I have just read the stupidest sentence ever written.
A sentence so vacuous, so devoid of anything approaching independent, intelligent thought that the following events happened simultaneously and instantly:
* A corpuscle in my left eyeball exploded, shouting "I REGRET NOTHING!!!";
* My IQ dropped 87 points momentarily, meaning I spent 18 seconds seriously considering hip-hop to be a valid form of music;
* An overwhelming urge to smash someone (probably Michael Clarke) to death with a cricket-bat came over me and, finally
* Coffee blew out of my nose and, like the beautiful flare of a comet, angrily arced through the air and slallopped (that is word now, I just made it up) onto my monitor screen.
And I have some f*cking outrageous nimrod named Tom Frame to thank for this wanton slalloppping of pixels.
Tom is a "Professor of Theology", a term which means the same thing as "King of F*ckwits" because theology is about as f*cking useful to the world and life in general as the South Sydney Rabbitohs.
A graduate from f*cking "David Beckhamology 101" provides greater insight and clarity to global intellectual discourse than a f*cking billion theologians.
This is because theology is the made-up f*cking study of ridiculous f*cking made up elements of a f*cking made-up God and/or gods.
How does this work?
Well, the celibate former-Nazi-sympathiser and current child-molester-apologist Pope sits around with a bunch of cardinals, also celibate (and who may or may not be kiddy fiddlers themselves, it's hard to tell - this is the Catholic Church after all). They discuss irrelevant passages from a made-up book of f*cken fairy stories, the Bible; specifically, (for example), whether or not the fact that Onan having a right good flog of his log and splattering his splooge into the dry dust on the ground should be interpreted as God's will that no f*cking Catholics can wear a condom or not.
I love this God. Apparently all knowing and all powerful, but can't be F*CKED MAKING HIS INSTRUCTIONS CLEAR.
Like, for instance, having Onan come down from on high (now THAT'S good punnery!) and say "F*cken wow! I just saw God, man, and he said I'm going to go f*cking well BLIND if I keep wanking, and by the way he also clearly said that any of you f*ckers who covers his wang with sheep intestine before having a horizontal hava nagila - well, you're f*cked too."
Gotta love a God who f*cks with people by being deliberately vague.
So what we get instead of clarity from a REAL SOURCE is a whole bunch of f*cking pompous, useless f*cktards discussing irrelevant $hit from a made-up fairy-tale and calling it THEOLOGY.
Trying to "make sense" of f*cking unfathomable "rules" that come from some f*cking invisible, made-up bearded guy in the sky.
That's just f*cking great.
And then Tom Frame, who is a "Professor" of this $hit in the same way I am a "Professor" of "Wiping My Own Ar$e" comes along and writes a book and an extract from that book gets published in a newspaper and sets back human enlightenment 50,000 f*cking years because people stop to read this $hit. And believe it, or think it has a "point".
Enter the Chov to strike a blow against f*ckwitness and make the world a better place in a more direct and EFFECTIVE way than f*cken PRAYER.
The topic is evolution. Up against, as it usually is, the idea that a f*cking invisible made-up f*cking bearded guy in the sky just f*cking closed his eyes and WISHED everything up.
And see, theologians know just how f*cking stupid their idea looks when it is stacked up against science like that.
So they try to f*cking weasel out of it by trying to co-opt bits of science INTO their f*cking stupid arguments.
That is, they admit that maybe God didn't just create the world in seven days, and maybe he didn't create everything at once (so Jebus wasn't preaching from the Mount sitting on top of a F*CKING BRONTOSAURUS), and maybe things did kind of evolve - but it was GOD that made them EVOLVE, see?
This is called a f*cking whiny, pussy, sly, EACH-WAY BET.
Tom Frame says it this way: "Evolutionary theory requires creation to be understood as a continuous process rather than an isolated act in the distant past. In this view, God creates in and through natural processes."
