There is an enormous difference between acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate, scientific study and acquiring it through patent emotionality and wishful thinking. So says Sam Harris, who didn't like Francis Collins' new book, The Language of God.

It's not surprising that Harris would so despise Collins and his book. It was, after all, Sam Harris who complained that theistic evolutionists are doing lasting harm:

It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.

Now, I have not read Collins' book, and I certainly do not trust someone like Harris to objectively convey the book's arguments and message. So I can't really comment on most of Harris' "review." Instead, we can simply highlight the irony of someone who is as emotional as Harris preaching about "the difference between acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate, scientific study and acquiring it through patent emotionality and wishful thinking."

Read the rest of this entry »

Okay, who wrote this?

Suppose you sit at a beach and pick various pebbles. Most of them have an irregular shape, with a rough surface, with their color varying from spot to spot, and their density also varying over their volume. Suppose that you come across one particular piece which, unlike all other pebbles, is of a perfectly spherical shape, its color and density perfectly uniform all over its volume and its surface polished mirrorlike. Obviously, the rational conclusion is that the perfectly spherical piece is an artifact, a result of an intelligent effort, including design, planning, and a set of actions aimed at achieving the goal of producing that perfectly uniform ideal sphere. While we don't know the purpose of the designer of that spherical artifact, we have to admit that its spontaneous appearance is unlikely.

We know that only a supporter of intelligent design would be so stupid as to claim that design could be inferred without knowledge about the intent of the designer, so that should narrow the field. The author also talks about the unlikelihood of the "spontaneous appearance" of the pebble, so that's a strike of "argument from ignorance" right there. If you can't guess the author of this blatant piece of religious propaganda, look beneath the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Apparently frustrated by continued reluctance among the riff-raff to embrace his evolutionary metaphysic, PZ Myers cites an economist's observation that there is no real penalty for not believing-in evolution [a.k.a. Neodarwinism], and suggests we may need to impose "financial and societal disincentives" on those who resist or dissent.

PZ doesn't forward what he thinks these disincentives should be, but his fan club member "Dan" offers:

The perfect disincentive for evolution deniers: breeding bans.

Read the rest of this entry »

Anthropologist John Hawks looks closer at some of the survey questions from that article in Science that showed that much of the American public rejects evolution.

For example, "more than half of human genes are identical to those of mice" Let's start by defining some terms. "Identical" generally means "exactly the same". Two identical genes should have the same nucleotide sequence, no? Now, we haven't found all the genes in the human genome. And further, we don't know what segments of DNA should really be included in any given "gene", since each may be regulated by sites that are very far from the coding sequence. So we will want to be very cautious no matter what we claim about similarities between humans and other species.

As he concludes: "Now, sure, there probably aren't very many people who answer these poll questions the 'wrong' way because of objections like mine. But when scientists can't seem to get their facts straight, just how exactly are nonscientists supposed to become 'literate'?"

While the "pro-science" blogsphere has remained completely silent about the way the animal rights activists forced Dario Ringach into abandoning his research, at least a couple members of the blogosphere have commented.

Candice is outraged and shares part of an e-mail from a UCLA neuroscience professor that seems to indicate it was the fire-bombing that tipped the scale for Ringach. She also makes an excellent point about the way the extremists only seem to care about human-like animals. I call this speciesism-lite.

Ace of Spades takes the UCLA's Daily Bruin to task for soft-peddling the terrorist-like activity as "pressure." Says Ace, "Pressure is what the Daily Bruin idiots are going to get when people email them and tell them to stop calling stalking, harrassment, and the attempted firebombing of a home "pressure."

Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman with NAALPO, told UPI the increased efforts from the FBI and industry to crack down on animal-rights groups is an indication the movement is effective.

'I think it`s stronger now than it`s ever been despite all of law enforcement`s best intentions,' Vlasak said.

'We`re increasingly effective, and we`re going to see more Dario Ringachs in the future,' he added.

["¦.]

Trull said there may be other researchers like Ringach who are intimidated by the animal-rights movement.

'So many people are afraid to speak up for fear of being a target,' Trull said. 'A lot of other people have gotten out (of animal research) but didn`t want their names used.'

She said her group is aware of six researchers that have opted out of research over the past five years due to concerns about animal-rights groups.

'It`s clearly a climate of intimidation and fear,' Trull said. 'It`s inexcusable.'

Here

Here are some more details on Dario Ringach and the way the terrorists coerced him into giving up his scientific research:

Dario Ringach, an associate professor of neuroscience, sent an e-mail to the Animal Liberation Front on Tuesday titled, "You win," promising to stop his animal testing, according to a statement released by the Animal Liberation Press Office.

University spokeswoman Judy Lin confirmed that Ringach did send the e-mail, but said there was no indication that he planned to leave the university.

The Animal Liberation Front also claimed responsibility for the June attempted firebombing of faculty member Lynn Fairbanks' home. The group had accused Fairbanks of killing primates for experimentation purposes. UCLA officials denied the accusation.

The statement released by the Animal Liberation Press Office said Ringach did not give a specific reason for his decision, but did ask that animal rights groups leave his family alone.

"These groups have been harassing him and visiting his neighbors for a couple of years, and he does have small children," Lin said.

Sickening.

Lin said the animal rights groups, and not the testing itself, are the problem.

"This is a problem that's much larger than UCLA. These groups have been harassing researchers all over the world," she said. "It has reached terrorist level. The university is very disturbed by this."

I would imagine they are disturbed. By intimidating Ringach into giving up his research, the terrorists are emboldened to continue their attacks on other scientists. Of course, I can't fault Ringach, as he probably had to face these terrorists with minimal support from the academic community.

The extremists have to rub salt in the wounds

"While we do not know at this time whether Ringach made his decision after examining his conscience and deciding to do the right thing because it's the right thing, or whether he made the decision out of concern for his own safety and that of his family. The animals who will be spared his abuse don't care why he stopped his atrocities, only that he has stopped," Vlasak said.

Vlasak is admitting that Ringach might have been concerned about "his own safety and that of his family!" Now why is that?

BTW, some of our "pro-science" readers might want to browse this web page.

As for the "pro-science" blogs? Silence.

The animal rights extremists continue their attack on Oxford University:

Animal rights activists claim they have conducted a series of attacks against firms working for Oxford University as they continue their campaign against its new animal laboratory.
["¦.]
Robin Webb, a spokesman for the ALF, said: "These activities will continue, while the lab is being constructed. The university can take out as many sweeping injunctions against activists as it likes, but it can't clamp down on those who are already acting outside the law." Here

Just as ID critic Karen Armstrong continues to remain silent concerning her false reporting about Paul Nelson, so too has Richard Dawkins remained silent as his own school is under attack. BTW, if anyone lives in Kansas, on October 16, Richard Dawkins will be giving a public lecture about his anti-religious book. Maybe someone can attend and ask him why he won't stand up and defend his university and colleagues from such attacks. After all, what "delusion" is behind all these attacks on his own school?

Of course, these attacks on science don't exist only in England (even though England is the breeding ground for such extremism). California is starting to look like a nesting ground.

Read the rest of this entry »

HT:Sign of the Times