Bring 19 children into the world — a world that from your religious perspective is damned right after Satan, unbeknownst to an all-knowing god, tempts Adam and Eve in the garden — raise your children in this religion, raise your children on intolerance and bigotry, sign a contract with a television network and exploit your family and kids and your religion in front of millions of people “as some sort of zoo exhibit,” downplay the actual seriousness of your sons’ alleged molestation of five girls, four of whom were his own sisters, oh and don’t forget, perhaps most important of all, play the victim yourself and couch the controversy in God’s forgiveness, whereby a disillusioned young man can molest numerous girls — because really, who’s counting? — just so long as eventually, a few years down the road, or 10 or 20, he makes it right with Jesus.
Of course, that we even know who these people are by way of a popular, probably soon to be canceled TV Show, is, itself, an indictment on society.
Jim Romenesko: “We’ve found the killer!”:
By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality. – George Orwell
I don’t use words like “disgusting” very often because overusing strong adjectives tends to devalue their meaning, but when we find something that is genuinely repellent — say, when the U.S. Department of Defense provides more than $6 million to 16 NFL teams for advertising about supporting the troops and the teams accepting the cash — I think “disgusting” is apropos. I think pretty much the same when recalling the many examples of the exploitation of patriotism in the entertainment and sports industries and the borderline nationalism that purveys many sectors of public life. See Toby Keith. See the WWE’s Tribute to the Troops. See American Sniper. See virtually every American sports event after Sept. 11, 2001.
In that vein, Charles Pierce has given us an excellent play-by-play of the “messy business” of propaganda and how sports has not only cheapened the idea of patriotism by insisting that Americans can’t gather for an afternoon baseball or football game without obligatory rituals and renditions of the national anthem that have essentially become meaningless by repetition, but has now effectively “commodified” patriotism:
Most veterans you will see on the field in an NFL stadium, or standing on top of a dugout between innings, are genuinely worthy of the country’s admiration. They’ve earned every cheer they get. They also have earned decent health care and a chance at an education and whatever counseling they need to get beyond what they’ve experienced. What they don’t deserve to be are front people through whom the rich get richer, to be walking advertisements for the services that they already have paid back in full. This is a transaction grotesquely inappropriate for their sacrifices.
One of the unwritten rules of journalism is that unless there are unusual circumstances that call for it — say, in running a story about an unfulfilled open records request and a media outlet’s attempts to obtain public information — competent reporters, editors and television producers who actually care about producing quality journalism, don’t insert themselves or their organizations into news stories.
Journalists should simply report the news; not be the news.
But this central tenet of the news business seems to carry little weight over at CNN, which has a long history of inserting itself into the news stories it was supposed to be covering, perhaps most conspicuously in its breathless reports on Hurricane Katrina, in which correspondents and anchors and their crews, we were told, went to great lengths to get to such-and-such god-forsaken region of New Orleans, all in the interest of delivering real stories of courage in the face of immense trials. Because you see dear viewer, CNN’s is all about telling stories, namely its own. That is why tonight at 9 p.m. on CNN you will be able to relive it all, how CNN traversed land and sea and combed the globe to offer up breaking news, endless footage of Anderson Cooper and other reporters pointing to things and panoramic shots of empty courthouses, abandoned buildings, windswept Middle Eastern war zones, Anthony Bourdain eating weird shit and still more footage of Cooper pointing at things.
So, let’s all gather around the boob tube for some shameless self-aggrandizement, give three cheers for CNN and weep as national journalism continues the death march closer and closer to its own heat death.
The following “exclusive” report from Fox News claims that officials within the Obama administration were “fully aware” about a weapons transport between a terrorist post in Libya and Syria before the attack in Benghazi and the subsequent death of four Americans:
And what is Fox News’ source for this claim, that implies the administration seemed to turn the other way as one terrorist group in Libya fed weapons to another potential threat in Syria? You guessed it. The documentation comes secondhand from a right-wing group named Judicial Watch, which tells us — we have no way to verify this, other than taking their word for it — that the filed substantiating this claim came from the Department of Defense and the State Department via a court order related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from May 2014. The documents are on Judicial Watch’s website, of course, and the lawsuit is public record, but we have no way of knowing if the items posted on JW’s website are complete and authentic.
