Hemant Mehta buys what Chris Mooney is selling

Chris Mooney thinks that humans have certain innate tendencies that predispose them to believe in god(s) and reject evolution. That's why there's such a strong correlation between a fundamentalist religious belief and rejection of science, according to Mooney.

These innate tendencies are part of our evolutionary history thus providing an evolutionary excuse explanation of religion. It's interesting that these behaviors seem to tilt in favor of the Judeo-Christian gods and not Buddhist or Taoist philosophy. It's also quite interesting that million and millions of non-believers don't seem to have had any great difficulty "overcoming" their genetic predispositions.

You don't suppose that it could be religious brain-washing education that makes people think teleologically or adopt essentialist perspectives rather than the other way around? And what about dualism? Is that an innate belief or does religion teach you to think you have a soul? Nah, that would be too simple [Why don't people accept evolution?].

Here's Hemant Mehta explaining why people Americans have a natural inclination to believe in god(s) and not in evolution [7 Reasons Why People Believe in God and Don’t Accept Evolution].

---

Time magazine's person of the year is Pope what's-his-name! WTF?

It's hard to think of anyone who's more irrelevant to my life or the life of my friends and neighbors. Time has also become irrelevant. PZ Myers asks: Seriously, Time magazine?. Hemant Mehta says, Pope Francis Named Time’s Person of the Year, Despite Not Changing the Direction of the Church. What were the editors of Time thinking? You have to wonder whether this isn't some kind of sick joke.

---

Jason Rosenhouse defends Chris Mooney

Jason Rosenhouse read Chris Mooney's article on 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution and liked it. Mooney was arguing that it's easier to believe in god(s) than in evolution because our evolutionary history selected for traits that predisposed us to think more like IDiots than like scientists.

I disagreed [Why don't people accept evolution? ]. Here's what I wrote last week ....
Read more »

How do creationists interpret Lenski's long-term evolution experiment?

Lenski's long-term evolution experiment has resulted in dozens of publications in high quality journals. It has led to significant insights into evolutionary processes [e.g. Lenski's long-term evolution experiment: the evolution of bacteria that can use citrate as a carbon source]. You may be wondering how Intelligent Design Creationists react to these results since most IDiots have a natural aversion to evidence.

Denyse O'Leary wasn't impressed [The Latest From Lenski’s Lab]. She doesn't know very much about science so she has to rely on the opinions of other IDiots. In this case, she relies on Ann Gauger who published a comment on the website of The Biologic Institute [Inovation or Rennovation].

Read more »

Ask a stupid question ... can anyone guess the answer?

I just love the IDiots. They never cease to amaze, and amuse, me. Here's the latest from David Klinghofer at: Intelligent Design as an Orange Flag.

The mention of ID seems to give many writers and commentators what they regard as a green light to blather on without taking a moment to grasp what they're writing about. Denouncing ID is one thing. Denouncing it without comprehending what the phrase refers to, which is amazingly common, is quite another.

I continue to find this amazing. What other subject, both controversial and somewhat recondite, seems to license apparently smart people to write and speak in such an uninformed way?

Gee, I wonder what other subject causes apparently smart people to behave like IDiots? What other subject gives people a green light to blather on when they don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about? Is there another subject that some people denounce without comprehending what it means? Hmmm .....

Can anyone think of such a subject?

---

Why don't people accept evolution?

Chris Mooney (remember spin framing?) is at it again. This time he writes for Mother Jones: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution.

Before we look at the seven reasons let's remember the poll from 2005 that surveyed acceptance of evolution in 34 countries. Note that the percentage of the population who reject evolution ("false") is somewhere between 10% and 20% in the countries at the top of the list. About 75% of the people in those countries think that evolution is true.

In the USA the percentage who reject evolution is closer to 40% and only about 40% think that evolution is true. Clearly if we're going to ask why it's easier for humans to believe in god(s) than in evolution then we have to take these differences into account. It seems reasonable, doesn't it, to look for something that the USA, Turkey, and Cyprus have in common that makes people not accept evolution?

Read more »

Answering ten questions from the IDiots

On this American Thanksgiving Day, David Klinghoffer gives thanks for Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne [Thank Goodness for Richard Dawkins]. He says ...

... we're also grateful for guys like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne who provide a rich source of unintended comedy. See, for example, our colleague Dr. Michael Egnor's always entertaining mining of Coyne's writings.*

* Admittedly we'd be even more pleased to have a worthy opponent on the Darwin side of the debate who did not run from a fight every time but answered our best arguments and evidence in a lucid, trenchant and informative style.

Well, I gotta tell you, David, that I'll be eternally grateful to the Discovery Institute for sending us Dr. Michael Egnor. It's the gift that just keeps on giving, and giving, and giving ....

