Answers Research Journal is totally fair and unbiased....

I mean, clearly if you only publish evidence for creation, then you can clearly deny all evidence for evolution with a clear conscience, right?

From the Answers Research Journal "Instructions for Authors:"

 

"VIII. Paper Review Process

Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:

A

Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper’s receipt.

B

Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.

 

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

1

Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?

2

 

Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?

3

Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?

4

If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very

constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

5

If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins

debate?

 

6

Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation

of Scripture? "

On the validity of scientific theories

Hypotheses, sometimes colloquially defined as educated guesses, are testable and falsifiable ideas based on evidence which predict future outcomes. Many hypotheses can be phrased as if-then statement (e.g. If land-dwelling tetrapods evolved from fish, then we should be able to find transitional fossils in near shore environments just before the age of the first fossils of land-dwelling tetrapods.*) Scientists then perform experiments or make observations, which either support or refute the hypothesis. Unfortunately, common usage of the word "theory," and even its usage by the media in coverage of science, is nearly synonymous with a hypothesis.

Scientific theories coherently explain hundreds of thousands of confirmed or refuted hypotheses and millions of observations in a relatively simple way. Theories deal with mechanisms and underlying principles. In other words, theories address why all the observations and experiments came out the way they did. Because there is usually the possibility of some yet to be discovered alternative explanation or mechanism, many scientific theories can never be 100% proven. By definition, they may be falsified at any time.

For a scientific theory to gain acceptance and remain accepted in the scientific community, by definition, it is necessary that it explain all or nearly all of the available data. Anomalies are not counter examples, but if you can demonstrate a couple "anomalies" are not anomalous experiments or observations at all, but consistently yield the data which cannot be explained by the theory, then the theory in its current form begins to lose scientific acceptance. It will ultimately be revised or replaced.

Organisms evolve. We know this purely based upon experiment and observation. Evolution is a fact. The theory in question is evolution by natural selection, first proposed by Darwin and Wallace. Natural selection theory could be disproven at any time, by definition, if an alternative mechanism which better explained evolution were to be demonstrated. To disprove all of the observations of evolution, however, would be remarkably difficult.

If you really want to try to disprove evolution though, here are some silver bullets: - Demonstrate that rates of radioactive decay vary widely over time, and that when this new variable is accounted for, the world is extremely young - Demonstrate numerous out-of-sequence fossils of several phyla in place in rocks (e.g. rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata)

No one has yet done these or similar things to the satisfaction of the scientific community; therefore, by definition, there is no evidence against evolution.

*Note: This is obviously leads to an inductive argument, not a deductive one. Most hypotheses cannot be proved 100% for sure; in many cases, only the null hypothesis can be disproved. Rather, experiments and observations can lend support to, or reduce confidence in, a h

Believing in God may make you less likely to live green...

Read more here. And here.

Re: "Trans women aren't real women"

Trans women are real women. 

Sure, they may not be born as biologically female, but being a woman has much more to do with how you identify, how your "brain is wired," than with breasts, ovaries, uteruses, vaginas, labia, and clitoruses. If it were otherwise, pre-pubescent female children would be less of girls than their friends who had started breast development and menstruation, and female children who due to various medical conditions never have a true puberty might never become "real women," as some put it.

 Likewise, does a female adult cease being a "real woman" if she had a few bouts with cancer or other medical conditions resulting in a double mastectomy, a total hysterectomy, and surgical removal of the clitorus? I mean, all she has left to make her a "real woman" are a vagina and labia. If, for whatever reasons, she chooses not to take replacement female hormones, she may start to take on some traditionally masculine characteristics, like facial hair. Do you really want to say a couple of medical procedures and a 5 o'clock shadow can make an adult female no longer a woman?

