~ -mericanatheists

Think you're alone? America Is home to

more atheists than Jews, Muslims,
Hindus, and Buddhists, combined and
doubled. Find out about Atheist History
and leam the steps you can follow to
come out of the atheist closet

atheist viewpoint

Atheist News

Presents for the Jodless: the 3 days of athe t C IS

S:
2009) - Don't believe in God, but want to celebrate Christm.

Psychological Wellbeing
How does your secular mlndset factor in? Help a University
researcher by taking this confidential survey:
lJ

Take1tle Survey

QuellioQ[S?

Contact the Researcher

No God 8109
Atheist Elected In NC. Even Though It Is Against Their Constitution:

,.. _........... . .
'r 11 2009}~Warren's

ber 11,
s are that

US

~~~~.~.~~!!.~.~.~-~.~~.~~~~
..~.~.~.~:.~!"~.~~.!:.
..~.~!!.~.~.~!~~.~
- - " -.." .
Neutrality is Olsaimlnation AgaInst Those \lIJho Hate Neutrality: The new
Christian buzzword of the day is ...

_ __u_..,~__

._. .. _ ___

'O'C

American Atheists Affiliate of the Year 2010:

In the rain ana the snow, people sholN: Press skips due to rain?
_.

..

....

.-.

-*'" _ -.........

_..

-'

.~.-

..
-

Sneak Peek at My Marriage Egua ity Speech: Gay Marriage is a

~p.~.~~_~~_~
o~.~.~u~~.~!!~.~~t~

i.~~~.~
.._",""_,_"""""_,_,,,",,,
_
.. _ _. __
AFA loses. Claims Win Anvways: AFA folds, claims victory for having no
effect.

Nov/Dec 2009

AMERICAN ATHEIST

Vol 47, No.8

Geologist & Biologist

Frank R. Zindler
debates
ISSN 0516-9623
ISSN 1935-8369
AMERICAN

(Print)
(Online)

ATHEIST

PRESS

Managing Editor
Frank R. Zindler
editor@atheists.org

'A Journal

AMERICAN
of Atheist

ATHEIST
News and Thought'

Editor
David Smalley
editor@americanatheist.org

Christian Geologist
John D. Morris, Ph.D
on the scientific
possibilities of
Noah's Flood

Cover Art & Magazine Designer

David Smalley
Graphic
Gabriel

Designer
Sheridan

Cover Photo
Ann Zindler
Published monthly
by American Atheists Inc.

,...,.-r-zedebate you are about to read with Frank R. Zindler,

1 literally changed my life. It not only allowed me to accept
and announce my Atheism, it catapulted me into activism, and
ultimately into joining the American Atheist family. I couldn't
be more thankful to Mr. Zindler for his contribution to reason
andfree thought, and it's an honor to have him as our featured
story for this edition of the American Atheist.

Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 158
Cranford, NJ 07016
908.276.7300
P
908.276.7402
F
www.atheists.org
2009

American Atheists Inc.

All rights reserved.
Reproduction
in whole or in part without
written permission
is prohibited.

- David Smalley, Editor

American Atheist is indexed in the

Alternative
Press Index.
American Atheist magazine
is given free of cost to members of
American Atheists as an incident
of their membership.

also in this edition ...

Subscription
fees for one year of
American Atheist:
Print version only: $20 for 1 subscription
and $20 for each additional gift subscription
Online version only: $35
Sign up at www.atheists.org/aam
Print & online: $55
for multiple-year
subscriptions:
10% for two years
20% for three or more years

Book Review: The Infernova

22

Movie Review: Creation

26

The Rise of Secularism

28

Under God

30

The Christian Cave of Shadows

32

Confronting the Armchair Atheist

Discounts

Additional postage fees

for foreign addresses:
Canada & Mexico: add $15/year
All other countries:
add $35/year
Discount for libraries and institutions:
50% on all magazine subscriptions
and book purchases

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

Editor's rupdate:
Magazine De[ays and Resolution. 'Pian. .
was
t
with mixed emotions that Bill Rampl, our
magazine Editor for the last 11 months, stepped down
and assumed a new role as a father. We thank him
for his dedicated service, and also for the material he
edited and submitted that appears in this editon, and that
will appear in the next. Congratulations to Bill on the recent
addition to his family, and we wish him the best!
Considering my passion for this movement, there was
little hesitation when I was asked to step up from the Design
Editor position, and take the lead on this publication as
the new Editor. I immediately began working around the
clock to continue the tradition of producing a magazine our
members will be proud of, and also to set and meet new
deadlines for our readers.
It is my personal guarantee to every one of you that I
will begin producing a timely publication you can depend
on and look forward to. I am so confident in my plan to get
this caught up, I've revealed it for all to read.
My first order of business is to put together a staff
of volunteer writers, journalists, graphics designers, and
photographers that will contribute each month, along with a
featured author or two. These individuals will be announced
in the first official magazine of 20 1O.
To the right, I've outlined the production schedule so that
you can know when to expect your magazines. Please keep
in mind, that 5-6 weeks is allowed for printing and delivery,
so I've accounted for that in each arrival date. According to
the plans below, by March 2010, each magazine will arrive
no later than the 15th of it's title month.

l. Nov/Dec
2. Jan/Feb
3. March
4. April..

.in your
.in your
.in your
.in your

home
home
home
home

by Feb. 15
by Feb. 26
by Mar. 15
by Apr. 15

(Double)
(Double)
(Single)
(Single)

I have a lot more plans for this magazine, and I will

keep you updated as things progress. I am honored to be a
part of such a wonderful movement, and I want you to know
I understand how important this magazine is to you, and to
our organization's success. I will never lose sight of what's
important.
I'd love to read your thoughts, so please email me
anytime! I look forward to hearing from you.

email: editor@americanatheist.org

David Smalley
Editor, American Atheist

No God Blog
atheists.orglbiog

Atheist Elected in NC, Even Though It Is Against Their Constitution

CeeemIle< Hili. 2009

December 2009
M

Them was a bit of suspense In AsheVille. NC~ TueSday mornlf19 about whelher newly..elected City
coUncil member Cedi 801hweH ShOuld or would be swom inlD office Bothwell, whO was elected last
month, is an atheist The NOI1hcarolina cons lUnon stillOllI'S atheists from holding elected oftloe.

5
12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20
"fm not sa rig that Cecil Bothwell is nota good man, but if hes an atneist. hes not eligible to serve in
pubUc 011I>, according 10 lIle slate oonsuamon," said H.K EdgerlDn. a fol11ler AshelJJlle NAACP
presidentlOld the AshevUle C'bzen-Ttmes.
6, seeuen 8 of the North Carolina constitution staleS: 1he follOWing persons shall be
for office: First, any person who shall deny 1M l:Ieif19 or Almighty God. forwnalilly for
B<ltl1well,MQ',a VI of Il'tll U.s. ConstiwUol1 trum,ps that 'No religlolls Test shall ever be rel,lulreod a$ a
OUaflfit:aUon ill any OlfIm or public Trus.1under tho United Slates. ~

21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

Mele

disqualifieD

Slog Info
M

o Avaun

Slog RSS Fe u

Consuillbonal criSis averted Cedi Bothwell Is now a member or IIIe AsheVIlle City council.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

Boo
Revie
.
S

A. Alenthony has presented to

all of us freethinkers, of whatever
stripe, a truly masterful work
of literary achievement. The
Infernova is a parody of Dante Aleghieri's
(1265 - 1321) time honored classic, The
Inferno. The reader does not need to be
familiar with the nearly seven hundred
year-old original in order to greatly enjoy
this new and remarkable take-off. Perhaps
the only thing that it would be helpful for
the reader to know is that Dante was the
scion of a well-to-do Florentine family and
a real toady to the Catholic Church. Dante's
imaginary hell is not only richly populated
with ordinary sinners but also packed with
enemies of the Church both real-often
identified by name-and imaginary, such
as the mythological gods of paganism.
Dante's nine circles, or levels, of hell
are filled with suffering souls who range
from those who were simply guilty of
doubt, to those who led thousands or even
whole nations to-the worst sin of alldisobedience of the Church's teachings. Just as Dante was
guided on his journey through hell by a celebrated writer,
so too here-but it is the irreverent Mark Twain taking the
role of Virgil. What a perfect choice!
In The Infernova, as in any good parody, the situation
is reversed. In Alenthony's hell, the religious receive their
just desserts at various levels of severity. Names are named,
from early snake-oil salesmen such as Mary Baker Eddy
and L. Ron Hubbard to those who lead larger movements
such as Jim Jones and Charles Taze Russell. In deeper
levels of hell, the founders of national and international
religions such as Joseph Smith, Abraham, and Moses are

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

called out. Finally, in Canto XXX, our boy J.e.-simply

referred to as 'Christ' -and the Islamic Mohammed are
not spared.
The descriptions of each succeeding level of hell
are, like Dante's original, one of the most fascinating
and engaging features of the book. Although Alenthony
thankfully does not quite share Dante's fascination
for sheer blood and gore, the depictions of each level
dramatically involve the reader's senses of vision, hearing,
and even smell. Each dreadful circle of hell is eloquently
drawn for the reader to clearly imagine. In addition, the
exact punishment chosen for the particular offender is
often cleverly devised to perfectly fit the offense. For

ONCE AGAIN THE ATHEIST GETS THE DQUMSl1CK !

review by Don Havis

example, one large group of former humans on earth was just flows in a very natural story-telling way. Incidentally,
transformed into plants and animals, and as Mark Twain Alenthony chose this more rigorous route because it was
explains in Canto XXI, "'But their awareness kept intact. the exact pattern that Dante followed, even though most
They've been! transformed to live in a primitive state, / translations of The Inferno rhyme only the first and third
and to first-hand witness the origin / of new species. That lines of each stanza. Translation from the original oldis the timeless fate / for Creationists.' I laughed when I Italian is just too difficult for the translator to retain both
heard / all this, as the irony was so great."
the meaning and the complex rhyming pattern.
Perhaps the most amazing feature of Alenthony's
It is difficult for this reviewer to come up with even one
book is his skill and use of the particular narrative poetic slight criticism, which I know is somewhat traditional for
form that he employs. The poetic pattern used is the rather reviewers to do. If absolutely pushed to the wall, I would
difficult form of three line stanzas where the first and say that I might have enjoyed the naming of a few more
third lines rhyme, and the middle line forms the model names of religious rapscallions, and a few less naming of
for the first and third lines of the succeeding stanza. In extremely obscure ancient Aztec gods and/or the names of
other words, the rhyming pattern is as follows: ABA, millennia-old water-spirits featured particularly in Canto
BCB, CDC, etc. (see above). Each Canto, or chapter, of XXXI. I may be playing personal favorites here, but I'd
approximately the same length as was Dante's-thirtylike to be reassured that the likes of Jerry Falwell, Oral
four Cantos in all-contain a long series of triplet stanzas Roberts, Garner Ted Armstrong, Tammy Fay Baker, and
ending with a dramatic rhyming couplet. All of this is done Aimee Semple McPherson, to name just a few, are down
in such a subtle way, with many rhymes often occurring at there somewhere. However, judging from the books
mid-sentence, so that the reader is often only dimly aware otherwise inclusivity ofreligious sinners, I can rest assured
that there is a regular rhyming pattern at all. The story that they have not escaped Alenthony's hell.
NOVEMBER/

DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

THE QUESTION OF NOAH'S

FLOOD: A DEBATE
BElWEEN

JOHN D. MORRIS,

oftbeInstitute ForCreation~
AND

FRANK R. ZINDLER,
ottbe OhioChapter of American At.beists

more specifically today, we want

to talk about whether in fact there
was a flood, Noah, and the ark. Was
that a reality? We're going to talk
about the archaeological evidence.
We're going to talk a little bit about
creationism, and whether in fact
man began as Adam and Eve and
whether there was a flood. Let me
introduce our guests here right now.
