipid-coated proto-cell, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. The problem with this earlier hypothesis was that such lipid-coated proto-cells lack the machinery to allow for easy division.

Kaneko and Kamimura solved this by taking their inspiration (for their model) from living things in which DNA and RNA code for proteins and the proteins catalyse replication of the genetic material. This goes back to biochemist Jacque Monod's concept that the organism is a self-constructing machine. Its macroscopic structure is not imposed upon it by outside forces, instead it shapes itself autonomously by dint of constructive internal (chemical) interactions. 

 For example, there is the Krebs cycle for aerobic metabolism, whose pathway  is:

CH2 COOH-coenzyme A +  2 H2O ->   2 CO2  +8 (e- + H+) + coenzyme A

possessing a self-catalytic feature in that intermediate products necessary for the cycle to occur are generated by the cycle itself. In this case, Oxalo-acetic acid combines with acetic acid to begin the cycle and is regenerated from malic acid at the end of the cycle.

Like a machine, every organism, down to the very ‘simplest’ (e.g. amoeba) , constitutes a coherent and integrated functional unit. Clearly enough, the functional coherence of so complex a chemical machine, which is autonomous as well, calls for a cybernetic system governing and controlling the chemical activity at numerous points

 Thus in the Kaneko- Kamimura model one has a self-perpetuating system in which a cluster of two types of molecules catalyse replication for one another while also demonstrating rudimentary cell division.

In the Kaneko - Kamimura  (K-K) model, as with DNA, the genetic material replicates much more slowly than the other cluster molecules but also takes longer to degrade, so it enables lots of the other molecules to accumulate. Following replication of the heredity carrier the copies drift apart while the molecules between them break down automatically creating two separate entities (see image).

This was  and remains an exciting breakthrough but some further investigations are needed, specifically ways to circumvent the problem that (in real life) membrane lipids around an RNA molecule don't typically catalyse RNA replication. However, this isn't insurmountable, because all one need do (theoretically) is replace the lipids with hydrophobic peptides.  (In a future post I will explore how modern physics is helping to address this problem).

Basically what the K-K experiments show is that while abiogenesis hasn’t been directly observed it does provide  a materialist model that can account for it in a peripheral way. Since such a materialist model exists, it means that all supernatural explanations become redundant. If one therefore continues to use them, he commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius.  That is,  “seeking to explain the not understood by the less well understood.”

Thus to claim abiogenesis “has not been observed” (directly) – which is partially true, and then to say this proves the creation story -  is something that would even raise the eyebrows of an intelligent  kindergartner . Indeed it not only commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius, but also the fallacy of circular reasoning – since AiG and Ham are basically claiming that which they must set out to prove independently. Even if nothing existed for abiogenesis, they would be obliged to prove supernatural creation.   It simply isn't cricket to try to use a naturalistic failure (in their mind) as positive “evidence” for their extraordinary claim.

More importantly the AiG claim that abiogenesis  “breaks the law of biogenesis”  is dishonest. The law of biogenesis (attributed to Louis Pasteur)  states that life cannot come from non-life, but Pasteur did not demonstrate that any such impossibility- only that it does not happen in everyday life. As shown in the K-K model it is at least possible that such can take place.

Now, add to that the Miller-Urey experiment. The Miller and Urey experiment basically applied an electrical discharge to a chemical brew resembling the Earth’s primitive reducing atmosphere. This brew included ammonia and methane, as well as hydrogen and water vapor. The effect of the discharge transformed the mix into a diverse yield of organic compounds. These included amino acids, as well as substances such as formic acid and urea that normally occur in living organisms.

The very fact so many organic compounds could arise is remarkable in itself, given the vast number of possible compounds that might have emerged. And while it is true that the discharge didn’t produce actual living cells, there is no reason – given enough time,- that a primitive pre-biotic cell in the distant past could not have emerged given the building blocks left behind

None of this was mentioned by Tyson, but it could have been and would likely have made the creationist crowd's heads explode even more.  Never mind.  In that memorable COSMOS episode Tyson gave  viewers a naturalist’s explanation for the world, and when he said science does not yet know something, that was no concession  of the failures of science, but instead a powerful example of the necessary honesty in which science thrives.

