In Case Anybody Is Still Doubting Evolution...

Came across an article in National Geographic about nine fish species that use their fins to literally walk on the ocean floor. Yes, there are pictures, and yes, they are straight out of a science fiction movie. It reminds me of the scene in a recent Simpsons episode where ultra-Christian Ned Flanders is selling fish whose stripe patterns spell out the word "Jesus." When Lisa Simpson asks Ned how he attained the pattern, Ned explains how he started with fish that looked similar to the desired result and selectively bred successive generations until the result was achieved. Lisa says "so you would say they underwent natural selection?" Ned is visibly flustered, and shortly thereafter one of the fish evolves legs and attempts to leave the aquarium, but Mr. Flanders shoos it back under the water, muttering "not on my watch."

As ludicrous and hilarious that scenario sounds, it also makes a good point. The scene of the fish crawling onto land for the first time is iconic and synonymous with evolution, and there are already real-life examples of fish that do breathe air and spend at least some of their time above water.

The common belief in the Intelligent Design crowd seems to be that the function of body parts--limbs especially--is fixed. The eye, or the leg, are just too complex, too well-suited for what they do, that if any pieces were missing, the part in question it completely useless.  This, of course, is demonstrably false, and the following pictures go even further in settling that debate. The fundamental flaw of ID is that it refuses to acknowledge the fact that parts can have multiple functions, and that just because a part of a modern organism has a very specific purpose now, doesn't mean that it always had that function.

But enough ranting. On to the article!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/photogalleries/100524-new-species-handfish-walk-science-pictures/?now=2010-05-24-00:01#new-handfish-species-pink_20881_600x450.jpg

Of course, one can only guess the creationist response to this will be. I think it will probably be along the same line as their dismissal of Archaeopterix or other blatant examples of transitional forms. When confronted with the bird/reptile transitions, the typical response involves pointing out certain features that put it "clearly" into one category, while ignoring the features that put it in the other category.

The Ten Commandments vs. The Ten Amendments - A Comparison

The Ten Commandments have been in the news a lot in the past few years. Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin had repeatedly claimed our governmental system is based upon these commandments. Is it true? From what I've found, most Christians are far more illiterate on the subject than they think. For example, most don't realize that there are actually three different sets of "ten commandments" found in the Old Testament, in addition to the hundreds upon hundreds of other laws in the Pentateuch.  The first set is found in Exodus chapter 20, verses 2-17. The second also in Exodus, but in Chapter 34, verses 11-27. Finally, the third set is in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 5, verses 6-21.
In Protestant Christianity, the set most often cited is the set in Exodus 20, and since this is about how the Ten Commandments compare to the Constitution and in a broader sense, the legal history of the United States, I'm not going to get in the issues involving the existence of three differing accounts of the commandments. What I am going to do for all of you ignorant Christians out there who evidently have no fucking clue what the ten commandments actually say, I'm going to list them for you, one by one, and compare/contrast them with the laws of the United States. I'm using the King James translation since it is the least controversial and most accepted among Christianity as a whole. Also, you'll notice I have skipped a few verses. I've done so because they contain simple pleasantries that have nothing to do with the context. I do, however, invite you to read Exodus 20 in your own Bible if you really want to see them.

Commandment One
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. - Exodus 20:2, 3 
Right out of the gate, we have a disagreement with the Ten Commandments and the Constitution. The First Amendment in the bill of Rights states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Notice there is no specific mention of the Christian religion, only religion in general. If a government were to use the Ten Commandments as a basis for its law code, the First Amendment could not exist in its current form. Worshiping any god but the Christian/Jewish God (or not worshiping any God at all) would be illegal.  Yet it is not.

Commandment Two
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;- Exodus 20: 4,5
The second commandment also is in complete disagreement with the first amendment. Buddhism, Hinduism, even Catholicism are all heavily involved in the graven image-making business. Heck, this would actually outlaw most Christianity itself. The commandment says that worshipers should not make a graven image of anything, so that would include crucifixes, wouldn't it?  But that's not even the disturbing part. It also talks about how jealous this god is, and how he punishes the descendants of a law-breaker for four generations. Would you want to live in a country where you could be thrown into prison for something your great-great-grandfather did?

