Simple Plus Stupid Divided by the Bible Equals Bob Dutko!

For all of Bob's bluster, there are some things Bob just can't do.  He won't challenge a theoretical physicist on how the laws of thermodynamics work.  He won't challenge a epidemiologist on the efficacy of vaccines.  He won't challenge a practicing evolutionary biologist on how epigenetics influences natural selection.

Bob won't do these things because he can't.  For all of his bluster, Bob is an amateurish, simplistic man whose lack of formal training prevents him from dealing with complex issues.  For example, this is Bob explaining why, for him, "life" begins at conception:

 

So Bob has two reasons that a fertilized egg is "alive" at conception:  First, it has  complete, unique genetic information, distinguishing it from all other fertilized eggs.  Secondly, Bob has the Bible.  Specifically, Isaiah 46:3.

Examining Bob's first argument we can see the claim is straightforward:  Because the genetic sequence is complete and unique, all it needs to do is develop to be a complete human.  The lack of arms and legs and blood and heart doesn't detract from the fact that it is "alive," and because it's alive, it is a person.  Therefore abortion should be outlawed.

Now, personally, I don't know of anyone who claims that a fertilized egg isn't "alive," so Bob is starting with a straw man.  Nevertheless, and more importantly, note that Bob's claim is inherently reductionistic:  To be a person, all you must possess is unique DNA.  It's not DNA plus anything else, it's simply unique DNA.

Following Bob's logic, abortion should be permitted in pregnancies involving identical twins. Remember, identical twins occur when a fertilized egg splits into two separate embryos with each embryo possessing identical DNA.  Thus, aborting one of the embryos is completely permissible because it would cause no loss of unique genetic information.  Thus, using Bob's own argument, we have found an instance in which Bob must agree that abortion is completely acceptable.

Another massive flaw in Bob's reasoning are instances of embryos with damaged genetic information.  Down syndrome is congenital disorder caused by having an extra 21st chromosome.  In other words, an embryo with Downs syndrome has extra, albeit unique, DNA.  Using Bob's argument, does having more DNA make a person more "alive?"  What, exactly, is the relationship between DNA and being "alive?"  Now much damage to the DNA can occur before the fertilized egg isn't "alive?"

(Yes, I'll grant that my Down syndrome example is absurd.  But all I'm doing is testing Bob's claim.  These conclusions are the consequences of Bob's argument, which is not only absurd, it's simplistic and stupid.  Bob can't see the problems inherent in his claims because he denies the true complexity of the issues he babbles about.)

As for his second claim, that Isaiah 46:3 somehow proves that God instills person-hood upon conception, Bob is clearly distorting the text!  Isaiah 46 is God's statement to the Israelites in which He claims to have protected and cared for them since their infancy!  The word "conceive" doesn't appear in a proper translation of the text!

Not only is Bob's argument completely ridiculous, he has to distort the Bible to achieve his goals!

Doesn't it make you wonder what kind of company Crawford Broadcasting is when they employ such a shyster?

Evidence! Evidence? Bob Isn't Familiar With the Term!

Evidence, evidence, evidence.  Bob is always claiming that he gives you the evidence.   But when you scratch the surface of Bob's "evidence," you'll discover that Bob is polishing turds.

Let's begin by asking a seemingly simple question:  What is evidence?

One standard definition is rather broad: Evidence is that which is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

But how can you be sure of the connection between your evidence and your assertion?

As it turns out, justifiable connections between your claim and your evidence is a matter of considerable debate.  One line of thought argues that one's views should be guided by the evidence, with the evidence examined objectively, not through the distorting lens of dogma, prejudice or bias.  This view believes that evidence is a neutral arbiter, collected prior to the theory, with its accumulation leading to a consensus.

As you have probably guessed, this is the is the scientific method.  For a consensus to considered scientific, you collect evidence through observation and testing.  The evidence is compiled and presented objectively, accumulating into a specific explanation of a particular phenomenon.      