Our first guest is Professor John
Morris. Dr. Morris is a Ph.D. in
geological engineering and is a
leading expert in the world on Noah
and the flood, among other things.
He has written books, including
Adventure on Ararat and Ark on
Ararat, and made a couple of trips
to the mountain, is that correct?
How many trips?

ON "AM INDIANA,n
TBEDICKWOLFSIESHOW
CHANNEL 18 TV, INDIANAPOLIB. iNDIANA,
BROADCASl' FEBRUARY 18,1989

~~i:o~by

MORRIS: I ve been to Turkey on

several occasions. I've wanted to
see if perhaps the remains of Noah's
ark were still on Mt. Ararat.

May, 1989

This text is the actual

transcription from the full debate,
including words from the show host
and moderator, Dick Wolfsie.
WOLFSIE: I'm glad you're with us
this morning on AM Indiana. On our
program today, well, we have two
gentlemen who are both geologists:
one says there was a Noah and a Noah's
ark, and the other says not so. We'll
talk to them in just a moment... [1]
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: Good morning everybody,
we're glad you're with us this morning
on AM Indiana. We have an excellent
show for you today, and I am sure
you will find it very provocative and
controversial. Both of our guests this
morning were educated in a similar
way, both educated as geologists; but
they have very different points of view
as to the origin of man. And a little bit

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

WOLFSIE:
Good enough,
sir.
Also joining us, Frank Zindler.
Mr. Zindler is formerly a professor
of geology and biology. He is now
a science writer in Columbus, Ohio,
and he's a leading spokesperson on
Atheism in the country. He is presently
the director of the central Ohio chapter
of American Atheists.
And good morning to both of you
gentlemen. It's good to see both of you.
Professor Morris, let me start with you.
As you know I'm wrestling with how
to begin this, because I know there are
so many things we could talk about.
But let me suggest something to you
and have you respond, and then I think
I can probably sit back for the rest of
the show. Is it your contention, sir,
that until Mr. Zindler proves otherwise
you're going to accept the fact that
there was a Noah and a Noah's ark, or
do you believe it a fact, sir, that based
on your trips, you have some proof?

MORRIS: Let me tell you something

about science, Dick. [2] Science exists
in the present. Scientists all live in
the present, and all of the facts are in
the present. The fossils, the rocks,
everything is in the present; and we do
our experiments in the present we study
in the present, we make our conclusions
in the present,and that's what science is.
The scientific method of experimental
observation, reproducibility. When we
start talking about the long-ago past,
the unobservable past, the even in
principle unobservable past, we've left
the realm of strict science and we're
into this area of faith. [3.] Now there
are at least two ways of looking at the
past. One is this evolutionary world
view that the earth is billions of years
old, and another world view is that
perhaps the Bible is right, and that it
does represent accurate history. But in
a real sense either view is outside the
realm of science and into the realm of
faith. [4]
WOLFSIE: One more question, Frank.
Let me ask you, John, one question,
and then I promise I'll let you go
at it-because I want to understand
something from where you're corning.
You and Mr. Zindler were trained in a
similar fashion, at good schools. You're
both in the area of geology. Let me ask
you this, and then I'll let Frank jump
in. You I'm sure were taught that the
earth was billions of years old. Is that
correct sir?
MORRIS: That's right.
WOLFSIE: Okay. So are you here to
say that what you were taught, and the
method that they reached to come to
that conclusion, was inaccurate?
MORRIS: The idea that the earth is
old is a historical reconstruction. I
mean, nobody was back there to see it
or to measure it. What I say about the
creationist young-earth world view ...
We can't prove that the earth is young.
We can't prove that the earth is old.
The facts of geology are compatible

to Some extent with the idea that the

earth is old. The facts of geology are
MORR.IS: You can test the reSUlts uf
compatible with the idea that the earth
history.
is Young. Li1 Now I'm a geologist. I
love roCks, I love fOSsils, aod I have a
MORRIS: Date4 as Cretaceous sOfl,
of
things, suPPOsedly on the order of a
lot of them; but I've never had a rock
ZlNDLER:
Yes, from the results
hUndred
million years or So old. Now, 1
talk to me. I never had a rock tell me
You can infer quite definitely What
happened.
don't buy the date, but that 's the normal
howrock.
old it Was. You've got to inteIpret
the
ConVentional date for it.

Let's See if the rOCks talk

toWOLFSIE:
Frank.

ZlNDLER; Now, Were these xenOliths

11] that had been brought up With the

18 , or W at?

MORRIS: They might talk to him.

ZINDLER: WeH, fir" of all, his
definition of science is rather bizarre.
It would rule Out almost all of science.
Science is hYPOthesis testing, JOhn, and
Youpast.
certainly can test hYpotheses about
the

MORRIS: You can't test history.

ZlNDLER: Yes you Can! AbSOlutely,
You Can! That's Where you're Wrong.

ZlNDLER:
Creationists
don't
understand mOUntains, basicaHy. They
MORRIS:
Talk about SWitch of
find fossil., in the tops of mOUntains and
Subjects! To ansWer YOUr question, the
fOSSils Were Shells. [n]
think thatthat is prOof of NOah's flOOd.
Now Why theY're in the mountain tops
instead
of on the moun,,"n tops is
ZlNDLER: What type of shells?
something they rarely ansWer. In the
case of Mt. Ararat, this is a curious
problem,
because Mt. Ararat is a
VOlcano. It's not a mOUntain made up
of Se4imentary depos;,s. And to say

that there are fossil deposits on top of

Mt. Ararat would imply that it had been
under water. [8]
MORRIS: Frank, your problem is
that you say that I don't understand
geology. What you don't understand
is creationism. In your articles written
about me... You have such a total
misunderstanding of what creationists
do say ...
WOLFSIE: Be specific, Doctor Morris,
tell Frank what he misunderstands ...
MORRIS: In this subject, I have never
said that those fossils were on top of
Mt. Ararat. Those fossils are in sight of
Mt. Ararat... [2]
ZINDLER: No, you said that there
were sedimentary strata on the top of
Mt. Ararat, or on Mt. Ararat, I don't
know that you said that they were
exactly on the top ...
MORRIS: I reported that in 1969 a
glaciologist [10] claimed he found a
fossil layer about the 14,000-foot level.
The fossil layers that I've studied are
some ten miles away. [ll]
ZINDLER: I know that you said that
also, but you claimed that there were
fossils in the rock on Mt. Ararat, and
that's why I wrote to you ...

Zindler: That would imply that Mt.

Ararat had been under water. You also
said that there were pillow lavas. Now
no one else has ever found pillow lavas
on Mt. Ararat.
MORRIS: Oh, that's not true.
ZINDLER: That's crazy, to think that
there would be pillow lavas there. In
fact, we have an "ark-ologist" from
Columbus, by the name of Garbe.
Every time he goes climbing Mt.
Ararat I say, "Well now you look for
those fossils and you look for those
pillow lavas," and they never find
them. The photograph in your book
is not of pillow lavas. You say they're
pillow lavas ...
WOLFSIE: What are pillow lavas?
ZINDLER: Pillow lavas are lavas
laid under water, under great depths
of water, and they form like pillows
because the lava congeals so rapidly.
They have a glassy constitution ...
WOLFSIE: I've got to stop you. What
do you say ...Again, I've got to think
about the person at home. Like, if I
were home, I'd be lost here. What is
it that you would have liked to have
found, or did you find on the mountain,
that would have suggested to you that
there was a Noah's Ark? And then I
want Frank to jump in.

ZINDLER: That's a good question.

WOLFSIE: What did you find, or what
would you have liked to have found
relating to the ark?
MORRIS: In a schizophrenic fashion,
he's brought up so many different
subjects ... [12] I never claimed that
there were fossils on Mt. Ararat. I do
claim that one fellow claims he found
some at the 14,000-foot level. I have
never seen them, and I have looked for
them. [U] The mountain is a volcanic
mountain. The type of lava that is on
Mt. Ararat is consistent with the type
that's laid down under water under
great pressure. The aspect of it's being
pillow, that's a very specific type of
lava found in a deep-sea trench and
different things, that is recognizably
laid down under water. It is a fieldjudgement call. As a geologist, trained
in these sorts of things, I found lavas
that in my opinion were pillow.
WOLFSIE: And that would mean ...
MORRIS:
those ...

...and I have pictures

ZINDLER: ...that they were laid down

under water.
Now you say, on page seven, of your
Ark on Ararat that Mt. Ararat was
created on the third day ...

~..
. ..r=:

--.-./.1 ~

"OK. mister smart4 ..pants Noah -where

10

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

of

do THOSE two 907"

WOLFSIE: Don't laugh! He read the

book, he bought it!

ZINDLER: I'm going to try to keep

you honest.

ZINDLER: ...created on the third day

of creation week, [ 14] along with the
ocean basins, but that at that time Mt.
Ararat was only about ten to twelve
thousand feet high. Now if all the water
came down in forty days and drowned
all the mountains of the world, that
would require the rain to come down
at about eleven and a half feet per hour.
John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic
mining! Everything would have been
swept off the surface of the continents.
The continents would be absolutely
denuded down to crystalline rocks.
All the sedimentary rocks would have
been deposited in the ocean basins.
Now clearly, that's not the pattern that
we see ... and it would certainly imply ...
that does away with Noah's flood!

MORRIS: ...and not an unfair caricature

of what I said; I did not say that...

MORRIS: Frank, let me say that if

you're going to be critiquing my book,
or if you're going to be critiquing the
Bible, which I do believe, what you
need to do is handle that [sic] data
honestly [15] ... Now what you just
have said ...
ZINDLER:
dishonestly?

What

have

done

MORRIS: ...is not what I wrote in that

book!
ZINDLER:
there! [16]

Oh, on page seven it's

ZINDLER: Where did the water...

ZINDLER: It's not a caricature, it's
comic-book science [18] that you
write, John.[hubub]
MORRIS: We need to come to an
understanding here!
ZINDLER: Now, if that mountain was
ten thousand feet high, where did all
the water come from?
MORRIS: We need to talk honestly,
Frank. [19]
ZINDLER: Where did the water come
from?
MORRIS: We really need to make sure
that we're talking facts, that they're not
your cartoon caricature ...
ZINDLER: Well I'm just repeating
what you said. If they' aren't facts, I
can't help that, John. Where did the
water come from to drown Mt. Ararat,
ten thousand feet in forty days?
MORRIS: What happen to page seven,
being created on day three? You know
if we're going to talk about a subject,
let's talk about a subject. You change
the subject...

MORRIS: Okay, but I go on, page

eight, nine, ten ...

WOLFSIE: All right, we have to take

a break ...

ZINDLER: I know, you contradict

yourself later in the book ...[hubub] ...
the ocean basins come later... [17]

ZINDLER: We've got to figure out

where the water came from ...

MORRIS: If you're going to talk about

my work, or if you're going to talk
about the Bible, I'm going to hold your
feet to the fire. I'm going to make sure
you characterize accurately ...

WOLFSIE: ...and you decide what

question you want to answer, and we'll
do that when we come back. Stay with
us.

WOLFSIE: I'll tell you what we'll do.

You decide what question you want to
ask, I'll ask it...
ZINDLER: I've asked it!

[Commercial]
WOLFSIE: We're back on AM Indiana.
Both of our guests this morning were
trained as geologists; but if you tuned
in even a couple of minutes ago,
you know we have some real basic
disagreements here-about the origin of
the earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's ark,
and that's what we're talking about. Let
me, let me ask a question, and therefore
neither of you can avoid it, okay? If
you just take the story of Noah, as I
understand it, it seems to me there
are certain aspects of it that appear to
be, on the surface, rather implausibleif not a miracle: how he got all these
animals on the boat, how big the boat
was, how big the boat had to be ... So
my first question to you, sir, is do you
need to explain those things, or are you
simply going to say God did it, it was
a miracle, no explanation is necessary.
MORRIS: I think the story of the flood
clearly has its miraculous aspects to it;
but by and large, the kinds of things
that are mentioned in the scriptures
regarding Noah's flood are natural
processes. I mean we're talking rainfall
and erosion and deposition; and these
sorts of things are present processes
that are studiable and understandable.
