is Bullshit.
While I think the quest for an objective metric of morality is often well intentioned it is extremely misguided. This is particularly the case for quests for scientific metrics of morality. Science is by nature, in the business of figuring out how things work. This helps us hugely in informing our ethical systems, though giving us a better understanding of things like sentience, and its possible implications for other species and so on. What it does not do is provide us with moral imperatives.
Moral imperatives are wholly subjectively derived. I would go so far as to say they are inter-subjectively derived but no further. What I mean by this is that we construct our ethical beliefs based on what subjective effects actions have on other ethical beings (by this I mean being capable of ethical thought). We may be able to detect through brain activity what effect some actions may potentially have, but this does not tell us what is good, only what *IS*. We must then appeal to our ethical construct, which has been inter-subjectively defined. This is what I mean by science informing morality, but not constructing it.
More on this in the future.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Friday, June 14, 2013
Friday, April 13, 2012
We Are Not So Smart
We Homo sapiens often like to champion ourselves as the most intelligent species. In fact by all known metrics of intelligence, we are. However as whole, our species doesn't act intelligent. Take Creationism for example. It is a sad indictment of the intelligence of our species when educated people who in other aspects of life are 'smart', yet still manage to accept something so vapid, so devoid of truth of which all evidence points to the contrary as true. This phenomena itself is clearly evidence of evolution. No intelligent creator would craft a brain that so easily deludes itself into believing things as stupid as creationism.
This doesn't mean I think all creationists are stupid though, they simply have a faulty brain. We all do. I once was a creationist because I was led to believe it as a child by adults who didn't know any better. When I learned more about it I rejected it, but for a number of years, I looked at the evidence and rejected it, opting instead for a position of faith. Some people may never end up giving up cretinous beliefs and it is sad to realise this. Humanity is not as smart as we delude ourselves to believe. Sometimes, some people are smart at some things, but in general, we are not so smart.
This doesn't mean I think all creationists are stupid though, they simply have a faulty brain. We all do. I once was a creationist because I was led to believe it as a child by adults who didn't know any better. When I learned more about it I rejected it, but for a number of years, I looked at the evidence and rejected it, opting instead for a position of faith. Some people may never end up giving up cretinous beliefs and it is sad to realise this. Humanity is not as smart as we delude ourselves to believe. Sometimes, some people are smart at some things, but in general, we are not so smart.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Why I Rarely Post About Creationism
For the few regular readers that I have, you may or may not have noticed that lately I very rarely post about creationism. The main reason for this is because the debate is well and truly over and it has been for a long, long time. Creationists (I include ID as a sub-category of creationism) should know this, and I'd wager that most professional creationists do realise it. People like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Creation Science Evangelism, The Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research and any others you can think of are actively putting out information that they must know is false. They are after all the deceitful demagogues that I mentioned in my 'Two Types of Creationist' post back in 2010.
If on the odd chance they are really just willfully ignorant and delusional, what can we do about that? We can't go around locking them up or sending them into looney bins can we? The scientific battle is over, but the social war will never end. I hate to be so pessimistic, but I fear that as long as humanity is rife with shit-heads like the aforementioned creationist groups whose main goal is to undermine science with a religious agenda we will never stamp out the pestilence that is creationism.
We will never get rid of magical thinking, faulty reasoning and conspiratorial tendencies. These mis-firings of our thinking faculties are hard wired into humanity.
This is not to say that we do nothing, I still make efforts in my personal life to combat creationism. A few of the Christians that I know (that number dwindles by the year too) are still creationists. I don't try and force them to accept evolution, but I do try and convey to them how serious the evidence for evolution really is, within the context of an amicable conversation. I have a few books and online resources that I try to pass along to them, but they're rarely, if ever interested. There seems to be comfort in delusion. They're more content thinking wrong-headed beliefs are true than actually learning something new.
If there is some 'miracle' cure for the plague of creationism, I'd love to know about it but until then, I think I'll just carry on as I have been, pessimistic about the intellectual honesty of humankind, and continuing to learn new things myself every day.
If on the odd chance they are really just willfully ignorant and delusional, what can we do about that? We can't go around locking them up or sending them into looney bins can we? The scientific battle is over, but the social war will never end. I hate to be so pessimistic, but I fear that as long as humanity is rife with shit-heads like the aforementioned creationist groups whose main goal is to undermine science with a religious agenda we will never stamp out the pestilence that is creationism.
We will never get rid of magical thinking, faulty reasoning and conspiratorial tendencies. These mis-firings of our thinking faculties are hard wired into humanity.
This is not to say that we do nothing, I still make efforts in my personal life to combat creationism. A few of the Christians that I know (that number dwindles by the year too) are still creationists. I don't try and force them to accept evolution, but I do try and convey to them how serious the evidence for evolution really is, within the context of an amicable conversation. I have a few books and online resources that I try to pass along to them, but they're rarely, if ever interested. There seems to be comfort in delusion. They're more content thinking wrong-headed beliefs are true than actually learning something new.
If there is some 'miracle' cure for the plague of creationism, I'd love to know about it but until then, I think I'll just carry on as I have been, pessimistic about the intellectual honesty of humankind, and continuing to learn new things myself every day.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Review of 'The Reason for God' - Part 3
Chapter 6: “Science has disproved Christianity”
Most of this chapter is non-contentious and doesn’t really need much said about it. It’s basically just a discussion of the conflict model of science vs. Religion, which I agree is not an accurate description of reality. This is not because I think religion and science coalesce, but because like many popular level criticisms of religion, it is too simplistic, and too black and white. The reality of the situation is much more complicated than some atheist writers would lead you to believe.
Despite the fact that the chapter doesn’t say anything starkly wrong in my opinion, I think Keller still fails to address the best skeptical arguments against religion from the scientific perspective so I walk away unsatisfied once again.
Chapter 7: “You Can’t Take The Bible Literally”
My mouth was hanging open for approximately two thirds of this chapter out of sheer surprise of what he was saying (in a bad way). I don’t really feel like trying to refute any of his points here, as this is supposed to be a book review not a refutation. Keller refers to the Da Vinci Code many times as examples of “biblical skepticism” and “historical revisionism”. I understand he is trying to write for the popular level, but seriously, no one interested in this subject takes the Da Vinci Code seriously anyway, stop wasting my time Keller!
I was especially gobsmacked at Keller’s attempt to gloss over cultural anachronisms in the Bible and moral horrors (such as slavery) by trying to say that they aren’t the key message, so you should first accept Christianity as true, and then try and figure those out later. It’s a package deal, If I disagree with biblical teachings, I’m not going to follow the Bible. Honestly, I almost feel like saying that even if Jesus were God, I wouldn’t be a Christian because of the content of the Bible.
He attempts the argument that Biblical slavery wasn’t as bad as the slavery of the middle ages. He tries to say that slaves weren’t actually owned by slave-masters back then, only their labour was, but ignores the passage in Exodus where it explicitly states that the slave is the property of his master. I find this is typical of Christian apologetics, it’s disingenuous. At least he makes some reference to views that skeptics actually hold, but his refutations of them are extremely vapid and effectively amount to “the evidence for this older, skeptical view of the Bible has been crumbling steadily for the past thirty years, even as it has been promoted by the popular media...” Weak man, weak.
Chapter 8: “The Clues of God”
This chapter was bad. His first argument relies on outdated science, he quotes Stephen Hawking from the 90’s saying that “almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.” This is problematic because the most up-to-date understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that it only shows us an inflationary event from a dense state, it does not reveal a singularity or a creation moment. Keller’s use of this argument shows that he has either not kept up to date, or is intentionally staying out-of-date because he can use it to support his case.