With that in mind, listen to Bob's claim about miracles:



Thus, Bob is claiming that prayer has made tumors disappear.  Bob believes that prayer can have a tangible effect on the sick, healing them of devastating diseases.  This is very important, because Bob gives us an observation that can be tested.  Once we start the objective testing, data about Bob's claim can be compiled.  And the data provides us with a conclusion about Bob's claim concerning the effectiveness of intercessory prayer: Intercessory prayer is a big ol' turd.

A few years back, the Templeton Foundation dropped 2.5 million pounds to determine if intercessory prayer is worth anything.  As it turns out, [t]he study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers.  In fact, 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications.  If anything can be gleaned from this study, its that you shouldn't pray for the sick because you might make them sicker!     

So how can Bob make this wild-eyed claim that prayers have healed tumors?  Obviously, he's not resting his claim on a scientific study.  Essentially, Bob's evidence between prayer and healing is "someone somewhere is claiming something I believe in and you should too."

But when you hear Bob make silly-assed claims like this, ask five important questions:  Who?  What?  Where?  When?  How?

Who is the doctor that Bob talked to?

What is the evidence that the doctor is using to make the claim?

Where and when did this miracle occur?

How do we know that the person with the tumor isn't also receiving effective medical care?

If Bob is pushed into a corner and forced to answer any of these questions, you discover what every rational person knows:  Bob's evidence is shit, polished with a glossy coat of God's Varnish! 

Do yourself a favor:  Stop buying what Bob is selling.  His products are forged with Grade A feces, suitable only for flushing.
If you're interested, here's some further reading on the philosophical problem of evidence.

Bob Dutko: All Sunshine and Bullshit!

Bob works hard to convince you that his analysis of an issue is generated from pure logic and he has a complete understanding of the topic discussed. However, anyone who has successfully completed a basic course in logic recognizes Bob for what he is: A used car salesman, all sunshine and bullshit with hints of authoritarianism.

This is Bob's understanding of the law:



Bob believes that laws are based in morality. Because laws and morals are equivalent, it's perfectly acceptable to restrict a woman's right to choose through laws.

We can see how full of shit Dutko is with a few easy questions:

Question 1: If Bob speeds and receives a ticket, has Bob committed and immoral act? No! Civil infraction laws are not a question of morality, they are a matter of regulating public safety.

Question 2: If Bob decides to start cheating on his wife, carrying on an adulterous sexual relationship with a married woman, has Bob broken the law? No! Bob's cheating is considered immoral, but it is not a basis to have him arrested and prosecuted.

Question 3: If Bob reads this blog and becomes so enraged so as to murder me, has Bob committed both and an immoral and illegal act? Yes! But understand the claim underlying this third example: When Bob is arraigned for my murder, the charges levied aren't based in a claim to morality, they are based in a violation of my rights! When Bob is put on trial for murder, he is being held accountable for his actions in violating a property right, namely, my right to continue living unmolested by Bob Dutko.

Criminal laws aren't based on moral claims, they're based on claims about rights. Criminal laws are a recognition that people don't have the right to assault others or steal their property, or otherwise threaten public order. If a person has committed an illegal act, its morality is coincidental and irrelevant to its legality.

As it concerns abortion, Bob wants to equate legality with morality because it eliminates the one big concern that he is afraid to address: What interest does the government have in restricting abortion? In other words, how is abortion such a threat to public order that the government must outlaw the act?

Bob won't address the underlying right to abortion because he is incapable of doing so. To be clear, Bob cannot demonstrate that a woman's right to choose affects him in the slightest degree. Bob would rather argue the from a false equivalency about law and morality because it allows him to enforce his narrow little view of the world.

At heart, Bob is an tin-plated authoritarian, willing to use the government to enforce his ignorant little claims to morality. It's disgusting.

Bob and Atheists - Part I

I'm an atheist. I don't make a big deal about it, because my lack of a belief in gods (including the Abrahamic God of Christianity) has nothing to do with the fact that Bob is either lying or fundamentally wrong on a whole host of topics.

Well, it turns out that Bob is also wrong about why the vast majority of atheists are atheists. Here's Bob's opinion on the topic from January 27:

My theory has always been that ... there's really no such thing as an atheist. That most of these people are angry at God about something or they emotionally don't like something about God, so the way they lash out is to deny his existence. Of course, atheists would be offended by that notion...