[20] And in those areas, by all means,
I do believe that the flood account is
compatible with the geologic data.
Now we can't prove the flood; [21] we
didn't see the flood. It's totally outside
the realm of our experience, and so we
can only argue by analogy of that. My
study of geology has shown me that by
and large all of the rock units that are
on the earth's surface were laid down
by catastrophic processes. [22] We've
studied, we have a big study of Mt.
St. Helens, for instance, and we study
that terrible catastrophe and we see
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

11

the sorts of things ... that dinky little

volcano- I mean it wasn't too dinky
for people living on the north side of
the mountain in 1980 ... But that dinky
little volcano did the sorts of things,
laid down the sorts of layers that we
see in the geologic record throughout.
All of geology is beginning to move
toward this catastrophic interpretation
of the rocks ...
WOLFSIE: Okay, so your...this is what
I should have asked before... your
contention is that your approach that
your study of the geologic data show
that evolution as we understand it may
not be right or your study shows you
that in fact that there was a Noah or
you're still unclear about the proof on
either side?
MORRIS: The point is, science
can't prove the past. What a scientist
can do is study the present and do a
historical interp ... or reconstruction ...
what happened in the past to bring the
present in the state it is now. That's
what a scientist can do, that's what I
do ... that's what Frank claims he does.
WOLFSIE: Okay, Frank?
what about the ark story?

MORRIS: Dr. Who, here! He goes

back in time!
ZINDLER: ...the galaxies as they
appeared millions of years ago [23]
...But getting back to Noah's flood, he
hasn't answered the question: Where
did the water come from? As I pointed
out, we would have had so much water
come down in forty days in order to
raise~ea level almost two miles ... that
we would have had ten, eleven and a
half feet of water coming down per
hour. This would have scoured off the
surface of all the continents. All the
AMERICAN

ATHEIST-

MORRIS: In order to interpret the

past, in order to try to explain how any
particular rock unit was laid down, we
stay in the present, we're staying in the
present...
ZINDLER: Sure ...
MORRIS: We don't have Dr. Who's
time machine to go back to see how
chalk was formed ...
ZINDLER: Chalk is being formed in
the present...

[hubub] ...

ZINDLER: We certainly can see the

past. For example, whenever we look
through a telescope, we see the stars or
galaxies ...

12

sedimentary rocks would have been

laid down in the ocean basins in one
great, jumbled mass. That is not what
we find. The fossil record, the rock
record, shows many cases of rock ...
things that had to have been formed
very slowly and gently. For example,
the Chalk Cliffs of Dover, the chalk
deposits. These rocks are made entirely
of the remains of fossil, microscopic
organisms. You couldn't possibly form
a deposit like that in one year's time,
[24] let alone in the jumbled mess of
Noah's flood. How could you get the
chalk deposits in one year?

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

MORRIS: ...that's right, but we have

to impose on that [sic] data certain
assumptions, a certain interpretive
framework. In geology we were
taught... you were taught, I was taught,
that the present is the key to'the past...
ZINDLER: Sure ...
MORRIS:
...and by studying the
present we may find analogies ... and
so we might know something about the
past. But as I said, at Mt. St. Helens,
there are episodes in the present which
give us a peek into a very catastrophic
possibility for the past... [25]
ZINDLER: It shows the 27 buried
fossils ...at Yellowstone Park ...it shows
quite clearly how 27 layers of fossil
forests were buried [26] ... But getting
back to the chalk, how could chalk have

been formed? These are microscopic

fossils of organisms ... There is a very
strict limitation as to how many of
these organisms can live in the sea at
anyone time. There are remains of
little granules formed by algae, the socalled coccoliths. You can only grow so
many algae per square meter of surface
of the sea at one time ...
MORRIS: Let me tell you the error of
your thinking, Frank. You're making
the assumption that the present is the
key to the past...
ZINDLER: Oh, are you saying that
the sunlight didn't... in the past, the
sunlight didn't limit the growth of
algae? [ 27]
MORRIS: In the laboratory, there are
a number of different studies that have
been shown, that the different algal
organisms and different types of things
in that chalk deposit... they can grow,
they can duplicate, they can double
in their volume every day, or maybe
several times a day, if the nutrients
are right, if the temperature is right... I
am claiming that during Noah's flood,
there were locations, there were spots
in this global flood where the water
was incredibly nutrient-rich, were the
temperatures were large enough, to
have what we call an algal bloom ...
ZINDLER: In the darkness of all this
water coming down! During this flood,
when we would expect that the skies
would be extremely overcast, in fact
it should have been completely dark.
How would you grow algae?
MORRIS: Well, you say it's dark, I
don't see that in scripture ...
ZINDLER: ...that's a hell of a lot of
water, there, still coming down ...
MORRIS: That was quite a storm, no
question about that!

ZINDLER: ... it allegedly destroyed

the world!
WOLFSIE:
Let's
go from the
microorganisms, which I can't see ...
ZINDLER:
reefs? [28]

How

about

the

coral

WOLFSIE: Let's talk about the big

animals. We've got to take a break
here ...1want to know what was on this
boat, how many animals were on the
boat, and let's get into the big picture
here, that's people understand ...We'll
be right back.
[commercial]
WOLFS IE: Back on AM Indiana,
talking about Noah's Ark. Frank, let
me ask you very specifically, let's get
from the very tiny things to the big
things. What about the story, the size
of the ark? And what Noah would have
had to put on the ark? What troubles
you? And then Professor Morris can
respond.
ZINDLER: Not only is there the
problem of how do you get all of the
species of land animals into the ark,
the primitive people who created the
flood myth in the first place, in the
fourth millennium B.C. or whenever,
they didn't realize that plants were
living things, and they didn't realize
the implications of Noah not taking
fishes and marine organisms into the
ark. If we limit ourselves to just the
water that is known on the planet, and
the volume of sedimentary strata that
we know of, and if as the creationists
claim, all these sedimentary strata
were deposited during that one year,
the ocean at that time would have been
actually two parts water to one part
mud! [29] Now, if that were the case,
with a world-destroying flood, how
would the whales have stayed alive?
They could not have been swimming ...
through, straining out plankton and so
on, to feed. Delicate corals die if there

is just the tiniest bit of silt in the water,

or change in water temperature, and so
forth. So Noah would have to have had
enormous numbers of aquaria in the
ark to keep the whales going, to keep
the marine fishes from dying because
of the dilution of the salt water with
fresh water, to keep the fresh water
organisms alive because of the salt
coming in, and all these noxious
things that the volcanos are throwing
out... Incidentally, if all the volcanic
lava beds that we see interspersed
between these sedimentary rocks were
laid down during one year, the amount
of heat released from that lava would
have heated the water of the ocean to
several thousand degrees centigrade!
And so Noah's ark would have had to
have been air-conditioned! [30]
WOLFSIE: And how many animals
on the boat? How many species?
ZINDLER: There are at least a million
species of organisms known, and the
creationists say, well we wouldn't have
to have all the species. We would have
maybe just a general representative of
them. But even so.with the need for
the aquaria, a boat simply the size of
an ocean liner would be inadequate.
[31]

ZINDLER: I'm saying it was an error

because they didn't know he had to
take the fish on board ...
MORRIS: What you're saying is the
biblical account is wrong.
ZINDLER: Yes!
MORRIS: Because there's not room
on board for all the fish and whales
and ...
ZINDLER: No-no-no! It was wrong
because they didn't know ...
MORRIS: Nowhere is it claimed that
they had to be on board.
ZINDLER: That's why it's wrong ...
You see, for it to be a plausible
argument, they would have had to say,
"and he had to take the fish on board,
and the corals on board ..."
MORRIS: See what this is? Let me
show you what this is. This is Atheistic
logic here ...
WOLFSIE: Well he doesn't deny that!
MORRIS: No, he doesn't.. ..He's
Madalyn Murray's right-hand man!

WOLFSIE: Okay ...

MORRIS: Frank, you are critiquing
the biblical account here. You're
saying that Noah ...[three-second flaw
in videotape of debate] Here's the
Bible. [holds up a Bible] Now ...
ZINDLER: A very ignorant book, by
the way ...
MORRIS: Oh my!

ZINDLER: I was showing that the

Bible is pre-scientific, you see ...
MORRIS: An Atheist assumes a
very arrogant position, in my mind,
that there is no god. Now, every
philosopher knows that there is no
such thing as an absolute negative.
[32] He's saying there is no god ...
ZINDLER: You have to prove there is
one; I don't have to disprove it.

ZINDLER: Very unscientific ...

MORRIS: Okay, but you're making ...
MORRIS: You are critiquing this
account...Will you tell me where it
says Noah had to take the fish on
board?

ZINDLER: The onus of proof is on

you who allege ... [33]

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

13

MORRIS: But to say that there is no

god ...that's illogical!
ZINDLER: On the contrary! It is
extraordinarily illogical to say there is
a god who couldn't tell the people who
wrote the Bible that they had to take
fishes and corals in the ark!
MORRIS: Now your logic is going the
same direction ...You're saying that I
know, for a fact, that no whales could
have survived outside the ark ...
ZINDLER: I would hope you would
know that!
MORRIS:
Well,
you're
making
the statement that you know this
knowledge, that no whales could have
survived outside the ark ...Now, I think
that's an illogical statement. The flood
is not as you characterize it. Let me tell
you some things about water...
ZINDLER: It destroyed
supposedly ...

the world,

MORRIS: You betcha! By the billions

fish, clams, whales, died in the flood,
or maybe not billions of whales, by the
billions ...
ZINDLER: That's another thing. There
are too many fossils for one world! If
you were to ...
WOLFSIE: Hey, Frank, now hold it!
You know ...
ZINDLER: You can't have all the
known fossils living at one time!
WOLFSIE: ...1 was just about to
understand something, and you're
changing on me! Now wait a second ...
ZINDLER: You see, you can't have all
the known fossils living at one time ...
[34]
WOLFSIE: I was just on the verge of

14

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

getting something here ... [To Morris]

You're claiming that the fish didn't
have to go on the ark because the fish
just would have survived, because they
live in water anyway ...
MORRIS: The Bible is very explicit
about what goes on the ark. It says
that...it says the land animals. It says
all those in whose nostrils is the breath
of life, of everything that lives on the
dry land. So many animals ... that's
excluding whales ...
ZINDLER: That's right! [35]
MORRIS: ...although they breathe air,
but they don't live on land. It talks
about cattle and domesticated animals.
It talks about creeping things, the small
animals ...and the beasts of the field,
which are the large animals. And it says
very explicitly that those had to be on
board the ark ...and the birds. Now, he
says millions of species. If you add up
that number of species, you know, the
maximum number even that anyone
would even propose would be on board
the ark would be, I mean the outside
maximum, the worst-case scenario,
we're talking maybe fifty thousand
animals ... [36] And the ark is certainly
big enough to carry that number of
animals for the length of time that they
had to be ...
ZINDLER:
there ...

Okay, you'd

think that

MORRIS: Now what he's saying is ...

he's adding to the story. He's saying
that the story makes no sense unless
you put the fish on board. I think that's
an illogical addition to it...
ZINDLER: You've apparently never
raised tropical fish, John ....you would
know how difficult it is to keep fish
alive!
MORRIS: Let me tell you something
about water. There are many, many
studies where waters of different

temperature, of different salinities,

of different chemistries, segregate.
And during the flood there would
have been zones of fresh water, of salt
water... there is ... again, billions of sea
creatures died in Noah's flood. But all
the Bible, the biblical account, requires
is that two of each of these created
kinds would have survived somewhere
in a pocket...
ZINDLER:
Somewhere
close
enough together that they could get
back together after the flood! And
that stratification would have been
impossible, John, because of all the
volcanic activity you talk about going
on. [37] This would be churning stuff
up all the time [hubub] ...
WOLFSIE: Were there dinosaurs on
the ark? Were there dinosaurs on this
ark?
MORRIS: The flood account does not
predict...