His second argument is the fine-tuning argument. This is dealt (in my opinion) a death-blow in Victor Stenger’s latest book ‘The Fallacy of Fine Tuning’. The fine tuning argument is built on many false premises two of which I’ll list here.
1) That the ‘constants’ are variable
2) That the constants are independent
Once those assumptions are removed, fine tuning falls flat.
His next argument is that because nature is regular, god must exist, because we can’t create a rational explanation for why nature should be regular. This weak argument encounters a fatal flaw when one points out that one cannot make a rational argument for why nature shouldn’t be regular either.
Then he goes to beauty, and says that’s a clue for god. I’m not convinced, beauty is subjective, it doesn’t actually exist and is entirely explicable under naturalism.
He finishes the chapter with what is essentially Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, which is built upon an argument of C.S. Lewis’ from Miracles. The argument basically says that if our brains are the result of natural evolution, we cannot trust them. I find that every person I’ve seen making this argument doesn’t really understand evolution or the scientific method.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Part 5
Most of this chapter is non-contentious and doesn’t really need much said about it. It’s basically just a discussion of the conflict model of science vs. Religion, which I agree is not an accurate description of reality. This is not because I think religion and science coalesce, but because like many popular level criticisms of religion, it is too simplistic, and too black and white. The reality of the situation is much more complicated than some atheist writers would lead you to believe.
Despite the fact that the chapter doesn’t say anything starkly wrong in my opinion, I think Keller still fails to address the best skeptical arguments against religion from the scientific perspective so I walk away unsatisfied once again.
Chapter 7: “You Can’t Take The Bible Literally”
My mouth was hanging open for approximately two thirds of this chapter out of sheer surprise of what he was saying (in a bad way). I don’t really feel like trying to refute any of his points here, as this is supposed to be a book review not a refutation. Keller refers to the Da Vinci Code many times as examples of “biblical skepticism” and “historical revisionism”. I understand he is trying to write for the popular level, but seriously, no one interested in this subject takes the Da Vinci Code seriously anyway, stop wasting my time Keller!
I was especially gobsmacked at Keller’s attempt to gloss over cultural anachronisms in the Bible and moral horrors (such as slavery) by trying to say that they aren’t the key message, so you should first accept Christianity as true, and then try and figure those out later. It’s a package deal, If I disagree with biblical teachings, I’m not going to follow the Bible. Honestly, I almost feel like saying that even if Jesus were God, I wouldn’t be a Christian because of the content of the Bible.
He attempts the argument that Biblical slavery wasn’t as bad as the slavery of the middle ages. He tries to say that slaves weren’t actually owned by slave-masters back then, only their labour was, but ignores the passage in Exodus where it explicitly states that the slave is the property of his master. I find this is typical of Christian apologetics, it’s disingenuous. At least he makes some reference to views that skeptics actually hold, but his refutations of them are extremely vapid and effectively amount to “the evidence for this older, skeptical view of the Bible has been crumbling steadily for the past thirty years, even as it has been promoted by the popular media...” Weak man, weak.
Chapter 8: “The Clues of God”
This chapter was bad. His first argument relies on outdated science, he quotes Stephen Hawking from the 90’s saying that “almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.” This is problematic because the most up-to-date understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that it only shows us an inflationary event from a dense state, it does not reveal a singularity or a creation moment. Keller’s use of this argument shows that he has either not kept up to date, or is intentionally staying out-of-date because he can use it to support his case.
His second argument is the fine-tuning argument. This is dealt (in my opinion) a death-blow in Victor Stenger’s latest book ‘The Fallacy of Fine Tuning’. The fine tuning argument is built on many false premises two of which I’ll list here.
1) That the ‘constants’ are variable
2) That the constants are independent
Once those assumptions are removed, fine tuning falls flat.
His next argument is that because nature is regular, god must exist, because we can’t create a rational explanation for why nature should be regular. This weak argument encounters a fatal flaw when one points out that one cannot make a rational argument for why nature shouldn’t be regular either.
Then he goes to beauty, and says that’s a clue for god. I’m not convinced, beauty is subjective, it doesn’t actually exist and is entirely explicable under naturalism.
He finishes the chapter with what is essentially Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, which is built upon an argument of C.S. Lewis’ from Miracles. The argument basically says that if our brains are the result of natural evolution, we cannot trust them. I find that every person I’ve seen making this argument doesn’t really understand evolution or the scientific method.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Part 5
Friday, October 14, 2011
Faith and Intuition
Many Christians laud faith as a virtue, and value intuition and gut feelings as confirmation of their beliefs. I reject all of this as unreliable, and it is my goal to elucidate why.
I will start by defining what I mean by faith, and then respond to some theistic uses of it. I accept the definition of faith in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. So the atheistic definition that 'faith is belief without evidence' is accurate to the definition found in Hebrews. If Christians wish to dispute this they should take it up with the New Testament canon and the anonymous author of the epistle, not with us.
When dialoguing with Christians, I am often scolded for not giving faith a chance and that I'm dogmatically accepting scientific naturalism. I would like to point out that I did give faith a chance, I was raised on faith. I consciously followed the Christian faith and bought into its conclusions for years. I read apologetics and debated online with atheists for about 4 years before jumping ship. I also do not dogmatically accept anything. If it became apparent that scientific naturalism was not producing intellectual progress or contributing to the wealth of knowledge that furthers the advancement of our species, I would abandon it just as I abandoned by former religion. The thing is though, that scientific naturalism is making progress, and we are constantly finding out more and more about the world we live in by scientific methods.
The other common thing that I hear from the Christians that I discuss/debate with is that they think faith is a path to knowledge. This is usually coupled with the two statements in the previous paragraph. When I have asked how faith is a path to knowledge, I am only ever met with distractions and diversions. I don't see the connection between faith as defined in Hebrews and knowledge. How can you learn something from having confidence in what you hope for, or from having assurance about what you don't see? In every aspect of my life I learn things by examining the world around me, or by listening, reading or doing things. I have never learned anything by believing something a priori, without evidence. In fact I contend that doing so is the antithesis of learning, and only takes away from potential knowledge, rather than contributing to it as my theist friends insist. On top of the dodging of this question, I have never received an acceptable answer when I ask what knowledge faith has given them. If as they say faith is an alternative path to knowledge than the rational methods I apply, then surely they could point to an example of knowledge that has been revealed by faith? It seems like a reasonable question to me.
When the issue of morality arises I am met constantly with the view that God instils moral values into our intuitions, or something akin to it. No amount of sociological, evolutionary or neuro-scientific reasoning seems to be able to convince them that intuitions are not reliable ways to know anything. Moral ideas are largely the product of cultural conditioning, and many intuitions come from our evolutionary heritage and are explicable by natural, hormonal or neural means. We have learned so much about how our brain works and the natural world we live in, and as a result we can correct for errors in our cognition and intuition. Similarly, we can correct moral beliefs that are conditioned into us from cultural or evolutionary heritage. Pointing to moral intuition is not a cogent argument for the existence of God, as our moral intuitions are constantly changing as a result of cultural change. Our intuitions and gut feelings are useful tools in every day life, as we often can not afford the time to sit and think rationally about every decision we make, but we must also realise that they are often error-prone and sometimes flat out wrong. If you think God exists because you have a gut feeling that something exists out there it is my opinion that this is but another example of cognitive failure.
