For those of us concerned about child abuse there is this: There’ll be no tent for God at Camp Dawkins. Oh how utterly ironic that the architect of the religious label = child abuse meme is starting a camp of his own. Of course the true believers who send their little ones to this camp are hopeful on the indoctrination issue:

Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, is hoping the experience will enrich his two children.

“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said this weekend. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.”

But there is also this:

Read the rest of this entry »

I was reading a paper authored by Dembski and Marks when I came across a quote taken from Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker. The quote:

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there," and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA has always been there," or "Life was always there, and be done with it.

Dawkins' is expressing a sentiment echoed in the thread PD instead of ID by at least one commenter. But Dawkins is drawing a conclusion supported by an artificial demarcation made in a time/causal pathway depicting the origin of the universe. Specifically, he is drawing our attention to a point in time at which prebiotic earth exists and then posing questions about life's origin. In doing so Dawkins begs some very pertinent questions showing that he, like his theistic counterparts, is unable to present a comprehensive and coherent account running from A to Z. Perhaps this is because human minds are limited both in terms of their capabilities and their knowledge of what preceded them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bradley Monton authored Matzke’s insights at Bradley Monton’s Blog. The first paragraph:

Nick Matzke, formerly of the anti-intelligent design National Center for Science Education, has sometimes given me a hard time via email for my views on intelligent design. So that is reason enough for me to highlight an important area of agreement between him and me, which shows up in this interesting post by Matzke. But also, I want to highlight this because I think Matzke makes some key points regarding what’s wrong with the Dawkins-style approach toward religion:

You'll find the full blog entry at the link. So Nick is giving Bradley a hard time in some private exchanges. Why is ID such a big concern to you Nick? Does science need you to save it?

Thanks to Clare.

It’s been a busy year for the New Atheists – best selling books, lectures, debates, ad campaigns – and it’s time to honor all their hard work. The bar was set pretty high in 2007, and last year’s winner Kathy Griffin (“Suck it, Jesus!”) is definitely a tough act to follow. But this years crop is just as juicy. Here are the winners for 2008 – the quotes that best exemplify the message of the New Atheism.
Read the rest of this entry »

There seems to be renewed interest in the now debunked paper by Gregory Paul. It has recently been touted by P.Z. Myers , even mistakenly referring to him as a "social scientist." He also seems to be unaware (or unwilling to accept) that the paper has been skinned alive.

Recently some more interesting facts have come to my attention. Regarding the Times article Peez links to:

“I was simply reporting the story as best I could,” correspondent Gledhill emailed Chalcedon. “I am not a social scientist myself so cannot comment on whether the study had flaws … if the Times had not reported it, it is likely that the study would have languished undiscovered .…”

Ms. Gledhill described Paul as a “social scientist,” which he is not. She explained the oversight: “I was not aware of [his] background. However, it is not the case that we would publish views of anyone who contacted us. What made his views reportable in the Times was the fact that they had already been accepted in the form of a paper in the Journal of Religion and Society. Of course, if he had sent that paper directly to us and it had not been in the journal, I would not have reported it. And I am afraid that, working on a deadline and unable to reach him, I made the assumption he was a social scientist because reading the Web page of the journal, which to all intents and purposes appears to be a respectable academic journal, made it clear that they published articles by social scientists.” (We are grateful to Ms. Gledhill for discussing this matter so forthrightly.)

here

Richard Dawkins, in an editorial for the secular humanist publication "Free Inquiry", once famously asked:

“What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?”

I’m sure he meant the question rhetorically, but I have an answer for him all the same.

The following is a true story.

Read the rest of this entry »

Believing in ghosts and little green men from outer space appears a touch easier than having faith in God, according to a survey.
The researchers found that while 54 per cent of us are convinced the Almighty exists, 58 per cent believe in the supernatural.
The findings, maybe somewhat unsurprisingly, have been issued to mark the DVD release of The X-Files: I Want to Believe. The film stars David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson who made the TV series such a success.

here

The Los Angeles Times reported last year on research showing that people without faith were less likely to help a poor or homeless person than religious believers. While both describe themselves as "good citizens," their charitable practices were strikingly different. Americans of no faith donated an annual average of $200 to charity; active-faith adults typically contributed $1,500.

from here

Those attending religious services at least once per week showed a 20 percent mortality risk reduction mark compared with those not attending services at all. These findings corroborate prior studies that have shown up to a 25 percent reduction in such risk.

[...]

The study adjusted for participation of individuals within communal organizations and group activities that promote a strong social life and enjoyable routines, behaviors known to lead to overall wellness. However, even after controlling for such behavior and other health-related factors, the improvements in morbidity and mortality rates exceeded expectations.

“Interestingly, the protection against mortality provided by religion cannot be entirely explained by expected factors that include enhanced social support of friends or family, lifestyle choices and reduced smoking and alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Schnall, who was lead author of the study. “There is something here that we don’t quite understand. It is always possible that some unknown or unmeasured factors confounded these results,” he added.

here

Richard Dawkins is giving away money for advertising purposes. Matching funds to be precise. What's the reason? The placing of ads on buses with catchy slogans like "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." As the author explains Dawkins wants people to think. The right thoughts of course. "Thinking is anethema to religion" according to Dawkins. Quoting the linked article:

In any event, like so much of what Dawkins says, the claim that thinking is anathema to religion is simply nonsense, at least if the religion under examination is Christianity. Most of the greatest thinkers in the history of human civilization were religious as are many of the finest thinkers doing philosophy today. If we would like an example of what ideas people propound when they refuse to think it's hard to imagine a better case than Dawkins' own book The God Delusion…

Ouch.