Richard Dawkins makes an interesting claim:

Lamentably, the scientific education of most British and American students omits all mention of Darwinism, and therefore the only alternative to chance that most people can imagine is design.

The scientific education of most British students omits all mention of Darwin? I thought such omissions were only part of the American Creationist Plot. Once again, Dawkins undermines his own stereotypes.

What's interesting is that far more people in Britain accept evolution than in America. How did they do this without mentioning Darwin?

Oh, and one more thing. Could Dawkins be a closet creationist? According to people like PZ Myers, only creationists use the term "Darwinism."

Here's an ad from the Center for Consumer Freedom, criticizing animal rights extremists who slow down medical research. (HT: Secondhand Smoke)

And from the hit show South Park, here's what happens when 9 year old Stan meets a group of animal rights extremists. Gory scenes and naughty words may occur.

Is an increase in catalytic activity through induced mutations evidence for convergence?; evolution? Duke University scientists were able to demonstrate the increase and "computational design."

1Dwyer, Looger and Hellinga, "Computational Design of a Biologically Active Enzyme," Science, Vol 304, Issue 5679, 1967-1971, 25 June 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1098432].

Are results made possible through intelligent and knowledgable input evidence for evolution or design?

Art wrote:

Apparently, antievolutionists do not believe in proteases and nucleases, as well as their prebiotic predecessors. Not surprising - the teleological approach to life pretty much ignores them as well, even though they sit right next to the RNA World at the center of life.

A teleological approach calls for coherent and detailed cause and effect explanations for life's origins. As Gage observes, "teleology does not eliminate the need for an efficient causal explanation: just because one appreciates the sublime order of the parts of a horse does not negate the molecular forces that maintain its form. Teleology compliments other modes of explanation."
Read the rest of this entry »

Stephen Jones of CreationEvolutionDesign has posted on 'Smallest genome clocks in at 182 genes' Some of his comments appear below in bold print. The context can be seen in the entire post which appears at the link.

"It's rather as if a computer can be put together from just a handful of transistors."

This is not a good example for a Darwinist to use. The problem with "a computer" is that, in its basic form, i.e. one that "can be put together from just a handful of transistors", it would be irreducibly complex in that it would not work half as well with the first half of the transistors-it would not work at all (as a computer-it would work as a door stop!) until all the transistors were assembled in the right order!

"Theoretical and experimental studies have attempted to establish a minimal set of genes needed for a self-replicating system in a cushy constant environment of unlimited, small molecule nutrients" (so how did a `blind watchmaker' do it on the early Earth where there was no artificial, air-conditioned lab, with a "cushy constant environment of unlimited, small molecule nutrients"):

Good question Stephen! Why assume the watchmaker was blind and without purpose?

A news item of BBC News: Human species 'may split in two' details predictions of Dr. Oliver Curry. From the article:

Humanity may split into an elite and an underclass, says Dr Curry

Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORIST Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said- before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and afar cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

Race 'ironed out'

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair,and even features, he adds.

Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

Receding chins

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.

The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.

Dr. Curry could have more accurately prognosticated that in 10,000 years we would witness an increasing genetic load, zero positive results in the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, origin of life models that tinker with biochemical building blocks and life on earth that is substantially similar to life as it exists today.

It looks like Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion, is getting shredded by the reviewers. Here are the reviews I've stumpled upon. If you know of any other (positive or negative), add them to the comments.

Thomas Nagel, "The Fear of Religion" (HT: Paul Nelson):

All explanations come to an end somewhere. The real opposition between Dawkins's physicalist naturalism and the God hypothesis is a disagreement over whether this end point is physical, extensional, and purposeless, or mental, intentional, and purposive. On either view, the ultimate explanation is not itself explained. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God, and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics.

Jim Holt, "Beyond Belief" (HT: Darwinian Fundamentalism and Verum Serum):

The book fairly crackles with brio. Yet reading it can feel a little like watching a Michael Moore movie. There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy.

Marilynne Robinson in Harper's (not yet online thanks to Macht for the link - HT: Denyse O'Leary):

Dawkins deals with [scientific racism and the Holocaust] in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of … an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point.

Terry Eagleton, "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching" (HT: Positive Liberty):

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.

If you have something on your chest, now is the time to get it off. Some random stories on a common theme:

John Hawks: "I would smile all day long, if it guaranteed a panda getting punched in the face. I find them really annoying."

Panda bites man woman: "A panda cub bit off part of the thumb of an American visitor who was feeding the animal at a reserve in southwest China, state media reported Thursday."

Man bites panda: "A drunken Chinese migrant worker jumped into a panda enclosure at the Beijing Zoo, was bitten by the bear and retaliated by chomping down on the animal's back, state media said Wednesday."

I find this funny on so many levels. And wrong… But mostly funny. (Click to enlarge.)

The other day I linked to this essay by Richard Dawkins where he talks about raising Christian children and sexual abuse and the harm in each. Some other people have been talking about it too. I do tend to think that Dawkins is basically the Pat Robertson of atheists and thus nutty. But this is what it would look like if I were charitable towards Dawkins.

Although Dawkins clearly says that the sexual abuse by priests isn't as bad as bringing children up as Catholics in the first place. Let's assume he wasn't making a blanket statement about all Christians or even all Catholics, but only a specific type of Catholic (and perhaps other Christians, too). Dawkins then goes on to desribe a letter he got from a woman who did, indeed, feel that her Catholic upbringing did more harm to her than her sexual abuse. Fair enough. He then goes on to distinguish between mild types of sexual abuse like fondling and more grievous types like, I imagine, rape. I don't see any problem with making a distinction like this and it is reasonable to talk about different degrees of sexual abuse. Finally, Dawkins says,

"Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. "

Again, there is truth in this in so far as some children who have been raised religious and have been through sexual abuse may end up having more lasting harm from the religion than the sexual abuse.

Okay, that's as charitable as I can be. But even if we assume that there is no such thing as hell, I don't see how Dawkins can claim that teaching children about this is worse child abuse than the less heinous forms of sexual abuse. This sounds a lot like, from Dawkins perspective, asking whether cancer or AIDS is worse or whether it is better for your cousin or your nephew to die. Is this really something that we can generalize, though? If somebody came up to Dawkins and said he was raised Catholic and he was sexually abused and the sexual abuse had a far greater impact on him that the religion did, is Dawkins going to tell him he is wrong? Possibly (in his more Pat Robertson-like moments), but I doubt it. At least I hope not.

Really, the only valid point Dawkins has is that using "hell" as a psychological tool to control kids into believing something, is wrong, whether hell is real or not. I really don't think this is original nor controversial, though. The problem with Dawkins, though, is that he tends to project his narrow view of religion onto all religious people.

The British Centre for Science Education, which I mentioned in my previous post, is a self-described "pressure group", targeting UK science education. They used to go by the name "Black Shadow", but presumably thought that changing their name and dialling down the overt advocacy of Humanism would help them gain political influence. However, their old website is still up, and it displays some high-quality threatiness. It starts with their slogan - "Beware the Black Shadow of CREATIONISM: One Dark Age was enough!" - but it's nothing compared to this banner:

Or what about this touching scene, from their "Join the Fight" page?

Remember, these are people who are being taken seriously by UK politicians, who have endorsed them in a Motion in the House of Commons. Guess threatiness sells over there.

For their great efforts in warning us that a new Dark Age is coming and that "fundies" are going to put a gun to our head, the brave people at the BCSE win the Henry Rollins Award.

Update, Oktober 29: The "gun" image has now been removed from Black Shadow's homepage. The "What did you do in the Great War against the Fundies?" image is still there, though.