I will start by defining what I mean by faith, and then respond to some theistic uses of it. I accept the definition of faith in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. So the atheistic definition that 'faith is belief without evidence' is accurate to the definition found in Hebrews. If Christians wish to dispute this they should take it up with the New Testament canon and the anonymous author of the epistle, not with us.
When dialoguing with Christians, I am often scolded for not giving faith a chance and that I'm dogmatically accepting scientific naturalism. I would like to point out that I did give faith a chance, I was raised on faith. I consciously followed the Christian faith and bought into its conclusions for years. I read apologetics and debated online with atheists for about 4 years before jumping ship. I also do not dogmatically accept anything. If it became apparent that scientific naturalism was not producing intellectual progress or contributing to the wealth of knowledge that furthers the advancement of our species, I would abandon it just as I abandoned by former religion. The thing is though, that scientific naturalism is making progress, and we are constantly finding out more and more about the world we live in by scientific methods.
The other common thing that I hear from the Christians that I discuss/debate with is that they think faith is a path to knowledge. This is usually coupled with the two statements in the previous paragraph. When I have asked how faith is a path to knowledge, I am only ever met with distractions and diversions. I don't see the connection between faith as defined in Hebrews and knowledge. How can you learn something from having confidence in what you hope for, or from having assurance about what you don't see? In every aspect of my life I learn things by examining the world around me, or by listening, reading or doing things. I have never learned anything by believing something a priori, without evidence. In fact I contend that doing so is the antithesis of learning, and only takes away from potential knowledge, rather than contributing to it as my theist friends insist. On top of the dodging of this question, I have never received an acceptable answer when I ask what knowledge faith has given them. If as they say faith is an alternative path to knowledge than the rational methods I apply, then surely they could point to an example of knowledge that has been revealed by faith? It seems like a reasonable question to me.
When the issue of morality arises I am met constantly with the view that God instils moral values into our intuitions, or something akin to it. No amount of sociological, evolutionary or neuro-scientific reasoning seems to be able to convince them that intuitions are not reliable ways to know anything. Moral ideas are largely the product of cultural conditioning, and many intuitions come from our evolutionary heritage and are explicable by natural, hormonal or neural means. We have learned so much about how our brain works and the natural world we live in, and as a result we can correct for errors in our cognition and intuition. Similarly, we can correct moral beliefs that are conditioned into us from cultural or evolutionary heritage. Pointing to moral intuition is not a cogent argument for the existence of God, as our moral intuitions are constantly changing as a result of cultural change. Our intuitions and gut feelings are useful tools in every day life, as we often can not afford the time to sit and think rationally about every decision we make, but we must also realise that they are often error-prone and sometimes flat out wrong. If you think God exists because you have a gut feeling that something exists out there it is my opinion that this is but another example of cognitive failure.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Eternal Universe
"Saying the universe is eternal simply is saying that it has no beginning or end, not that it had a beginning an infinite time ago"
—Victor J. Stenger
This quote from Vic Stenger really highlights the failure to understand what the cosmological debate is really about. Mischaracterisations occur on both sides of the debate, from the common atheist quip: "Well who created God then?" to the theist criticism: "You can't have an infinite number of events".
First I will address what I find to be a misguided criticism of theism: "Who created God?". This line of argumentation really fails off the block, because it is a strawman. It doesn't address what theism actually claims, which is generally some sort of eternal uncreated being. By definition this is not a created being, so would not have been created by anything. A much better way to come at this in my opinion is to ask the theist to account for why they point to something undetectable supposedly outside the cosmos to explain the cosmos. What inductions have they drawn to justify an external non-physical explanation for physical phenomena?
The theist argument in this case essentially boils down to an argument from ignorance, they can't explain how the universe came into existence (which is begging the question anyway) so they resort to some generally undefined, mysterious explanation. There is no empirical data that points to this mystical source. Theists will protest that this isn't a god-of-the-gaps argument, but I contend that it is. In fact I contend that it is the ultimate god-of-the-gaps.
Regarding the infinite number of events criticism, I find it to be rather hollow and hypocritical. Any criticism of an eternal universe can be equally be applied to an eternal god. As Carl Sagan said:
—Victor J. Stenger
This quote from Vic Stenger really highlights the failure to understand what the cosmological debate is really about. Mischaracterisations occur on both sides of the debate, from the common atheist quip: "Well who created God then?" to the theist criticism: "You can't have an infinite number of events".
First I will address what I find to be a misguided criticism of theism: "Who created God?". This line of argumentation really fails off the block, because it is a strawman. It doesn't address what theism actually claims, which is generally some sort of eternal uncreated being. By definition this is not a created being, so would not have been created by anything. A much better way to come at this in my opinion is to ask the theist to account for why they point to something undetectable supposedly outside the cosmos to explain the cosmos. What inductions have they drawn to justify an external non-physical explanation for physical phenomena?
The theist argument in this case essentially boils down to an argument from ignorance, they can't explain how the universe came into existence (which is begging the question anyway) so they resort to some generally undefined, mysterious explanation. There is no empirical data that points to this mystical source. Theists will protest that this isn't a god-of-the-gaps argument, but I contend that it is. In fact I contend that it is the ultimate god-of-the-gaps.
Regarding the infinite number of events criticism, I find it to be rather hollow and hypocritical. Any criticism of an eternal universe can be equally be applied to an eternal god. As Carl Sagan said:
Before anyone says it, I do not think that Carl Sagan is proffering the argument that I criticised at the beginning of this post. He seems to me just to be asking what the explanation for whatever god it is that is supposed to have created the universe. If that explanation is not based upon evidence, it is not an explanation at all, and the answer is either unknown, or unknowable. Once this is admitted, plausible scientific explanations for the existence of the universe are much more satisfactory, as they are confirmable by observation.
In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Atheism: The Null Hypothesis
I have heard it claimed recently by some theists that “Atheism is not the default position” and it puzzles me somewhat. When atheists talk about the default position what we are referring to is the scientific concept of the null hypothesis. A claim is made—in this case that a god exists— and the null hypothesis is to say that the claim is false. From Wikipedia: “The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect.” The null hypothesis is a negative statement, not a positive claim.
I have also seen many atheists try to ‘prove’ that god(s) do not exist. You cannot prove a null hypothesis. From Wikipedia: “It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it.” The issue is widely misunderstood on both sides of the debate though, so it isn’t only atheists who are pushing the envelope too far. It has been claimed by theists that to be an atheist means you have to know everything. Again, this is false as atheism is the null hypothesis, and as atheists our position can merely be the data we have so far is not enough to reject the null hypothesis. Much to my dismay, one of favourite scientists Carl Sagan also seemed to misunderstand this. He once said: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
So let it be known, atheism is not a claim to omniscience, nor can it ever be proved. Atheism is rejecting the existence of gods, not a claim to knowledge of their non-existence. People on all sides of this debate would do well to learn this, as it would make the debate much more enjoyable.
