I'm Deluded & I'll I Lie If I Want To

Marie Jon is as a depressing as she is undeniably beautiful and astonishingly deluded.

I catch her opinions on the right-wing websites I occasionally trawl for the marked stupidity, but Ms. Jon is the upcoming Ann Coulter of her generation; undeniably charismatic and dangerously crazed. I don't have a free picture of her, but she can be seen here (assuming that the smouldering looks peering back are really her - I have no reason to doubt it though!)

She is also a nurse.

Her latest piece is particularly depressing in it's cerebral stupidity.

In her opening salvo, Jon writes:

"For nearly a century, our public school textbooks have been more than suggesting that humans are related to specific members of the animal kingdom. In fact, Darwinism insists on such teaching.

"The untruthfulness of the man-made theory of evolution is astounding. It’s bewildering that well-educated people should believe so ardently in this unproven science. This godless teaching is foisted upon our society as though it were empirically-demonstrated fact. Because of Charles Robert Darwin’s belief, secularization and atheism have gained wide acceptance throughout the world."

Dear Ms. Jon. Go to the fucking zoo and look in the ape cages, will you?

It's not rocket science.

Sure, the intricacies of evolution might be lost on you but it doesn't take a bloody genius to realise those beautiful creatures peering back at us through glistening eyes are our relations.

LOOK AT THEM! But mind they don't throw a pooball at you.

The have opposable thumbs - like you; lack tails - like you; nurse their young just like you (could).

Is it really such a leap of faith to realise that you share over 95% of your DNA with these gentle creatures?

What you call Godless teaching is the study of observed reality - your God is neither denied nor confirmed by it; evolution just is. Darwin started out as a cleric-in-waiting and became the greatest scientist of his time: by operating with an open mind.

But it didn't end there, Marie.

A couple of dudes by the names of James Watson and Francis Crick that you can read about in this Time article cracked the code of life decades after Chuck Darwin first proposed evolution. Since that discovery, now over a century old, we can decode vast tracts of the code that make us what we are.

Thought Experiment Time

Let's assume for a moment (shudders) that we were the product of some supernatural designer. If we are, then the designer made our DNA (unless Jon and Co. want to deny that too).

DNA carries the information that transfers information from one generation to the next and it is the material that makes humans, human and small furry creatures from Alpha-Centauri real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri (sorry Douglas).

We can reverse engineer a creature's DNA just as a skilled computer hacker can unravel the code of a complex computer program and then get himself nicked for entering the US Dept. of Defense while claiming to look for evidence of UFOs.

The point is that computer programs look remarkably like DNA - accepting that, DNA is almost infinitely more complex. As computer programs have little chunks of reusable code (subroutines or procedures) and computer scientists have developed shared algorithms so DNA carries shared bits.

Related humans shared large bits with each other; all humans share less bits and all life shares even smaller bits. Counting the number of bits that we share allows us to determine how closely two creatures are related.

Crucially (and unlike Darwin who deduced his findings by observation - a study called Phenology) we can take two unknown samples of genetic material and by comparing the similarities deduce their origin.

I wonder how Marie Jon would feel if she was raped and the only evidence that could specifically identify her attacked was his DNA? What if a close family member of hers brutally murdered and the only evidence available was DNA?

I wouldn't wish this on her, no matter what, like that infamous bloody cat in quantum physics, this is purely a thought experiment.

But WHAT IF?

DNA - even small samples of it can uniquely identify no just the race and sex of a person, it can even determine their likely traits too: eye colour, height and so on (although not always with pinpoint accuracy). If Marie's relative was attacked by an animal, we could determine which one by the same means. DNA makes us unique as individuals - no one precisely like us has ever live or ever will live again. Yet is also demonstrates how we are connected too - to all other life on Earth from the simplest virus to the most complex organism imaginable.

Marie denies this.

"Let’s be clear about this: It is not social interaction alone, or communication skills alone, that distinguishes humans from other living things. It’s the fact that God made us unique — putting us miles above the other living things and creatures in intelligence, language, and social abilities."

Rubbish.

You're no more unique than any other highly evolved creature and in your denial of the very facts you rely on to live and enjoy your life says you're probably mentally ill: only it's an illness that we call faith and that somehow makes it acceptable.

I think I'll have to go wash my brains now.

UPDATE:

That fine chap and all-round good egg, Luke O'Dell has a take on this too (and some other idiots) at this blog Creationist Idiocy. Luke clearly has a stronger stomach than I since he was able to dissect even more of Jon's ludicrous assumptions (plus two others) and still maintain his sanity.

