Thoughts in a Haystack

Blowing It

2009-11-06T13:12:00.004-05:00

Eugenie Scott's reply to Ray Comfort's moronic objections to evolutionary theory has been posted at U.S.News & World Report's blog, God & Country. Scott's reply is more temperate than my own but, nonetheless, devastating. Scott features one of Comfort's more lunatic claims:

Consider Comfort's view on the evolution of sex: "No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery." Of course not. That's because no biologist thinks males and females evolved separately!

Birds do it; bees do it; even educated fleas do it: but so do the majority of plants and even certain single-celled organisms. But they do it in radically different ways. A male bee has no father and cannot have sons, for example, while there are animals, even vertebrates—bonnethead sharks and Komodo dragons—in which virgin birth occurs. So it's not just for the obvious reason that sex is a fun topic for biologists.

The myriad ways in which organisms reproduce, sexually and asexually, have fascinated biologists for decades and have been examined, in a thoroughly evolutionary context, since Charles Darwin and August Weismann. But none of them have thought that lonely males waited patiently for millions of years for the first females. And anyone who, like Comfort, tells you otherwise is ignorant—or worse.

It is an interesting question, that "or worse." Wes Elsberry (who also does a neat dissection of Comfort well worth the read) points to an "apology" by Comfort:

I’m going to try and put this so that it can’t be taken out of context. I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females. I have checked out the references you have given me as to what the theory has to say about their genesis, read them again and again, and I still don’t understand what you believe. It doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation with what you would have me believe about evolution. Still, that doesn’t give me the right to misrepresent your beliefs, even if it was done in ignorance.

But wait a minute! It wasn't that long ago (March 07, 2009) that, in response to an upbraiding by PZ Myers, Comfort told us that:

"Okay, I've got it," Comfort continued. "Your belief is that species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female.

So why was he still peddling the same hooey in this series as late as November 02, 2009? Could he have forgotten in eight short months? Even if he was still confused about evolutionary theory (as other parts of his WingNutDaily article clearly indicated) wasn't he put on notice of his ignorance of the science of evolution? Should anyone now accept his "excuse" that he was misrepresenting evolutionary science only out of ignorance?

So, he is either suffering from a neurological disease or deficit severe enough to cause amnesia or is pretending in his U.S.News & World Report's article (not to mention the preface to his copy of the Origin) to have knowledge about evolutionary theory that he does not, in fact, have. Even if he does not claim to be an expert, he is leaving out the fact that he has good reason to know he is ignorant of the science of evolution. Doesn't theology have a phrase for that? ... Oh, yes, a "lie by omission."

But he is doubtless telling the truth that he can read explanations of evolution "again and again" and still not understand them. And I don't doubt that he is right about the cause -- that it "doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation" with science. When you start with your conclusion -– creation –- and, consciously or unconsciously, reject anything that might contradict that presupposition, you have little chance ... and less desire ... of understanding that which shows you are wrong.
.

Say Amen!

2009-11-06T06:08:00.002-05:00

The Undiscovery Institute has told us that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion; it's only interested in science. Let us then consider this report of William Dembski's visit to The Baptist College of Florida in Graceville, Florida:

After a time of musical praise and worship, Dembski took the stage and began a clear, concise analysis of the necessity for Intelligent Design studies. He highlighted the similarities and differences between Intelligent Design and Creation Theory and explained why there was a need for both and how science and religion go hand in hand. Dembski's investigative research and insightful lecture was met with appreciative applause as he concluded with prayer.

Quite apart from the trappings of a revival meeting, what similarities between ID, supposedly science, and "Creation Theory" could there be? And, in what cause would there be "a need for both" ... except evangelism?
.

Only In Britain

2009-11-05T19:12:00.003-05:00

... would they have a new policy on sex education announced by a Schools Secretary named Ed Balls.

A more serious point is that Britain is light years ahead of American "abstinence only" sex "education."