 That AiG sees the words “I don’t know” as a weakness shows the lengths of intellectual dishonesty they are willing to invoke to pull the wool over their followers’ eyes. (Though again, Tyson also could have shown more support for abiogenesis – such as by invoking  the Miller-Urey experiment- to make this less likely.)

No absolute proof yet for abiogenesis?  No  problem!  We atheists will take what we can get incrementally -  and if a naturalist universe can be delivered easily,  in bite- sized pieces by an affable showman like Neil Tyson-   so much the better.  

Do We Need A Google "Truth Algorithm" For Web Searches?

Back in March, Google announced a new search algorithm that would display websites and news stories based on their factual content at the top of the list and the factually-deficient results at the bottom.  This is radically different from current practice where Google puts the top read results at the top and less read to the rear. But is this the way it should be, given people may be reading too much bollocks and not enough factual, scientific material?

Should creation science websites or climate denier sites be at the top of searches because  most people read them, or at the bottom because they are not factual? If the former is acceptable, then really all we have is a popularity contest. Is that valid for those seeking genuine information as opposed to PR and nonsense?

Interestingly, when Google first announced this new search program, there was instant blowback and outrage from FOX News (which consistently ranks low in accuracy at Politifact.org and Factcheck.org.) Why would FOX be howling its head off? Maybe, just maybe because their honchos know most of what they put out there is gibberish and distortions. From O'Reilly to Hannity and Fox n' Friends, none of it can be trusted.

FOX wasn't the only bunch screaming. Others included: climate change deniers, Vaxers (those against childhood vaccinations), and birthers.  Again, why are they howling like stuck pigs if they are offering valid information? There'd be no reason for such outbursts.

Sadly, Google has no plans to start using the program but it's interesting to consider the uproar if they did given all the liars, PR-mongers, disinformationists and others would have to come out of the woodwork. They'd not sit still or remain quiet given it might jeopardize their interests.

But think of the benefits!

For example, employers could fact check job candidates' resumes and LinkedIn pages, identifying bogus credentials including inflated education credentials that might eliminate many job seekers on the basis of fudged resumes.

Even more importantly, kids and others interested in advancing their educations on the subject of climate change, evolution and American history wouldn't be driven first to nonsense sites such as those of Roger Pielke Jr., Ken Ham and the history revisionist Larry Schweikart, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/08/48-liberal-lies-how-about-50-tea-party.html

Imagine how much more efficient educational web searches would become if all the detritus could be instantly ranked at the bottom instead of the most relevant and factual material - forcing truth seekers to plow through page after page, even after refining searches.

But it seems this is what we will have to settle for until Google implements its truth algorithm. That means facts and truth will not come easily but only after diligent work. Of course, in this quest reading can also do wonders, because it upends the popularity ranking systems prevalent for existing web search engines.

Point of fact, babble such as put forward by the likes of  Larry Schweikart, Ken Ham or Roger Pielke Jr. wouldn't stand a chance at being seen as credible if people read more diligently from the pool of books shown to be factual or scientific. Books such as Darwin's Origin of Species, and James Loewen's tour de force ('Lies My Teacher Told Me') exposing the bogus American history taught our kids- but more importantly also disclosing the actual history omitted!

Moral of the story: read first, or at least read to check any web searches you pull up - don't just accept the first ones as the factual ones.

Who Are the Creationists Kidding On Abiogenesis?

The matter of the ultimate origin of life, the theory of Abiogenesis (which is often erroneously conflated with the theory of evolution) has been problematical for years. What is sought is a basic explanation for how fundamentally non-living matter could acquire the properties and attributes of life, including being able to reproduce. In principle this isn't that remarkable a stretch, since we already know there exist living entities at the "margins" - the viruses- which display no attributes of life until they become attached to a host. Once in a host, they can appropriate its cell machinery to churn out billions of copies of themselves.