Personally, I wouldn't say that I'm "offended" by Bob's "thoughts." It's better described as a general amazement as to how any somewhat "rational" person could reach a profoundly stupid conclusion!

First, we're all born as atheists. Newborns and children don't have any belief in gods and must be taught the existence of God. In my case, I was never taught to believe in God, therefore I never developed any belief in any god. So, Bob's assertion that I'm "angry" at God is ridiculous, because I can't be angry at someone/something that I've don't believe in! Saying that I'm angry at God is the same as saying that I'm angry at the Easter Bunny. And I've never been angry at the Easter Bunny because he brings me chocolate.

Second, to a certain extent, we're all atheists. Most people do not believe that Zeus and Thor are gods with supernatural powers. Therefore, most people are atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Surely, Bob isn't a non-believer in Zeus and Thor because he's angry at them. He just doesn't believe in them! Why can't Bob just realize that the difference between atheists and followers of Abrahamic religions is that our disbelief simply extends one god further?

Bob: Please stop trying to demonize atheists as some sort of unreasonable, anger-filled heathens. It's simply not a logical conclusion and, of course, not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Bob loves Sodom and Gomorrah!

Bobbo,

Do you ever listen to yourself? You know, tune in to "best of" shows just to check your logic?

Probably not. You're too arrogant for that.

Anyway, today you "explained" the election of Barack Obama. First, you said that Barack Obama would be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah, so you weren't surprised. Next, you also said that a conservative wouldn't be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Bobbo, I have some questions.

In your analogy, America is, obviously, Sodom and Gomorrah. On other occasions, you've expressed your deep and abiding love of America. Does this mean that you love America even though it's Sodom and Gomorrah? Being a Christian, isn't that inconsistent?

Next, when did America become Sodom and Gomorrah? And how do you explain the election of George W. Bush? If a conservative can't be elected in Sodom and Gomorrah, then either Bush isn't a conservative or American has become Sodom and Gomorrah in the last eight years. Which means, of course, that a conservative oversaw America as it became Sodom and Gomorrah.

I guess that either your analogy sucks or you don't know what you're talking about.

Hey, I could be wrong. It could be both.

Irl

McMurtry vs. Dutko

Bob and Grady need to get their stories straight. On Thursday, when talking to a rightfully beligerant caller, Grady repeated the old Young Earth Creationist canard:

"Carbon dating doesn't work. None of the radiometric processes work."

Less than three minutes later, Bob tries to convince the same caller that dinosaurs and humans living together. In doing so, he gives out this evidence:

I bet you have no idea that the evolutionists' own carbon dating has been done on dinosaur bones and according to their own dating, only dates dinosaur bones to be in the thousands of years."

So which is it? Does carbon dating work or doesn't it? Oh wait, let me guess. Carbon dating is accurate and reliable when it can be used to show a 6000 year old Earth but it is inaccurate and unreliable when it can be used to show a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Got it.

Morons.

Universal Health Care

Bob went off the deep end last Friday when talking about universal, publicly funded health care. Bob was all upset that a recent poll of Michiganders showed that 65% supported such a system. (I couldn't find a link to this, but I'll take Bob's word for it.)

Let me summarize his "argument" against such a healthcare system:

Universal, publicly funded health care is not compassionate because giving something to someone isn't always the most compassionate thing to do. For example, giving an alcoholic a drink might make them happy, but it's not the right thing to do.

Really, folks, that was his argument in a nutshell! It's got to be the stupidest "analogy" I've ever heard of. Take a listen:

Boomp3.com

Bob, listen very carefully: HEALTH CARE IS NOT ADDICTION. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN NECESSITY.

Did you notice that giving the alcoholic a drink is what "liberals" would do? Bob doesn't give any facts or evidence to support his assertion, it's just another demonization technique. But I digress...

