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.

Is Dawkins Still Evolving? Melanie Phillips asks this question. The motivating event? This statement:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

(Note: The link can be slow to load. I find: http://www.spectator.co.uk/blogs/ to be quicker and then you need to click on the name Melanie Phillips.)

Mark Vernon authored Not so highly evolved, an article worth reviewing, both for its analysis of Richard Dawkins and for its commentary about an evolutionary phenomenon known as convergence. The article begins:

The 2009 Darwin celebrations are officially under way, now that we are halfway through Richard Dawkins' flagship TV series, The Genius of Charles Darwin. But I can't help but feel they have not begun well. Dawkins' exploration of the science seems to be driven mostly by his desire to score atheistic points: this is not evolution as survival of the fittest but as zero-sum game.

I have not seen the TV series but based on prior behavior a charge that Dawkins is using science to score atheistic points comes as no surprise. If Dawkins is indeed guilty as charged he needs to be taken to task. The Trojan Horse imagary is apt for all who would use science to introduce a side agenda. Vernon also had this to say:

Read the rest of this entry »

Viewpoint features two consecutive entries relevant to discussions of Intelligent design. Microscopic Clutch refers to the familiar bacterial flagellum and notes a construct, analogous to the clutch of an automobole transmission, enabling rotation stoppage. Arguments, pro and con, about irreducible complexity are well known. Critics of Behe have argued that Behe's selection conundrum can be overcome through evolutionary cooption of systems within which distinct IC parts already existed replete with biological function albeit not necessarily function presently observed. The issue of interrelatedness of parts to function is pushed back in time. The evolutionary cooption alternative obviates the necessity of a telic process. Or does it? If we retrace an evolutionary process we eventually arrive at a single cell; the basic unit of living organisms but irreducibly complex nonetheless.

Was that cell loaded with modular cellular constructs designed to adapt to the variations of earthly environments or can a reductionist approach be traced back to extra-cellular chemistry on prebiotic earth? There are multiple variants of "front loading" the author points out. Front loading a process can be viewed as a series of steps in which each one in the series was enabled by the preceeding one traced back to an initial starting unit- a pre-wound mechanism to use a metaphor.

Is active information required to find targets in search space and does the vast size of protein sequence space assure us that the evolution of protein sequence, structure and function is a given in the absence of front loading?

The God Delusion, Ch 7 (partII) is a second Viewpoint entry accurately debunking the nonsense holding that non-religious value systems are intrinsically preferable. Those convinced that God is a delusion are front loaded with conceptual barriers to an objective assessment of the sufficiency of a non-telic process.

Richard Dawkins writes:

Arthur C. Clarke, who died last month, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods? The technology of interstellar travel, and the scientific knowledge on which it would be based, are as far beyond us as our present-day knowledge surpasses that of Dark Age peasants.

Indeed. This is why it is significant that looking at the cell is like looking into the future of our own designs. But it also undersores the limitations of Analogy, as we could be using a much more primitive technology (ours) to help us grasp a much more sophisticated technology (life).

Dawkins adds:

Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Dawkins, the well known atheist advocate and ID critic, has a well honed instinct for showmanship and a feel for the media. Let's take a look at what he's been doing.

A television program, which employs Richard Dawkins as an interviewer, requested an interview of creationist John Mackay. The interview choice is curious in that Mackay is a controversial figure; having been excommunicated from his church and not regarded by many Christian creationists as being representative of them. Nevertheless an interview took place despite only five hours prior notice. The interview was prerecorded and subject to editing prior to being televised.

Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Dawkins' ability to lecture others about only believing in things supported by sufficient evidence just took a big dive. From an interview with the Guardian:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

Let's say that someone proposes God created the world 6000 years ago. "Aha!" Richard Dawkins might say, arguing this belief about God is a scientific hypothesis. So let's look to science. My goodness, science says the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So there you have it "“ science has tested and disproved the existence of God.

Oh, but not so fast. All science did was test when the Earth came into existence. That is, while Dawkins might think that science has falsified the claim " God created the Earth 6000 years ago," all science has done is falsify the claim "God created the Earth 6000 years ago."

Let's say that science determined the Earth was 6000 years old. Would that mean science detected the existence of God? Would that mean science detected a divine act of Creation? No, the only thing that science detected was the age of the Earth.

Dawkins doesn't seem to understand basic points in theology and science "“ God is not some part of Nature that can be measured and in science, measurement is not something we can discard. At best, the theist or atheist can argue that science can detect the effects of God's interventions in Nature. But detecting an effect is not detecting the cause. And if the cause is in some sense outside of Nature, science can never get to it. Science would be stalled at the effect. And if all you have is the effect, science, by its very nature, will choose the causes it can reach to explain that effect.

Earlier, I noted that Richard Dawkins has seriously undercut Judge Jones' decision by arguing that the existence of God is indeed a scientific hypothesis. Listen to Dawkins argue that the hypothesis of a supernatural designer IS science:

Activist Richard Dawkins argues with one of his "fleas." He writes:

I'm not going to write a proper review of the book, but it set me thinking again about a common phenomenon, which I am finding increasingly irksome. This is a tendency for critics to read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there.

Has it ever occurred to Dawkins and his followers that they too may have participated in this irksome phenomenon? That Dawkins and those like him also have a tendency to "read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there?" Could it be?

For some strange reason, I think I just might be quoting Dawkins some time in the near future.