 

All of this, of course, can be done without supernatural agency.

 

Alas, creationist Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AiG) is  unable to swallow this and moreover is still upset that Neil deGrasse Tyson dared suggest life on earth started without the help of God. Tyson,  in one COSMOS episode,  honestly stated that the very origins of life “are not yet understood”. Because abiogenesis has yet to turn up any verifiable results—not that they have claimed any are verifiable—AiG is calling that evidence of a clear flaw. But what’s clear is that Tyson isn’t just a threat to creationists. Their big target is the reputation of science.

 

AiG , for example, continues in an attempt to discredit the science, saying:

“Abiogenesis has never been observed in experimental biology and violates the most fundamental law in biology, the law of biogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors of the review are confident there was a naturalistic chemical origin for life.” [Biogenesis is the natural law that life comes from reproduction by living things].

 

However,  in a remarkable find published in The New Scientist (Vol. 209, No. 2794, p. 11), two investigators: Kunikho Kaneko and Atsushi Kamimura, have made a remarkable breakthrough in devising a testable model that is able to replicate the Abiogenesis process. The two basically solved the problem of how a lipid-coated proto-cell can divide into two (displaying reproduction) when the genetic material replicates. Recall in an earlier blog where I showed the hypothetical proto-cell reaction wherein a self-sustaining coacervate droplet can use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid or lipid-coated proto-cell, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. The problem with this earlier hypothesis was that such lipid-coated proto-cells lack the machinery to allow for easy division.

Kaneko and Kamimura solved this by taking their inspiration (for their model) from living things in which DNA and RNA code for proteins and the proteins catalyse replication of the genetic material. This goes back to biochemist Jacque Monod's concept that the organism is a self-constructing machine. Its macroscopic structure is not imposed upon it by outside forces, instead it shapes itself autonomously by dint of constructive internal (chemical) interactions. Thus in the Kaneko- Kamimura model one has a self-perpetuating system in which a cluster of two types of molecules catalyse replication for one another while also demonstrating rudimentary cell division.

In the Kaneko - Kamimura  (K-K) model, as with DNA, the genetic material replicates much more slowly than the other cluster molecules but also takes longer to degrade, so it enables lots of the other molecule to accumulate. Following replication of the heredity carrier the copies drift apart while the molecules between them break down automatically creating two separate entities (see image).

This is an exciting breakthrough but some further investigations are needed, specifically ways to circumvent the problem that (in real life) membrane lipids around an RNA molecule don't typically catalyse RNA replication. However, this isn't insurmountable, because all one need do (theoretically) is replace the lipids with hydrophobic peptides.

 

Basically what the K-K experiments show is that while abiogenesis hasn’t been directly observed it does provide  a materialist model that can account for it in a peripheral way. Since such a materialist model exists, it means that all supernatural explanations become redundant. If one therefore continues to use them, he commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius.

 

Thus to claim abiogenesis “has not been observed” (directly) – which is partially true, and then to say this proves the creation story is something that would raise the eyebrows of a kindergartner . Indeed it not only commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius, but also the fallacy of circular reasoning – since AiG and Ham are claiming that which they must set out to prove independently. Even if nothing existed for abiogenesis, they would be obliged to prove supernatural creation – they can’t use a naturalistic failure (in their mind) as positive “evidence” for their extraordinary claim.

 

More importantly the AiG claim that abiogenesis  “breaks the law of biogenesis”  is simply dishonest. The law of biogenesis (attributed to Louis Pasteur)  states that life cannot come from non-life, but Pasteur did not demonstrate that any such impossibility- only that it does not happen in everyday life. As shown in the K-K model it is at least possible that such can take place.

 

Now, add to that the Miller-Urey experiment. The Miller and Urey experiment basically applied an electrical discharge to a chemical brew resembling the Earth’s primitive reducing atmosphere. This brew included ammonia and methane, as well as hydrogen and water vapor. The effect of the discharge transformed the mix into a diverse yield of organic compounds. These included amino acids, as well as substances such as formic acid and urea that normally occur in living organisms.