I have also seen many atheists try to ‘prove’ that god(s) do not exist. You cannot prove a null hypothesis. From Wikipedia: “It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it.” The issue is widely misunderstood on both sides of the debate though, so it isn’t only atheists who are pushing the envelope too far. It has been claimed by theists that to be an atheist means you have to know everything. Again, this is false as atheism is the null hypothesis, and as atheists our position can merely be the data we have so far is not enough to reject the null hypothesis. Much to my dismay, one of favourite scientists Carl Sagan also seemed to misunderstand this. He once said: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
So let it be known, atheism is not a claim to omniscience, nor can it ever be proved. Atheism is rejecting the existence of gods, not a claim to knowledge of their non-existence. People on all sides of this debate would do well to learn this, as it would make the debate much more enjoyable.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
More Evidence That Creationists Are Lying Sacks of Shit
Since I'm subscribed to CMI's newsletter I regularly get infuriating items in my inbox. This particular example from today is no exception. Some time ago, Creation Ministries International started a "Question Evolution" campaign to encourage Christians to reject science. They produced a small document with 15 questions for evolutionists to answer. Understandably, the questions were stupid, unbelievably so.
Here are the first 3
In their newsletter, they claimed that "atheists have attempted to answer the points we raised ... But the answers fall short as we show in our rebuttal."
Here are the so-called-objections to their 15 questions.
Question 1:
Answer 1: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion of evolution—it is a separate topic (this has been a very common claim).
Answer 2: Life/non-life isn’t a dichotomy. Rather, there are many examples of ‘proto-life’ such as viruses, prions, etc.
Answer 3: Some experiments show that the early earth’s atmosphere was optimal for life.
Really? No one pointed out to them that their question is a complete strawman? No scientist that works on abiogenesis would EVER say that the first 'life' was complex, and there is no way that it would have required hundreds of proteins. This just shows that CMI are not interested in honest science, but prefer to peddle blatant lies to their all too willing flock of sheep who gobble that bullshit up like it was chocolate mousse.
Question 2:
Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism.
Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information.
Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler.
Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.
Answer 5: The words ‘code’ and ‘language’ are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties.
Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water.
At least some of these touch on the key issue. Unsurprisingly they didn't really respond to any of them in any capacity with things like "Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as ‘letters’, so it’s hardly original to us." This just ignores the metaphor criticism altogether. To answer 3 they say "This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to “prove” common ancestry." This to me shows an intentional misunderstanding of the response, either that or they are absolutely brain-dead (which is a very real possibility!).
Question 3:
Answer 1: If only eight mutations per year were passed on for three billion years, that gives 3 gigabytes of information.
Answer 2: Computer models have shown how mutations can lead to large-scale change.
Answer 3: Using words such as ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’ is misleading and misses the point entirely.
As with the first question, the objections are relevant, but 2/3 miss the fundamental problem. CMI, and their fans do not understand what a mutation is, and they perpetuate the myth that all mutations are harmful and only remove information. They aren't interested in understanding what mutations really are and what they really do, just like they aren't interested in doing any actual science. All they are interested in doing is lying for Jesus. If they seriously wanted to try and answer objections to their idiotic questions, they would have responded to something like RationalWiki's article. Their actions speak louder than words, they find a handful of criticisms that while valid, don't cut to the heart of the issue. These issues are complex scientific issues and to understand an objection to the flawed misunderstandings that creationists have takes time. Creationists, the dishonest, disingenuous, ignorant lying sacks of shit that they are, simply do not want to put the effort in to learn real, honest science.
Here's a link to RationalWiki's article again, because it's good.
Here are the first 3
- How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
- How did the DNA code originate?
- How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
In their newsletter, they claimed that "atheists have attempted to answer the points we raised ... But the answers fall short as we show in our rebuttal."
Here are the so-called-objections to their 15 questions.
Question 1:
Answer 1: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion of evolution—it is a separate topic (this has been a very common claim).
Answer 2: Life/non-life isn’t a dichotomy. Rather, there are many examples of ‘proto-life’ such as viruses, prions, etc.
Answer 3: Some experiments show that the early earth’s atmosphere was optimal for life.
Really? No one pointed out to them that their question is a complete strawman? No scientist that works on abiogenesis would EVER say that the first 'life' was complex, and there is no way that it would have required hundreds of proteins. This just shows that CMI are not interested in honest science, but prefer to peddle blatant lies to their all too willing flock of sheep who gobble that bullshit up like it was chocolate mousse.
Question 2:
Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism.
Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information.
Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler.
Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.
Answer 5: The words ‘code’ and ‘language’ are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties.
Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water.
At least some of these touch on the key issue. Unsurprisingly they didn't really respond to any of them in any capacity with things like "Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as ‘letters’, so it’s hardly original to us." This just ignores the metaphor criticism altogether. To answer 3 they say "This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to “prove” common ancestry." This to me shows an intentional misunderstanding of the response, either that or they are absolutely brain-dead (which is a very real possibility!).
Question 3:
Answer 1: If only eight mutations per year were passed on for three billion years, that gives 3 gigabytes of information.
Answer 2: Computer models have shown how mutations can lead to large-scale change.
Answer 3: Using words such as ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’ is misleading and misses the point entirely.
As with the first question, the objections are relevant, but 2/3 miss the fundamental problem. CMI, and their fans do not understand what a mutation is, and they perpetuate the myth that all mutations are harmful and only remove information. They aren't interested in understanding what mutations really are and what they really do, just like they aren't interested in doing any actual science. All they are interested in doing is lying for Jesus. If they seriously wanted to try and answer objections to their idiotic questions, they would have responded to something like RationalWiki's article. Their actions speak louder than words, they find a handful of criticisms that while valid, don't cut to the heart of the issue. These issues are complex scientific issues and to understand an objection to the flawed misunderstandings that creationists have takes time. Creationists, the dishonest, disingenuous, ignorant lying sacks of shit that they are, simply do not want to put the effort in to learn real, honest science.
Here's a link to RationalWiki's article again, because it's good.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Search for a First Cause
There is a huge difference between how religion “searches” for a first cause and how science does it. In the religious paradigm, a position is asserted and that’s that. God did it, their minds are made up. In science however, the answer may never be definite or absolute, but that does not take anything away from the beauty of it, it simply shows the honesty of the scientific method.
There was a time when scientists thought that the origin of the universe was outside the realm of scientific inquiry, when Newton was describing the motion of the planets as God had placed them there. The universe was the way it was because that’s how a powerful deity made it to be. That time is long gone, science has been fearlessly making leaps and bounds over the last century to discover (or at the very least learn more about) the origin and nature of our universe. Theories are devised, calculations performed, observations made, theories revised and so on. The search will probably be never-ending, as we probably can never know everything.
A notable example of this revision in the face of observation is the expansion of the universe as predicted by Einstein. The prevailing view at the time was that the universe was eternal, and when Einstein discovered that his calculations lead to an expanding universe, which implied that at one point in time the universe was smaller, indicating that there must have been a point of origin. He adjusted his theory so it would not predict an expanding universe, observation of the red-shift by Edwin Hubble and later the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has shown us that he was right the first time round, the universe is expanding.
The religious search jumps on board the scientific train with this discovery, but jumps off again when natural explanations for the ‘Big Bang’ are postulated. This mindset is typical of the religious search for a first cause. They have their minds made up, if a proposition goes against their belief that a god created the universe they will reject it, and when a proposition seems to support their belief (even if just at surface level) they will claim that they were right all along, that science has vindicated religion. Picking and choosing which science you support based on your prior commitments is at the very least inconsistent, and at the worst dishonest.
There was a time when scientists thought that the origin of the universe was outside the realm of scientific inquiry, when Newton was describing the motion of the planets as God had placed them there. The universe was the way it was because that’s how a powerful deity made it to be. That time is long gone, science has been fearlessly making leaps and bounds over the last century to discover (or at the very least learn more about) the origin and nature of our universe. Theories are devised, calculations performed, observations made, theories revised and so on. The search will probably be never-ending, as we probably can never know everything.