No, he f*cking well doesn't. Evolution kicks your f*cking "God Hypothesis" in the f*cking NUTS and tells him to f*ck off to the FICTION SECTION. There is NO ROOM for GOD in evolution. Why? Because evolution observes FACTS in the NATURAL WORLD and applies them, and your idea of GOD f*cking checking back in every now and then to add another pinch of sugar is F*CKING BULL$HIT that can't be OBSERVED. So DON'T F*CKING MASH THEM TOGETHER.
To do so is to try and compare apples with f*cking babboon-testicles.
See, science, on the one hand, DEMANDS FACTS.
If you want to open your f*cking yap, and say something f*cking outrageous like "Wanking makes you blind!" then science says "Shut the f*ck up and PROVE IT."
Theology says "Is that you, Onan?"
And if you CANNOT prove it, (I would love to read the abstract for that study though) then science says "f*ck off, I'm busy".
But if you CAN, then a hundred scientists IMMEDIATELY start trying to replicate your experiement to discredit you. (What can I say, scientists can be a bitchy bunch)
If they get the same results, voila, the concept you voiced is accepted, more data is collated, more questions are asked and new research is spawned - and the idea is advanced along the entire process.
But if they catch you out, F*CKEN BLAMMO you get to start again. Which is where all the "cold fusion" loons are at right about now. They play Monopoly and NEVER PASS GO, those morons.
So, see, Scientific Method has a BUILT-IN ANTI-BULLSHIT DETECTOR.
Evolution has been blasted at for a long time. And it REMAINS the best possible explanation, because it gets improved every time it gets challenged and survives. FACTS tend to have that effect.
Theology, on the other hand, is based in religion, which treats FACTS like f*cking Paris Hilton treats underpants on a night out - to be f*cking TOSSED AWAY AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.
Here's an example of this f*cking weaselly approach, as adopted by Tom Frame:
"I share the conviction of Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeontology at the University of Cambridge: nature controls the course of evolution but convergence, implying a higher purpose, controls nature."
You see what f*cking Tom tried to do there? He tried to legitimise his f*ckwit fairy-tale of the world by co-opting science, which is REAL. He is the fat ugly girl in Year 10 trying to sit with the hot chicks and hoping nobody will notice.
Well, Chov notices and points and yells "FAT BITCH! YOU F*CKING FAT HIPPO! GET AWAY FROM THE PRETTY GIRLS BEFORE YOU INFECT THEM WITH F*CK-OFF UGLY!!"
"Nature controls the course of evolution" is a statement built on years and years and years of scientific study; of thousands of hours documenting the fossil record, of observing mutations; of one LIFETIME of a motherf*cking bona-fide GENIUS named Charles Darwin, who conceptualised it and spent every f*cking waking hour BACKING IT UP and inviting contemporaries and colleagues to CHALLENGE him to REFINE and IMPROVE the facts underpinning his words.
"...but convergence, implying a higher purpose, controls nature". Note the use of the word "IMPLYING", meaning, no factual or evidentiary link, just two things I'd like to join up but F*CKING CAN'T BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE FACTS.
I use the words of Jerry Coyne to respond:
"...We recognize convergences because unrelated species evolve similar traits. In other words, the traits appear in more than one species.
But sophisticated, self-aware intelligence is a singleton: it evolved just once, in a human ancestor. (Octopi and dolphins are also smart, but they do not have the stuff to reflect on their origins.)
In contrast, eyes have evolved independently forty times, and white color in Arctic animals appeared several times.
It is hard to make a convincing case for the evolutionary inevitability of a feature that arose only once. The elephant's trunk, a complex and sophisticated adaptation (it has over forty thousand muscles!), is also an evolutionary singleton.
Yet you do not hear scientists arguing that evolution would inevitably fill the "elephant niche."
See, if elephants got to "evolve' all over again, maybe they might evolve a 14 foot long COCK with a mouth on the end of it instead.
So f*ck "convergence". Two different things evolving in parallel is just that, two things evolving in parallel. It's not f*cking EVIDENCE of ANYTHING. It doesn't IMPLY f*cking ANYTHING. And if it DID, SCIENCE would f*cking well attack it like a rabid dog and try to find out exactly WHAT it IMPLIES. Because that's what science does.
