My God! If science ever gets into the hands of the Christians...

Well, we won't have to worry about the following type of silliness.

David Reagan is probably related to that other Reagan, the one people can't seem to stop themselves from naming things after. Nobody will ever name anything after David, unless, of course, I ever get hemorrhoids.

I saw this article in a number of places, and even a mathematically challenged dingus like m'self can see that this is just titanically goofy. But I saw it appearing all over the weirdosphere, so I thought I'd bring it to you. It's called "Applying the Science of Probability to Scriptures" and I laughed so hard I split open and started bleeding from my David Reagan.

It's a review of a book by the hilariously named Peter Stoner, and, yes, I'd sure like to stone his peter. David (the author, not the rectal ailment) says:

In the edition I purchased, there was a foreword by Dr. Harold Hartzler, an officer of the American Scientific Affiliation. He wrote that the manuscript had been carefully reviewed by a committee of his organization and that "the mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound." He further stated that in the opinion of the Affiliation, Professor Stoner "has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way."

Ooh! The American Scientific Affiliation! Surely their peer reviews are worth a soft, Metamucil facilitated shit. Nope. They aren't primarily concerned with science, and I will point you to a single statement that puts them outside anything like the mainstream of science. According to its web site, "The ASA has no official position on evolution." A real science organization could handle this. You must necessarily disqualify yourself from contributing in any meaningful way to the science of biology. It's like saying you have no official position on the germ theory of disease. This shit is simply too hot for these assholes to both handle and hold onto their lunatic donors. Big time cowards.

Anyway, so, one meaningless endorsement later, you can tell that this is going to get pretty funny pretty fast:

Stoner begins with a very interesting observation. He points out that his copy of Young's General Astronomy, published in 1898, is full of errors. Yet, the Bible, written over 2,000 years ago is devoid of scientific error. For example, the shape of the earth is mentioned in Isaiah 40:22. Gravity can be found in Job 26:7. Ecclesiastes 1:6 mentions atmospheric circulation. A reference to ocean currents can be found in Psalm 8:8, and the hydraulic cycle is described in Ecclesiastes 1:7 and Isaiah 55:10. The second law of thermodynamics is outlined in Psalm 102:25-27 and Romans 8:21. And these are only a few examples of scientific truths written in the Scriptures long before they were "discovered" by scientists.

HAHA! Ouch. Grr.

The bible is devoid of scientific error. I can see that. It's entirely devoid of scientific observation or content, so it stands to reason that it avoids scientific error. But let's humor him. Let's follow those quotes and see what the hell he could possibly be talking about.

Now, regarding the shape of the earth, clearly the Bible is saying that the earth is flat:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Notice it's a "circle" not an "oblong spheroid." Anyway, the author is talking about the horizon, and if you are going to extend the grasshoppers in the tent metaphor, clearly, the earth is flat. Big fail. Next? Gravity in Job, and, indeed, there are so many variants that it is hard to know what the hell the author is talking about in the original.

New International Version (©1984) He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. New Living Translation (©2007) God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing. English Standard Version (©2001) He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing. New American Standard Bible (©1995) "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "He stretches out his heavens over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing whatsoever. King James Bible He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. American King James Version He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing. American Standard Version He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing. Bible in Basic English By his hand the north is stretched out in space, and the earth is hanging on nothing. Douay-Rheims Bible He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. Darby Bible Translation He stretcheth out the north over empty space, he hangeth the earth upon nothing; English Revised Version He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. Webster's Bible Translation He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. World English Bible He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing. Young's Literal Translation Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,

As best as I can tell, the earth either is or isn't sitting on or hanging from something or nothing. Clearly, I can't argue with that! But where does the author mention the attractive force between massive bodies? Something usable that would, I don't know, allow us to predict something?

Well, maybe we can use the Bible to forecast the weather, I mean, since atmospheric circulation is described in such great detail and all:

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

"Wind whirleth"? That's all you got? I could tell you that. And that last independent clause basically says, "the wind will do what the wind will do." Way to meteorologize. So, now let's see what the bible says about ocean currents:

The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

Have you ever read your bible, David? "Paths" (clearly, again, metaphorical) equals "ocean currents"? And you need not divine revelation to know that "currents exist." You only have to have ever gone for a dip in the Mediterranean. The Bible is not wrong when it says that there are seas, though, I'll give you that.

⁷ All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

You might have a case if we did not understand how the ancients conceived of how the world worked. Here's a nice drawing of the ancient Hebrews' cosmos:

Look at the seas there, butt-boy. Notice that the water can go underground and then "circulate" up the outside of the firmament to the sky. Nice science. Also, Jesus called and he hates you a whole lot.

So, the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy happens. Cool:

²⁵Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

²⁶They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

²⁷But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end

Mother of fuck. Sorry. But MOTHER OF FUCK! Does anyone else see a titanic violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics sitting right in the middle of this goofy passage? The whole "eternal changelessness" thing? You know what? Fuck this useless bible-checking. I have so much better stuff to do than piddle in the shallow end of the sandbox with you infants. Besides, I don't want the sand to irritate my throbbing, painful David Reagan.

He then considers the order of creation as presented in Genesis 1:1-13. He presents argument after argument from a scientific viewpoint to sustain the order which Genesis chronicles. He then asks, "What chance did Moses have when writing the first chapter [of Genesis] of getting thirteen items all accurate and in satisfactory order?"

Do you exclude the mutually exclusive accounts wherein Man is created at the very end of creation week, after the animals, but simultaneously also is created after the animals in the other version? You'd think Moses would have a better proofreader. So, whoever wrote the first 5 books, actually, did not get the (metaphorical or literal, it does not matter) order of creation correct (metaphorically or literally, it does not matter). Any analysis that stems from that assertion is working from poor assumptions. I have a feeling that this is going to become a theme in this post.