As a side note before I get into a couple points on JW’s claims and the documents themselves, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the little journalistic games Fox News plays on a routine basis. A reporter named Catherine Herridge is introduced as a “chief intelligence correspondent” coming to the show “live in D.C.,” as if Herridge had spent the whole day using her journalistic prowess and combing the earth for these documents when, in fact, all she (or a writer or producer) did was go on JW’s website and summarize her version of the findings with as much access to the documents as I have sitting here in my living room.
In any case, I’ll assume that the documents posted on JW’s website are authentic and complete and came straight from the DOD and State Department. Judicial Watch’s main points are that the Obama administration knew back in August 2012 that ISIS, far from the “JV team” as the president previously claimed, planned to establish a caliphate in Iraq and that the administration was aware that weapons were being shipped from Libya to Syria. The first document JW linked to does indeed say that a group that subscribed to “AQ (Al-Queda) ideologies” “claimed ultimate responsibility” for the attack in Benghazi and that the hit was planned 10 days before Sept. 11, 2012. The government file, which was produced on either Sept. 12, 2012, or Sept. 16, 2012 — it makes little difference which date is correct — says nothing about the United States or officials within the administration knowing before Sept. 11, 2012, that the attack was going to occur, as implied by Judicial Watch and presented as more or less fact in Fox News’ report.
The second document from October 2012 just confirms that the U.S. was aware by that time in October that weapons had been shipped from Libya to Syria in late-August of that year, not that the U.S. was aware of this activity all along. Yet, JW seems to make this rather large leap in logic when, further down in its report, the organization claims the U.S. was “monitoring” the shipment of weapons all the while:
Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups …
But I’ll give Judicial Watch a little credit in its carefully worded report; part of the news release at least attempted to imply some kind of coverup in the Obama administration rather than, in Fox’s case, making ball-faced accusations of malfeasance, an attempt that nonetheless unraveled once JW inserted a quote from its president, Tom Fitton:
These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. … These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
Judicial Watch’s supposed smoking gun was a report from August 2012 that was seemingly supposed to establish a connection between terrorists in Libya and Syria, but the report, while it does contain a reference to ISIS, possibly exposing Obama’s attempt to downplay the group’s influence in the region, the document says nothing about terrorist groups operating in northern Africa or any connection they might have to insurgents in Syria and Iraq, which belies JW’s and Fox News’ claim that the Obama administration had detailed knowledge about developments in Libya all along.
As I was browsing YouTube today, I decided to see if users had posted any new or interesting videos about the existence of God. Since I have addressed a great many arguments from Christian apologetics on this site since 2009, I thought I would check out some arguments for God from Islam. As anticipated, while Islam has its own particular slant on the god question and in some ways is actually more accepting of scientific principles than evangelical Christianity, Muslims by and large use many of the same stock arguments for God as Christians.
Take the following video from Hamza Tzortzis:
Indeed, close your eyes, take out the accent, the Arabic and references to Allah and the Quran, one might imagine watching a diatribe from William Lane Craig.
In this video, Tzortzis tells us that he is going to provide the “Quranic argument” for the existence of God, which is really just the old cosmological argument that has been restated and refuted for hundreds of years now. In any case, Tzortzis identifies four “logical possibilities” for the existence of the universe as follows:
- The universe came from nothing.
- The universe created itself.
- The universe was created by something else created.
- The universe was created by something uncreated.
As you can see, possibilities 2-4 all commit a fallacy by assuming a priori that the universe necessarily had to be created — it very well could have just always existed, and while that is hard for our mind to grasp, it is nonetheless another possibility — but after ruling out the first three as impossibilities, Tzortzis then hones in on the fourth option, which he calls the “best explanation” for the existence of the universe. He begins to get on the right track when he concedes the point that the “something uncreated” doesn’t necessarily have to be Allah or any other god in human history, but when he then says that by using the “Quranic approach,” we can draw conclusions about the universe’s origins, we know where he’s going to take the argument.