I can't recommend this blog enough for those times when you just need reminding that some people really shouldn't be breeding and you need a hearty belly laugh.

Stephen Green Can't Have His Own Way.

Bwaahhhhhaaaahhaahhhha!

Stephen Green is pissed off - as this release from a couple of days back demonstrates. More on this later, in the meantime here is the complete and unexpurgated release!

The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that the humanists behind the newly-launched bus advertisement which claims there is 'probably no God' can't substantiate their claims.

The ad, the brainchild of comedy writer Ariane Sherine, says: 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'.

But Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, and 325 others, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority. Many complaints said the ads were offensive. Stephen Green and others said the advertisements broke the ASA's codes on substantiation and truthfulness.

The ASA website says: 'Advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers. This means that advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their products or services before an ad appears.'

But in a ruling today, the ASA says the claim that there is probably no God is 'not capable of objective substantiation'. It says further that the complaints were not 'serious' or 'widespread' enough.

Stephen Green said today:

'If the ASA had thought the humanists could provide evidence for their claim, they would have asked them for it. As they know there is no evidence for the proposition that 'there is probably no God', they have let their secularist friends off the hook. 'I debated this issue secularists five times in recent days, and despite repeated challenges, they could not once come up with anything to back up their claim that there is 'probably no God'.

'The ASA have finessed Code 7.1, which says a ad should not mislead or be likely to mislead, ruling it would not be likely to mislead, so avoiding the thornier question of whether it actually does mislead. Which it does.

'On 'taste and decency', the ASA have simply taken a subjective decision to dismiss the complaints of offensiveness. On planet ASA, complaints from people of faith are not given the same weight as those from secularists. But what do you expect when the ASA Council is appointed and run by a campaigning homosexual, Chris, Lord, Smith of Finsbury?'

Last year the ASA ruled against Sandown Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster when the church published an advertisement 'The Word of God against Sodomy' against Belfast Gay Pride. That ad, decided the ASA, breached its code on decency (offensiveness) after receiving just 4 complaints. But they allowed that the ad was a legitimate expression of opinion when dismissing another part of the complaint.

Last week, it ruled against an advertorial Christian Voice placed in the New Statesman, after just one solitary complaint that a prediction that every Government initiative on teenage sexuality would increase teenage infertility could not be substantiated.

Stephen Green commented: 'The ASA upholds or breaks its rules as it goes along. It all depends on who is being complained about. They get 326 complaints and decide the bus ads were not causing serious or widespread offence. They get a mere 4, and say Sandown's ad was. They allow Sandown to express an opinion, but not Christian Voice. They excuse the secularists from the need to provide evidence for a categorical statement, claiming it is impossible to do, but they say Christian Voice needs hard evidence for a future prediction, which really is impossible.

'We always knew the ASA was just another tool of the politically-correct secularist establishment, but here's the proof. Their ruling is a good example of how the deck is stacked against Christians today, and the Church needs to wake up to the anti-Christian agenda right now. The good news is we now know that when the secularists decided to say: "There is probably no God", they had no reason for making that absurd claim, and time has not helped them come up with one. The bad news is that if Christians don't start standing up for their Faith and their Saviour soon, we shall see religious liberties trampled on, and the secularists will take us further down the road to their hell on earth.'

NOTES for Editors:

The CAP Code, which the ASA administers, says:

'SUBSTANTIATION

'3.1 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.

'Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP. The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication.'

DECENCY

'5.1 Marketing communications should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. ...'

'TRUTHFULNESS

'7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.'

Measles Back: Quick, Vaccinate!

Measles in the UK has reached a peak of over 1000 cases in the last 13 years. The problem in Cheshire is so bad that the local health authority has ordered mass vaccination of local children.

While most children recover, about 1 in 10 will require hospital treatment and as I've pointed out in this column previously, some will suffer brain damage or even die.

Are you listening Jenny "I know better" McCarthy? Are you listening Tony "I'm not saying" Blair? How about you, Dr. Andrew "scaremongering" Wakefield?

Will the Daily Mail apologise and admit the years of its spent promoting the insidious, unproven bullshit about MMR where all a mistake?

Will they fuck!

MMR is generally safe: as safe as any other vaccine - and probably safer than many. All vaccines have some risks, but you have to balance that against the very real risk of death from measles or problems mumps and rubella will cause to adults in years to come.

Vaccination saves lives as much as MMR doesn't cause autism (or IBS). It's simple: your children can't make the choice so it's your responsibililty. If they die from measles related disease, their blood is on the hands of those who refused the vaccination and those who promoted the lies against it.