The very fact so many organic compounds could arise is remarkable in itself, given the vast number of possible compounds that might have emerged. And while it is true that the discharge didn’t produce actual living cells, there is no reason – given enough time,- that a primitive pre-biotic cell in the distant past could not have emerged given the building blocks left behind

 

None of this was mentioned by Tyson, but it could have been and would likely have made the creationist crowd's heads explode even more. Also, they have had to work much harder to come up with any kind of  coherent response.

But what is most galling about AiG and Ham is the tacit assumption that their audience lacks basic scientific understanding which gives AiG permission to be “fact-free.”  Hence, they can peddle any balderdash that violates logic or science with impunity.  Meanwhile,  Neil deGrasse Tyson gives viewers a naturalist’s explanation for the world, and when he says science does not yet know something, this is not a sign of the failures of science, but instead a powerful example of the necessary honesty in which science thrives. The very fact that AiG sees the words “I don’t know” as a weakness shows the lengths of intellectual dishonesty they are willing to go to pull the wool over their followers’ eyes. (Though again, Tyson also could have shown more support for abiogenesis – such as by invoking  the Miller-Urey experiment- to make this less likely. Hence, one may also argue that AiG exploited COSMOS’ “loose” presentation in playing to a popular audience.)

Never mind, the hysterical  reaction from AiG  and Ham after nearly every COSMOS episode shows a position of pure panic. Neil deGrasse Tyson has become their biggest public enemy because he get primo air time every Sunday  on one of their (conservatives’)  favorite channels. Up to now, these clods haven’t come up with any series with similar gravitas that even FOX will accept – to compete with COSMOS – and this drives them batshit crazy..

 Ham (who not long ago got his head handed to him by Bill Nye in a web debate) just can’t accept that what he has is palpable bull crap while Tyson offers actual science. In addition,  Tyson make science accessible to all people with an open mind, and  he is likeable and non-controversial to boot.

 True, Tyson does not identify himself as an atheist (for obvious reasons), but it’s clear to a blind man he is one. Also, it doesn’t put our (atheist) noses out of joint because it  means he can reach across both sides of the aisle to a much  greater degree  than the late Chris Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins.

We atheists will take what we can get and if a naturalist universe can be delivered easily,  in bite- sized pieces by an affable showman like Neil Tyson, so much the better!

The Upcoming Debate Featuring Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Will It Really Be A Waste of Time?

As many of us in the science community are aware, Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be debating creationism on Feb. 4,  and most of us are truly hoping that Bill shoves Ham's creationist codswallop right down his throat - and then some. We are sick and tired of having a debate that ought to have been settled nearly 90 years ago with the Scopes trial. Haven't the fundies and their brethren nitwits learned yet that it's over, as in case closed? Evidently not, and none other than scribe Sean McElwee makes a case - on salon.com - that Nye is likely wasting his time.

Having had 12 major debates with assorted creationists since 1974 (when I was called upon to debate a Scripture teacher on evolution in my 3rd year as a biology -chemistry teacher and Peace Corps volunteer) McElwee may be right.  It seems the other side is always too inured to reason and scientific argument to make a dent. They are citing their Bible quotes, while you are citing Darwin's Origin of Species or his later book on human evolution. So inevitably, the debate ends up only for 'show' since you're not going to change a diehard religious believer's mind (though we will soon see why much more enters into it). The question is 'Why not?'


McElwee argues any debate is a "bad idea for both scientists and Christians".  He notes that Ham’s young-earth creationism "represents the distinct tendency of American Christian fundamentalists to reject science and use their religion to defend economic ideas, environmental degradation and anti-science extremism."  In other words, the conservative ideological position itself requires this contrarian dynamic to clothe itself in a kind of protective mantle vs. the 'kyrptonite' of scientific inquiry.  To do otherwise is to invite massive defeat across the board, from evolution to global warming to economic theory. (Forever slaying the damnable perversion of Darwin's natural selection via Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism)

In other words, Ham and his cohort know their asses are beaten to a pulp - but they keep the act up of "unsettled science", or "disputed findings" because they have no other option. That's the only wicket open and despite the fact it's a losing one, it's the only one that postpones their capitulation.

