Does Ray Comfort genuinly not understand evolution?

Ray Comfort, an easy target for anti-creationists because of his incredible obvious ignorance when it comes down to understanding evolution, has apologized for not knowing where he talks about:

I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females.

And he then cointinues to state that he:

I have checked out the references you have given me as to what the theory has to say about their genesis, read them again and again, and I still don’t understand what you believe.

Well, we (evolutionary biologists) could help out here. But the problem is not the evolution of the sexes, it is:

It doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation with what you would have me believe about evolution.

I give him that. Yes, it is impossible to reconcile evolution with a literal interpretation of the bible. And this is also why nobody until now has been able to talk sense into him. And further, nobody will, until he is willing to look at evolution as a process by itself and see what it explains. And he knows already, you can read that between the lines of his own posts, that once he tries that, he will see the power and beauty of evolution and it will become even more difficult to reconcile with his religious perspective.

Selectivity with civil rights

Yesterday, I was once more reminded of the selectivity of people when it comes down to civil rights. When California voted for proposition 8, a large proportion came from African Americans, who should know better about civil rights. They still are struggling to get those honoured, but when it was time to support another group struggling with similar issues, they turned around and voted to uphold discriminatory practices against another group in society. The same thing you see with gay rights activists, who as easy turn around and bash another group they do not have affinity with. It sucks, but I fear it is the reality we have to deal with.

When someone hits you with a hammer.....

When someone hits you with a hammer, who do you blame for the pain?

1. The person who hit you with the hammer?

Or

2. Yourself because you actually feel the pain?

Most people reading this will choose option 1. And that is very logical.

So, why is this an issue? Well, when we replace the hammer for abusive language, there is a considerable number of people who say that words do not hurt people, it is their own sensitivity that does. Tell that the boys who are bullied at school for being perceived gay while being heterosexual. Or the black man who is called a n......! Or the mentally disabled who is called crazy.

Words hurt, and words kill. And if anybody tells you to bone up and that you should be able to just handle it as a big guy, remember that that is just another way to be abusive and controlling. Because in the end, abusive language has only one purpose, and that is to control the recipient of the abusive language.

This man is one of the lowest creatures in the world, who was released for a few days by the Dutch court and disappeared.
Now he is protesting the publication of this image. Really? Go fuck yourself.

ADA: who is the problem?

So, once it has been established that discrimination takes place, how are you dealing with it. Often, the atmosphere at the workplace has been destroyed, and that often becomes an argument to continue exclusion of the person discriminated in the first place. However, is that the only solution? Well, no, because when discrimination takes place, there is the person that does the discriminating and the person that is discriminated against. So, once it has been established that discrimination takes place, the person doing the discrimination has to bone up and change their ways, and if they cannot, they should be removed from their position. That might hurt, but it is also the most effective way to ensure similar cases of discrimination won't happen again. In short, the target for resolution should be those that discriminate, not those that have been discriminated.

ADA: Discrimination definition

After the previous two posts, I thought that it might be handy to actually post the ADA definition of discrimination related to employment, which includes volunteers when the organisation voluntarily sings off on that:

The ADA prohibits discrimination in all employment practices, including job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It applies to recruitment, advertising, tenure, layoff, leave, fringe benefits, and all other employment-related activities.

Sounds clear to me.

So, who is covered (same link):

Employment discrimination is prohibited against "qualified individuals with disabilities." This includes applicants for employment and employees. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if s/he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Persons discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual with a disability also are protected.

The last sentence is crucial.....

ADA: Miscommunication

I think many cases of discrimination are not intentional, but caused by stupid things such as miscommunication between people within an organisation. This is especially true for organisations without a clear structure on how to deal with all aspects. Organisations are bombarded with things they have to think about, react to, and each time, they have to do it right. Well, sometimes, that fails. Volunteer organisations are especially sensitive to this, as most volunteers learn on the job when it arises how to deal with specific aspects. And generally there is nothing wrong with that, unless that leads to for example discrimination of someone.

Good communication within an organisation is essential when someone asks for accommodation for a disability. From the initial request, such a request has to be passed on to the proper functionaries within that organisation, and they then have to act on it. This requires good communication between people. When this fails, the responsible functionaries can be genuinely ignorant about the request. When said functionary than moves on and ignore the request, the disabled person will feel unheard at least and might feel discriminated when the outcome is that the disabled person is for example excluded.

Miscommunication is not the end of the world. Shit happens. It becomes a big deal when it is defended, when the results of the miscommunication are attributed to the disabled person. That adds substantial grievance to the situation.

Fortunately, miscommunication can be dealt with. Once it is obvious that there was miscommunication, apologizing for it and straightening out what has gone wrong is often the only things what is needed. However, when that is not done, it add insult to injury and aggrevates the situation.