So why does Bob has such a fear of publicly funded, universal health care? The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized country that does not ensure that all of its citizens have health care coverage. Are Canada, Japan, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Israel, and countless others all wrong on this issue? Furthermore, Americans end up paying more for their health care and getting less treatment then other western nations.

So what, exactly, is the "Christian Perspective" for being against universal, publicly funded health care? My guess, is it's more of a "GOP Perspective" since pharmaceutical companies give more to Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin.

Bob, let me give you a clue: People are rather fed up with paying more and more every year for health insurance premiums while deductibles and co-pays also skyrocket. It's clear that the "competition" between the insurance companies is failing to provide the cost saving efficiencies that the Republicans have promised over the last few decades.

In short, working Americans are tired of getting screwed over.

Another Unhinged Fact-free Dutko Moment

As long-time listeners of Bob realize, he often goes on rambling, nonsensical tirades, especially when discussing the things he doesn't like: Democrats, atheists, gays, etc. Here's a little sample from one of Friday's outbursts:

But I can tell you, as a proud American, if I have a terrorist on one side and a U.S. General on the other side, and I don't know which one's telling the truth, my default is to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States military and the general. That is my default position. But it seems like the default position of many on the left in this country is to give the benefit of doubt to the terrorists. And so since we see that, already, commonly, from the left in this country and the flag burners and everyone else, is it really that much of a stretch that the most liberal senator in the United States Senate, that's right, officially the most liberal senator according to the actual voting records of the senators, the number one most liberal senator, Barack Obama, when he runs for President, if he represents the most liberal left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party, is it really that much of a stretch to be suspicious and question whether he may have anti-Americanism running through his veins?

Let's try to unpack this mess.

First, Bob asserts that people on "the left" favor terrorists over the U.S. military and its leaders? But, of course, this characterization of "the left" is yet another straw man/bogey man created by Bob to demonize Democrats. Can Bob name one elected Democrat who favors terrorists over the U.S. military? Of course not.

Next, Barack Obama is not the "most liberal senator," no matter how many times Bob repeats it. The actual voting record proves.

Then, Bob gets ridiculous by saying that it's not a stretch to question Sen. Obama's patriotism because he's a liberal. That's the crux of his "argument."

How can any sane person assert that someone is "anti-American" because his views fall on the left of the political spectrum? Over 3.5 million people in Illinois voted for Sen. Obama in 2004. Are these voters also "anti-American" for voting for this man from the "liberal left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party"? And would somebody please tell me why someone who is "anti-American" would run for President of the United States?! People who don't like America don't run for President; they run airplanes into buildings.

So yes, Bob, to answer your long, rambling question, it definitely is a stretch to question whether someone has "anti-Americanism" running through their veins merely because they're a Democrat. In fact, it's downright asinine and ridiculously insulting.

Gays and Lesbians Can't Be Cops?

Today, in his never ending quest to show how much he "loves the sinner, but hates the sin," Bob dispensed some of his patented truth, facts, logic, and "intellectual" reasoning to show why gay men can't be police officers.

Bob's premise is that straight male police officers are not permitted to frisk or pat down a female suspect. According to Bob, this is done because the male police officer might "get his jollies"* from the frisking process. Therefore, Bob reasons that gay men might also take some liberties when patting down a male suspect.

But let's go back to Bob's original premise. In Bob's own words:

Should a male cop be allowed to frisk and pat down a female suspect? Should they? Right now they're not allowed to. Thats where a female police officer has to come in and do that. Right?

Wrong. What Bob apparently doesn't understand is that male police offers pat down female suspects and vice-versa all the time. In fact, here's an article describing the procedure.

So Bob's argument falls completely apart because it rests on a false premise. That's nothing new. Bob has a long history of not understanding (or lying about) science, history, and a whole host of other topics.

And I have some shocking news for Bob: There are gay men serving right now as police officers. Really! They pat down male suspects every day without incident and without "getting their jollies" from the procedure. What Bob apparently doesn't understand is that the vast majority of male cops, straight or gay, are not sexual predators who see every frisk as an opportunity to, pardon the pun, "cop a feel". The frisking procedure is done not to humiliate the suspect, but to protect the police officer and the public at large.