Commandment Three
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.- Exodus 20:7
Commandment three again violates the first amendment, but this time it is in stark disagreement not with the prohibition for congress to set up a state religion, but the prohibition for congress to restrict the freedom of speech. No exceptions for "taking the Lord's name in vain" have ever been part of the constitution or the lion's share of Federal law.  In fact, if such a law ever were proposed, it would be repealed for being unconstitutional.

Commandment Four
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.- Exodus 20:8-11
This one's a no-brainer. In fact, most Christians claiming that our laws are based on the commandments conveniently ignore this one and violate it themselves. Sure, they can claim the Sabbath is no longer binding on Christians because of Jesus' sacrifice or whatever, but if the lion's share of Old Testament laws are now null and void because of Jesus, then the question remains: Why the hell are you claiming these particular arbitrary set of laws are still binding and are the basis for our laws?

Commandment Five
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.- Exodus 20:12
Although this is generally a good idea, if this were the basis of our law, then what recourse would children have against sexually or otherwise abusive parents? Does every parent automatically deserve respect and honor from their children, simply because they engaged in the biological rituals in order to bring them into existence? Many states have Child Protection organizations which remove children from homes where they are in immediate danger, which flies in the face of the fifth commandment.

Commandment Six
Thou shalt not kill. - Exodus 20:13
Finally, after six commandments in, we find one that is in agreement with our law code. But it is a pretty darn basic one, and frankly a law that every single successful society has figured out, regardless of which or any god it happened to worship at the time. So yes, we do have a match, but it's not a very original idea.  This is the bare minimum for a functional society. In the words of the immortal Matt Foley, motivational speaker: "Whoop dee freaking doo!"


Commandment Seven
Thou shalt not commit adultery. - Exodus 20:14
While it may be wrong, it is not illegal to cheat on one's spouse.


Commandment Eight
Thou shalt not steal. - Exodus 20:15
Again, just like commandment six, this is really basic stuff for a functional society and nothing that rational people couldn't come up with themselves. "Hey, you know what, I'm tired of getting my stuff taken from me." "Yeah, you know I'm tired of that, too!" "I have an idea! Let's all live in the same place and agree not to take each other's stuff. That way, nobody will have their stuff taken. And if somebody does take our stuff, we punish him!" "Yeah! Awesome idea, let's do it!" Honestly, people don't need a divine dictator to tell them not to steal shit.  So that is match number two, but again, underwhelming in its originality.


Commandment Nine
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. - Exodus 20:16
Another really basic one. Yes it is illegal to purjor oneself in court, but again, does it take an all-knowing being to tell people that, hey, it's probably not a good idea to let people lie on the stand during a trial. Match number three.


Commandment Ten
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. - Exodus 20:17
Here we have one of the earliest examples of Orwellian thoughtcrime legislation. This one is what makes me surprised how so many free-market-capitalism-loving Christians can push the ten commandments like this when the last one prohibits the very basis for a healthy market. The tenth commandment stifles innovation. Not allowing someone to want what his or her neighbor has is definitely a must for a desert band with limited resources, but in a modern capitalist society such as ours, it is simply impractical.  Besides, seeing that we can't read minds, how could this be enforced.


So only three out of ten commandments actually conform to the laws of the United States, and honestly, those three are so basic and exist in so many other law codes that it could be just as easily said that they are based upon the code of Hammurabi or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. Furthermore, six of the commandments are actually direct violations of the Constitution, the law, and our collective moral sense. 
It is not illegal, nor should it be, to worship anything other than the Abrahamic god. 
It is not illegal, nor should it be, to use a physical object in the worship of said god or gods. 
It is not illegal, nor should it be, to speak in a way that is taboo according to a religion. 
It is not illegal, nor should it be, to work on a certain day of the week. 
It is not illegal, nor should it be, to "dishonor" your parents by reporting them to the authorities for abusing you.  
It is not illegal, nor should it be, to simply want something because your neighbor or friend has it.
Anyone who claims that our laws are based upon the ten commandments has absolutely no knowledge of the law, absolutely no knowledge of the ten commandments, or absolutely no knowledge of either.