Perhaps you object that it's not the breasts that make the woman, but the extra X chromosome. So are you saying that people born with Turner's Syndrome (anatomical females born with only 1 X chromosome) aren't real women? And what about the women who were born with a Y chromosome (genetically male) but developed female parts in utero (anatomically female since embryo) and have always identified as female? Many of these women would never know about their Y chromosome unless they are Olympic athletes, go to a fertility specialist because they can't get pregnant, or the genetic-anatomic mismatch causes other medical problems. Do you need to run a genetic test on every possible woman you meet to make sure she isn't secretly carrying a Y chromosome that even she doesn't know about?

It is absurd to define manhood and womanhood based on parts or genes. Biology doesn't define gender. Most of us so-called "real women" are just lucky that we are cis-gendered and that our bodies' appearances, our medical histories, and our genetics are all in line with stereotypical womanliness. If Y-chromosome-bearing anatomical women are real women, and if women lacking breasts and overies and uteruses are real women, then trans-women, even if they never undergo any gender-alignment procedures, surgeries, or hormones, are clearly as real of women as any other woman on the planet.

The Pill OTC only? Bad for women

Certain Republicans have been recently advocating for over-the-counter (OTC) oral contraception. As covered by NPR and others, this accomplishes two goals:

1. Divorces the most popular female contraception from the insurance companies (most insurance doesn't cover OTC meds), and, per the ACA, from corporations required to offer health insurance to their employees.
2. Allows the political right to appear pro-women and pro-reproductive rights, which may give them an edge among women voters in November.

But is an OTC birth control policy good for women? Sure, for some women. Such a policy would be beneficial for those women who are able to afford spending $300-600/year on birth control, especially well-to-do women under 26 who don't want to have their parents' insurance paying for their contraception. It could also be good for women who work odd and unpredicable hours, since they could pick up their pill any time day or night, not just during a pharmacy's buisness hours.

For many other women, however, OTC birth control pills this would be very bad. Currently, under the ACA, the birth control pill is free to an insurance-carrying patient with a prescription. In other words, health insurance pays the entire cost of the contraception, and the woman has no co-pay. The current system allows lower-income women more equal access to birth control. Spending $25-50/month on OTC oral contraception may be cost-prohibitive for the average woman, leading her to use less-effective forms of pregnancy prevention in lieu of the pill. This will mean more unintended and unplanned pregnancies among women who are already financially struggling. What's more, womeb with health insurance would presumably have to pay out-of-pocket for The Pill even when taken for reasons other than contraception, such as treating PCOS  or PMDD.

It's been a long time, Internet friends

It's been a long time, Internet friends. Like months, actually. I might start posting and reposting again soon. Maybe.

In the past several months, I moved. I adopted kittens. I got married. I have been busy, but I have not been at all disconnected from feminism, LGBTQ equality, atheism, or current events. I just haven't been writing about them on here.

Purity rings and purity balls

Ever heard of purity balls? Me neither, and one of Hement Mehta's latest videos totally blew me out of the water.

I came from the evangelical community and I didn't even know this was happening, but I did do something kinda similar at around 13 where I signed a pledge to not have sex (of all kinds) until marriage. I wore a purity ring all through high school. When I started getting intimate with a partner, I felt like I had lost all moral standing. I felt so guilty about what were, in retrospect, relatively harmless activities that I withdrew from friend circles and ran away from church. I felt worthless when I had done nothing wrong. Even after I stopped believing in the God for whom I had pledged to be abstinent, I felt like scum.

Even now, getting married in just a few months, there are times where sex makes me feel guilty, and I really doubt that it will change after my wedding ceremony. I think a lot of women coming from the evangelical community, even those who do remain abstinent until marriage, feel intense guilt about responsible, loving intimacy with a committed, gentle, and respectful partner because all these years they had it drilled into their brains that sex was bad, wrong, and dirty. These women feel worthless because they enjoy something so "vile."

I'd go a step further than Mehta. Practices, like purity balls and the Silver Ring Thing, which tell young girls that sex is bad and makes them a bad person are inherently emotionally abusive, and can leave permanent scars.