Read more »

What is bioethics? Is Margaret Somerville a bioethicist or a Roman Catholic apologist?

I had an interesting conversation with a student the other day. She's studying "bioethics" at the University of Toronto. This is a program run by the Deptment of Philosophy.

I asked her to define "bioethics" and she couldn't. To her credit, she immediately recognized that this wasn't right. If she's taking an entire program in bioethics she ought to be able to explain what it was all about. She was then joined by her friend, who is also majoring in bioethics. My colleague, Chris DiCarlo also joined us. He's a philosopher writing a book on ethics.

We described a scenario where I wanted to end my life and Chris was willing to help me. Neither of us have an "ethical" problem with that decision. So why is assisted suicide thought to be a problem for bioethics? If some people don't want to participate in euthanasia then nobody is going to make them? Where's the problem?

Does it only become a bioethical problem if some people want to impose their views on others? In this case, the people who are personally opposed to euthansia want to pass a law preventing me from ending my life with the help of my friend. Our students were puzzled by this discussion. Even though they have taken many courses on bioethics, nobody had ever raised this issue. Isn't that strange? You would think that any program run by a Department of Philosophy would emphasize critical thinking. Sadly, this turns out to be rare whenever the topic of bioethics comes up.

Read more »

You simply won't believe what the IDiots are saying now!

Do you remember Vincent Joseph Torley (vjtorley)? He's the IDiot with a Ph.D. (2007) from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne (Australia). That's a legitimate university. Apparently Vincent Torley went off the rails sometime after 2007.

Here's his latest post on Uncommon Descent: Does scientific knowledge presuppose God? A reply to Carroll, Coyne, Dawkins and Loftus.

The scientific enterprise stands or falls on the legitimacy of making inductive inferences, from cases of which we have experience to cases of which we have no experience. The aim of this post will be to show that there can be no scientific knowledge if there is no God, and that there is no way of justifying inductive inference on a systematic basis, in the absence of God.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, etc. etc. etc.

I alluded above to the troubling fact that even if we assume that objects somehow instantiate rules, there remains the epistemic problem of knowing whether we’ve chosen the right model, or identified the right mathematical equation (i.e. laws of Nature) for characterizing the rules that define a certain kind of object – be it a tiny electron or a star, like the sun. But if we make the two assumptions about God which I referred to in the preceding section – that God wants to make intelligent beings, and that God wants these intelligent beings to reason their way to God’s existence – then we can infer that the rules which are embodied by objects in the natural world must be tailor-made to fit the minds of intelligent beings that are capable of contemplating their Creator. In other words, the universe is designed to be knowable by us. Hence we don’t need to concern ourselves with the theoretical possibility that the rules which characterize things might be too complicated even in principle for us to grasp.

God, then, is the ultimate Guarantor that science can work.

Well, that does it for me. Either I stop being a scientist or I have to become a believer in God in order to continue doing science.

Tough choice. Let me get back to you on that one ... anyone want a job as a professor of biochemistry?

---

Little Richie Dawkins

One thing that draws me to the ID movement is that it has the polite and understated ethic that science is supposed to have -- but does not have when the subject is evolution.

Stephen A. BatzerHere's a video that was posted today on Uncommon Descent by Salvador Cordova. Before watching it, read my post on: Why are Darwinists do uncivil?. It links to an IDiot post by Stephen A. Batzer where he complains about "Darwinists" being uncivil.

Here's one of the points that Batzer makes ...

Thought leaders in the Darwinian movement, such as Dawkins, Prothero, Shermer and so on, inculcate and advocate incivility by their own example. Look at the way biologist James Shapiro and philosopher Jerry Fodor have been treated. It's ugly.

The video was produced by Mike Booth. Decide for yourself if the evolution side of the debate behaves like the IDiots. (Apologies to Richard Dawkins for propagating this nonsense but people need to see the depths to which the Intelligent Design Community can sink.)


UPDATE: Denyse O'Leary has responded to this post [Huh? Actually, we thought Little Richie (Dawkins) was a special creation, just for us…]. She says, "Moran thinks it originated in the ID community. Unclear why because it’s really not about our usual questions and concerns." Actually I don't know anything about Mike Booth or whether he is a support of Intelligent Design Creationism. I looked, but I couldn't find anything. What I do know is that IDiots like Denyse O'Leary post the obnoxious video on their websites. O'Learly also says this about the video, "It’s also not a lot nastier than the old showman himself." I think I'll let intelligent people decide for themselves who is nastier. I'm glad that Denyse O'Leary at least acknowledges that the video she posted was nasty.