WOLFSIE: Oh! I've got to take a
break ... What I'm trying to establish ...
ZINDLER: Of course there would have
been dinosaurs on the ark!
WOLFSIE: I want to understand,
because I want to talk about how
Noah's flood occurred ... and then I
think a fair question is, if there were
dinosaurs on this ark, how is that in
keeping with how we know that man
and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same
time. And if there weren't dinosaurs,
where did they come from, since all the
species were wiped out? That seems
like a fair question. I'll try to remember
how I asked that in just a moment, stay
tuned ...
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: Okay, we're back. John
Morris, I was taught when I went to
school- might not have been the school
you would have sent your kids to - but

:---------:--------------NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN ATHEIST

15

--------~~j--------~----~--~----

r- r

I------~--------,~------~---~

'i.

~-.

At

".Ilt.u.eT"
the school I went to said dinosaurs
and man... dinosaurs predated man
by millions and millions of years. I
think a fair, straight-forward question
is whether dinosaurs were on the ark.
What do you think?
MORRIS: I think there's a great deal
of evidence that dinosaurs lived during
the same time that man has lived. This
is what the Bible seems to indicate and
there is a great deal of evidence that we
can marshal in support of that idea. [38]
WOLFSIE: There's no word 'dinosaur'
in the Bible, though, I assume?
MORRIS: There is the word, the
Hebrew word tannin [ 39] which is
translated in many places' dragons.' I'd
think, I'd think. .. in fact I'd speculate we don't know - that people who study
about myths, like myths of dragons ...
and it is true that almost every culture
around the world has legends of
dragons ... and they all describe these

16

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

WOLFSIE: Frank, in your opinion, is

there incontrovertible evidence that
dinosaurs and man could not have
existed at the same time?

Cretaceous period. The whole thing,

though, is why aren't there any ... all
over the place? [42] Now ...one thing,
getting back to Noah's flood ... if that
had occurred, you see, we should have
a mixture of fossils, from the bottom
to the top, of all the different types
of living creatures, as well as all the
known extinct forms. The Cambrian
deposits, six hundred million years
ago, supposedly
according to him,
supposedly - we should find in the
Cambrian rocks at least a few traces
of human habitation, [43] along with
trilobites, along with other types of
forms, oak trees ... we should at least
find pollen. [44] We should find all of
these things all jumbled together if they
were all contemporary.

ZINDLER: Yes, that is not true. Of

course, dinosaurs do exist today in
the form of birds. Birds descended
from small, bipedal dinosaurs. But
with that exception, there are no
dinosaurs surviving after the end of the

WOLFSIE: All right, that's a fair

question. Do we find human beings as
we know human beings, and dinosaurs
in the same ... what do you call them?
Sedimentary deposits? Do we ever find
that?

dragons in much the same way as

we draw our dinosaur fossils. And I
suspect that the legends of dragons
come from encounters of people with
dinosaurs, [40] and that they not only
lived at the same time but have died out
in fairly recent times. Even in fact in the
middle ages, sober scientists who were
listing the animals that were alive at
the time listed dragons. Alexander the
Great [41] has a very sober history of
an encounter with a dragon, and most
of the historians of the day list dragons
as if they were real.

MORRIS: Let me tell you some facts

about the fossil record. [45] Ninety five
percent of all the fossils that have ever
been found are marine invertebrates.
They're like shellfish ...and a lot of
fish, but mostly bottom, ocean-bottom
dwellers. The flood as an event was an
oceanic sort of event, [46] and the kinds
of forces that we envision as having
been involved at the time would have
been just right for the preservation of
oceanic creatures. Those same forces
which I envision mostly as huge tidal
waves and massive, catastrophic forces
[47] ... when those tidal waves come
in, what they're doing, is basically
scouring at the bottom and as they curl
back down, the forces involved would
be right for the deposition of oceanic
creatures, and would be right for the
destruction of land sorts of animals.
Less, much, much less than one percent
of all fossils have anything to do with
the land. Dinosaurs, there've been a
few of those you know, there have
been several thousand dinosaur fossils
found ... there have been a few men ...
but mammals, mammals are just real
rare; [48] and in fact the mammals
that are found I feel date from after the
flood, during events like the Ice Age,
which were land-associated events
which would have been just right for
fossilizing land creatures and not for
oceanic creatures. But basically, the
fossil record shows clams at the bottom,
and clams with very little change all the
way up to the top. And that's the kind
of thing we find ...

MORRIS: The number is ...

ZINDLER: No ...John ...no ...

ZINDLER: Your father cites it... [49]

MORRIS:
...and this
the biggest argument
evolutionary scenario ...

MORRIS: It is included in a lot of

creationist publications ... Checking it
out, it wasn't true ...
ZINDLER: Okay, well I'm glad to
hear that...but there are many billions,
anyway, in that deposit. It's a large
deposit; these are mostly mammallike reptiles, connecting links between
reptiles and mammals. But in that... you
won't find any humans, you won't find
any elephant remains, you won't find
any really clearly mammalian things.
But you should! I mean, there are
plenty of vertebrate remains preserved
there. We're not talking about deepsea clams. We're talking about... about
continental-type deposits. And they're
not there. You should find at least one
some place, one human fossil in a
Cambrian rock. That would certainly
be enough to wipe out the evolutionary
idea; but that has never been found.
MORRIS: Tell you what, Frank, I'll
concede you a point. That's a point for
your side. Okay? It would be nice, for
my way of thinking, to find the fossils a
little more mixed up than they are. But I
think there's a lot of circular reasoning
involved in the fossil record. Whenever
you find a human fossil, you date it as a
recent layer and ... [50]
ZINDLER: No, no ...

ZINDLER: Well, I think people who

study clams would be upset by that
generalization! But anyway, we do
have fossil deposits like the Karroo
deposit in South Africa, where there
are over 800 billion vertebrate remains.
Most of these are mammal-like reptiles,
connecting reptiles to mammals ...
MORRIS:
That
number
is an
apocryphal number. I traced it out one
time ...
ZINDLER: Oh, really?

MORRIS: ...there's a lot of circular

reasoning ...what we should find if the
evolutionary scenario is right... we
should find in that fossil record the
record of types of animals changing
into other types of animals. And as
is now recognized by every leading
evolutionary
paleontologist
and
everybody else, what we find in the
fossil record is clams, we find oysters,
we find trilobites, and nothing in
between ... [51]

I think is
against the

ZINDLER: It is absolutely wrong! We

have ...
WOLFSIE: What's wrong? Wait a
minute. What's wrong? His assessment
that there ...
ZINDLER:
that there is no sequence
in the rocks .
MORRIS: About what I said was, there
are no transitional forms in the rocks ...
ZINDLER: ...transitional forms ...In the
evolution of the horse, [52] John ...
MORRIS: ...and to say that's wrong
is to disagree with guys like Stephen
Gould ... [53]
ZINDLER: No, Steve agrees with me,
we've discussed this ...
WOLFSIE: Drop a few names, Frank! ,
ZINDLER: No, Steve Gould is not that
dumb ...
MORRIS: He doesn't write that way.
He says that there are no transitional
forms between the basic body types of
animals ...
ZINDLER: He's talking ...well, all
right, he's going back to the really
basic types, the phyla. [54] Okay? But
certainly, the classes ...
MORRIS: And the orders and classes ...
ZINDLER: We do have connections
between classes ... [55]
MORRIS: ...and connections between
species.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

17

ZINDLER: Well, now you're at two

different levels.
MORRIS: I know ...
ZINDLER: On the one level we're
talking about microevolution and the
punctuated equilibrium model...
MORRIS: Which I agree with ... [56]
ZINDLER:
...which involves one
species changing into the next species.
On the other hand, we're talking about
large-scale
transitions,
and Steve
Gould happens to be an expert on the
mammal-like reptiles. I've discussed
this with him. These beautifully span
the structural continuity from a very
primitive type of reptile to a primitive
type of mammal. The entire structure
of the jaw, the middle ear structure which is how we define mammals - is
there to be seen. [57] The evolution of
the horse, John, these are in Tertiary
rocks ...
MORRIS: The horse, I'm very
confident, is after the flood. [58] Those
fossils are from after the flood.

and they'll look ... open to the geologic

column, and they'll look until they find
a picture of that fossil in this book, and
say "Oh, that fossil lived three hundred
million years ago, so this fossil is
three hundred million years old." You
cannot date a sedimentary rock [ 60]
or fossil [61] with the radiometric
dating schemes. These only work with
lava and granite, things like that. But
not for sedimentary rock. You date the
rock by the fossils that are in there,
and those dates are established by the
evolutionary assumption ... [62]
ZINDLER: Not so ...
MORRIS: You betcha! It's circular
reasoning!
ZINDLER: Okay, now ...
WOLFSIE: Thirty seconds,
we've got to take a break ...

Frank,

ZINDLER: This is the way you do

it quickly. However, the original
sequence, we know that that fossil lived
at a certain period, and not another...
MORRIS: How do you know that?

ZINDLER: The Tertiary deposits were

laid down after the flood?
MORRIS: Not as a general...I wouldn't
say all Tertiary deposits are from after
the flood, but as a general rule, those
Tertiary deposits that contain mammal
fossils, those few mammal fossils that
there are, are probably from after the
flood. [59]
WOLFS IE: Don't we have ...I thought
we had a pretty good scientific way of
dating something.
MORRIS: Let me tell you how to
date a sedimentary rock, the kind with
fossils in them. If you find a fossil out
in the field somewhere and you take it
into the geology lab, and say "tell me
how old this fossil is," you know what
they'll do? They'll turn to this textbook,

18

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

ZINDLER: From the position of

the rock ...It's just below the other. ..
[complete chaos for five seconds] ...this
is elementary geology ...
MORRIS: I know that. You don't get a
number that way, you get a sequence ...
ZINDLER: ...you get the sequence,
that's right. Now, from the sequence
then you proceed to use other methods of
dating. Many of the sedimentary strata
are interspersed between lava flows
which can be dated radiometrically,
and, despite the various problems with
specific radiometric dating methods,
you can use one method to check
another, [63] and you can ...

MORRIS: You want me to tell you

what's wrong with radiometric dating?
WOLFSIE:
Yes ...well,
probably
not! Let's take a break. That will be
complicated. We'll be right back after
a quick break.
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: All right, we're going to
talk about this idea, how old the earth
is, and this whole idea of dating. I'm
going to have to put you on the spot
here, Professor Morris. Your contention
would be, conservatively, how old, in
fact, is the earth? [64]
MORRIS: You know, I've dug up a
lot of rocks in my day, and I've never
dug up one with a label on it to tell me
how old it is. We've got to interpret
those rocks, based on what we see in
the present. And one of the ways that...
potentially a way to date a rock is by
measuring the isotopes in there and we
end up with radiometric dating. The
assumptions that are involved in those
methods, like the assumption that the
present is the key to the past, are really
in every case questionable at best, and
wrong in many cases. In fact the idea
of radiometric dating denies at its very
core the idea that the earth might be
young. It's not a possibility that those
methods would show that the earth was
young. [65]
WOLFSIE:
Here's what I don't
understand. We're not arguing four
billion years versus five billion years.
We're arguing several thousand years
versus four billion years ...that's a
disparity that I can't comprehend.
ZINDLER: Yes, that's important...
MORRIS: That's right...the scientific
answer to that question, not the
emotional answer, but a scientific
answer, is that the rock data, the
isotope data, is [sic] compatible with
the idea of an old earth; and the rock

data is [sic] compatible with the idea of

a young earth.
WOLFSIE: I don't understand ... [66]
MORRIS: It can go either way. The
rocks don't talk. Let me talk about a ...
let me tell you about a research project
that we're working on right now ...
WOLFSIE: Quickly, I want to make
sure Frank gets to respond ...