Here are his basic “conclusions,” which we will more accurately call assumptions:
- Assumption 1: “This uncreated creator must be powerful.” — Notice what he did there. He went from calling the entity an “uncreated” entity to an “uncreated creator” and then bestowed it with a certain power that was, up to this point, not part of the argument. Also as part of this first point, he implied that the mere existence of billions of atoms in the universe and the subsequent release of energy that occurs when an atom is split is somehow suggestive of a powerful god, although splitting just one atom does not produce anything near an atomic explosion, nor does the existence of atoms suggest anything other than the existence of atoms.
- Assumption 2: The creator must be “intelligent and all-knowing” because “it created laws in the universe like the law of gravity.” — Like many of his Christian apologist counterparts, Tzortzis, most likely is speaking to potential converts or people who may be amenable to accepting his brand of faith, uses some fast talking to blaze through these last points, apparently hoping that he can move quickly enough through the message before any sparks of logic creep into the listeners’ minds. But if we slow down and hear what he actually says, we can see that he is just begging the question and taking as an assumption that which he might hope to prove. Simply put, the existence of natural laws in the universe only prove the existence of the natural laws and does not imply a law giver, just like the existence of the universe does not imply by fiat a conscious creator. Attributing laws to the various attributes we observe in nature is just our way, as humans, to describe our world in a scientific way. Unlike God or the various characteristics commonly attributed to him, we can demonstrate these natural laws, which would exist whether we had ever evolved far enough to discover them or not.
- Assumption 3: The creator must be “transcendent” and exist outside of space and time. — This is a common trope in apologetics and was presumably conjured to excuse God from being beholden and subject to the laws of nature. Thus, believers might say, if we just put God outside of the observable universe, we can say that he is a higher force than anything in this universe and that he is the progenitor of morals, of the natural laws and of life itself. Of course, by definition, we can’t experience anything that is outside of our space and time; indeed, there is nothing outside of space and time. To say otherwise is to just make unsubstantiated claims based on pure fantasy, not unlike fictional tales of unicorns, the Loch Ness monster and Flying Teapot making laps around Planet Earth.
- Assumption 4: The creator must be eternal. — This is just an extension of the previous claim. Here again, Tzortzis just makes another assumption about an uncreated creator, with no basis in reality, other than, perhaps, a deep-seated desire for it to be true.
- Assumption 5: The “uncreated creator” must have freewill. — By now, and based on the other points, we can pretty well take it for granted that Tzortzis thinks a transcendant, all-knowing creator pretty well has free reign over his own decisions, but Tzortzis spells it out for us, although Allah or Yahweh being browbeaten and lorded over by an even more powerful overlord is humorous to think about. One might wonder, though, if this uncreated creator was “intelligent” and “eternal,” why would he so freely and benevolently choose to create the universe if he knew beforehand that a good 50 percent of his creation would be doomed to suffer unspeakable torments for all eternity, unless, of course, he was also a sadist and sinisterly set this plot in motion. In fact, if we were to judge God or Allah on his success rate, that is, the number of people who were compelled to believe based on scripture or inspirational speaking or some kind of “revelation” versus those who were not convinced of any of it, a 50 percent rate of belief for the most powerful force in the universe has to be disappointing.
- Assumption 6: Humans sense the nature of God as creator as part of their disposition, and God as the creator is the “best and most comprehensive explanation” for the existence of the universe. — The first part of this assumption is just an appeal to personal experience, and as any judge, attorney or psychologist will attest, personal testimony is a poor basis to substantiate truth claims. Millions of atheists in the world, some of whom have sincerely searched for a spiritual component, have precisely the opposite experience, having had no innate sense of something spiritual outside of themselves, while millions of Buddhists have no conception of a theistic creator at all.
The last few seconds of Tzortzis’ video — and this ties into the sixth assumption — seemed to take a swipe at the Christian concept of the trinity in suggesting that God is one, rather than three separate, autonomous beings as in the Christian godhead.
Interestingly and ironically, Tzortzis says this concept is “irrational because it creates far more questions than it solves,” which would, on the surface, seem like a tip of the hat to Occam’s razor, if he hadn’t just spent the last five minutes making arguments about God that, themselves, raise more questions than they answer.