McElwee's point that the vast majority of right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are evangelicals,  or followers of an offshoot of Protestantism, is a good one for two reasons. First, it shows these people are outliers since there are still vastly more non-evangelical Protestants in the world - offering some counter point of sanity. Second, not all evangelicals are as nutty as the most extreme fundies. This is one reason that author Susan Jacoby advised calling out the extremist fundies so they can't hide behind the more moderate "evangelical" front.

As she points out, this bland generic term can encompass “both theological liberals and conservatives”[1]. Hence, it is a disservice to forward- thinking evangelicals to conflate them with a regressive cultist group that would dispatch them to Hell as it does Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and non-fundamentalist Protestants. It is also important not to be so cowardly in the use of terms, because in order to recognize the reach of the Religious Right one needs to know exactly what part of the ideological spectrum is subsumed and pandered to, by the likes of Ralph Reed, Albert Mohler, Jr.,  Pat Robertson and others.

The problem with U.S. Fundyism, as Richard Hofstadter once pointed out in his classic on Social Darwinism (Social Darwinism in American Thought, American Historical Association, 1955) , is that it became even more perverted by linking up with Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism - on top of its excessive, aberrant individualism. Once it did so, it lost all claims to providing a moral foundation for anything or anyone and mutated to a cult - like Jim Jones' "People's Temple" in Guyana.  As it tethered its goals to those of American capitalism, it lost even more moral capital, until today it's nothing but a chimera or shell  - that serves only as a vehicle to exploit the Densan portion of the populace. 

But this plays into why Nye's debate of Ken Ham may not be advisable. The hard fact is that on account of its anti-intellectual basis, American Christian right-wing fundamentalism distrusts all experts and inevitably inveighs against their influence. Thus, in every debate, they will seek to frame it in a way to unbalance the expert holding an opposite view to their creationist/ ID stance. But this stance isn't informed by "faith" - which is the point missed by eager secular debaters.  Rather, the Social Darwinian, individualistic political and economic views are imposed on Scripture, which is often read without theological rigor. It is not religion that is the problem, but rather the use of religion as an ideological weapon.

Nowhere was this more in evidence than in a debate I attended back in 1986 on 'Creationism vs. Evolution'. ). The presenter was none other than Duane Gish - then of the Institute of Creation Research. (See advert  below- still preserved from the date it appeared: Feb. 19, 1986)


Evidently Gish had invited members of the science staff (any of them) based at The Geophysical Institute (affiliated with the University of Alaska-Fairbanks) to debate him. All of them declined. On being notified of this, Gish commented:

"It's rather strange that they wouldn't be prepared to support evolutionary debate because they teach it year in and year out. If it's supported by the scientific evidence then it should be a simple thing to do".


However, the professional scientists at the Geophysical Institute. were not amused. The Head of the UAF Biology Dept., Stephan McLean noted (from The University of Alaska Sunstar campus newspaper that also reported Gish's comments):

"I refuse to get involved personally in debating this issue. In any case, the question that was put forward was extremely biased. The creationist side chose the topic, booked the hall, and made the rules - then invited this very skilled person. The way it was structured allowed the creationist advocate to take the offensive and put the evolutionist on the defensive".

Then Director of the G.I., Professor Juan G. Roederer was less polite:

"These individuals are simply impostors. They essentially base their arguments on a distorted or outright falsified interpretation of existing scientific fact.”

 True to form, the "rules" allowed freelancing by Gish, and he exploited them to clown around with specious, irrelevant illustrations ("Anyone here have a grandma that used to be a gorilla?") that totally misrepresented the evolution position. In any genuine formal setting, he'd have been hooted out, but his semi-educated audience ate it up. There is no reason, of course, that this time of farce couldn't be repeated - especially if the creationist side is losing.

