Category Religion

The Life-Dinner Principle and Creationism vs. Evolution

I recently ran across the “life-dinner principle“. In evolutionary biology, two groups (whether different species, or groups within a species) are often in competition with each other. But the selection pressure may not be equal between groups: a fox that can’t catch up to a rabbit may die of starvation, though it may have time to reproduce before it dies; but a rabbit that gets caught by a fox will not reproduce. Hence, the rabbit is running for its life, but the fox is only running for its dinner.

I wonder whether something similar is going on in the meme war between science and creationism. Those of us on the science side are fighting for education, for scientific literacy, for the future of scientific research in whichever country one happens to be.

But for many people in the creationist camp, the stakes seem much higher: the Truth™, their self-worth as important beings in the eyes of the creator of the universe, basic social cohesion (the “evolutionism implies no moral standards” argument), and even the risk of genocide (see the various attempts to tie “Darwinism” to the Nazi holocaust and Stalin’s purges).

If this is so, then the creationists have much more motive to defend their position by any means, including deception.

While there are parallels between memetic and biological evolution, there are significant differences as well, so I won’t try to apply to a clash of ideas the lessons learned from biology.

I do take heart, though, in the fact that I’ve run across two threads recently on Uncommon Descent where IDists have expressed disappointment with ID: one was when PZ Myers was a guest on a Christian talk radio show and utterly trounced the other guest, a creationist who claimed that there are no transitionals in whale evolution, to which PZ was able to name several of these “nonexistent” transitional species. The rout was so complete that one commenter at Uncommon Descent suggested that “In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened.” His wish was granted when the entire thread was deleted.

The other was in the discussion of Richard Dawkins seeing Expelled. Although many are still pushing the idea that Dawkins somehow snuck into the theater under false colors, others have realized the breathtaking hypocrisy of the situation, and fear that it’ll make their side look bad.

So maybe the solution is what people have been advocating for years: educate the public. Have scientists get out of the ivory tower and talk to the public about science (let ten thousand Carl Sagans bloom!). Show people what despicable liars the creationists are.

Flipping the Argument Around

A while back, I suggested that one way to see whether an argument for some religion is any good is to turn it into an argument for some other religion, and see whether it sounds convincing. I was just thinking about this the other day, when lo and behold, Ray Comfort came along and provided perfect fodder to try it out:

Ray:

There is a very good reason that [the atheist] isn’t giving up the argument. It is because each night he has a habit of going on the Internet and surfing his favorite sites. He has an addiction he loves. He drools over pornography that is so pleasurable, it takes his breath away. Literally. Besides that, he has incredible sex with his gorgeous girlfriend, any time he wants. He didn’t know that life could be so good.

Flipped around:

There is a very good reason that the non-Muslim isn’t giving up the argument. It is because each night he has a habit of going home and drinking his favorite wine. He has an addiction he loves. He gushes over wine so delicious, it takes his breath away. Literally. Besides that, he can have pork sausages for breakfast, bacon for lunch, and pork chops for dinner, any time he wants. He didn’t know that life could be so good.

Ray:

Think of it now. A stranger has just come along who wants to put an end to all that pleasure. All of it. If he gives up the battle, he won’t be allowed to even look at a woman with lust, let alone have sex with her. This religious nut wants to make him celibate. Horrors! He wants him to sit in a boring church, singing old hymns, listening to a deathly boring priest, and mindlessly clutching a book filled with fairytales. Give up? Are you kidding?So the unbeliever is going to fight this battle with tooth and nail.

Flipped around:

Think of it now. A stranger has just come along who wants to put an end to all that pleasure. All of it. If he gives up the battle, he won’t be allowed to even look at a woman’s face, let alone her hair, hips, or legs. This religious nut wants to make him celibate. Horrors! He wants him to kneel in a boring mosque, kneeling on a musty rug five times a day, listening to a deathly boring imam, and mindlessly cluthing a book filled with fairy tales. Give up? Are you kidding? So the unbeliever is going to fight this battle with tooth and nail.

Read More

Irony O’ the Week

At the top of the “Blog” section of the site for the new creationist propaganda movie Expelled, it says:

“It’s (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant –– which means they’re going to draw in about 90% of the American market.”

-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.

I hope they change that to read “PZ Myers, on a film he tried to see but got kicked out of“.

This whole situation is comedy gold. PZ was not only interviewed for the film (under false pretenses, by the way), but was also allegedly thanked in the credits. But no, they won’t let him see it.