---

Another Example of IDiot Reasoning

My philosopher friend, Chris DiCarlo, and I are trying to teach our students how to think critically. We use the evolution/creation debate as an example of how to make valid arguments (and how not to make them). Two of the important points we emphasize are that you should try to avoid the strawman fallacy and you should try very hard not to misrepresent your opponent's point of view. (These are related.)

I tell my students that it's important to understand what your opponents are arguing—you must try and walk in their shoes, so to speak. This is crucial. You may decide that their arguments are completely wrong and ridiculous but you must make sure you interpret them correctly or you are guilty of several sins.

You might recall that I recently posted a comment about David Evans, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) [David Evans Says, "Teach What the Vast Majority of Scientists Affirm as Settled Science"]. I liked the idea that we should teach what the "vast majority of scientists affirm as settled science." When it comes to teaching, you have to make a decision about what is good science and what is bad science and it seems reasonable to NSTA (and to me) that the consensus among the experts is a good criterion to use. If you read the comments in that post you'll see that it's not always easy to decided what that consensus is, but that's not the main point.

Read more »

Why Humanists Should Be Vegans

I am not a humanist and I'm not a vegan. Sarah Moglia explains why I don't subscribe to either of those two beliefs. I first saw this on Skepchick: Why Vegan Values are Humanist Values.

---

A "Perfect Painting" Proves that Beneficial Mutations Are Impossible and Neutral Mutations Are Impossible

There are times when the stupidity of creationists just makes you gasp. This is one of those times. The creationist is Denyse O'Leary, who holds some kind of record for stupidity.

In this case she can be partially excused since she seems to be quoting someone named Laszlo Bencze. You can read the whole thing at: Is there no such thing as a neutral mutation? Art explains why there probably isn’t.

Denyse quotes Laszlo Bencze (I think) talking about a painting by French artist Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780-1867).

Here is a famous and gorgeous painting by Ingres which I just saw in person at the Frick Museum in New York.

Let’s imagine we can improve it by adding a dot of paint 1mm in diameter to it. In evolutionary terms we will give it a “point mutation,” the smallest possible change. If we add this dot randomly, the odds are pretty high it will damage the painting by creating an obvious, intrusive speck. So let’s give evolution every advantage. Let’s make the process far more likely to succeed by having the great contemporary painter, David Hockney, add the speck wherever he thinks it will “do the most good.”

Now I happen to know that Hockney is a great admirer of Ingres and would be shocked and dismayed at any such request. But if a cruel tyrant under pain of death forced him to do it, Hockney would understand that there is no place he could possibly place a dot of paint that would improve the painting. Like a living thing, the painting is so well crafted that anything he might add to it could only be neutral at best. So Hockney would strive to place the most neutral dot he could by choosing a pigment that matched some dark portion of the painting and hope to hide his speck there.

But would such a speck be truly neutral? No matter how well it matched the color, wouldn’t it be visible as a raised dot under the right lighting conditions? And wouldn’t that actually damage the painting even if ever so slightly? And this is precisely Sanford’s point. In the world of biology it is impossible to create a neutral mutation. The change may be extremely slight, even invisible, yet always a degradation no matter how small.

When you think about it, it's really very sad this this is the best the Intelligent Design Creationists can offer. They are so ignorant that you can almost feel sorry for them.

---

Michael Egnor Keeps Digging

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Will RogersI favor teaching biochemistry from an evolutionary perspective and I was pleased to see that ASBMB considers evolution to be one of the fundamental concepts in biochemistry and molecular biology [ASBMB Core Concepts in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Evolution]. (ASBMB screws up their description of evolution but at least their heart's in the right place.)

Unless they understand evolution, students can't really understand why some parts of a protein are the same in all species and other parts are quite variable. They certainly can't understand why you can construct a phylogenetic tree from sequences and why this tree closely resembles those trees made from comparing anatomy/embryology. They won't know why those molecular trees are consistent with a fossil record unless they understand evolution.

Read more »

Evolution Is Irrelevant to Michael Egnor

The title of this post suggest a story that's about as interesting as the proverbial "Dog Bites Man" story [see Man Bites Dog]. Nevertheless, from time to time it is amusing to see how the creationist mind works.

Michael Egnor is upset about the fact that the American Society for Biochemistry and Moleclar Biology (ASBMB) picked "evolution" as an important concept that should be covered in a biochemistry or molecular biology course. He doesn't like my post: ASBMB Core Concepts in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Evolution. He decided that he better convince his fellow creationists than biochemists don't know what they are talking about [Is Darwinian Evolution "Indispensable" to Biology?].

Here are some excerpts for your amusement.
Read more »

The Accommodationist View of Kevin Padian

In a recent post, I discussed the way Kevin Padian views evolution and why he thinks textbooks misrepresent evolution [see Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks: Definition of Evolution According to Kevin Padian]. Now I want to quote his position on the conflict between science and religion.