Bob should really be ashamed of even presenting this whole argument. But he won't be.

*Bob's words

Liberals are Bad

Last week, Bob came back from vacation and got down to business.

In the first fifteen minutes of his show, he got down to the business of bringing up irrelevant, issues for the purpose of attacking liberals based on the logo of a search engine. He's done this multiple times before.

But first, yesterday was Memorial Day ... Well, enter the search engine 'Google'. (deep sigh) Boy, it's the same thing, Google, y'know year after year. They 'dis' our veterans with their Memorial Day snub.

Stop right there. According to Merriam-Webster, the slang word 'dis' means "to treat with contempt or disrespect; insult". So, Bob is saying that by not changing their logo for Memorial Day, that Google is insulting and treating veterans with contempt. Does this logo from last Veteran's Day look like contempt?
I'm no expert in 'dissing,' but this looks more like honor and praise than insult and contempt. So, Bob is being dishonest.

Bob continued by saying that Google is a bunch of liberals and named a bunch of "lesser" events that Google did change their logo for. Bob ran down this list so you can fully appreciate the horror of the people who run that horrible, horrible search engine.

Bob concluded by saying this isn't about Google at all. It's really about the America-hating liberals in general:

The thing that I look at here, with Google. This isn't necessarily about ooooh, 'look how horrible Google is.' It's a window into liberalism and liberal mindset. I'm telling you, what is it about left wing people that causes them to see, y'know, the Chinese boat festival as 'hey, that's something to celebrate'? But Memorial Day is a time to, 'well, lets just turn off the lights and treat it as business as usual, there's nothing special about that day.' That is beyond me. Why is it that so many liberals tend to think that way. And then, if you dare to question their patriotism or dare to suggest that they're not as supportive of our military as they ought to be, they get all offended, they get indignant, they get all 'how dare you make such a suggestion.' Well, alright. It's what we see. It's what we see.

Let me see if I can get this straight: Google doesn't change their logo for Memorial Day, so therefore, liberals don't think there's anything special about Memorial Day. Furthermore, since Google doesn't change their logo for Memorial Day, it's OK to question the patriotism of liberals and their level of support for the military. That's the gist of Bob's logic, isn't it?

That's just stupid! I can't even start to contemplate all the logical errors that Bob made in reaching his conclusion! Bob is simply being illogical and repeating the same old propaganda: liberals, i.e., Democrats, hate America and are BAD. Voting for them is therefore also BAD. This Google "news" is yet another way to get across this overarching message. Bob simply repeats the "liberals are bad" message over and over in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, people believe him.

By the way, Blogger is owned by Google and Bob uses Blogger to host the notes from his shows. Since Bob is using a Google service to host the notes from his shows, he must not be patriotic and must hate the military. Right?

Darwin was a Racist?

Last Monday, Bob had Ken Ham* on to pimp his new book in which accuses Charles Darwin of being racist. Bob and Ken want to imply that Darwin was a racist, so we dismiss Evolution through Natural Selection. Bob and Ken may have a point. After all, just look at this quote:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position to the white race.

Wait a second! That isn't from Charles Darwin! It's Abraham Lincoln.**

Should we discount the accomplishments of Lincoln because of his not-so-enlightened beliefs?

Should we knock down the Lincoln Memorial?

Should we strip his face off of Mt. Rushmore and replace it with Jimmy Carter?

Should we collect and melt down all the pennies that bear his image?

Of course not.

We revere and honor Lincoln because he refused to allow the Christian practice of slavery to tear the United States apart. Was he as enlightened in his view of the "races" as we are today? Obviously not. The same goes for Darwin. We should not discount his positive contributions to our understanding of the development of life on Earth merely because we don't share his 19th Century political viewpoints. Evolution and Natural Selection are judged on their merits, not based on any "racist" tendencies that Darwin had.

Pitifully, this is a further attempt by Bob to discredit a scientific fact withstood the test scrutiny.

The ironic thing is that this is coming from a man who claims "intellectual honesty."

Pathetic.