MORRIS: In the Grand Canyon
there are two different lava flows,
that can be dated by the radiometric
dating methods. The one is at the very
bottom, one of the oldest rocks, and is
probably ...you know, one of the very
earliest rocks down at the way bottom
of the canyon. And the other lava flow
is on the very plateau, and it was ...
there was a volcano after the canyon
was formed; and the stuff spilled down
in the canyon ... and it is thought by
normal dating methods that that should
be just a couple million years old. But
with the dating methods, down at the
bottom, we've got a whole slough
of dates, but basically they ... now, by
using the best methods of geology
today, the rubidium-strontium isochron
method, they dated that at 1.1 billion
years. Using that same method, the
very same method, the same technique,
the same accuracy, they dated the one
at the top at 2.6 billion years! [67]
WOLFSIE: But that still puts you out
of business, because you're saying the
earth's five thousand years old ...
MORRIS: No-no-no-no!
I'm just
saying that radiometric dating is so
full of unfounded, probably wrong
assumptions ...[hubub] you can only get
out depending upon what you put in ...
ZINDLER: Dick, we don't have time
enough to go in to all of the figures,
into all the techniques of radiometric
dating. The creationists have screwed
it up so badly, it takes hours to explain.

[68] But we don't need radiometric

dating. For example, we have many
rocks that do talk to us - very
eloquently- and they tell us how long it
took for them to be formed. The Green
River Shale, which was laid down in
the Eocene Epoch, has layers in it...
very tiny, thin layers ... a varve-like
deposit. They're not true varves, [69]
but they are annual deposits, and there
are six million pairs of these at least!
So that would mean that that part of
the Eocene Epoch had to have been six
million years in length. Now we know
that these are annual deposits, despite
your father's muddlement [IQ] of this,
because they follow the eleven-and-ahalf-year thickness variation in ... like
the sun-spot cycle. They follow higher
astronomical cycles, the 20,000-year
precession of the equinox cycle, [71]
and so forth. In each layer we have a
very thin amount of clay-like sediment,
and then an algal mat, with spores and
sometimes dead leaves and things like
that; and these are annual deposits, they
follow the annual cycle ....
WOLFSIE: That means what?
ZINDLER: That means that that hunk
of time was at least six million years in
duration. And that wipes out not only
Noah's flood, but the whole mythology
of the Bible and creation. The earth
was created 4004 B.C. if you add up all
the "begats" in the Bible.
WOLFSIE: Are you comfortable with
that date? 4004 B.C.? [72]
MORRIS: I would say, between
and ten thousand years ... [73]
WOLFSIE: Okay, don't we
recorded history that far back?

ZINDLER: But you know, certainly

we have overlapping
tree rings ...
dendrochronology goes back beyond
that. If we add up the begats we have
Noah's flood in the year 2348 B.C.
That's in the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty,
[75] the Yao Dynasty of China, the ...
MORRIS: May I comment on the
Green River oil shale that he's talking
about? Before he changes the subject to
the Ming Dynasty?
WOLFSIE: Yaahh, I wondered about
that...
MORRIS: Actually, what he's talking
about was thought by some geologists
about forty years ago. But that's an
old wive's tale. [76] It's really been
disproved. It's been shown by a number
of observational experiments as well
as laboratory experiments that these
couplets of layers, exactly as with the
Green Ri ver oil shales, can be formed
as events. And in fact, let me tell you
about Mt. St. Helens, our research
project there. One of those eruptions
on the side of Mt. St. Helens sent a
fluidized mud flow down the side of the
mountain at about forty miles an hour...
just a wave of mud. It was dry mud
filled with gaseous material from the
volcano, and it went down, whoosh!
And laid down a deposit about thirty
feet thick ... full of many thousands of
varved layers, just what he's talking
about at the Green River. But there's
more than one way to interpret a rock.
He says those rocks talk, but they talk
in different languages.

SIX

have

ZINDLER: Well, recorded history only

goes back to about 3000 B.C...
MORRIS: Which is what the Bible
would make you expect... [74]

ZINDLER: You don't have varves,

John, at Mt. St. Helens [77] and you
cannot produce these six million very
fine layers over hundreds of square
miles ...in the one year of Noah's flood!
MORRIS: Let me tell you something.
Also in these varved layers where
there might be a hundred of them in
a few inches, sometimes there's a fish
fossil going right up through several of
them ...
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

19

ZINDLER: Yes! Absolutely. And why

should that surprise you?
MORRIS: Thousands of years [78]
while that one fish is just sticking out
of the ground! [79] It would decay ...
ZINDLER: Oh, no, no ...these become
covered ...
MORRIS: They won't decay
thousand years?

III

ten

ZINDLER: If it was an anoxic

environment, they won't. This is why
fish fossils are building up right now
at the bottom of the Black Sea, for
example. You have hydrogen sulfide
and things like that that would prevent
decay. As a matter of fact, when you
look at those fish fossils ...
MORRIS: Wait a minute! The fish
fossils are truncating a number of
different varves ... [80]
ZINDLER: They are laid down so
slowly that they cannot completely
cover the skeleton all at once ...
MORRIS: so slowly that that fish does
not...
WOLFSIE: We'll be right back ...Keep
going!
[commercial]
WOLFSIE: Okay, we're back. Let me
try to ask a more general question ...
Because I have a lot of questions. But
John, why do you think, that for the
most part, correct me if I'm wrong,
that the churches in this country have
somewhat retreated from a strict
interpretation of the Bible. Is that
fair to say that? If you go to a typical
Protestant church and talk to them,
they'll say "well, evolution is a very
nice ...I mean, creationism is a very nice
story, but we accept evolution." Is that
fair?

20

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

MORRIS: You know, I think there's

a whole shift in thinking right now.
Back about 1960 or so there was hardly
anybody, anybody, any scientist in
particular, that believed in creation,
young-earth creation. But since 1960
there are... many tens of thousands
of scientists have said they rejected
the evolutionary scenario and have
come over to creationist thinking. L8.1]
There are now hundreds of creationist
societies around the country. And
the polls that are taken of opinion in
America show that something like 80,
85 percent of all Americans believe in
creation; they have rejected ... In fact,
there are polls taken on university
campuses today that show that over 50
percent of the college students believe
in evolution [sic] and the professors are
tearing their hair out saying what are
we doing wrong? We can't get them
to believe they came from apes? Well,
I'm of the opinion, you've got to go to
school a long time before you believe
you come from apes. That's ...that's just
illogical...We don't...I'm here to tell
you you don't come from apes ...

MORRIS: Keep talking ...I don't have

to refute that.. .Open your mouth and
remove all doubt!
ZINDLER: So you are 99 percent
chimpanzee ...
WOLFSIE: Biochemically ...
ZINDLER:
genes ...

Biochemically,

III

your

MORRIS: What you're saying is that if

you were god, you'd have done a better
job!
ZINDLER: Well, I certainly would!
MORRIS: Oh my goodness!
ZINDLER: How can you be 99 percent
chimpanzee and not be related to the
chimpanzee? [83]
MORRIS: Frank, you know as well as
I do, that we've only identified a very
small portion of the human genome ...

ZINDLER: You know, it's funny. Here

I am sitting in front of a man who's
99 percent identical to a chimpanzee,
98.5 percent identical to a gorilla in his
genes ...

MORRIS: Yes ...

WOLFSIE: And so are you, too ...

ZINDLER: Okay, now, not only ...

ZINDLER: ...and I am too, sure ...and

he cannot see the obvious. Certainly,
if the gorilla and the chimpanzee had
been divinely created independent of
humans, we would not see this. Not
only is our DNA nearly identical...
it's packaged the same way ...the
chromosomes ... [82]

MORRIS: The biochemical, molecular

biology that is now ...really the fossil
record used to be the evidence for
evolution ...

MORRIS: Frank, you say, you say

you've got the mind of god ...you're
claiming ...
ZINDLER: Well, I'm better than god.
If I couldn't do better than god, John,
I wouldn't be on this show ...god can't
do anything.

ZINDLER: But you know how we do

this, with DNA hybridization?

ZINDLER: It's now molecular...

MORRIS: Now molecular biology,
the similarities between organisms ...
but you know? I'll make a prediction.
Scientists like to make predictions. For
the last five years or so, the field of
molecular biology has been thought to
be a good ...

ZINDLER:
fossil record

a very good test of the

[ 84]

MORRIS: ...a right jab, right cross, for

the evolutionists. But now that the data
is [sic] being published, my goodness!
What we're seeing is that every
animal type ...well, sure, monkeys are
closer genetically to humans than are
kangaroos. [85] But when you look at
them, when you set them all out, every
animal type is completely distinct,
separate from each other. The isolation
of every animal kind is what's coming
out of molecular biology. I would
predict...
WOLFSIE: Which
creationist theme?

is

within

the

Notes
The ellipsis (. ..) is used in the debate transcript (but not in the
footnotes) to indicate an uncompleted thought, not words left out.
When words in fact have been left out, some explanation in square
brackets will be given.

Unfortunately, space limitations did not allow us to print

the explanatory notes accompanying the transcript of this
debate. However, the notes provide fascinating and revealing insights into creationist errors, strategies, and deceptions. Readers who are 'wired' will want to access
these notes on-line. For a complete list of foot notes, visit
www.dogmadebate.com and click on: Noah's Flood Debate

MORRIS: I predict that these studies

from genetic engineering and molecular
biology will be the falsification [86] of
evolution theory in the next five years.
ZINDLER:
Well, that's whistling
past the graveyard John. Molecular
biology has been the most wonderful
proof of what we've been saying all
along. Chimpanzee hemoglobin is
identical to yours, okay? Not only do
we share many of these genes, we even
share pseudogenes. [87] That is, god
supposedly ... if he did all the making
of genes, copied erroneous genes that
happen to contain the same error in
apes and humans!
WOLFSIE: We'll be right back ...

[Actually, this was the end of

the debate.]

"And God remembered Noah.i. and God made a

wind to pass over the earth. and the waters
assuaged ... And the waters returned from off' the
earth continually ... " [Genesis 8:1-3]
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

21

on

Amiel's

beautiful

hauntingly

film

father

accompanying

his

has made Darwin quite ill.

Creation

beloved daughter Annie as she sits for

is about Charles Darwin.

a photograph. In the next scene we see

with

Not the bearded old man

an older, sadder Darwin. Annie has

nothing

in the Inverness cloak, or

even the young naturalist

died from an unknown disease; Darwin

"ghost" is presented as a manifestation

has become distanced from his wife

of Darwin's

Emma and other children, even though

he loves them very much. Emma, a

device which allows him to speak his

true feelings about his life and his work.

religious woman, retreats even further

The work that frightens him especially

into religion to fill the void between

Charles and her. Meanwhile, Darwin's

when friend Thomas Huxley exclaims:

of the things they did or what they

researches increasingly convince him

riddance to the insufferable bugger!" It

stood for, forgetting they were of flesh

of the needlessness of a god. He knows

helps us to understand why it took so

and blood like the rest of us and subject

this will break Emma's heart and he is

long for Darwin to publish his findings.

to the same pleasures and pains the rest

of us feel.

tom whether he should tell Emma of

In the end, it is apparent that

his growing conviction. This conflict

Darwin must confront his own fears

along with his grief over Annie's death

and grief and then help Emma with hers

who sailed with Fitzroy

on the H.M.S. Beagle, but a very
.human Charles Darwin. This is the
Darwin that often gets lost because we
tend to define our heroes in the terms

We first meet Darwin as

22

young

a happy

AMERICAN ATHEIST NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009

Darwin often sees and speaks

his dead

daughter.

supernatural

here;

There

is

Annie's

own mind, as well as a

"You have killed God, and I say good

film by Jon Amiel

movte reVlew
by Jim MacIver
the word the producers could not find

loves and finish the great book that will

memorable in his small role as Thomas

Huxley, eventually to be known as

change the world.

Darwin's bulldog.

for fear of complaints from religious

if he is to reconnect with the family he

The photography

The cast is superb. Paul Bettany

is beautiful

an American

distributor,

presumably

people. I, like I'm sure many of you,

is wonderful as Charles Darwin. He

and the film is so well written by John

began

makes Darwin fully human while

still investing him with that quality of

Collee and Jon Amiel and directed by

campaign. I didn't get very far with

Amiel it goes by too quickly.