Keep in mind that Kevin is President of the National Center for Science Education. He isn't speaking for NCSE in this paper but it's fair to say that his view is quite compatible with those of other members of the NCSE leadership.

Here's what Kevin writes under the subtitle "Avoid pitting science against religion, even though sometimes there are real conflicts" ...
Read more »

Three Senior Fellows of the Discovery Institute Will Discuss Criticisms of Dawin's Doubt on a Radio Show on October 23

Evolution News & Views (sic) will bring together David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer to discuss Darwin's Doubt on the Michael Medved show [The Closing of the Scientific Mind: Join Us on October 23 in the Medved Studio for a Special Edition of the Science & Culture Update]. The topic is the "closing of the scientific mind," surely an appropriate topic for three men who are not scientists.

Does science open minds, or close them? A "scientific view" is frequently taken as being basically synonymous with skepticism, questioning, and independent thinking. All good and wonderful things! Yet very often, self-proclaimed paladins of "science" are impatient with genuine skeptics, flee from debate, or find a variety of other creative ways to avoid having to confront challenges to their beliefs.

In the special October 23 edition of the Science & Culture Update on the Michael Medved Show, you'll have a chance to talk about science and skepticism, closed minds and open ones, live in the KTTH radio studio, with Mr. Medved, Darwin's Doubt author Dr. Stephen Meyer, and Evolution News & Views editor David Klinghoffer. All three are Discovery Institute senior fellows.

For the discussion, they'll take as a case in point the critical reception of Dr. Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, which has sparked furious debate -- and also a great deal of artful dodging of the relevant scientific issues by opponents of the theory of intelligent design. Why are critics of ID so determined to flee from a fair fight?

I think I'm going to try and listen in. I can't wait to hear how Medved, Meyer, and Klinghoffer respond to my scientific critique of Chapter 5: "The Genes Tell the Story?"

• Darwin's Doubt: The Genes Tell the Story?
• The Cambrian Conundrum: Stephen Meyer Says (Lack of) Fossils Trumps Genes
• Stephen Meyer Says That Constant Mutation Rates Are a "Questionable Assumption"
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Data Must Be Wrong Because Different Genes Evolve at Different Rates
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Evidence Must Be Wrong Because Scientists Disagree About the Exact Dates
• Stephen Meyer Says that "Homology" Is a Problem in Molecular Evolution

---

October 7-14th Is Quackery Week

The week is half over and nobody told me it's Quackery Week. Perhpas that's because it's only Quackery Week in the USA. The US Senate passed a resolution ...

A resolution designating the week of October 7 through October 13, 2013, as “Naturopathic Medicine Week” to recognize the value of naturopathic medicine in providing safe, effective, and affordable health care.

Don't worry. Orac is on to it with: Naturopaths and vaccines.

But let's not forget that the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine makes their students take a course in Homeopathic Medicine and another im Asian Medicine and Acupuncture [Naturopathic "Doctors" Graduate from Convocation Hall on the University of Toronto Campus].

This is one more reason why we have to teach critical thinking in high school and in universities.

---

19,853 People Can't Be Wrong ... Can They?

There are days when I think that Canadians will never, ever, become rational, scientifically literate, thinkers. Today is one of those days.

As of right now, 19,853 people have signed a petition asking the Girl Guides of Canada to take GMO ingredients out of girl guide cookies [Girl Guides of Canada: Take all GMO ingredients out of Girl Guide Cookies].

The petition is organized by Maya Fischer and Linda Cirella in Victoria, BC. Here's what they say ...

Our family tries to only buy food that is non-GMO or organic. The reason we're so concerned is because there have been no long-term studies showing that it is safe for people to eat or grow GMO foods. In fact, GMO studies on animals have shown infertility, immune system problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine actually asks physicians to advise patients not to eat foods with GMO ingredients.

The really sad part is the message that those two women are sending to young girls across Canada. They're saying that science doesn't matter. You can just make up stuff to support your biases and prejudices.

UPDATE: Please read: With 2000+ global studies confirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science.

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been catalogued.

Still the claim that GMOs are “understudied”—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—have become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists catalogued and summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.

---

On the Importance of Defining Evolution

Some people think it's important to define your terms before engaging in a debate. I am one of them and the term that most often leads to confusion is "evolution."

Let's look at an example. Ned Bowden is a chemistry professor at the University of Iowa. He published an article in the university magazine: Common ground: A case for ending the animosity between science and religion. Bowden said ...

It’s remarkably consistent how evolution and Genesis look at the process and tell the same stories using different words. Science can never prove or disprove God, but science can provide support for the existence of God and that is what the Big Bang and evolution can give us. There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through, but it is highly possible that evolution was the tool that God used to bring humans into being.

Read more »