While it is true that we do not have an answer for why the scientific laws exist as we observe them in the universe, there is no reason to think that the eventual explanation will spring from anything other than a natural cause, as has been the case with every other question about the universe we have answered from science in the last 250 years. Why some believers think that questions about our origin are somehow exempt from having to be explained by natural processes, when all of our other knowledge about the universe comes to us this way, escapes all comprehension.
In the end, suggesting that an all-powerful, highly complex deity who sits outside of space and time is responsible for everything that we see in nature is, number one, a cop-out for having to come up with any kind of real explanation, and number two, complicates questions about our origin exponentially. For more on this, see my post, Response to Apologetics III: Aquinas and Occam’s razor.
Just at a time when we as a society need courageous voices to stand firmly behind free expression and the rights of writers, comedians and cartoonists to engage in robust satire and criticism of dangerous ideas, such as are found in the Koran and the hadith, certain weak-kneed, PC-infected liberals like Ben Affleck, Reza Aslan and the like threaten to pull this program of progress ever backward.
Six members of the PEN American Center, Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi have chosen not to attend a gala set for next month in New York, in which the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo will receive the Freedom of Expression Courage award for its poise and resolve amid the controversy over its cartoons and the subsequent terrorist attack on the newspaper offices earlier this year for its satirical depictions of Muhammad.
In a report from The New York Times, Kushner bowed out of the gala for what she described as Charlie Hebdo’s “cultural intolerance” and “a kind of forced secular view.”
Although Pen president Andrew Solomon said those were the only six members who have pulled out of the event to his knowledge, at least one writer, Deborah Eisenberg, who was not attending the gala anyway, also spoke critically of giving the award to Charlie Hebdo:
What I question is what PEN is hoping to convey by awarding a magazine that has become famous both for the horrible murder of staff members by Muslim extremists and for its denigrating portrayals of Muslims. Charlie Hebdo’s symbolic significance is unclear here.
I hope Eisenberg’s writing is better than her ability to analyze satire. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons did not denigrate Muslims, of course. It poked fun at the ridiculous notion in some circles of Islam that depictions of Muhammad — and by extension, depictions of anyone — are somehow off limits, and that in a free society, certain elements in culture are and should be considered sacred cows, even to those who don’t recognize them as such.
For his part, Salman Rushdie called the authors who decided to pull out of the event “horribly wrong:”
If PEN as a free speech organization can’t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name. What I would say to both Peter and Michael and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them.
And here is Sam Harris, who has been vocally critical of the weak brand of liberalism that might find offense or even a strain of xenophobia in the Charlie Hebdo cartoons or other critiques of Islam, as is apparently represented by these authors:
— Sam Harris (@SamHarrisOrg) April 27, 2015
A gay hotel owner named Ian Reisner, who runs a facility called OUT NYC, was apparently shocked and befuddled when, upon holding a small dinner with Sen. Ted Cruz at his apartment, he learned that Cruz was actually adamantly against same-sex marriage on religious grounds. As a result of holding the dinner, Reisner and his partner, Mati Weiderpass, were met with a sizable backlash from the gay community.
Reisner had this to say:
I was ignorant, naïve and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights.
I’ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz’s statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgment. Again, I am deeply sorry.
I’m sure he is “deeply sorry,” but how can a person who is actually part of the gay community be that ill-informed about the social policies of any high-profile politician he invites into his home, much less a self-professed ring leader of the evangelical right?
It almost defies comprehension.
After the release of CNN’s “Blackfish,” SeaWorld has continued its ad campaign to try to improve an image that has been thoroughly tarred and feathered as of late. I will be the first to admit that, after watching “Blackfish,” I wish that CNN had made more of an attempt to offer SeaWorld’s point of view, even if the theme park declined to participate in the documentary. Former SeaWorld trainer Mark Simmons, for instance, seems to have more of an objective point of view, yet he claims to have been interviewed by CNN for the better part of three hours for the film, only to have just a snippet of it to appear in the final cut.