A notable example of this revision in the face of observation is the expansion of the universe as predicted by Einstein. The prevailing view at the time was that the universe was eternal, and when Einstein discovered that his calculations lead to an expanding universe, which implied that at one point in time the universe was smaller, indicating that there must have been a point of origin. He adjusted his theory so it would not predict an expanding universe, observation of the red-shift by Edwin Hubble and later the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has shown us that he was right the first time round, the universe is expanding.
The religious search jumps on board the scientific train with this discovery, but jumps off again when natural explanations for the ‘Big Bang’ are postulated. This mindset is typical of the religious search for a first cause. They have their minds made up, if a proposition goes against their belief that a god created the universe they will reject it, and when a proposition seems to support their belief (even if just at surface level) they will claim that they were right all along, that science has vindicated religion. Picking and choosing which science you support based on your prior commitments is at the very least inconsistent, and at the worst dishonest.
Monday, September 12, 2011
The End of Creationism?
I really wonder how long we’ll have to put up with creationism and creationists? Perhaps today is a good day to discuss this issue. It’s the 12th of September here, but as of writing it is still the 11th in the USA, the 10th anniversary of the most heinous terrorist act of this generation. Regardless of whether it was primarily motivated by religious zealotry or not (I’m not going to get into that debate), it certainly inspired a religious backlash, a resurgence of fervour for fundamentalist Christianity.
As you probably know, the “creation-evolution” debate is not scientific in nature, it is cultural. The issue isn’t happening in the lab, or between scientists, but in the public square. Creationists aim at children, and the scientifically illiterate. They target the easily bamboozled and those who won’t go and check their facts. Once their plague has infected someone it is very difficult to cure. Many even go through the motions of higher education, sometimes even in the scientific realm, and still come out a science-denying baboon. It has been said that the typical “Creation Scientist” has a doctorate in Chemistry, Computer Science or Engineering. Not to badmouth those fields at all, but they don’t exactly resemble biology. In the case of Engineering and Computer Science, they are fields that deal almost exclusively with man-made, purposefully designed objects. So it is easy to see where their misplaced expertise lies, take an understanding of synthetic codes and design, alongside a religious and ideological agenda (perhaps from childhood indoctrination) and you have a cookie-cutter [dis]”reputable” Creation Scientist.
I don’t think it is possible (or necessary) to try to get rid of religion as a whole, and it may even be a difficult task to tone down, or get rid of fundamentalism, especially when we periodically see “revivals” of it, like this past decade as a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. If fundamentalism is to be done away with, it must come from within the religion. Christians have to take out their trash. Muslims have to take out their trash. It is up to the religious establishments to clean shop. Though influence from outside the fold does happen (I am one who left from outside influence), it simply cannot give the results that we wish it to. If moderate and liberal Christians want to curb fundamentalism, they have to up their game. I am more than happy, as are thousands of other “new atheists” to offer our criticisms, but we can only do so much.
Take home message: To moderate and liberal believers, your shit stinks, for both our sakes, flush it! Please!
As you probably know, the “creation-evolution” debate is not scientific in nature, it is cultural. The issue isn’t happening in the lab, or between scientists, but in the public square. Creationists aim at children, and the scientifically illiterate. They target the easily bamboozled and those who won’t go and check their facts. Once their plague has infected someone it is very difficult to cure. Many even go through the motions of higher education, sometimes even in the scientific realm, and still come out a science-denying baboon. It has been said that the typical “Creation Scientist” has a doctorate in Chemistry, Computer Science or Engineering. Not to badmouth those fields at all, but they don’t exactly resemble biology. In the case of Engineering and Computer Science, they are fields that deal almost exclusively with man-made, purposefully designed objects. So it is easy to see where their misplaced expertise lies, take an understanding of synthetic codes and design, alongside a religious and ideological agenda (perhaps from childhood indoctrination) and you have a cookie-cutter [dis]”reputable” Creation Scientist.
I don’t think it is possible (or necessary) to try to get rid of religion as a whole, and it may even be a difficult task to tone down, or get rid of fundamentalism, especially when we periodically see “revivals” of it, like this past decade as a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. If fundamentalism is to be done away with, it must come from within the religion. Christians have to take out their trash. Muslims have to take out their trash. It is up to the religious establishments to clean shop. Though influence from outside the fold does happen (I am one who left from outside influence), it simply cannot give the results that we wish it to. If moderate and liberal Christians want to curb fundamentalism, they have to up their game. I am more than happy, as are thousands of other “new atheists” to offer our criticisms, but we can only do so much.
Take home message: To moderate and liberal believers, your shit stinks, for both our sakes, flush it! Please!
Sunday, August 28, 2011
NZ Skeptics Conference Was Great
Well the NZ Skeptics conference was awesome! The talks were on very interesting, and I have been somewhat inspired to move towards a career in science education.
If you're from New Zealand and are interested in Reason, Science and debunking Pseudoscience, then I hope to see you at next years conference! It will be about the same time next year and will be held in Dunedin.
If you're from New Zealand and are interested in Reason, Science and debunking Pseudoscience, then I hope to see you at next years conference! It will be about the same time next year and will be held in Dunedin.
Friday, August 19, 2011
What If You’re Wrong?
I haven’t been asked this question for quite some time, but it is always worthwhile to think about. How would I know if I was wrong about something? It would depend on what the thing is, but generally if the evidence doesn’t fit with my idea, then it’s probably at least a little bit wrong.
Gods:
When it comes to the question of being wrong about the existence of gods, it would depend heavily on what kind of god it is. If it is the kind of unfalsifiable, unverifiable god that most people these days tend to want to believe in, then it isn’t really possible to know if you’re wrong about its existence. If the god wanted to stay hidden, you wouldn’t ever be able to find out. However, some people assert that their god interferes with the natural world, performing miracles. In *theory* it would be possible to know if you were wrong about this kind of god by observing a verifiable miracle, but it wouldn’t be possible to know that it doesn’t exist. In this sense I am a hard agnostic. Although falsification isn’t possible, I would say that an absolute lack of evidence grants the meddling god a provisionally falsified status. In this sense, I am a hard atheist. I reject the existence of gods, but am open to the possibility of being wrong.
Science:
Completely unlike the situation regarding the existence of gods, scientific theories rise and fall on evidence. If I was wrong about something like evolution, the evidence would convince me of that. In this case though, instead of having a complete lack of evidence, we have an overwhelming mass of evidence. All of it supports evolution. This is why creationists frustrate me so much, especially when they accuse evolution of being a religion, or being based on faith. They couldn’t be further from the truth.
Politics:
Here is something that I freely admit I do not know enough about. I am an openly left-wing, socialist liberal. However if sufficient reason and practical applications can be shown to me that right-wing, capitalist (or other), conservative political systems work better than my ideals, I am more than willing to change my mind.
With my terms and conditions (so to speak) of mind-changing laid out, I would like to flip the package onto theists, creationists and capitalists: What if you’re wrong? What would it take to change your mind?
From my experience the question is either not answered at all, deflected, or absurd standards of evidence are requested. For example, monkeys giving birth to humans, which would actually falsify evolution, not prove it (Creationists often don’t bother trying to understand evolution though, so they don’t see the idiocy of their demands).
