Check out this quote, from a Guardian editorial opinion piece by Karen Armstrong:

The fundamentalists' rejection of science is deeply linked to their apocalyptic vision. Even the relatively sober ID theorists segue easily into Rapture-speak. "Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth," says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, "but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light. Ever the long-term strategist, YHVH is raising up a mighty army of cutting-edge Jewish End-time warriors."

As a service to those of you who know Paul Nelson, I'll wait until you've picked up your jaws from the floor. ID critic Nick Matzke had a hard time believing it as well, and to his credit, he checked out the quote and posted his findings at the anti-ID blog The Panda's Thumb.

Since spurious quotations are bad in general, and not just when the creationists use them, I figured I should check this one. Googling the quote reveals exactly one hit, to a website named "David's Tent". This is apparently the website of Final Frontier Ministries, which is headquartered in Nashville. … [T]here is no evidence whatsoever of any connection between Paul Nelson and the quotes from the David's Tent webpage. For that matter, the word "Nelson" does not appear anywhere on the entire David's Tent website, according to google. The only mention of "Paul" on the page with the quotes is the Apostle Paul … Unless Karen Armstrong has some really amazing evidence that none of us have ever heard of before, She Goofed Big Time.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mathematician Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science is devoted to self-organization and complexity theory, or how simple rules can have complex results. Physicist Cosma Shalazi didn't like the book. Judging from the title of his review, "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity", he really didn't like the book. Here's what he has to say about Wolfram's grasp of biology:

Wolfram displays absolutely no understanding of evolution, or what would be necessary to explain the adaptation of organisms to their environments. This is related to his peculiar views on methodology. If you want to get a rough grasp of how the leopard might get its spots, then building a CA model (or something similar) can be very illuminating. It will not tell you whether that's actually how it works. This is an important example, because there is a classic theory of biological pattern formation, or morphogenesis, first formulated by Turing in the 1950s, which lends itself very easily to modeling in CAs, and with a little fine-tuning produces things which look like animal coats, butterfly wings, etc., etc. The problem is that there is absolutely no reason to think that's how those patterns actually form; no one has identified even a single pair of Turing morphogens, despite decades of searching. Indeed, the more the biologists unraveling the actual mechanisms of morphogenesis, the more complicated and inelegant (but reliable) it looks. If, however, you think you have explained why leopards are spotted after coming up with a toy model that produces spots, it will not occur to you to ask why leopards have spots but polar bears do not, which is to say that you will simply be blind to the whole problem of biological adaptation.

Come think of it, that's a criticism that applies to many evolutionary computer simulations as well (Avida, anyone?).

(HT: Stranger Fruit)

Allen MacNeill has an update on the "Evolution and Design" course he's teaching at Cornell University. He and his students have evaluated some of the most popular books on the topic, and have found that both books supporting and critical of intelligent design suffer with problems in arguing rationally for their claims. But here is something that really caught my attention:

Johnson/The Wedge of Truth: To my surprise, both the ID supporters and critics in the class almost immediately agreed that Johnson's book was simply a polemic, with no real intellectual (and certainly no scientific) merit. His resort to ad hominem arguments, guilt by association, and the drawing of spurious connections via arguments by analogy were universally agreed to be "outside the bounds of this course" (and to exceed in some cases Dawkins' use of similar tactics), and we simply dropped any further consideration of it as unproductive. Indeed, one ID supporter stated quite clearly that "this book isn't ID", and that the kinds of assertions and polemics that Johnson makes could damage the credibility of ID as a scientific enterprise in the long run.

This is interesting, since many ID critics are heavily invested in the notion of Phillip Johnson as some mastermind, whose "Wedge document" reveal the true nature of intelligent design. But if MacNeill's experience can be extrapolated to other young ID supporters (always a dangerous assumption), we have quite a different picture: A new generation of ID supporters, who have no brief for polemics about cultural reform, and who are just interested in seeing intelligent design succeed as a "scientific enterprise".

How is this going to play out in the post-wedge world? If ID critics continue to cling to their rhetoric about ID supporters as closeted theocrats out to destroy science and democracy, they are only blowing their credibility with an ID-friendly audience. Think about it: Who is the biggest expert on Joe Q. Teleologist's motivations and beliefs? Why, it's Joe Q. Teleologist. So when groups like the NCSE and the Panda's Thumb accuse him of things he knows are wrong, Joe will probably react by no longer taking those groups seriously. If he can't trust the critics on something he's intimately familiar with, why should he trust them on something he is unfamiliar with, such as the origin of life or the bacterial flagellum?

Some of us have already gotten used to living in the post-wedge world. For those youngsters just joining us, here's a hearty welcome from me and all the other Telicians. The future's going to be a fun ride!

According to Robert Lee Hotz, Darwin’s idea has sparked a scientific revolution that has sparked a culture war. He then briefly reviews three books that “look beyond the rhetoric.” Yeah, right.

One of the books that Hotz highlights by David Quammen is entitled, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution.

For those seeking faith-based alternatives to Darwin, however, evolutionary theory commits an unforgivable affront, these authors write. It unseats humanity as master of a divine creation. With its emphasis on the mechanism of natural selection, it puts people on equal biological footing with barnacles and baboons.

"[L]et's be clear: This is not evolution versus God," writes David Quammen in "The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution." "The existence of God — any sort of god, personal or abstract, immanent or distant — is not what Darwin's evolutionary theory challenges. What it challenges is the supposed godliness of Man — the conviction that we above all other life forms are spiritually elevated, divinely favored, possessed of an immaterial and immortal essence, such that we have special prospects for eternity, special status in the expectations of God, special rights and responsibilities on Earth."