Also, I would like to point out that it is purely tradition, not to be anywhere supported by the text, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Actually, the first five books include the death of Moses. How the fuck did he write that? With a Ouija board? It's the credulous fuckwittery that reminds me of that short pizzle Kent Hovind saying, "Lucifer was God's choir director" in his "novelty dissertation."

But let's look at the subsequent analysis, which is also revealing:

His calculations conclude it would be one chance in 31,135,104,000,000,000,000,000 (1 in 31 x 10^21). He concludes, "Perhaps God wrote such an account in Genesis so that in these latter days, when science has greatly developed, we would be able to verify His account and know for a certainty that God created this planet and the life on it."

Calculations don't conclude. People conclude based on calculations. Sorry. English teacher and native speaker. Besides this, however, these sentences are not related by that logic thing that I have heard so much about. Indeed, let's pretend that Stoner was able to derive a meaningful number about the odds of coming up with the order correctly, and putting aside the fact that you clearly need oceans before you have fish (it's not as if all the elements could only be placed there at rando--that's a false dichotomy: either random guesses or GODIDIT). He actually shows that it is possible to have the order be correct without resorting to divine intervention! Thanks, Peter!

The only disappointing thing about Stoner's book is that he spiritualizes the reference to days in Genesis, concluding that they refer to periods of time of indefinite length. Accordingly, he concludes that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. In his defense, keep in mind that he wrote this book before the foundation of the modern Creation Science Movement which was founded in the 1960's by Dr. Henry Morris. That movement has since produced many convincing scientific arguments in behalf of a young earth with an age of only 6,000 years.

Yeah, it sucks that he is now burning in agony in hell for eternity. Seriously, however, the notion that the mass exodus from reality called "Creation Science" (I don't say movement, right now because of some lingering tenderness) has convincing arguments is...fatuous and absurd. Don't get me wrong, it convinces hoards of people who don't know better, but what's that worth? Not a squirt of sweet, sweet, soothing Ben Gay. Convince an expert, and then we'll talk. And not the American Association for the Selective Acceptance of Science that you cite earlier.

Now we get slammed with numbers. Indeed, this is one of the few examples of the "ad numeram" that I have ever covered here: just because you throw out a lot of numbers doesn't make your argument any more true, and indeed, we see that Stoner puts the "ass" in "unquestioned assumptions."

Peter Stoner's Calculations Regarding Messianic Prophecy

Peter Stoner calculated the probability of just 8 Messianic prophecies being fulfilled in the life of Jesus. As you read through these prophecies, you will see that all estimates were calculated as conservatively as possible.

1. The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
   The average population of Bethlehem from the time of Micah to the present (1958) divided by the average population of the earth during the same period = 7,150/2,000,000,000 or 2.8x105.
2. A messenger will prepare the way for the Messiah (Malachi 3:1).
   One man in how many, the world over, has had a forerunner (in this case, John the Baptist) to prepare his way?
   Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1x103.
3. The Messiah will enter Jerusalem as a king riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9).
   One man in how many, who has entered Jerusalem as a ruler, has entered riding on a donkey?
   Estimate: 1 in 100 or 1x102.
4. The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend and suffer wounds in His hands (Zechariah 13:6).
   One man in how many, the world over, has been betrayed by a friend, resulting in wounds in his hands?
   Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1x103.
5. The Messiah will be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12).
   Of the people who have been betrayed, one in how many has been betrayed for exactly 30 pieces of silver?
   Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1x103.
6. The betrayal money will be used to purchase a potter's field (Zechariah 11:13).
   One man in how many, after receiving a bribe for the betrayal of a friend, has returned the money, had it refused, and then experienced it being used to buy a potter's field?
   Estimate: 1 in 100,000 or 1x105.
7. The Messiah will remain silent while He is afflicted (Isaiah 53:7).
   One man in how many, when he is oppressed and afflicted, though innocent, will make no defense of himself?
   Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or 1x103.
8. The Messiah will die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16).
   One man in how many, since the time of David, has been crucified?
   Estimate: 1 in 10,000 or 1x104.

Multiplying all these probabilities together produces a number (rounded off) of 1x1028. Dividing this number by an estimate of the number of people who have lived since the time of these prophecies (88 billion) produces a probability of all 8 prophecies being fulfilled accidentally in the life of one person. That probability is 1in 1017 or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. That's one in one hundred quadrillion!

Well, hell. Can't argue with that. Except that there is (always) another possibility, one that is so much more likely. That when the authors of the New Testament wrote the story of Jesus, they wrote the story in such a way that his life seemed to fulfill prophecy. All of the elements that they would need to write that story were undeniably already there. And, really, the census is truly a hack job...phlebotenum that gets Jesus into the city where he is supposed to be. To say that Joseph's "city" was that of David is like...making me report to County Cork, Ireland for a census because I had a relative 50 generations ago live there. Big time estupido grande. (Also the various lives of Jesus are often contradictory, but, hey, maybe Moses wrote those too.) But you don't have to say that the gospel writers "made things up"out of a will to deceive people--they were wrong, but not necessarily liars. They are basically doing what every damned bozo I review here does, and the logic goes: "If Jesus was the Son of God, why bother to verify? We know from prophecy what aspects he was supposed to have."

I paraphrase Jesus: "Woman, behold your circular reasoning."

I'm done with this. Every other statement of probability that Stoner makes incorporates the conclusion ("Jesus was God and the Bible is supernatural in origin") into the premise.

HJ