Gods:
When it comes to the question of being wrong about the existence of gods, it would depend heavily on what kind of god it is. If it is the kind of unfalsifiable, unverifiable god that most people these days tend to want to believe in, then it isn’t really possible to know if you’re wrong about its existence. If the god wanted to stay hidden, you wouldn’t ever be able to find out. However, some people assert that their god interferes with the natural world, performing miracles. In *theory* it would be possible to know if you were wrong about this kind of god by observing a verifiable miracle, but it wouldn’t be possible to know that it doesn’t exist. In this sense I am a hard agnostic. Although falsification isn’t possible, I would say that an absolute lack of evidence grants the meddling god a provisionally falsified status. In this sense, I am a hard atheist. I reject the existence of gods, but am open to the possibility of being wrong.
Science:
Completely unlike the situation regarding the existence of gods, scientific theories rise and fall on evidence. If I was wrong about something like evolution, the evidence would convince me of that. In this case though, instead of having a complete lack of evidence, we have an overwhelming mass of evidence. All of it supports evolution. This is why creationists frustrate me so much, especially when they accuse evolution of being a religion, or being based on faith. They couldn’t be further from the truth.
Politics:
Here is something that I freely admit I do not know enough about. I am an openly left-wing, socialist liberal. However if sufficient reason and practical applications can be shown to me that right-wing, capitalist (or other), conservative political systems work better than my ideals, I am more than willing to change my mind.
With my terms and conditions (so to speak) of mind-changing laid out, I would like to flip the package onto theists, creationists and capitalists: What if you’re wrong? What would it take to change your mind?
From my experience the question is either not answered at all, deflected, or absurd standards of evidence are requested. For example, monkeys giving birth to humans, which would actually falsify evolution, not prove it (Creationists often don’t bother trying to understand evolution though, so they don’t see the idiocy of their demands).
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Paradigm Shift - Environmentalism
Over the course of the past 2+ years my views on a lot of things have changed substantially, perhaps no single view more than any other but reading Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan made me realise how much I've now become passionate about conservation (of our planet). I was sitting in the basement of the Business school at university waiting for my Reason and Science Society meeting reading Pale Blue Dot. Next thing I know a group of business faculty members sit down on the next couch over. I couldn't help but overhear what they were talking about, and it was distracting me and irritating me.
What annoyed me most was not that they were talking while people around me were studying and I was reading, it was that they were talking about profiteering. There I was reading about how humanity could all too easily wipe itself out if we don't take measures to protect our planet, while they were getting excited about how much money they could make. 3-4 years ago I wouldn't have been annoyed at what they were saying, in fact I would probably have been interested in doing the same thing. Now it almost disgusts me, and instead I get excited by things that can improve the quality of life for others, while not only doing no harm to our environment but helping to protect it. In the space of a few short years I've gone from a conservative, capitalist Christian, to a liberal, socialist, green atheist. Hows that for a paradigm shift?
What annoyed me most was not that they were talking while people around me were studying and I was reading, it was that they were talking about profiteering. There I was reading about how humanity could all too easily wipe itself out if we don't take measures to protect our planet, while they were getting excited about how much money they could make. 3-4 years ago I wouldn't have been annoyed at what they were saying, in fact I would probably have been interested in doing the same thing. Now it almost disgusts me, and instead I get excited by things that can improve the quality of life for others, while not only doing no harm to our environment but helping to protect it. In the space of a few short years I've gone from a conservative, capitalist Christian, to a liberal, socialist, green atheist. Hows that for a paradigm shift?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Supernaturally Incoherent
The Atheist does not say “There is no God,” but he says, “I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation”
—Charles Bradlaugh
In my opinion the contention in this quote not only applies to the concept of gods but also to the supernatural in general. The supernatural is defined somewhat spuriously, often described as ‘not natural’ or ‘beyond nature’ or something equally inane. These definitions are not useful at all, for nothing has been said about what it is. You cannot define the colour red as ‘not blue or green’. I have seen some others try to define the supernatural as ‘more natural than nature’, I guess you could draw a comparison to Superman (ignoring that he’s an alien). These attempts at defining the supernatural only raise questions and answer none.
For the first definitions I mentioned, the supernatural, and thus gods (if they are defined as supernatural beings) are ultimately beyond our perception, as all evidence points towards the fact that we’re simply natural beings. All our physiological processes including thought are contained within the physical realm. So we cannot observe the supernatural, then where does that leave us?
It could be suggested that we could detect the supernatural through its interaction with the natural; this too however brings up many more questions. As soon as an effect is observed within the natural world, it is of course a natural occurrence by definition. We would observe something real happening, and search for an explanation within our reality. To assert that this event would be beyond nature is absurd, and goes against all reason. This brings to mind another quote.
“Once miracles are admitted, every scientific explanation is out of the question”
—Johannes Kepler
A closely related scenario is the manifestation of something supernatural. Let’s say that Yahweh appears and tells the whole earth simultaneously that it’s time for Judgment Day. Yahweh would be in the natural world, and everything that he did would be natural, so we could say definitively that a god would exist, but we wouldn’t know anything about it unless we could perform experiments on it. We could not however say that it was supernatural, because it is happening within the natural world. If the definition of a god is contingent on it being a supernatural being, we wouldn't even be able to say that one existed in this scenario.
Within science, all good hypotheses have things in common, one of those is falsifiability. A prediction is made, and depending on whether observation confirms or falsifies the theory/hypothesis gains or loses credibility. For example Einstein’s Theories of Relativity could potentially be falsified by one single observation, by observing two objects in otherwise empty space stay separated and by observing something being accelerated to the speed of light. A commonly cited possible falsification of evolution is finding ‘fossil bunnies in the Cambrian’. The God(s) hypothesis has no such feature. Any possible supernatural being is just as likely as any other possible supernatural being, as we have no evidence for or against their existence and they are unfalsifiable. Yahweh, Brahma, Baal, Marduk and Ra are just as plausible as each other. If a theist understands why they reject all of these other gods and beings, then they should understand quite well why I also reject their god.
I propose then that supernatural is not only an incoherent concept, but it is utterly useless. If discussion of the supernatural is limited to incoherent philosophical drivel, mere speculation, how can we ever hope to know anything about it? There is a famous (and famously misunderstood) quote from Einstein, which says religion without science is blind, and science without religion is lame. I want to take that quote and rephrase it in the context of reason and evidence.
“Evidence without reason is meaningless, and reason without evidence is mere speculation”I don’t intend to denigrate pure reason, as some great ideas have been conceived purely through mental processes, but when it comes to matters of fact, without any evidence you have no certainty and have very little with which to convince others. Aristotle used pure reason to arrive at his conclusions about the physical world, and he was wrong, very wrong in fact. The combination of reason and evidence is a very potent one, we call it science.
—KJ Moodie
So, supernaturalists, until you come up with some way of understanding the supernatural outside of imagination, you haven’t said anything meaningful. Any talk of gods, super-nature and anything beyond nature is incoherent, and irrelevant to reality. If you can figure out a way of discovering gods or the supernatural, I’ll be the first person to raise my brow and see what you’ve developed, until then have fun playing in the sand pit.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Just a Different Philosopy?
A friend of mine posted an interesting link on facebook to a study that was done on some potential medical uses for cannabis, and we started up a discussion about it. It was all going well until someone wrote this.
The aforementioned person then jumped into a conspiratorial barrel of quackery with this statement.
Needless to say, I responded to their nonsense, trying my best to hold onto my sanity. I was graced by a reply that really disappointed me. They replied by saying: "Think we're just coming from totally different philosophies on health and herbs KJ. But each to their own."