All of which suggests, that the best way to confront these ideologues may not be by engaging them in debate, as the Univ. of Alaska scientists showed. The reason is that the religious right’s stance on climate change, economics and evolution isn't informed by their religious beliefs, but by secondary political -economic dynamics. If one doesn't address them, therefore, he or she will only be wasting time in a futile dialectic.

 

The best way to address the problem is to confront the underlying political and economic concerns that are obscured by religious dogma, rather than attacking the religion directly. Attacking directly will only harden the positions of the followers of the religions, and make them even more averse to accepting the words of them thar pointy -headed intellectuals.


 The job of an astute debater then, would be to point out that our problems require an entirely new political and economic paradigm,:  one that rests on understanding and empathetic action between people of all faiths or none at all.  I touched on this sort of holistic approach in my recent book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God. The beauty of it is that it enfolds not only our deleterious environmental and climate issues, but also those of economic inequality and corporate power.

Religious reformers, concerned environmentalists, scientists and economists must work together toward a more sustainable and equitable  future. Bill Nye is intensely concerned about climate change and evolution, as are we all. However, I suspect he could make more headway by allying himself with progressive religious leaders to combat entrenched knuckle-dragger political, economic memes rather than debate fundamentalists - who will never alter their minds based on a debate. They can't because they understand that the political and economic identities which they uphold are more important, and they require the religious smokescreen to provide cover. In this case, any debate will inevitably prove futile.

 

 

---

[1] Jacoby: The Age of American Unreason.,188.

Idiocy Beyond Belief: Charles Pierce Exposes Our Religiously Nutcase Nation

“Things are in the wrong place. Religion is in the box where science used to be. Politics is on the shelf where you thought you left science the previous afternoon. Entertainment seems to have knocked over and spilled on everything.”


― Charles P. Pierce,  Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free



Reading Charles P. Pierce's book  Idiot America: How Stupidity Became A Virtue in the Land of the Free, is sobering to say the least. The first chapter, on the Creationist Museum of Ken Ham in Kentucky, is like being whacked by a two by four - and you wonder how so many 'Muricans' could be so dumb as to spend $149 each to see exhibits (e.g. dinos with saddles at the time of "Adam and Eve") when it's all bullshit.  Soon after the "stars" elicited by Pierce's 2 x4 whack (or maybe wake up call) settle down, one begins to see how this country became so totally screwed up that the inmates are literally running the asylum. It also doesn't inspire a lot of hope, unless and until more of us are willing to call out and ridicule the idiots among us or those in the media who turn a blind eye toward them- thereby encouraging their foolishness. For more on this, and to get Pierce's POV directly, check out this You tube interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20zM1OblhKk


I especially liked how Pierce reserved special invective for the semi-literate creators  Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, of the absurd  Left Behind  series (p. 132):

“Thousands of people ascending bodily to heaven? Antichrists from the UN with names like James Bond villains? Jesus chopping up folks in the sand? To call this medieval is to to insult Thomas Aquinas; this is the kind of thing dreamed up by religious lunatics..”

He also reserves some special opprobrium for TIME magazine which put the images of the culprits....errrr....creators on one of its covers. As he notes (ibid.):

"The article inside the magazine did not find it necessary to point out that (a) Jenkins and LaHaye are peddling a fringe interpretation of Scripture rejected by most scholars, and (b) the whole senario is absurd no matter how many people believe it."

And for sure, millions of idiots across this land do believe it, as certainly as I believe the Sun will rise in the morning- but predicated on astronomic reality. These idiots have found a "bouy" to latch on to in the midst of stormy uncertain times and seas. With their special latch keys to opening their 2,000 yr. old  "good book" they believe themselves privy to all that's going on now and all that will go on until their fantasy "Second coming". And anyone with the temerity not to side with them, or criticize their invite to "salvation" is damned on the spot as heathen, infidel or worse. They have to do that because it's the only way they can elevate their own imbecility.