Here is Simmons, who worked at the park from 1987-96, in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News:
I was physically present during many of the events that (the trainers) talked about in the movie, and I can tell you firsthand they completely misrepresented, provided disinformation and in many cases blatantly lied about those events.
I think CNN did have a clear agenda, and as a bit of failed journalism, did not put forth enough effort to portray multiple sides of the story as it relates to the treatment of orcas at SeaWorld.
That being said, SeaWorld has not done itself any favors in public relations in first, declining any and all interviews with CNN in responding to criticism. I suspect that SeaWorld has done this with the mindset that if officials respond, that would automatically give legitimacy to its critics, but I think it conveys the opposite message. By refusing to tell its side of the story to the media and the public and just releasing its own barrage of ads in an attempt to passively save face, it is operating as if it’s in its own insular cocoon, ever evasive and skirting transparency, not unlike Scientology or other subversive outfits coming under public scrutiny.
In any case, SeaWorld, cultish as it is at this point, has chosen it’s path, so let’s take a look at one of its ads currently making the rounds on TV:
First off, let me say that I went to SeaWorld in San Antonio once as a child, and excited as I remember being about seeing the whale show — Shamu, now deceased, was all the rave at the time — I always thought it was a little bizarre that having the whales simply do tricks in the water was not enough. SeaWorld had the whales get up out of the water and onto this platform at the front of the pool, do more tricks, splash the crowd, etcetera, like some clown of the deep.
Memory fails me on whether the particular whale I saw that day in the late 1980s or early 1990s had a bent dorsal fin, but watching the videos as an adult and seeing this deformed physiology seems now like a perverse show of exploitation, and however safe and humane SeaWorld may be in its treatment of orcas, the setup is certainly far from natural, as anyone can see. As this paper from Dr. Ingid Visser suggests, the prevalence of bent dorsal fins in wild male orcas is very low in most locations, at less than 5 percent in British Columbia and less than 1 percent off the coast of Norway. In captivity, however, this phenomenon is common.
According to a paper from the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
The collapsed dorsal fins commonly seen in captive killer whales (Hoyt 1992) do not result from a pathogenic condition, but are instead thought to most likely originate from an irreversible
structural change in the fin’s collagen over time (B. Hanson, pers. comm.). Possible
explanations for this include (1) alterations in water balance caused by the stresses of captivity or
dietary changes, (2) lowered blood pressure due to reduced activity patterns, or (3) overheating
of the collagen brought on by greater exposure of the fin to the ambient air. Collapsed or
collapsing dorsal fins are rare in most wild populations (Hoyt 1992, Ford et al. 1994, Visser
1998, Ford and Ellis 1999) and usually result from a serious injury to the fin, such as from being
shot or colliding with a vessel.
In any case, in one of its latest ads, two doughy-eyed SeaWorld workers outline some “facts” SeaWorld would like to clear up about its handling and care of orcas.
The ad really only presented two actual “facts,” so I’ll take a look at these here:
- “We don’t collect killer whales from the wild and haven’t for 35 years” — While it is nearly impossible to substantiate this claim, SeaWorld is, as we speak, profiting from a number of orcas that were indeed captured in the wild, whether directly or from third-parties. Corky II, 47, currently living in SeaWorld San Diego, was captured off the coast of British Columbia in 1969 and is the longest surviving captive killer whale in the world. Although she does not have the bent dorsal fin like a lot of her fellow captives, this characteristic is mainly seen in males of the species. Katina, who lives in SeaWorld Orlando, was captured in Iceland in the late 1970s. Tilikum, of course, is currently living in Orlando and was caught off Vancouver Island in Canada. The whale first lived at Sealand of the Pacific. Ulises, captured in 1980 in Iceland, currently resides in Seaworld San Diego. So, while it may be true that SeaWorld has not and does not currently engage in catching orcas in the wild, the company has by this time bred enough of the animals that were previously captured, either directly or indirectly, to continue profiting off these animals for years to come. Yet, its current attempt to now wash its hands of the practice is disingenuous at best. Imagine a plantation worker in the antebellum South who once bought and profited off the back of slaves. Although most of them were no longer engaged in human trafficking by the mid-18th century, they were still benefiting from the practice and were very much a part of the legacy of that noxious system. By the same right, merely putting up a barrier of years between the present and the shameful years in which hunters were engaged in a veritable free-for-all of animal poaching does not allow SeaWorld to escape complicity.