Yes, we have different philosophies, mine is based on evidence and reason. When evidence and reason show my position to be false, I change it. Your philosophy seems to be irrational ranting and delusional belief based, sorry to break it to you, but alternative medicine is baloney.
This whole ordeal reminded me of a song I discovered via. Pharyngula a while ago, if you're of the skeptical mindset, and don't mind a bit of country music, I urge you to check out this video
"There's one called Sativex which is legal here... but as any herbalist will tell you, there's a huge difference between the whole plant or a herbal tincture, and an isolated compound from it produced by a pharmaceutical company."I responded by saying that there is a difference because the isolated compound is the one that actually performs the required function. In the case of this cancer study, it was the THC that inhibited the Epidermis Growth Factor, the other compounds are simply not required for the task and could perhaps even be counter productive.
The aforementioned person then jumped into a conspiratorial barrel of quackery with this statement.
"Then we might as well condemn all herbs to the rubbish bin, discount millions of years of evolution, throw out all knowledge about nutrition, agree that no plant can have any impact on human health, and survive entirely on synthetic chemicals men in white coats agree are *required for the task*, right? Just sayin' :P "Now I do not know this person, so I don't want to make any judgements about them, but the attitude that I get from this is extremely anti-science. If you want to bash science based medicine, and take herbal remedies instead, go for it, I won't stop you, but what will you do if/when you get so ill, and none of your alternative medicine seems to do the trick? Don't go grovelling to a real doctor, because as you have clearly shown us, you have a deep seated contempt for those evil "men in white coats". FSM forbid, if you need an organ transplant, or any other kind of surgery, it would be awfully painful without those horrible synthetic chemicals that we call anaesthetics.
Needless to say, I responded to their nonsense, trying my best to hold onto my sanity. I was graced by a reply that really disappointed me. They replied by saying: "Think we're just coming from totally different philosophies on health and herbs KJ. But each to their own."
Yes, we have different philosophies, mine is based on evidence and reason. When evidence and reason show my position to be false, I change it. Your philosophy seems to be irrational ranting and delusional belief based, sorry to break it to you, but alternative medicine is baloney.
This whole ordeal reminded me of a song I discovered via. Pharyngula a while ago, if you're of the skeptical mindset, and don't mind a bit of country music, I urge you to check out this video
Friday, April 29, 2011
Beating the Ignorance Out of Them
So, in today’s lecture the professor did an excellent job of clearly explaining why evolution is factual, and explained what constitutes the theory of evolution and how it relates to the facts. He also explained how sub-hypotheses can be developed and tested within the framework of evolutionary theory. So if that lecture doesn’t get through to those ignoramuses I don’t know what will.
In fact there were several points in the lecture that I felt like cheering and clapping loudly, but out of respect for the learning of the other several hundred people in the theatre I opted out. One such moment was when he referred to Intelligent Design as a pseudo-science, and gave reasons why it was. It was also noteworthy that he made clear that he wasn’t attacking religion, as that would probably have made many of the creationists turn off even more than they probably already were.
One thing I was a little sad to hear, although it is almost certainly a necessary ‘evil’ in this context, was advocating the idea that Science and Religion are 'non-overlapping magisteria', or that they occupy different spheres of knowledge. I would never expect the opposite to be said within a biology class, because it is really off-topic, but rather I am sad that it needed to be said at all. That people disregard scientific evidence and theory in favour of magical creation in the first place is depressing enough, but that such an asinine statement must be made in order for them to even consider the possibility that science may be right is outright dismal.
In fact there were several points in the lecture that I felt like cheering and clapping loudly, but out of respect for the learning of the other several hundred people in the theatre I opted out. One such moment was when he referred to Intelligent Design as a pseudo-science, and gave reasons why it was. It was also noteworthy that he made clear that he wasn’t attacking religion, as that would probably have made many of the creationists turn off even more than they probably already were.
One thing I was a little sad to hear, although it is almost certainly a necessary ‘evil’ in this context, was advocating the idea that Science and Religion are 'non-overlapping magisteria', or that they occupy different spheres of knowledge. I would never expect the opposite to be said within a biology class, because it is really off-topic, but rather I am sad that it needed to be said at all. That people disregard scientific evidence and theory in favour of magical creation in the first place is depressing enough, but that such an asinine statement must be made in order for them to even consider the possibility that science may be right is outright dismal.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Ignorance in a Biology Class
As I mentioned a few months ago, I’m actually studying biology at the University of Auckland this year, and today I heard some baffling statements made by people sitting behind me before one of my lectures today that made me cringe.
It was the first lecture on the topic of evolution, and I assume this prompted the group of people behind me to start discussing it. Before the lecture started there was a picture of the stereotypical deity figure and a cell. The first thing I heard from this discussion that made me eavesdrop was hearing one of them say something like “I don’t even consider creation because I’m an atheist”. Over the course of the next 5 minutes before the lecture started I heard some horrendous things like “It’s still just a theory”, and “Until science proves evolution I can’t fully believe in it”. I am hoping that these individuals just went to bad schools, or didn’t study biology at all prior to this course (or science at all), because those are some pretty ignorant statements. If neither of those are true then I am ashamed of our education curriculum.
To address the first statement, that evolution is only a theory, is quite simple. No, it is not ‘only a theory’. There are facts, and the theory explains those facts. There are also sub-theories and working hypotheses. There are also many areas which require much more research to be done. Even the language of ‘only a theory’ annoys me, because it implies that a theory is nothing to be proud of, which is about as far from reality as you can get. The theory of evolution (in fact any scientific theory) is a wealth of facts combined with descriptions of mechanisms and explanations of those facts all woven together into a cohesive unit. Evolution is perhaps simultaneously the simplest and most intricate theory in all of science.
Thankfully, in this introductory lecture, the professor began to explain this concept, and said he would elaborate more on the duality of the fact/theory of evolution in tomorrow’s lecture, so hopefully he’ll set those kids straight. He also gave some excellent quotes from the likes of Darwin and Dobzhansky,
Regarding the issue of proof... Proof is only truly found in deductive arguments, which science does not make. Science is involved only with inductive reasoning. Science establishes ‘facts’ and creates theories to explain facts. Inductive reasoning is far more useful than deductive reasoning. We can leave proofs to mathematicians and philosophers. That is mostly a semantic issue, as they were most likely using the word proof in the colloquial sense, and in that case, they are also wrong. Evolution is an extremely well established theory, in fact as I just mentioned, the evidence for it is astounding. On top of that evidence, not a single piece has been found that contradicts the theory. You’d think that in 150+ years if the theory wasn’t true to a large extent that some evidence would have been uncovered to falsify it. With that in mind, if someone does not accept evolution, they are either ignorant or a fool (or an ignorant fool), there is no way around it.
I never studied biology in High-school outside of my 5th form general science class, so I do not have much idea about the biology curriculum. Although I distinctly remember that class did not cover the topic of evolution in the biology section, and I remember at the end of the year after the curriculum had been covered and we had a free period, when the teacher asked what we wanted to talk about, I (remember I was an evolution-denier at the time!) asked the teacher to talk about evolution. She refused because it wasn’t part of the curriculum. Who knows, perhaps if she had obliged, and presented the case for it well, I may have been set straight 4 years earlier.