Magic woo-hoo bull$hit, on the other hand, doesn't want answers, they just want to IMPLY that GOD made it all, and FACTS get in the f*cken way.
Tom Frame continues: "Conway has argued evolution is not arbitrary and if life were to evolve again, it would look very much as it does now."
Which just shows that f*cking Conway doesn't even understand what the f*ck evolution is.
Chov argues that if life were to evolve again, female boobs would become 3 times larger and that f*ckwits like conway and Tom Frame would LOSE THE F*CKING EVOLUTIONARY BATTLE AT THE AMOEBA STAGE. But that is wishful thinking, NOT FACT. Spot the difference?
The physicist Freeman Dyson said: "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture … the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming."
Freeman Dyson was a f*cken FAIRY, and the "evidence" he speaks of is NOT F*CKING EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.
If it WERE, I wouldn't be blogging and ranting against the ridiculous concept of an all-powerful BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO OBSERVE OR CONTACT f*cking invisible bearded guy in the sky would I?
All that Freeman Dyson is saying is "The more I study the f*cking Universe and everything in it, the more I discover that I'm too f*cking stupid to explain everything. Rather than admit this, I decide to simply f*cking invoke some greater being or purpose to explain everything."
Science says NO. Just because YOU can't f*cking explain something, it doesn't mean there is NO explanation.
This is the most crucial part of skepticism and critical thinking.
Just because YOU or I can't figure something out, it doesn't mean that there is NO solution.
See, the critical thinker / scientist looks at the Universe, and without being able to understand how it came to be, simply shrugs and believes that, someday, someone will figure it out. And goes off to study what he can in the meantime, in the hope of progressing human thought toward that end-point.
The loony believer in magicky bull$hit looks at the Universe, and gleefully points out that science is currently unable to understand how it came to be, so therefore they are perfectly entitled to substitute a f*cking fairy story to explain it instead. Cue: Invisble bearded guy in the sky.
Only a f*cken theology major could somehow believe these two approaches are INTELLECTUALLY EQUAL.
Tom Frame goes on: "But as the 2006 Templeton Prize winner John Barrow (a scientist) remarked, religious conceptions of the universe "are not the whole truth, but this does not stop them being part of the truth".
Yes, it f*cking well does. Because the truth is made up of FACTS. And where religious conceptions lack FACT, they DON'T F*CKING WELL BELONG. Get OUT you FAT MOLL, the TRUTH doesn't want you!
Lawrence Krauss is way smarter than me, so I'll let him speak.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#tnr-coyne
"...Religion is simply irrelevant to science, and whether or not science contradicts religion may be of interest to theologians but it simply doesn't matter to scientists. What matters are the important questions science is dealing with, from the origin and future of the universe to the origin and future of life.
All this talk about science and religion gives the wrong impression, as it suggests reconciling them or not reconciling them is a big issue... it isn't. As I once put it to theologians at a meeting at the Vatican: theologians have to listen to scientists, because if they want to try to create a consistent theology...they at least need to know how the world works. But scientists don't have to listen to theologians, because it has no effect whatsoever on the scientific process."
DID YOU F*CKING HEAR THAT?
It doesn't matter to scientists studying cancer cells, or particle theory, or cloning, or genetic modification, or viruses, or complex proteins etc etc whether or not ESAU WAS HIS F*CKING BROTHER'S KEEPER OR NOT. Because the science of what they do is interested ONLY IN FACT.
Without FACTS, science must drive on in search of them. With FACTS, science gains the fuel to drive on further.
But just in case you were thinking that Tom Frame was a reasonable fellow, trying to construct logical and considered points, and Chov is being a bit mean for going medieval on his ass, well Tom can't help but expose himself as the secretly-rabid, vacant-eyed, f*cking clueless God-botherer he really is:
"The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins...He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them."