Oh, did anyone mention that it’s a movie about viewpoints being suppressed, and interested parties not being allowed access to information?

But of course the kicker is that while PZ Myers was specifically singled out to be expelled, they were apparently too stupid or clueless to notice who else was coming, so they allowed Richard Dawkins in.

Truly, these people are lying despicable fuckwads.

Update, Mar. 22: The Twin Cities Pioneer Press has an article (registration or BugMeNot required) about this.

Also, Skatje shares her impressions of the movie.

Creationists Just Can’t Help Quote-Mining

From a post by the Discovery Institute:

Darwinists in Florida are in a tizzy trying to figure out why they oppose the proposed Academic Freedom Act in their state. Sometimes they claim the act isn’t needed because no one who questions Darwin is being denied academic freedom. Other times they insist the act should be rejected because academic freedom is nothing but “smelly crap.”

(emphasis added.)

If you play follow-the-link, you’ll find the original quotation from Florida Citizens for Science:

This academic freedom stuff is merely the next evolutionary step as anti-science folks continue their attempts to shove creationism into the public school classroom. First, there was blatant creationism. Next there was intelligent design. Both failed miserably. Now comes along academic freedom. Same smelly crap, different packaging.

Clearly, in this context, what the Florida Science writer meant was that the Discovery Institute’s new “Academic Freedom™” initiative was the same crap as “Intelligent Design™”, with a new name, not lowercase academic freedom. I swear, these people can’t stop lying and quote-mining. Is it a hobby with them? An addiction? What? Do they even realize they’re lying?

Oh, and I just reread my old post about what I thought creationists would do after the Dover trial. Read More

California Requires Qualified Teachers; Conservatives Upset

An appellate court in Los Angeles has ruled that a California couple must enroll their children in school. In this case, the parents have had several run-ins with protective services, and the intent of this particular ruling seems to be to ensure that someone outside the family can see whether they’re being abused. But it’s potentially more far-reaching than that:

Unlike at least 30 other states, home schooling is not specifically addressed in California law. Under the state education code, students must be enrolled in a public or private school, or can be taught at home by a credentialed tutor.

There are any number of reasons why parents might want to homeschool their children: maybe they’re afraid of school shootings, or think that they can do a better job than the public schools. But some people are obviously afraid that their children might become educated:

Glenn and Kathleen, a Sacramento-area couple who requested that their last name not be used for fear of prosecution, home school their 9-year-old son Hunter because their Christian beliefs would be contradicted in a public school setting, Glenn said. He is troubled by the idea that his son would be exposed to teachings about evolution, homosexuality, same-sex marriage and sex education .

Oh, noes! God forbid kids should learn how their bodies work! Then they might make responsible sexual choices and not accidentally conceive the next generation of warriors for Christ! And they might learn that there are (gasp!) homosexuals in California. Heavens!

But this is what education is all about: learning things and being exposed to new ideas. What these parents are saying, in effect, is that their beliefs can’t hold their own in a free marketplace of ideas, or else that they don’t trust their children to tell good ideas from bad ones on their own. Either way, is this really something that should be encouraged?

If the above summary of California law on education is accurate, then what it boils down to is “If you don’t want to send your kids to public school, that’s fine. You can send them to a private school, or teach them yourself, as long as they’re being taught by someone qualified.” This is the same as saying, “You can take your kids to the state-run hospital to get their shots; or you can take them to a private clinic; or you can even administer the shots yourself, if you’ve demonstrated that you can do it properly.” But apparently that’s not good enough. These people are fighting for the right to have unqualified people teach their kids.

The California constitution, Article XI, says:

A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.

Which I guess pretty much constitutes a right to education. As I said above, there are plenty of valid reasons to homeshool one’s children, but keeping them ignorant isn’t one of them.

Dembski: Scientific Literacy = Assault on ID

Bill Dembski warns his fans:

Paul Kurtz’s Center for Inquiry is partnering with SUNY-Buffalo (the State University of New York) to offer an Ed.M. in “scientific literacy”

So? Private organizations team up with educational institutions all the time. What’s so bad about this program?

(which will include a whopping dose of Darwinism and an assault on ID).

It’s okay for the Center for Inquiry to promote atheism in the name of science but anything that even gets close to theism, like design, is streng verboten.

(emphasis in the original).