Quammen does not flinch from "the horrible challenge" implied by Darwin's idea: "In plain language, a soul or no soul? An afterlife or not? Are humans spiritually immortal in a way that chickens or cows are not, or just another form of temporarily animated meat?"

This “horrible challenge” is actually a very weak challenge.

Read the rest of this entry »

In this entry, I draw attention to Paul Root Wolpe’s article entitled, “Reasons Scientists Avoid Thinking about Ethics.” It was published in Cell, a very widely-read, prestigious scientific journal.

ID critic Edarrell responds in knee-jerk fashion:

Wolpe's premise is in gross error. Researchers in biology go through more rigorous ethical discussion of their work than any other profession, by law. Anyone engaged in research dealing with human subjects must go through an institutional review board for approval. Almost all research done on human health is reviewed multiple times. When creationists start with absolutely erroneous premises, they arrive at good results only randomly. In this case, Wolpe misses.

The ID critic’s attacks are rooted in ignorance. As you can see from this page, “Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, assistant professor of psychiatry and assistant professor of sociology as well as a fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the School of Medicine, has been named the first Chief of Bioethics and Human Subject Protection for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).”

Wolpe obviously understands the “rigorous ethical discussions” researchers must go through, just as he knows first hand about institutional reviews:

Dr. Wolpe's assignment entails providing key scientific advice and expertise for monitoring compliance with all relevant regulatory and statutory requirements; planning, organizing and integrating NASA's Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC); external ethical reviews and developing standards and guidelines tailored to unique programmatic research requirements; and crafting an international bioethics policy for all countries involved in collaborative space exploration.

I think it much safer to conclude that Edarrell doesn’t understand Wolpe’s point. But then note the ID critic’s final response – “When creationists start with absolutely erroneous premises, they arrive at good results only randomly. In this case, Wolpe misses.”

Did you catch that? The ID critic just labeled Wolpe as a creationist! So you see, even in the post-wedge world it still takes very little to get an ID critic to point their finger and scream, “Creationist!” First, they see creationists in mainstream science textbooks.. Now they accuse the first Chief of Bioethics and Human Subject Protection for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of being a creationist!

Creationists everywhere!

Threatiness is poisonous to critical thinking.

Jack Miles reviews Daniel Dennett’s anti-religious book, Breaking The Spell. It is an interesting review, but I think Miles fails to fully extract a deeper message - contained within the review are two points that underscore the manner in which Evolution has been exceedingly cruel to Daniel Dennett and his tag-team partner, Richard Dawkins. Dennett relies on evolutionary psychology to explain the origin and existence of religion. And it looks like his partner, Richard Dawkins, will play up the same angle in his anti-religious book, The God Delusion.

All of this is ironic given that evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne refers to evolutionary psychology as the “latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology.” That Dennett and Dawkins have chosen such a flabby, albeit faddish, club suggests they possess a certain desperation to rid the world of religion. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this blog, let us imagine that their thesis is completely valid – there is no God and natural selection simply shaped our brains such that we are predisposed to accept the God delusion. Such a reality is a sad place for Dennett and Dawkins.

Read the rest of this entry »

Effectively, the new theory–"selective investment theory"–presents a striking alternative to traditional self-interest theories of close relationships that tend to emphasize what individuals get from others, not what they give.

"Viewed through the lens of selective investment theory," Stephanie Brown said, "the fabric of close relationships appears different. Sacrifice becomes a characteristic feature of healthy, enduring relationships rather than aberrant, inexplicable, or diagnostic of pathology".

What makes selective investment theory distinctive is not only its focus on high-cost altruism, but also its premise that "selfish genes" are ultimately responsible for selfless, other-directed behavior. -Here

If you say ID theory, that's evidence that you don't understand what theory is and thus you don't understand science. If you say selective investment theory, that's a new theory in science. That new, fruitful field of evo-psych keeps coming up with new theories.

Men who have skipped lunch find larger women more attractive than their slimmer counterparts, new research has revealed.

A team of psychologists established that men who are hungry are attracted to plumper women, but the researchers found that, once they had eaten, men's taste in women reverted to those with slimmer figures.

The academics suggest the phenomenon arises from primeval associations between larger body sizes and health and survival. -Here

Why be so PC about this? This is powerful evo-psych evidence that selection shaped us to be cannibals.

From here

A study of low-income housing residents has documented that the more television people say they watched, the less active they were, researchers from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and colleagues report.

[….]

The research was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Liberty Mutual, National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance, and the Patterson Fellowship Fund.

Synopsis

Richard Dawkins was recently voted one of the world's top three intellectuals (alongside Umberto Eco and Noam Chomsky) by "Prospect" magazine. As the author of many, now famous, classic works on science and philosophy, he has always asserted the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm it has inflicted on society. He now turns his fierce intellect exclusively on this subject, denouncing its faulty logic and the suffering it causes. While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East or Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. In America, and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science. In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights. And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind. Dawkins attacks God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed, cruel tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign, but still illogical, Celestial Watchmaker favoured by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry and abuses children. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins presents a hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types and does so in the lucid, witty and powerful language for which he is renowned. It is a brilliantly argued, fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject.

[I'm actually looking forward to reading this book. - MG ]

Bill is a mad scientist who has invented a remote control device that allows him to take complete control of another person's body. All he has to do is point it at someone, and instantly he can control them with his mind. You are a philosophy student. One day, you are in class about to take a test. It is a logic test - you know, the kind with questions of the following sort:

If all wuzzles are buzzles, and some fuzzles are wuzzles, which of the following must be true?

A) All buzzles are fuzzles
B) Some fuzzles are buzzles
C) All fuzzles are buzzles
D) A and B above
E) None of the above

Read the rest of this entry »