This is a f*cken pathetic straw-man argument. That is, build up a straw-man, call it your opponent's argument and blow it down. Except that ISN'T your opponent's argument, and ANYONE WITH A BRAIN who has read Dawkins will know it.
Tom Frame makes no f*cking coherent case for WHY a Darwinist must "welcome" genocide. Because there ISN'T a f*cking logical coherent argument for it. It's a f*cking outrageously stupid attempt to throw discredit at something that bothers him, like a chimp throws $hit.
"Sustained consideration of Darwinian theory has raised a number of new questions for me. When does design become domination? Why did God create human beings as objects of divine favour, "a little lower than angels" (Psalm 8, verse 5), lay a good life out before them in which they could live in harmony with the creator and other creatures, and then include within them the capacity, even propensity, to behave otherwise?"
What the f*ck are you talking about?
You need to go back and PROVE that God created A F*CKING SINGLE THING first, THEN you get to ask the other questions. A sustained consideration of Darwin should have at least given you some appreciation that he was a lot further along the road to factual basis than you are.
Tom Frame is working to a dramatic crescendo of f*ckwittery.
"I...cannot make sense of my life in this world without believing in God and providence."
Then that is YOUR problem, not science's. The critical thinker looks for sense and meaning in FACT. Your ilk can't accept this and can't reconcile it with invisible ghost dude in the sky, so you dismiss fact for fantasy, and then look at FACTS as they THEY are wrong.
"Crudely naturalistic science leaves no room for poetic truth, refuses to honour any spiritual element in physical things and cannot accept the existence of a human soul."
Why should it? There is no evidence for a soul. Until there is, science says "f*ck off" and hangs out the "BUSY" sign. Tom is upset because he can't write a f*cking POEM about the world if he knows the SCIENCE behind it.
I suppose he likes to write POEMS about how beautiful it is to watch children die when stem-cell reasearch could eventually save their lives. But that's f*cking SCIENCE isn't it, and it's preferable to believe in some sort of f*cking mystical BULL$HIT instead, that somehow their SOULS will be free and they'll live in happy fairy land or some such $hit.
F*ckwit. This is the sort of f*ckwit who likes to pretend that all the beautiful things mean there is a God, and that science is cold and "crude" because it eliminates the "beauty" he wants to see.
To which the esteemed Sir David Attenborough replies:
"...They [creationists] always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
Well that's two of us, Richard, but f*cking Tom here could write a f*cking POEM about it. Explain to me the F*CKING SPIRITUAL POETIC ELEMENT of that worm, Tom, you f*cken idiot.
And then it comes. The Grand Finale of Tom's F*ckwit Concerto.
"Such science is also inhibited from asking whether life has any meaning, as this would require stepping outside the processes that led its practitioners to the point of questioning."
Yes, indeed.
Those processes that include, PROOF, EXAMINATION and RE-EXAMINATION OF FACT and robust CHALLENGING OF IDEAS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Those "processes" that have f*cking emerged over time from a CRUCIBLE that values FACT over BULL$HIT. Those f*cking "processes" that have given us everything around us from the ability to harness power from the world around us to saving lives by placing one man's heart inside another's body. Those f*cking "processes" that evolved in ruthless fashion, eliminating every ounce of BULL$HIT that sought to creep in, that bound themselves to accept every result, now matter how baffling, if it was PROVED.
Yeah, F*CK ALL THAT.
Because Tom has to have some f*cken MEANING to his life. He has to feel all warm and fuzzy about himself and why we're all here. And he can't do that without a big f*cken made-up invisible man in the sky. Because he can't accept that 2 + 2 must equal 4, it has to be able to equal FIVE in his f*cken peabrain, or else HE has difficulty enjoying SUNSETS and WALKS ON THE BEACH, for f*ck's sake.
What I don't get is why THE REST OF US WITH F*CKEN SENSE HAVE TO SUFFER FOR YOUR IGNORANCE, TOM, so f*cken EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF THAT, PLEASE!
Posts