*I guess there's no hard feelings about Bob's scathing review of the Creation Museum. I guess they're letting bygones be bygones. After all, Ken's got books to $ell and Bob's gotta fill-up four hours per day to keep the advertisers happy!

** Interestingly, Darwin and Lincoln were born on the very same day: February 12, 1809. Who knew?

Bob is Pro-Choice!

Hey Bobbo;

Do you actually listen to yourself? Or do you just make it all up as you go along?

You speak of abortion frequently, and, recently addressed the story of Jennifer Strelnik McKendree, who pleaded guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her newborn child. McKendree's sentence was 2 to 9 years.

You thought McKendree should go to jail because she murdered her newborn. You then compared McKendree's child with a child in the womb. You believe that just as a McKendree murdered her infant, a woman who gets an abortion murders her child. You believe that abortion should be made illegal because there is, categorically, no difference between a fetus and an infant. Therefore, you argue, it follows that, once abortion is made illegal, women who get abortions should go to jail.

Then you said something interesting. You said that once abortion is illegal, only those women who get abortions should go to jail. There should be no retroactive prosecutions of women who have had abortions, because they obtained the procedure while it was legal.

But, Bobbo, isn't abortion was always murder? If I follow your line of reasoning, abortions obtained between January 22, 1973 and today are categorically not murder. By arguing that there are some abortions that aren't murder, you've become pro-woman. Congratulations on the sea change!

Let me know when you start making donations to Planned Parenthood. I'll match any donation you make.

Yours in choice,

Irl

More Climate Change Craziness

We've talked about climate change on this blog before. But take a look at how Bob began last Thursday's latest screed on the topic:

First of all, one of my concerns about the whole global warming movement is that the movement seems to align itself with a lot of un-Godly positions. For example, they intend to align themselves with, uh, a lot of what I would call liberal-type positions: abortion, ACLU, evolution, pro-gay, I mean a lot of these types of positions seem to be very consistent with the people that are on the pro-global warming bandwagon. Not all, of course.

What?

Really? That's his argument? He's claiming that if a person agrees with the consensus of scientists that the Earth is warming because of human-made effects, that person is an ungodly liberal. Wow, that's some intellect. It's amazing this guy can tie his shoes in the morning.

Does if follow that Catholics are ungodly? After all, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops have said opined on climate change and said, "we believe that the atmosphere that supports life on earth is a God-given gift, one we must respect and protect." That doesn't sound very ungodly to me! Of course, numerous other religious groups are on this ungodly global warming "bandwagon," too. So they must not subscribe to the "One True Religion," as defined by Bob Dutko.

Bob went on:

But you have other issues as well. By buying into the whole global warming scare you're giving more clout, more credibility to the United Nations and giving them more potential power to infringe upon the United States sovereignty. [You're] buying into global warming tends to boost the forcing of the U.S. government to obey world sentiment.

Where does Bob get this nonsense? Is he making it up or does he subscribe to "talking points for the insane?

Could someone explain how agreeing with climate scientists gives the UN power over U.S. sovereignty? (HINT: It doesn't!)

International agreements aren't imposed on the U.S. by the UN or some overpowering "world sentiment." International agreements are approved by our elected officials who act on behalf of their constituents. The U.S. doesn't automatically cede any power, just because the UN has "credibility."

Bob's lucky to have a job with Crawford Broadcasting. With his complete lack of intelligence, I'm sure he be living out of a shopping cart and collecting bottle returns to support his family.

How would Bob do science?

On Monday, Bob went on a tirade against those portions of the charter of European nations that favor teaching evolution over creation or intelligent design. This triggered yet another of his recurring rants on creationists excluded from publication in peer reviewed science journals.

He demonstrated how badly misinformed he is about science, as it relates to the evolution versus creation debate. Bob stated:

"If you are a scientist and you write a paper saying evolution is false or you write a scientific piece based upon the presupposition that creation is true, you are not going to get it published."

Bob, in this instance, is absolutely correct.

Presupposing creation by God is the end of science. Should a scientist "presuppose creation is true," and base his findings on the presupposition, he has just announced to the world he has incorporated the supernatural in his explanations of nature. Reviewers will reject the non-scientific content of the paper reject it. Every time.