But as Pierce argues in his interview, we don't have to assist in validating their specious rot, thereby enabling them as much of the media do! That's why he includes TIME, or any other journal or media outlet as Bigger Idiots when they promote or lend credence to such whacko beliefs. As Cenk Uygur who gives the interview offers up, it's mainly because formerly reputable journalistic departments have been converted to sales departments. All they see in front of them are $$$$$ signs, and if putting a couple of end-times promoting dopes on a cover can grab more sales, they will do it...'devil take the hindmost'.

But Pierce's major scorn is for how the lunacy of current religious crankery has flowed into our politics and turned it into the laughing stock of the world. As he observes (ibid.):

“Because nothing sells in the modern Christian Marketplace like the notion that Christians are beset on all sides by powerful forces desperately in need of a good dismebowelling, it was inevitable that religious marketing would flow into the country’s politics. Amnd religion has been sold there solely as a product.”

He goes on to point out (ibid.):

“Political religion has always been a sucker’s game for marks and prayerful mama’s boys, an ever vain search for a non-existent pea hidden beneath the swindler’s overturned chalices. It exchanges the loaves and fish for the rigged wheel and the marked deck.


A politician discussing his religion now refers to himself as a ‘person of faith’ – which tells you more about the politician’s balls than it does his soul. He doesn’t have enough of the former to call himself ‘religious’ because that leads to the question of which religion and why he chooses to follow it and not dozens of others, or none of them at all.”

What about "faith -based" programs or whatever? Pierce again:

“Faith-based is another dishonest term for a dishonest time. It’s a word for people too cowardly to call themselves religious and it is beloved by politicians too cowardly to debate something as substantial as faith. It was eagerly adopted by Idiot America  which is too lazy to do either one."

He goes on to add that Idiot America is too lazy because the faith based term conforms to the "Three Great Premises" - beloved by all simpletons in the country:

- It's a cheap salesman's term of art, something used to "pitch a cereal"

- It sounds like an additive, i.e. "faith based" - an artificial flavoring to make crude biases taste of bread and wine

- It's camouflage under which religion is sold like smuggled goods in places where it doesn't belong.

How fucked up is Idiot America? Let's take the  memetic "tour" offered by Pierce:

"Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Ken Ham's Idiot Answers in Genesis (AIG)


Welcome to your new Eden.

Welcome to Idiot America.

Let's take a tour, shall we? For the sake of time, we'll just cover the last year or so (2008-09).

A federally funded abstinence program suggests that HIV can be transmitted through tears. An Alabama legislator proposes a bill to ban all books by gay authors.

The Texas House passes a bill banning suggestive cheerleading. And nobody laughs at any of it, or even points out that, in the latter case, having Texas ban suggestive cheerleading is like having Nebraska ban corn.

James Dobson, a prominent conservative Christian spokesman, compares the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan.

Pat Robertson, another prominent conservative preacher, says that federal judges are a more serious threat to the country than is Al Qaeda and, apparently taking his text from the Book of Gambino, later sermonizes that the United States should get with it and snuff the democratically elected president of Venezuela.

The Congress of the United States intervenes to extend into a televised spectacle the prolonged death of a woman in Florida.

The majority leader of the Senate, a physician, pronounces a diagnosis based on heavily edited videotape. The majority leader of the House of Representatives argues against cutting-edge research into the use of human stem cells by saying that "an embryo is a person.... We were all at one time embryos ourselves. So was Abraham. So was Muhammad. So was Jesus of Nazareth." Nobody laughs at him or points out that the same could be said of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or whoever invented the baby-back rib.

And, finally, in August, the cover of Time -- for almost a century the dyspeptic voice of the American establishment -- clears its throat, hems and haws and hacks like a headmaster gagging on his sherry, and asks, quite seriously: "Does God have a place in science class?"

Read Pierce's book if you dare, but better to do it in small quantized chunks, lest your head explode at the spectacle of so many idiots in our midst!