- “Our whales are healthy” and “thriving” and “they live just as long in the wild.” — PolitiFact rated this claim as half true and partially misleading. First, of course, whales have the potential to live longer in a facility because they don’t have to worry about predators and other environmental factors, so while the lifespans may be comparable, this claim doesn’t offer a full picture. Second, the argument that the whales are “thriving” is nothing more than pure conjecture and wishful thinking. They may look happy enough performing tricks on the pool platform, but the evidential record that captive whales can become understandably aggressive because of their cramped confines, develop bent dorsal fins, sustain injuries and undergo other mental and physical issues is so substantially documented that to suggest orcas thrive more so in captivity than they would in their own free-ranging environment is laughable.
Here is PolitiFact’s conclusion on this claim:
At its core, this claim is an oversimplification of a much more complex issue. Recent independent data suggests that survival rates for captive and wild orcas are about equal, but that by itself isn’t all that significant, experts told us. The data is limited and comparisons between orcas in captivity and in the wild are tenuous. Experts also noted that logic suggests captive whales should live longer because they don’t face predators and receive medical care, which makes SeaWorld’s claim further misleading.
While the public may be led to believe that the ads are purely the result of SeaWorld trainers wanting to clear up misrepresentations and assert how much they care for the whales, significant losses in attendance and revenue are really what’s behind this PR campaign that smacks of corporate desperation.
I have no doubt that most or all of the trainers currently working at SeaWorld facilities “love” the animals and may want to see them thrive, the common sense stands on its own: Killer whales, nor any other species of wild animal, can’t possibly be happier living in a cage or pool than they would be in an open world environment, of which, so long as the operation of their theme parks are profitable, suits at the corporate offices at SeaWorld presumably don’t care two wits.
So long as the largely ignorant and uninformed public continues supporting places like SeaWorld and helping the company churn out hundreds of millions in profits, the exploitation will continue. For, if SeaWorld really “loved” these animals from the board room right down to the training staff, they would simply find another, less injurious business model and cease profiting off the exploitation of the natural world.
Herein lies one of the many problems with scientist Bill Nye deciding to debate the disingenuous supreme leader of creationist sophistry Ken Ham: As I anticipated last year shortly after the debate, fruitless exercises like this with creationists, who have no interest in examining or considering any real evidence, serve no purpose and only legitimizes the fairy tales, such that a guy like Brandon Pettenger, a high school scientist teacher from Arroyo Grande (Calif.) High School, can point to the exchange between Nye and Ham and surmise that there must be a “debate” surrounding evolution and creationism after all. If there wasn’t a debate, why would a high-profile scientist like Nye even bother?
To his detriment, Nye did agree and go through with the debate, so it’s a fair question. In any case, Pettenger, who admits to being a Christian, showed the Nye-Ham debate to his students as a way to present “both sides of the argument,” as he said in this defense, after being called out by the Richard Dawkins Foundation and the Freedom From Religion Foundation:
I understand that you might be worried I am teaching religion in a public school science class which is not the case. There is debate within the scientific community about how to answer the question where did life come from (italics mine). I feel it would be a disservice to my students not to present both sides of the argument. We are investigating the main theories that are presented in this debate and the evidence used to support those claims. I am very clear beforehand that I am a Christian but I am trying to present the scientific evidence. It is up to each student to decide for themselves which side they believe based on the evidence. I will be asking each student to write an argumentative essay stating their position in the debate and to support their position with scientific evidence. I am trying to give students tools to use in their essays.
As Hemant Mehta points out, of course, the question of our origin from simpler forms only has one legitimate side, which is the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. All other “theories,” including creationism and intelligent design and all other origin tales from religion, are just that — theories in the most laymen-esque, conjectural sense of the word.
Pettenger can ask his students to write essays and support their positions all they want to, but if any of them happen to agree with Ham, the teacher will be waiting a long, long time for that “scientific evidence,” since none exists.