Bob forgets that science is a tool with limitations and boundaries. Science is limited to naturalistic explanations just as a catcher is constrained to fielding pop-up fly balls within boundaries defining the field of play. The catcher will not chase a towering fly into the box seats; nor can a scientist identify some supernatural force as a cause of a phenomenon. Simply put, while the supernatural may exist, science cannot include it in hypotheses, theories or explanations. The supernatural cannot be described in field notes, quantified nor replicated.

Had Bob read the opinion of Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller case, he would understand that intelligent design proponents admitted that intelligent design is not science as defined since Francis Bacon. The intelligent design proponents would require that the boundaries of science be expanded to accommodate the supernatural underpinnings of ID. If that were to happen, astrology could then be deemed a science.

Planned Parenthood vs. Boy Scouts

Bob gets upset that tax dollars are given to Planned Parenthood and argues that they should run like a private business.

Bob also gets upset that tax dollars are taken away from the Boy Scouts and argues that they should get tax dollars.

So which is it, Bob? Should private organizations get taxpayer dollars or should they not get taxpayer dollars?

Please be consistent.

Boy Scouts

A couple of months back, Bob was all worked up about the City of Philadelphia having the gumption to charge the Boy Scouts a fair market price of $200k/year to rent city-owned property. (Here's the WorldNetDaily article that Bob cribbed off of.) For years, the Scouts have been renting the property for $1 a year. I wish I could find rent like that!

For those unfamiliar with the group, the Boy Scouts have stated policies of discrimination against Atheists and "avowed homosexuals." The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that this discrimination is fine because the Scouts are a private organization and not subject to anti-discrimination laws. Basically, if you don't believe in God or happen to prefer men over women, you can't go camping with the Scouts, earn merit badges or become an Eagle Scout. The government of Philadelphia doesn't want to subsidize an organization that discriminates against its citizens so it raised the rent to a reasonable level.

Of course, Bob's reasoning as to why this is bad is illogical. Bob stated that the Boy Scouts don't have to employ or allow Gays or Atheists because they're a private organization. That's correct. As an analogy, he stated that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wouldn't be forced to employ a hunter on their staff. That's also correct. But can you see the logical flaw here? PETA isn't getting a $200k per year in free rent from the government!! Bob conveniently omitted that fact.

In short, the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate all they want. They just can't do it by screwing over taxpaying citizens!

Cults

Bob accuses Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses of being cults. Therefore, they are not part of Christendom.

But Bob doesn't define what he means by "cult." One dictionary definition of "cult" is simply "a system of religious beliefs and ritual." Obviously, this is not what Bob means, or else he would have to say that every Christian (as well as Jews and Muslims) are members of cults.

I think most people give the world "cult" a negative connotation. When you say cult, most people think of groups like Peoples Temple, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, or other organizations whose members had a severely bad outcome (abuse, torture, kidnapping, imprisonment).

It doesn't seem like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses fit this definition of cult. I don't hear either group committing mass suicide, torturing people, or holding people against their will.

With that being said, why does Bob use the term "cult" when describing Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? Is this just another technique to demonize people whose beliefs are different than Bob's? Should Catholics be considered a cult using Bob's definition? Muslims? Jews?

*Of course, I'm excepting the Morman polygamist groups that are outside of the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

CNN/YouTube Republican Debate

Yesterday, Bob was appalled and outraged at Wedneday's YouTube debate of Republican presidential candidates on CNN. His main point of contention was that Democrats were allowed to ask questions of the Republicans who were running. Bob claimed this was patently unfair and that it did not happen during the previous YouTube debate of Democratic candidates.

Unfortunately for Bob, the LA Times throws cold water on this theory:

A review by the Los Angeles Times of the debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube four months ago found that the Democratic presidential candidates also faced queries that seemed to come from the conservative perspective. At least two of the citizen-interrogators had clear GOP leanings.

This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments that Dutko has ever made (and stupid arguments are Dutko's forte). Why in the world should questions to presidential candidates be limited to those of his or her party? Whoever becomes President has the power to effect all of our lives, not just those of his or her political party.