it because

respect for the truth no matter where

that we've gotten to know Darwin we

distributor was found. Ironically, the

it leads that we would expect from

want to spend more time with him and

distributor

the great man. Bettany's real life wife

his lovely family. We can, by reading

same

Jennifer Connelly is perfect as Emma,

Passion of the Christ. Make a point to

a woman who loves her husband while

Annie Box by Randal Keynes. This is

the book the film is based on. Randal

fearing his work that she feels will tear

Keynes

them apart for eternity. Interestingly,

Bettany is an Atheist and Connelly is

grandson.
I wanted to see this film ever

this writing, January 22, 2010. Take

all your friends and relatives with you,

mildly religious.

since I first heard of it. Then came

Toby Jones is very

Now

is

Darwin's

great,

great,

to organize
only

a letter writing
two

days

is Newmarket

distributor

of Mel

later

Films, the
Gibson's

see this film when it comes out, as of

kicking and screaming if necessary.

They'll thank you for it.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

23

American Atheists Essential Reading List

Enjoy the introductory information provided in these books, which are
of topics of interests to Atheists. These titles represent only a fraction
of the books available from American Atheist Press, yet collectively
they provide a broad overview of Atheist thought.

Afneism-AdvanceCl:FUrtnerTflougtlts

ofaFree

--~~~1~lL~p*Y81cl

Tflinker~5j7Dav;O'EII~ej;""'----~S1~~TOit

An anthropologist advances Atheists and

Atheism beyond belief!

5200
Christian doctrines are traced to their
origins in older religions.

A psychotherapist's view of the harmful

aspects of religious belief.

Subtitled "Freeing Your Child from the Dark Ages"

This book serves as a manual for Atheist parents.

tr

70

American Atheist Radio Series episodes about the myth

that our founding fathers created a Christian nation.

288
American Atheist Radio Series episodes on various topics
of Atheist philosophy and history.

The personal story of the battle to end mandatory prayer

and bible recitation in schools in the United States.

Ingersoll's 19th-century newspaper interviews

as a Freethinker and opponent of superstition.

~~;;r~==~:::=;Th~

42

-Paperback

Why attempts to reconcile religion with civil

rights for women are self-defeating.

A search of ancient Jewish literature yields no evidence

for the existence of any historical Jesus.

~~ -===~~~~::~
80

_... I

aperback

How nonbelievers and Atheists have contributed

to civilization and enriched our lives.

tl'e'M'yftlorl\Jazarefn:lne

lnventedWTown of Jesus

oyRen'frSmm

Jesus couldn't have come from Nazareth

because no one was living there at the time.

You can bet this book won't ever be used

In Sunday Schools!

esusistre'aaOYFl'ooen7Cr.'Pnce

f6U05

--'~18.00

Paperback

Not only is there no reason to believe Jesus rose from the

dead, there is no reason to think he ever lived or died at all!

Please see the order form enclosed with this magazine for member discounts and shipping details, or consult www.atheists.org.

24

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

~
MILITARY DIRECTOR
Kathleen Johnson
411 E. Hwy 190 Ste. 105
PMB66
Copperas Cove, TX 76522
(318) 542-1019
kjohnson@atheists.org
http://www. atheists .org/m iI

CONNECTICUT
STATE
DIRECTOR
Dennis Paul Himes
P.O. Box 9203
Bolton, CT 06043
(860) 643-2919
dphimes@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/ct/

MISSOURI STATE
DIRECTOR
Greg Lammers
P.O. Box 1352
Columbia, MO 65205
(573) 289-7633
glammers@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/mol

ALABAMA STATE
DIRECTOR
Blair Scott
P.O. Box 41
Ryland, AL 35767-2000
(256) 701-6265
bscott@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/al/

FLORIDA STATE DIRECTOR

Greg McDowell
P.O. Box 680741
Orlando, FL 32868-0741
(352) 217-3470
gmcdowell@atheists.org
Ken Loukinen
(So. FL Reg. Dir.)
7972 Pines Blvd., #246743
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
(954) 381-5240
kloukinen@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/fl/

NEW JERSEY
STATE DIRECTOR
David Silverman
1308 Centennial Ave.,
Box 101
Piscataway, NJ 08854
(732) 648-9333
dsilverman@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/nj/

ALASKA STATE DIRECTOR

Clyde Baxley
3713 Deborah Ln.
Anchorage, AK 99504
(907) 333-6499
cbaxley@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/ak/
ARIZONA STATE DIRECTOR
[NEW]
Don Lacey
P.O. Box 1161
Tucson, AZ 85641-1161
(520) 370-8420
azatMeist@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/az/
CALIFORNIA
STATE DIRECTOR
Michael Doss
P.O. Box 10541
Santa Ana, CA 92711
(714) 478-8457
mdoss@atheists.org
Mark W. Thomas (Asst. Dir.)
472 Lotus Lane
Mountain View,
CA 94043-4533
(650) 969-5314
mthomas@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/cal

IDAHO STATE DIRECTOR

Susan Harrington
P.O. Box 204
Boise, ID 83701-0204
(208) 392-9981
sharrington@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/id/
KENTUCKY STATE
DIRECTOR
Edwin Kagin
P.O. Box 48
Union, KY 41091
(859) 384-7000
ekagin@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/ky/
MICHIGAN STATE
DIRECTOR
Arlene-Marie
amarie@atheists.org
George Shiffer (Asst. Dir.)
gshiffer@atheists.org
Both can be reached at:
P.O. Box 0025
Allen Park, M148101-9998
(313) 938-5960
http://www.atheists.org/mil

NORTH CAROLINA STATE

DIRECTOR
Wayne Aiken
P.O. Box 30904
Raleigh, NC 27622
(919) 602-8529
waiken@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/nc/
OHIO STATE DIRECTOR
Michael Allen
PMB289
1933 E. Dublin-Granville
Rd
Columbus, OH 43229
(614) 678-6470
mallen@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/oh
OKLAHOMA
STATE
DIRECTOR
Ron Pittser
P.O. Box 2174
Oklahoma City,
OK 73101-2174
(405) 205-8447
rpittser@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/ok/

State Directors
TEXAS
STATE DIRECTOR
Joe Zamecki
(512) 462-0572
jzamecki@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/tx/
Dick Hogan (TX Reg. Dir.,
Dallas/Ft. Worth)
dhogan@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/dfw/
UTAH STATE DIRECTOR
Rich Andrews
P.O. Box 165103
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-5103
(801) 718-7930
randrews@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/utl
VIRGINIA STATE DIRECTOR
Rick Wingrove
P.O. Box 774
Leesburg, VA 20178
(703) 433-2464
rwingrove@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/val
WASHINGTON
STATE
DIRECTOR
Wendy Britton
12819 SE 38th St., Suite 485
Bellevue, WA 98006
(425) 269-9108
wbritton@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/wal
WEST VIRGINIA STATE
DIRECTOR
Charles Pique
P.O. Box 7444
Charleston, WV 25356-0444
(304) 776-5377
cpique@atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/wv/

Contacting State Directors

Our directors are not provided with contact information for members in their area. If you're
interested in working with your Director on activism, please use the listing on this page to
contact them. They would love to hear from you!
If you live in a state or area where there is no director, you have been a member for one year
or more, and you're interested in a Director position, please contact:

David Kong, Director of State and Regional Operations

dksf@atheists.org

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

25

arlier in 2009 I compiled,

some data for a reporter at
Religious
News
Service
regarding how fast Atheist
groups were growing in the United
States. After compiling the data, Imust
admit I was pretty amazed myself. I
knew secularism was growing, but
I did not expect the numbers I came
across and the rapid increase in groups
everywhere.
To get the data, I used Meetup.
Com. It is a great indicator of the
movement and how things are going.
While I would love to count every
single group out there, it is an almost
impossible task to undertake. I have a
hard enough time keeping up with the
Southeast groups that I have listed on
my personal Web Page.

Humanism: 467 groups

Atheism: 439 groups
Agnostics: 232 groups
Skeptics: 218 groups
Freethinker: 99 groups
Brights: 79 groups
TOTAL: 1534 groups
So how much have the groups
grown over the years? The data on
Meetup.Com starts in late 2002, so I
will only count from January, 2003 to
November 20th, 2009.
Humanism and Secular Humanism
are listed separately and I have
combined them into one grouping:
2003:-41 groups
2004: 46 groups (up by 5, 12%)
2005: 48 groups (up by 2, 4%)
2006: 90 groups (up by 42,87%)
2007: 162 groups (up by 72,80%)
2008: 289 groups (up by 127,78%)
2009: 467 groups (up by 178,61 %)

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

Agnostics:
2003: 28 groups
2004: 30 groups (up by 2, 7%)
2005: 32 groups (up by 2,6%)
2006: 51 groups (up by 19, 59%)
2007: 82 groups (up by 31, 60%)
2008: 139 groups (up by 57, 69%)
2009: 232 groups (up by 93, 67%)
Skeptics:
2003: 15 groups
2004: 17 groups (up by 2, 13%)
2005: 17 groups (no change, 0%)
2006: 32 groups (up by 15, 88%)
2007: 69 groups (up by 37, 115%)
2008: 125 groups (up by 56, 81%)
2009: 218 groups (up by 93, 74%)

Groups on Meetup.Com
(as of 11120/2009)

26

Atheism and Atheists are listed

separately and I have combined them
into one grouping:
2003: 55 groups
2004: 58 groups (up by 3, 5%)
2005: 61 groups (up by 3,5%)
2006: 95 groups (up by 34,55%)
2007: 166 groups (up by 71, 74%)
2008: 276 groups (up by 110,66%)
2009: 439 groups (up by 163,59%)

2009

Freethinkers:
2003: 6 groups
2004: 7 groups (up by 1, 16%)
2005: 7 groups (no change, 0%)
2006: 12 groups (up by 5, 71 %)
2007: 20 groups (up by 8, 66%)
2008: 32 groups (up by 12, 60%)
2009: 99 groups (up by 67, 209%)
Brights:
2003: 4 groups
2004: 13 groups
2005: 13 groups
2006: 21 groups
2007: 32 groups
2008: 54 groups
2009: 79 groups

(up
(no
(up
(up
(up
(up

by 9, 225%)
change. 0%)
by 8, 61 %)
by 11,52%)
by 22,68%)
by 25, 46%)

2006 was by far the largest overall

increase in secular groups across the
United States and around the world. I
checked the details of the year and while
each month had a consistent uptick, it
was not until the end of the year that the
numbers jumped and then continued to
jump each consecutive year.

Was it a coincidence that Richard

Dawkins' The God Delusion was
released in September of 2006? Did
Sam Harris' The End a/Faith help with
the upticks toward the end of 2004?
Did Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not
Great contribute to upticks in 20077 Or
was it a coincidence?
Ido not know what effect Hitchens
and Harris had on the increase of
groups, but I am inclined to think
that the release of The God Delusion
significantly contributed to the bumping
up of secular groups across the globe in
late 2006 and early 2007.
I would also count some of the
uptick to increased knowledge about
Meetup.Com as the site became more
popular as a ready-made Web Page
for people to start groups in their local
areas.
Another indicator is that American
Atheists currently has 106 Affiliates
across the United States. Two years ago
American Atheists had 63 Affiliates.
Sixty-three Affiliates from the inception
of American Atheists several decades
ago to 43 new Affiliates in the last two
years alone (a 68% increase).
An interesting bit of data that made
me go "hmmm" is that while Humanism
and Secular Humanism outnumber
Atheism & Atheists by 28 groups,
Secular Humanism has 46 more groups
than Humanism, so there seems to be a
preference for Secular Humanism over
regular Humanism.