I couldn’t find the part on CFI’s page where it says that candidates will be required to eat the heart of a cdesign proponentsist while setting fire to a stack of Jonathan Wells books, but Dembski quotes an email message that lays out their nefarious plans:

Explore the methods and outlook of science as they intersect with public culture and public policy. Understand the elements of scientific literacy.

This unique two-year degree, offered entirely online, is ideal for students preparing for careers in research, science education, public policy, and science journalism, as well as further study in sociology, history and philosophy of science, science communication, education, or public administration.

Some of the courses required to complete this 33 credit hour master of education degree program include Scientific Writing; Informal Science Education; Science Curricula; Critical Thinking; History and Philosophy of Science; Science, Technology and Human Values; Research Ethics.

Honestly, I don’t see why Billy’s getting his panties in a twist over this. Does he really think that teaching people what science is and how to think critically constitutes an “assault on ID”? If so, doesn’t this constitute an admission that ID is made of fail and can’t withstand scrutiny?

Or does he think that CFI is a sort of atheist Disco Institute? That would justify his paranoia, since he presumably knows how the DI likes to distort the truth to advance its cause.

How Do I Know This Isn’t Garbage?

I’ve said elsewhere that science can be distilled down to two questions: “What is the world like?” and “How do I know this isn’t garbage?” Richard Feynman stated the second question as:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

(Emphasis added.)

Over the years, scientists have discovered a great many ways to fool yourself and others. So It’s nice to read by Peter Norvig, listing some that even professionals get tripped up on. It gives the distinct impression that the hardest part of doing an experiment is not the business with the test tubes or telescopes or particle accelerators or what have you, but simply avoiding all of the mistakes that others have made before you, that could invalidate your results.

He has an equally good companion piece that analyzes a bunch of studies on the effect of intercessory prayer. (Summary: the experiments can be divided into two main groups: those that show no effect, and those that are flawed.) Most interesting for believers is the way that he points out exactly what the flaws in the papers are. Well worth reading.

(HT PZ for the link.)

Ben Stein Deteriorates Into Bad Self-Parody

Pop quiz: one of these quotations was written years ago by a young-earth creationist so ignorant that other YECs have tried to distance themselves from him. The other was published today, by a proponent of Intelligent Design (which, we are told, is Totally Not Creationism, Nuh-Uh) who enjoys respect within the ID community. Can you guess which is which and who the authors are?

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

  1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
  2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
  3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
  4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
  5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

Just a few tiny, insignificant little questions.

* How did the universe start?

* Where did matter come from?

* Where did energy come from?

* Where did the laws of motion, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, come from?

* Where did gravity come from?

* How did inorganic matter, that is, lifeless matter such as dirt and rocks, become living beings?

* Has anyone ever observed beyond doubt the evolution of a new mammalian or aviary species, as opposed to changes within a species?

These teeny weeny little questions are just some of the issues as to which Darwin and Darwinism have absolutely no verifiable answers.

Answers after the jump. Read More

Where Are all the Reflective Christians?
Carnival of the Godless

One recurring criticism of Dawkins’s The God Delusion (and Hitchens’s God Is Not Great, Victor Stenger’s God: the Failed Hypothesis, and others) is that these authors attack a simplistic conception of God, one that no intelligent, educated person believes in anyway.

Plantinga, for instance, writes:

According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane.

Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that this is the sort of semantically empty babbling that I’ve complained about before, and take him at his word. Plantinga and Dawkins could agree on a great number of things: God is not a magic bearded man in the sky. God does not whisper to you where you found your car keys. Chemotherapy works better than prayer at curing cancer. Jesus will not descend from the clouds by next Thursday at the latest and whisk all the unbelievers up in a flash of special effects to live forever in happy-cloud-land.

But why is it up to atheists to point this out?

Read More

McChurch

Christianity Today has an article about the latest thing in religion:

Eddie Johnson, the lead pastor of Cumberland Church, espouses the franchising concept when it comes to the relationship between his church in Nashville, Tennessee, and North Point Community Church in metro Atlanta. On his blog, he states, “Just like a Chick-fil-A, my church is a ‘franchise,’ and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator.”

According to Johnson, his job is to “establish a local, autonomous church that has the same beliefs, values, mission, and strategy as North Point.” He completed a three-month internship at North Point and continues to receive training and support. He claims to rarely deviate from the “training manual.”

“Just like that Chick-fil-A owner/operator,” he says, “I’m here in Nashville to open up our franchise and run it right. I believe in my company and what they are trying to ‘sell.'”

Read More