It was the first lecture on the topic of evolution, and I assume this prompted the group of people behind me to start discussing it. Before the lecture started there was a picture of the stereotypical deity figure and a cell. The first thing I heard from this discussion that made me eavesdrop was hearing one of them say something like “I don’t even consider creation because I’m an atheist”. Over the course of the next 5 minutes before the lecture started I heard some horrendous things like “It’s still just a theory”, and “Until science proves evolution I can’t fully believe in it”. I am hoping that these individuals just went to bad schools, or didn’t study biology at all prior to this course (or science at all), because those are some pretty ignorant statements. If neither of those are true then I am ashamed of our education curriculum.
To address the first statement, that evolution is only a theory, is quite simple. No, it is not ‘only a theory’. There are facts, and the theory explains those facts. There are also sub-theories and working hypotheses. There are also many areas which require much more research to be done. Even the language of ‘only a theory’ annoys me, because it implies that a theory is nothing to be proud of, which is about as far from reality as you can get. The theory of evolution (in fact any scientific theory) is a wealth of facts combined with descriptions of mechanisms and explanations of those facts all woven together into a cohesive unit. Evolution is perhaps simultaneously the simplest and most intricate theory in all of science.
Thankfully, in this introductory lecture, the professor began to explain this concept, and said he would elaborate more on the duality of the fact/theory of evolution in tomorrow’s lecture, so hopefully he’ll set those kids straight. He also gave some excellent quotes from the likes of Darwin and Dobzhansky,
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
-Charles Darwin
“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”As for the second statement, I can only attribute that to ignorance of both the evidence for evolution and the definition of proof. Many of you will be aware of the enormous mountain of evidence for evolution, from palaeontology, through to genetics that has accumulated over the last century and a half since Darwin published his theory. If you are not aware of the full extent of the evidence, here is a link to the TalkOrigins archive.
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
Regarding the issue of proof... Proof is only truly found in deductive arguments, which science does not make. Science is involved only with inductive reasoning. Science establishes ‘facts’ and creates theories to explain facts. Inductive reasoning is far more useful than deductive reasoning. We can leave proofs to mathematicians and philosophers. That is mostly a semantic issue, as they were most likely using the word proof in the colloquial sense, and in that case, they are also wrong. Evolution is an extremely well established theory, in fact as I just mentioned, the evidence for it is astounding. On top of that evidence, not a single piece has been found that contradicts the theory. You’d think that in 150+ years if the theory wasn’t true to a large extent that some evidence would have been uncovered to falsify it. With that in mind, if someone does not accept evolution, they are either ignorant or a fool (or an ignorant fool), there is no way around it.
I never studied biology in High-school outside of my 5th form general science class, so I do not have much idea about the biology curriculum. Although I distinctly remember that class did not cover the topic of evolution in the biology section, and I remember at the end of the year after the curriculum had been covered and we had a free period, when the teacher asked what we wanted to talk about, I (remember I was an evolution-denier at the time!) asked the teacher to talk about evolution. She refused because it wasn’t part of the curriculum. Who knows, perhaps if she had obliged, and presented the case for it well, I may have been set straight 4 years earlier.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Mutations increase Genetic Information.
I really can’t understand the minds of creationists when they say things like “mutations only remove information” when it is clear they have no idea what mutations really are. There are several basic types of mutation, only one of which could really be said to 'remove' information (deletions), but even then, if the deletion causes a frame-shift then it has the potential to make a completely different protein (generally harmful, but a small chance for a beneficial mutation). The other mutation types either add, rearrange or replace DNA.
Not only does their claim parade their ignorance of how mutations actually manifest, they seem to ignore or overlook the fact that beneficial mutations, that allow organisms to perform functions that they previously could not do have been observed. Every time a bacteria develops a resistance to a particular drug, it is because its DNA mutated. It was not resistant to this drug before. This is something new. It is a new function, or an extension of a function the organism already possessed. Either way you look at it, it is an increase in functionality and 'information'.
Not only have we observed bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, we have observed other beneficial mutations in bacteria, such as in Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment, and in the case of Nylonase (an example of a beneficial frame-shift mutation). In both of these cases, the bacteria developed the ability to digest a new substance and use it for fuel that it previously was unable to digest. This is not a loss of information, it is an increase.
Not only do they deny this solid evidence, they have to invent bullshit about there being limits to the variation that can arise from mutation. There is no biochemical mechanism preventing an organism from accumulating mutations to the point that would be considered another species. In fact we have even observed speciation. The only thing we haven’t observed is a change from a major group of animals to another, and we can demonstrate quite clearly that this happened in the past. Through genetic analysis of similar species (and even distantly related species) we can determine approximately how long ago the common ancestor was between them, through the amount of genetic material they have in common.
Not only does their claim parade their ignorance of how mutations actually manifest, they seem to ignore or overlook the fact that beneficial mutations, that allow organisms to perform functions that they previously could not do have been observed. Every time a bacteria develops a resistance to a particular drug, it is because its DNA mutated. It was not resistant to this drug before. This is something new. It is a new function, or an extension of a function the organism already possessed. Either way you look at it, it is an increase in functionality and 'information'.
Not only have we observed bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, we have observed other beneficial mutations in bacteria, such as in Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment, and in the case of Nylonase (an example of a beneficial frame-shift mutation). In both of these cases, the bacteria developed the ability to digest a new substance and use it for fuel that it previously was unable to digest. This is not a loss of information, it is an increase.
Not only do they deny this solid evidence, they have to invent bullshit about there being limits to the variation that can arise from mutation. There is no biochemical mechanism preventing an organism from accumulating mutations to the point that would be considered another species. In fact we have even observed speciation. The only thing we haven’t observed is a change from a major group of animals to another, and we can demonstrate quite clearly that this happened in the past. Through genetic analysis of similar species (and even distantly related species) we can determine approximately how long ago the common ancestor was between them, through the amount of genetic material they have in common.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Friday Fundies: Evolution!
Since I haven't posted a Friday Fundies post in months (I used to post one nearly every single week!), I thought I'd reward you with two great quotes from the FSTDT (Fundies Say The Darndest Things) archives relating to evolution.
Quote# 4101
From RaptureReady
Quote# 71902
From HeraldSun.com.au
It always astounds me how proud these people are of their ignorance. They parrot apologists as if they are authorities, and then claim that the people who actually have some understanding of the subject are brain-washed. I used to be in the same position as them, but the cognitive dissonance eventually got the better of me. I eventually felt the neccessity to actually understand evolution. What I discovered astounded me, I had actually been the credulous idiot. I was the one who was brain-washed. Once that realisation smacked me in the face it didn't take long for me to change my position on that matter, though letting go in belief in God took significantly longer.
Quote# 4101
Evolution is theory, not science, and any theory that says nothing times nothing equals everything is flawed from the outset.
From RaptureReady
Quote# 71902
Don't be bothered by all the idiots defending evolution. They have their heads in the sand and don't realise they have been brain-washed - the scientific establishment has bullied Intelligent Design scientists into silence, however there are millions of scientists who firmly believe that God created life. People have a blind un-questioning faith in evolution, it is their god, and it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in anything else!
From HeraldSun.com.au
It always astounds me how proud these people are of their ignorance. They parrot apologists as if they are authorities, and then claim that the people who actually have some understanding of the subject are brain-washed. I used to be in the same position as them, but the cognitive dissonance eventually got the better of me. I eventually felt the neccessity to actually understand evolution. What I discovered astounded me, I had actually been the credulous idiot. I was the one who was brain-washed. Once that realisation smacked me in the face it didn't take long for me to change my position on that matter, though letting go in belief in God took significantly longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)