With Atheism and Atheists being
only 28 groups behind the humanist
preferences (and being second place
for overall group numbers), perhaps
there is not as much apprehension
about the "dreaded A-word" as some
think. I count myself among those that
think a lot of people are afraid to use
the "A-word" because I do run into
them a lot. Then again, maybe it is
confirmation bias and I only remember
the people that tell me they are afraid to
use the "A-word."
Couple this with the fact that
Freethinkers only have 99 groups.
Freethought and Freethinker are often
offered up as an umbrella term for
secularists, but it is hardly used on

Blair Scott

Meetup as an anchor by groups across

the globe. Even groups that have
Freethinker or Freethought in their
name are using atheists.meetup.com or
agnostics.meetup.com. Is it that prior
to 2006 Freethought was the "kinder,
gentler" word to use and now more
and more Atheists are willing to use the
"A-word?"
What I find amazing is where
some of the groups are popping up.
We all expect Atheist groups to exist in
New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle,
Portland, and other similarly large cities.
But now we are seeing more and more
groups pop up in places like Brevard,
NC, Dothan, AL, Bowling Green, KY,
Carbondale, IL, Joplin, MO, and many
more: medium-sized cities and small

towns where membership is in the 20~1

and 50's, and sometimes much higher.
Obviously, I think this is absolutely
amazing! While we certainly appreciate
the Atheist groups that exist in the
big cities, the groups that exist in the
smaller towns are desperately needed. It
is in places like Texarkana, AR, Ponce
City, OK, Tyler, TX, Gadsden, AL, and
Gulfport, MS where our fellow non"
theists are feeling alone and sUlTounded
by the religious with no one to turn to.
These mid-size and small town
groups are offering our fellow Atheists
a safe haven to express their ideas
with like-minded
individuals. The
opportunity to rant and rave and get
years
frustration
their c

repercussions of doing so at the family

picnic right after a good old-fashioned
Southern Baptist prayer to Jesus
surrounded by 15 cousins all on the
Wrasslin' for Jesus Team at First Grove
Baptist Church on Main Street.
No matter where you live, there is
a good chance there is a secular group
near you, or close enough to make a
day trip now and then. If not, have you
considered starting one?
On the Web:
Atheist Groups On Meetup.Com:
http://atheists.meetup.com
(plug in your zip code and go)
American Atheists Affiliation
http://alabamaatheist.org/naod

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

27

Two Words,

Kate Sirls

& Why They Should Matter to Atheists

y son recently expressed
to me that he didn't
want to have to say the
Pledge of Allegiance at school.
As he's only five years old, I was
very aware that this decision rested
mostly with the fact that he didn't
want to be bothered reciting a spiel
that he understood only minimally,
but being an Atheist and having my
own concerns about the "under god"
phrase, his choice didn't bother me
at all. So, quite naturally, I told him
that he didn't have to say the Pledge
ifhe didn't want to-after all, I
knew it wasn't mandatory in the
public school setting, and assumed
there wouldn't be an issue.
What I learned is something that
all Atheist parents probably come
to understand when dealing with
these situations: never assume. I
didn't expect the outcome that took
place when my son actually took
my advice and tried to opt out of
the Pledge. I had certainly heard of
instances in which children refusing

28

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

to say the Pledge were picked on or

ostracized by classmates, or even
made newspaper headlines, but my
child was simply told that he did
have to say the Pledge-and they
even told him that I, his mother, was
wrong in telling him he didn't have
to.
My anger about this issue
stemmed from multiple sources:
legality (why was my son being told
he had to do something that he wasn't
legally required to do?), authority
(who were these people to step in
and tell him his mother was wrong
about an issue that I was undoubtedly
correct about?), and personal beliefs
(why did they think they had a right
to coerce the child of a nonbeliever
into pledging allegiance to a higher
power?), to name a few. The more
I thought about this, the more I
realized that the Pledge issue is
clearly a bigger problem than most
realize it to be.
There are some Americans who
are of the opinion that having the

words "under god" in the Pledge

shouldn't create a problem for
nonbelievers. They claim it is a simple
matter of "two words" that should be
easily overlooked because of their
triviality. In other words, we Atheists
should think twice about causing
a stir over the reference to a god in
the Pledge because the issue itself
is supposedly so inconsequential
that, in the end, it makes little to no
difference in our lives. This is what I
have heard, anyway.
What does it really mean for us
to simply shrug aside such an issue,
though? The fact of the matter is that
words are powerful, and even two
small words can have a considerable
impact in people's lives. I wonder
how the Judeo-Christian majority
in America would feel about the
effects of a mere two words if those
words happened to be "under Allah,"
"under Zeus," or, bringing it down
to only one word, even "godless?"
I imagine that such circumstances
would help them to see the

importance that two words can entail.

In fact, the Christian backlash that
would occur if Christian children
were prompted-or
coerced-into
declaring allegiance to one nation
under any deity but their own would
most likely be very large in scale.
The weight that two words can
carry should matter as much to us as
Atheists.
Since Michael Newdow took the
Pledge issue to court in 2002, it has
become a widely publicized matter.
We nonbelievers have argued a
multitude of points: how the presence
of any deity within the Pledge violates
the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment in the Constitution; that
the Pledge did not originally include
the words "under god;" and also
that including reference to a deity
in a declaration spoken mostly by

children makes it difficult for Atheist

parents to exert their own religious
rights. The main point, though, is
that such a statement as the Pledge of
Allegiance-recited daily by millions
of children nationwide-should
be representative of all Americans,
because the message currently being
sent is that only those who believe
in the Il}onotheistic,patriarchal deity
that the word "god" denotes are true
Americans.
I have been told that removing
the mention of a god from the
Pledge would be catering to Atheists
and Atheists alone. What must be
remembered, aside from the fact
that only changing the words in the
Pledge to "one nation under no god"
would cater to Atheists, is that we
shouldn't be trying to cater to any
one group at all. This is why the

most logical solution would be to

leave any mention of a deity out of
the Pledge of Allegiance, for doing
so creates all-inclusive language that
does not single anyone out for her or
his personal beliefs. In eliminating
"under god" from the Pledge, we
would be creating a scenario where
all citizens of the country would
be able to pledge allegiance not as
Christians or Atheists, Muslims or
Hindus, or any other differentiating
category-but as Americans.
It's true that "under god" are
two simple, short words, but they
are words that should matter to all
American Atheists. It is essential
that we take this matter seriously not
only for ourselves, but for our future
generations, so that tomorrow's
Atheists can know that they, too, are
represented by our nation's Pledge.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

29

30

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009"

AMERICAN ATHEIST

31

s Atheists, our strongest weapon is inside

our heads. Unfortunately, not all Atheists
utilize this potent muscle to win victories
against the religious adversaries who seek to
encroach upon our freedoms. Instead, these
Atheists sit back in their chairs, watching the destructive
impact religion has on society play out on their television
screens, complacent in their own Atheism but not wanting to
rock the proverbial boat. Unwilling to lead the charge onto
the intellectual battlefield to ensure the protection of their
constitutional liberties, they see their religious counterparts
as embarrassing out of touch with reality, but prefer to 'live
and let live,' keeping quiet about their true feelings so as not
to appear insensitive.
The religionist does not want to 'live and let live.' Quite
the contrary. The religionist wants to strip you of your right
to be free from the tyranny of religions; the religionist
wants you to conform to the same morbid ideology that has
cankered his or her own brain. The religionist wants you to
feel the identical internal guilt as he or she feels at being a

The faithful believers, meanwhile,

abstemiously
withhold the same respect when it comes to the Atheism
of his or her neighbor. The religionist is hard at work in the
control center, devising ways to subvert the constitutional
freedoms enjoyed by the Atheist community, raze the wall
of separation between state and church, and foist prayer
back into the classroom. The religionist mocks evolution
as a conspiratorial farce and attempts to contaminate
the susceptible minds of children with the obnoxious,
pseudoscientific nonsense called 'intelligent design.' Sex
education is a taboo that the religionists strive to eradicate
by pushing for 'abstinence only' as the only true (i.e.,
'godly') way to protect themselves from the intimate
nastiness of consenting partners. And where, pray tell, is the
armchair Atheist while the religious juggernaut steamrolls
over scientific truths and erects roadblocks around the rights
of women and children? Why, the armchair Atheist is sitting
in his La-Z-Boy reading Richard Dawkins and Christopher
Hitchens, believing him- or herself to be an exemplary
Atheist.

Adam S. Thomas
sinful human being. Allowing the Atheist to live according
to the dictates of his or her own personal conscience and
moral judgment is unthinkable. To the religionist, Atheism
is a nefarious affliction for which a faith in the god of
Abraham and the blood of his shepherd son is the cure,
which the religionist will fight to administer at any cost. In
truth, religion is the necrotizing neurotoxin of our primitive
ignorance; Atheist is the panacea that can revitalize the
faculties of one's brain.
But the armchair Atheist is unwilling to play doctor
and would much rather let the tumor continue to thrive, to
metastasize, until it devours the entire human race. Along
with this passive attitude, the armchair Atheist equally feels
it necessary to show respect and decorum to the opponent,
to treat the adversary's insanity as if it were a priceless
Ming vase. The armchair Atheist does not have the courage
to smash the artificial heirloom that has been passed down
like a genetic disorder through generations. The armchair
Atheist would rather recline with his or her feet up while
the world crumbles, taking pride in the respect shown to the
doctrines of the religionist.

32

AMERICAN ATHEIST - NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009

The Supreme Court of the United States is now

predominately dominated by religionists, casting a pall
over the future of Roe v. Wade, same sex marriage, and
state-church violations. 'In God We Trust' has sullied our
country's currency ever since 1955, when the Eisenhower
Administration kowtowed to religious pressure and passed
H. R. 619 in other to provide "for the inscription of 'In God
We Trust' on all United States Currency and Coins." The
same exclusionary four words replaced 'E Pluribus Unum'
('Out of many, one') as our national motto in 1956. Our
originally secular Pledge of Allegiance was vulgarized by
its marriage to the Judeo-Christian god, preventing every
Atheist from participating honestly in its recital. While
some of us are currently battling this crisis of historical
desecration, the vocal outcry is nowhere uproarious enough
for our position to be taken remotely seriously by the
courts. When we search desperately for collective support,
armchair Atheists languorously lay back and 'go with the
flow,' convincing themselves that the problem is beyond
their control.

It is time that such Atheists such as these were

confronted. It is no longer enough to just be an Atheist; we
need effective mobilization, diligent deprogramming of
defenseless children, fearless and ferocious debate in the
public arena, and a battalion of undaunted and intellectually
armed Atheists to drive out the insanity that has terrorized
our planet for far too long.
The religionists will not abandon their zealous pursuit
to conquer the earth and transmogrify it into a theocratic
cesspool devoid of individualism and rational thought. The
Atheists of this world must never concede defeat, no matter
how overwhelming the fetid stench of religious garbage
grows to be. This is not a job for the precious few but for
the scores of secularists who are disenfranchised by the
suffocating weight of burgeoning religious influence in the
political circus. Every discreet Atheist on this planet needs
to extract him- or herself from the chair, charge the streets
in resonant protest, and expose the religionists for who they
truly are-intellectual
terrorists who talk to the clouds.
Only by a unified effort will religion ever succumb to the
death throes. If the Founding Fathers had been armchair
progressives, we would never have had a wall of separation
to begin with. If the Atheists of this country do not get to
their feet, we are likely to lose the wall of separation that
we do have.

J'

Information on Bible contradictions

and other important information for
those that actually want to make a
difference, is available at atheists .org.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

33

36th National Convention

The magnifice
Liberty Renaiss
Featuring a blockbuster line-up that includes:
Dan Barker - Co-President, Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ed Buckner - President of American Atheists
Wendy Kaminer - Author, Correspondentattheatlantic.com
P uI Ku rtz - Philosopher, fQij(lder of.the CQIlncHfor SeotJlarHumanism

.-

-.,.....,
.,_." :~''_."~.....

~~ ...-...:...r:':
~

-'-", .. ~

34

AMERICAN ATHEIST- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009

...~.

..::Mi .

