Baylor University has repealed their previous decision and has given tenure to Francis Beckwith. Beckwith is a pro-life and ID-friendly philosopher, and the original decision to deny him tenure was by many seen as motivated by politics, not consideration for Beckwith's qualities as a scholar. Congratulations to Frank are in order.

(HT: Uncommon Descent)

Do you remember the Gregory S. Paul study? Sure you do. It was that study that purported to show that there is a correlation between the religious belief and the dysfunction of a society, but it was shown to be riddled with errors by statistican Scott Gilbreath as well as by my fellow Telician Mike Gene. Now, none of this has prevented the "study" from being featured in Skeptic Magazine, where Matthew Provonshan uncritically repeats Gregory Paul's flawed claims. This has caused Scott Gilbreath to write another post about the article, finding even more howlers than he did at first.

The claim that Paul utilised "a database of 800 million people" is laughable. The sample size of Paul's study was precisely eighteen: one data point from each country for each data series. To claim this represents the combined population of all the countries is like the market research firm Ipsos Canada conducting a survey of 1200 Canadians and then claiming they accessed a database of over 32.5 million people.

(HT: Tom Gilson)

As Mike pointed out, almost a year ago, this paper suffers from so many flaws that, had it been an intelligent design paper, critics would have been screaming bloody murder over it, hunting down the responsible editor, like they did with Richard Sternberg. Yet on this paper, the self-proclaimed Defenders of Science have remained silent. I wonder why.

Update: Turns out the paper is also being featured in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Grey Thoughts and Verum Serum has more.

It looks like animal rights ideology is further infiltrating the scientific community:

A cancer research scientist was jailed today for waging a sabotage campaign against companies linked to animal testing after becoming disillusioned about the use of animal experimentation in his chosen field.

Here

Well, the stars have aligned and I finally had a few hours of free time just as Richard Dawkins offered up a heaping plate of junk food to gorge myself on. Dawkins summarizes the basic message of his anti-religion book and it looks awfully tasty, tempting me to participate in a Dawkins Fest.

I gave in. However, since Dawkins essay was so long (eight pages), my reply turned out to be too long. So instead, I've split my reply into chunks and will post them throughout the following days.

I have already illustrated how Dawkins is helping the ID Movement and its efforts to get ID taught in the public schools.

Stay tuned for "Dawkins and Morality," "Dawkins and the OOL," "So how do we blame the creationists for this one?," "The Chamberlainites and the Churchillians," "Dawkins Tries to Find God," "Exaggerate the Awe," and "The Dawkins Delusion."

An important finding in Judge Jones decision against Intelligent Design was that it "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation."

Richard Dawkins, the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, has seriously undercut this position. Dawkins writes:

You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science.

Whoa! Read those words again. The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. It is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. And all this time we have been told that ID is not science because it permits a divine cause.

Dawkins further props up this position:

Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available?

Let's make this clear so no one misses it. The Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University is arguing that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis. Yet the notion that Life may have been designed is not a proper scientific hypothesis because it merely permits the God hypothesis??

One wonders if the DI is gathering up the arguments of scientists like Dawkins and Victor Stenger (author of God: the Failed Hypothesis "“ How science shows that God does not exist) to undercut the Dover decision. The Wedge has always been able to count on such Atheist Scientists.

Dawkins also adds:

Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban. The God Delusion is my goodwill contribution from across the Atlantic to that awakening.

Might Dawkins be contributing to the "American Taliban?" After all, it is people like Dawkins who have a vested interest in keeping The Threat alive. Look, if the Wedge is resurrected, I don't want to hear critics whining about Telic Thoughts members when it is Richard Dawkins and his ilk that are chipping away at the Dover Decision.

Move over, Michael Ruse. Michael Shermer is a hardcore skeptic whose insights bless that pages of Scientific American. Shermer has recently had an epiphany that can be appreciated from six perspectives:

1. Evolution fits well with good theology. 2. Creationism is bad theology. 3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature. 4. Evolution explains family values. 5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. 6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.

Now, I realize that some might view this as a parody. But I see no hint of that. In fact, Shermer writes, "Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced."

On the other hand, others might take issue with Shermer's argument. But I see something else. Y'see, when Shermer speaks of "evolution," he is talking about the findings of modern science. In other words, this hardcore skeptic, writing in the pages of Scientific American, has felt compelled to concede that modern science supports conservative Christianity!

With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.

Who needs the Wedge when you can just cite Shermer and Scientific American?

Oh, the irony.

Andrew Brown reviews Dawkins new anti-religious book in an article entitled, Dawkins the Dogmatist.

Here are some excerpts from the review:

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works.

["¦..]

Dawkins, as a young man, invented and deployed to great effect a logical fallacy he called "the argument from Episcopal incredulity," skewering a hapless clergyman who had argued that since nothing hunted polar bears, they had no need to camouflage themselves in white. It had not occurred to the bishop that polar bears must eat, and that the seals they prey on find it harder to spot a white bear stalking across the ice cap. Of course, you had to think a bit about life on the ice cap to spot this argument. But thinking a bit was once what Dawkins was famous for. It's a shame to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity.

ID supporter William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent, has disappeared from Google searches.

ID critic Wesley Elsberry think it's a nefarious plot with Dembski as its evil mastermind.

In other surprising news, the Sun rises in the East.

Update: In an ironic twist to this story, it seems that Google removed Uncommon Descent from its searches because various pages were mirroring their content. One of those sites is run by… Wesley Elsberry. More here.

The other day, I took Pat Hayes of Red State Rabble to task for his revisionist use of history. Hayes claimed that back when ID critics were protesting the showing of the film "Privileged Planet" at the Smithsonian, the Discovery Institute was "howling". As it turned out, if anyone was doing the howling, it was ID critics, with hyperbolic rhetoric about the Smithsonian being prostitutes and James Randi willing to pay 20,000 dollars just to stop the showing of the film.

In a new post, Hayes replies, having marshalled a number of quotes from ID blogs, ostensibly showing that it was the ID supporters who were "howling like a scalded dog." But it's hard to see just how Hayes' examples support his claims. Take the first of his quotes, from the blog "Evolution News & Views":

It will be interesting to see how the story [the film's screening, RSR] is covered given the hysterical tone in evidence on certain ultra-Darwinian blogs in recent days.

Read the rest of this entry »

September 19 is the International Talk Like a Pirate Day, and only a bilge rat would forget such a fine holiday. So I christen this thread an open thread, on the condition that all comments must be written in Pirate. But good ole' cap'n Krauze wouldn't leave his crew marooned, so here is an English-to-Pirate translator for the landlubbers. And from YouTube, a talk-like-a-pirate instruction video.