So, to recap, (1) Bob was wrong and (2) Bob doesn't make any logical sense. Just another day at the Bob Dutko Show!

Does Bob have Faith in his Faith?

The fantasy film The Golden Compass will premier in theaters on December 5. The film stars Dakota Blue Richards, Nicole Kidman, and Daniel Craig, and is based on the first book of the His Dark Materials trilogy written by British author Phillip Pullman.

But Pullman is an atheist and the novels have an anti-religious slant to them. Therefore, Bob and his religious right buddies are gearing up to warn parents to stay away from the film. Bob has talked negatively about the books several times already. James Dobson links to an article calling Pullman "blasphemous", "heretical", "diabolical", and a "poisonous influence." William Donohue calls for a boycott and says that Pullman is "fueled by hate." Donohue will also provide a downloadable booklet explaining the evilness of the film and books so long as you provide Donohue with $5.

Well, Bob is more than welcome to warn his listeners about the dangerous of seeing this film. But I have to wonder: Why is this necessary? What is Bob afraid of? Can Bob's belief system not withstand a challenge? Why should Bob worry about what some silly British atheist has to say? After all, Bob has the Top 10 Proofs that Christianity is the Only True Religion!

Credit Where Credit is Due

Last week, Bob admitted that if abortion was made illegal, he would endorse punishment of women who had an abortion, including imprisonment.

Wow.

I know Bob's position may sound crazy to the vast majority of people who are thoughtful and compassionate.

However, if you truly believe that "abortion is murder," then Bob's position is the only logical outcome if you want to stay consistent with our system of justice. Under the legal principle of accomplice liability, an accomplice to a crime is equally as responsible as the principal who actually commits the crime.

For example, if I were to hire a hit man to kill my wife, and the crime is successful, then both me and the hit man would be guilty of premeditated murder.

This example can be easy analogized to a physician (or other person) providing an abortion and the woman who desires the abortion. The woman is hiring the physician to perform the abortion. If abortion is murder, then the woman is a murderer. Therefore, Bob logically asserts that a woman who gets an abortion should go to jail.

One doesn't have to think too hard to realize this line of thinking has chilling consequences. In many states, the punishment for premeditated murder is death. In Michigan, the punishment is life in prison without the possibility of parole. Let's take a few examples to illustrate.

(1) A married woman gets pregnant. She and her husband are ecstatic. However, things don't go according to plan. After the ultrasound, the doctor tells the happy couple that their child has Potter Syndrome and will be either stillborn or will die shortly after birth. After much contemplation and prayer, the couple decide to get an abortion rather than endure several more heartbreaking (and pointless) months of pregnancy. In Bob's ideal world, the husband, wife, and doctor would all go to jail for the rest of their lives for aborting a child that was going to die anyway.

(2) A young girl at college in Texas has been dating a nice young man. After a while, their relationship gets more serious and the couple eventually have sex. They were typical impatient youths and they decided to risk it without birth control because he forgot. She becomes pregnant. All of a sudden, the nice young man is nowhere to be found. The girl is scared since her dad is a prominent Christian radio talk show host with a fiery temper. The fallout of her being with child out of wedlock would be devastating to her and her family. She hears of a local family practice physician who performs abortions illegally and engages her services. The physician is mother to three children. A nosy dorm mate blabs the girl's story to her dad, the local police chief. In Bob's ideal world, the doctor and the girl are executed, leaving the children of the doctor without a mom.

(3) A married woman uses birth control pills to prevent pregnancy as she wants to get her career as a biochemist started before having kids. One month, the pills didn't prevent ovulation, but rather prevented implantation of the egg in the uterus. In Bob's ideal world, the woman should be jailed forever because the 100 cell blastocyst was discharged in her monthly period.

This is the future if Bob and his ilk get their way. Completely unreasonable punishments for all abortions, no matter what the circumstances, and I didn't even get into rape or incest. I wouldn't be surprised if Bob's reaction to the death of women at the hands of back alley abortionists was simply that "justice was served."