"'"

..

Is your local or national group interested

in affiliating with American Atheists? If
so, please contact Blair Scott, National
Affiliate Director, at bscott@atheists.org.

Current American Atheists Affiliates

Due to the number of Affiliates, only the group name and Web Page or Email is listed. For a full list including mailing
addresses and phone numbers, please visit http://alabamaatheist.orglnaod
or contact Blair Scott at bscott@atheists.org
for additional details.
Is your local or national group interested in affiliating with American Atheists? If so, then please contact Blair Scott,
National Affiliate Director, at bscott@atheists.org or (256) 701-6265.

ALABAMA
Birmingham Atheists
atheists.meetup.coml132

Atheists & Agnostics Group of

Rossmoor
rossmooratheists. info

Florence United Nontheists

FlorenceFreethought.org

Atheists & Freethinkers of Contra

Costa County
contracostaatheists. com
Atheists and Other Freethinkers
Aofonline.org
Atheists of Silicon Valley
godlessgeeks.com

Montgomery Area Freethought

Association
montgomeryfreethought.org
North Alabama Freethought
Association
thenafa.org
West Alabama Freethought
Association
meetup.coml
westalabamafreethought
ALASKA
Anchorage Atheists
http://meetup.com/
anchorageatheists
ARIZONA
Tucson Atheists
atheists.meetup.coml69
CALIFORNIA
Agnostic & Atheist Student
Association
daviswiki.org/agasa

Central Valley Alliance of Atheists

and Skeptics
cvaas.org
East Bay Atheists
eastbayatheists.org
Humanist Society of Santa
Barbara
santabarbarahumanists.org

COLORADO
Atheists and Freethinkers of
Denver
atheistsofdenver.org
Boulder Atheists
boulderatheists.org
Metro State Atheists
metrostateatheists. wordpress.com
Western Colorado Atheists
WesternColoradoAtheists@yahoo.
com
CONNECTICUT
Atheist Humanist Society of CT
andRI
atheisthumanist.org
Connecticut Valley Atheists
cvatheists.org

San Francisco Atheists

sfatheists.com

FLORIDA
Florida Atheists & Secular
Humanists
** Affiliate of the Year, 2008**
freethoughtflorida.com

Santa Cruz Atheists

santacruzatheists.org

Gator Freethought (UP)

gatorfreethought. org

Shasta Atheists & Freethinkers

shasta@atheistalliance.org

Rebirth of Reason in Florida

rebirthofreason.comIFlorida

Orange County Atheists

OCAtheists.com

Atheist Coalition of San Diego

atheistcoalition.org

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

35

Miami County Kansas

Freethinkers
atheists.meetup'com/B 3

Saint Petersburg Atheists

atheists.meefup.coml209
South Lake.Atheists and
Freethinkers
atheists.meetup.coml655

KENTUCKY
Kentucky Atheists
chambers.michael@gmail.com

GEORGIA
Atlanta Ereethought Society
atlantafreethought.org

Lexington Atheists
meetup.com/The-LexingtonAtheists-Meetup-Group

IDAHO
Idaho Atheists
idahoatheists.org

Ark- La- Tex Freethinkers

(Shreveport)
facebook.com/group.
php?gid=128265161375

Bradley Atheists
PTurack@Bradley.edu

Campus Atheists & Secular

Humanists
cashumn.org
Minnesota Atheists
mnatheists.org
St. Olaf Agnostic and Atheist
Society
stolaf.edu! orgs! aas

MISSISSIPPI
Great Southern Humanist Society
humanism.meetup.coml164

LOUISIANA

ILLINOIS

MINNESOTA

Mid-South Humanist Society

mid south -humanist -society.org

MISSOURI
IWUAtheist, Agnostic, and NonReligious
facebook.com/ group.
php?gid=5558627959

New Orleans Secular Humanist

Association
nosha.secularhumanism.net

Columbia Atheists
meetup.com/The-ColumbiaAtheists-Meetup-Group

MARYLAND

Community of Reason
CommunityOfReason.net

Freethinkers Union atMcDaniel

College
mtm007@mcdaniel.edu

IOWA
Iowa Secularists
iowasecularist.org

MASSACHUSETTS

Siouxland Atheists
siouxlandatheists.org

American University Rationalists

& Atheists
facebook.com/group.
php?gid=34367344446

KANSAS
First Church ofFreethoughtlFort
Riley Atheists
faithforthefaithless@gmaiLcom

Atheists of Greater Lowell

atheists.meetup.coml331

Heartland Humanists

heartlandhnmanists.org

Boston Atheists
bostonatheists.org

Kansas Freethought Society

atheistsmeetup.coml642

ATHEIST

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

NEBRASKA
Lincoln Atheists
lincolnatheists.org
Omaha Atheists
omahaatheists.org

MICHIGAN

Las Vegas Freethought Society

Michigan Atheists
michiganatheists.org

Jvfs.org
NEW JERSEY

MidMichigan
Humanists
mmah.org

l{C Free'Ihinkers
kcfreethinkers.org

AMERICAN

Rationalist Society of St. Louis

rssl.org

NEVADA

Individuals For Freethonght

k-state.edn/treethought

36

Joplin Freethinkers
j oplinfreethinkers.org

2009

Atheists and

New Jersey Humanist Network

NJHN.org

NEWYORK
Freethinkers of Upstate New York
funygroup.org
Hudson Valley Humanists
hudsonvalley.humanists.net
Long Island Secular Humanists
LISecHum@aol.com
New York City Atheists
nyc-atheists.org
Science Club of Long Island
sciencecluboflongisland.com
NORTH CAROLINA
Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics
CharlotteAtheists.com
NORTH DAKOTA
Red River Freethinkers
redri verfreethinkers. org
OHIO
Free Inquiry Group, Inc.
gofigger.org
Humanist Community of Central
Ohio
hcco.org
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma Atheists
OklahomaAtheists. info
~ PENNSYLVANIA
Atheist Station
ath eiststati on. org
Central Susquehanna Valley
Freethought
meetup.com/Central-susquehannavalley- freethought
Northeast Pennsylvania
Freethought Society
atheists.meetup.coml622

PA Nonbelievers
panonbelievers.org
RHODE ISLAND
Rhode Island Atheist Society
riatheist.com

VIRGINIA
Beltway Atheists
meetup.com/beltwayatheists
Rational Response Squad @
George Mason
myspace.comlrrs@grnu

SOUTH CAROLINA
Secular Humanists of Lowcountry
lowcountry.humanists.net

WASHINGTON
Freethinkers United Network
freethinkersunitednetwork.com

TENNESSEE
Chattanooga Freethought
Association
chattanoogafreethoughtassociation.
com

Seattle Atheists
SeattleAtheists.org

Memphis Freethought Alliance

memphisfreethought. com
Nashville Secular Life
atheists.meetup.com/699
Rationalists of East Tennessee
rationalists.org
TEXAS
Atheist Community of Austin
atheist-communi ty.org
Denton Atheists Meetup
meetup.com/The-Denton-AtheistsMeetup-Group
Houston Atheists Meetup
meetup.com/Houston-Atheists

WEST VIRGINIA
Morgantown Atheists
morgantownatheists.org
WISCONSIN
Southeast Wisconsin FreeThinkers
swiftnow.org
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Atheist Nexus
atheistnexus.org
Atheists for Human Rights
atheistsforhumanrights.org
Atheists United for a Rational
America
rationalamerica.com
Military Assoc. of Atheists &
Freethinkers
maaf.info

Metroplex Atheists
metroplexatheists.org
San Antonio Atheists
sa-atheists.org
UTAH
Atheists of Utah
atheistsofutah.org

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

37

Membership Application
American Atheists
.atheists.

(908) 216-7300

~-----------------------A&tt~

Email

Q~------------------------

State

(i;i~~~:;;;;;;~;:;-'Dell/xano
_
_

.)

Zip-------

This signature is to certify tha I am in general agreement with the "Aims an Purposes" and
the "DefiDitioDS" of American Atheists, as listed on the other sic1eof this application.

Date

Signature
AD mem.bersJdp types indBde asohscriplion

to AmIlriccm Athristmagazme

Please clIoose a membership type:

Simply mad: the type you want and enclose your check, mcmey Older. or aedit-card infonnatioll.
(For f~
addresses, please see tile additional calculations below.)

D
.

IDdiwtaal membel:sbip: $20 per year

pleJFamiIy me be:r:sbip: 35 per year

Please include the name(s) of yourpartnerlfamily

Builder membel:sbip:
150 per year (mcludes an Americm Atheists tote ba8>
Life ember: 1200 (i.ncludes a life member pin and your name in the ma~zine and can be paid in
iDstillmeo.tswitbin one year.)

Optionalonline

members:

..ccess to magazines:

I'd like to access maoazines onIinecmly

American Atheists - and treesO

INSTEAD OF receivin& printed ones. (Saves money for

Subtotal: $

Subtotal: ................................................................................

For fomp

addresses, please add an addifian.al posta&e fee (UDless.J01l chose online lonly):
For Canada and Me:.rico, add: SIOperyear X _years = $0:-. __
For all other commies add: S30 puyear X _years
= $,
_

Addi -onal donation*: ., ....... _... 1 (we) cdsowish to make an additional donation of
(AD paym

PI

tellUS ho

ouheard abo Am'

o I am payiDf; by check or.money erder

Ctedit card DlJlnher:

Dl1ISt

in US d

A eists!

0 lam

.) Total!

---------------

payins by credit card (see below).

.E:z.pira1iondate: -'--

(monthlyear)

~:
Date:
* Dues and donations are tm...deductib1e -Thank yon for yom: support'
Pleasemailthkformto:
38

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

AmericanAtheists~ PO Box 158#Cranford, NJ07016.

- NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

2009

I
_.

AIMS & PURPOSES

American Atheists, Inc. is a nonprofit, nonpolitical, educational organization dedicated to the complete
and absolute separation of state and church, accepting the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was meant to create a "wall of separation"
between state and church .

American Atheists is organized:

'To stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning
,religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices;
To collect and disseminate information, data, and literature on all religions
'and promote a more thorough understanding of them, their origins, and their histories;
To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and absolute
separation of state and church;
act as a "watchdog" to challenge any attempted breach of the wall of separation
between state and church;
To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the establishment and
maintenance of a thoroughly secular system of education available to all;
'To encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system
stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and
the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;
.TO develop and propagate a social philosophy in which humankind is central
and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and
happiness of humanity;
'To promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the
maintenance, perpetuation, and enrichment of human (and other) life; and
To engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as will be useful
and beneficial to the members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.

DEFINITIONS
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated
on ancient Greek Materialism .. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.
Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical
outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of irnmanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws;
that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It
teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on
reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is,
in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold,
creative works.
Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

INFORMATION ABOUT TAX DEDUCTIONS

IRS rules state that the tax-deductible portion of membership dues can be found by subtracting the fair-market value of any goods or services that you
receive in return. For rnost of our rnembership types, your dues are actually LESS than the fair-market value ($40 per year) of a subscription to our
magazine. This means that your membership dues are NOT tax-deductible. Life membership dues are also NOT tax-deductible. (If we sold Life magazine
subscriptions, they would cost at least as much as life memberships.)
The only membership type that is fully tax-deductible is the Associate mernbership because Associate members do not receive a magazine subscription.
For the Couple/Family ($65) and Wall-Builder ($150) membership types, $40 covers your magazine subscription. The remainder of your dues ($25 for
Couple/Family and $110 for Wall-Builder) are considered to be a tax-deductible donation. For multiple-year memberships, the same fraction of your dues
(1/3 for Couple/Family and 11/15 for Wall-Builder) is tax-deductible (in the year that those membership dues were paid).
Also, any donations that you make IN ADDITION TO your membership dues are fully tax-deductible.