Not only is Britain taking away the right of parents to opt their children who are 15 years old or older out of sex education, but:

Faith schools will not be able to opt out of any part of the new curriculum, although they will be able to teach topics within the "ethos of their faith".

You can imagine the apoplexy William Donohue and the Catholic League would have if such a policy was implemented in the US and Pat Robertson would be directing hurricanes to hit Washington D.C.

Of course, the kids might avoid unwanted pregnancy, STDs and the like but, hey, who cares about them?
.

Yankees ...

2009-11-04T23:43:00.001-05:00

RULE!
.

Dishonesty Institute

2009-11-04T23:00:00.005-05:00

.
In a comment to a post a while back about the Discoveryless Institute's attempt to hijack the reputation of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, "Rhology" asked:

Also, I don't get why you keep throwing out the word "dishonest". Maybe they just disagree. Think of that?

Here's yet another reason for calling the DI dishonest: Casey Luskin is over at the Ministry of Misinformation, repeating a blatant lie: that Judge Jones was being an "activist judge" because he decided whether or not ID is science. First of all, Casey is showing his status as a faux lawyer by claiming Judge Jones was "trying to settle far more expansive issues unnecessary for the holding in the case." Trial court judges routinely present as many grounds that justify their decisions as possible. Why wouldn't they? But it is particularly disingenuous of Luskin to make the claim that Judge Jones should not have decided whether or not ID was science. As I said before:

The defendant school board certainly thought the status of ID was an issue for Judge Jones' consideration. The following is from the closing argument on behalf of the defendants by Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center:

[T]he evidence of record demonstrates that the curriculum change at issue here had, as its primary purpose and has as its primary effect, science education. It is true that it attracts attention to a new and fledgeling (sic) science movement. But look at Steve Fuller. See it through his eyes. See it through the eyes of history and watch how he can see what may be the next great paradigm shift in science, a wholly new vista that does service to the children of this district by allowing them to put together scientific fields in a new and exciting way which is ultimately productive of scientific progress.

And there was also this from Mr. Gillen:

The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the primary effect of Dover's curriculum change is to advance religion for another reason. The evidence shows that intelligent design is science, a theory advanced in terms of empirical evidence and technical knowledge proper to scientific and academic specialties. It is not religion.
The evidence has failed to support the claim that intelligent design is a nonscientific argument that is inherently religious. The testimony and evidence offered by Behe and Dr. Scott Minnich proved that IDT is science.

But, more importantly as to the DI's honesty or lack thereof, the DI submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to Judge Jones that included the following:

Secular purposes for teaching about the theory of intelligent design include informing students about competing scientific theories of biological origins . . .

In short, the DI itself argued that the case should turn on the issue of whether or not ID is science. It is exactly the situation that the DI is guilty of claiming, as Judge Jones predicted, that "an activist judge is a judge whose decision you disagree with."

That's why we call it the Dishonesty Institute!

_________________________________

By the way, here are Professor Peter Irons' responses to the hooey the DI's "legal team" peddled in the Montana Law Review that was touted by Luskin.
.

Goin' North

2009-11-03T21:52:00.003-05:00

The Elitist Bastard has sailed again, from Decrepit Old Fool, this time to the frozen climes.

Just to show that bastardry is no respecter of party, here is Cujo at Slober and Spittle invoking something that is near and dear:

The DNC is using guilt by association as the basis for its counter-argument. I've criticized this sort of argument when the Republicans used it. It's no more defensible when Democratic Party officials use it. Questioning the loyalty or motives of critics is a way of deflecting the observer from the fact that there's really not much evidence to back up the argument. Lawyers have a wonderful saying that applies to arguments like this:

When you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound on the law. When you have neither on your side, pound on the table.

Darkest Stupidity

2009-11-03T17:01:00.002-05:00

PZ could only make it two paragraphs into Ray Comfort's moronic reply to Eugenie Scott's prior dismantling of him. But, because PZ took care of those two, I could make it to the third ... just to find this:

Nor does any evolutionary believer adequately address the fact that all those 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together in our lifetime. Nothing we have in creation is half evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee. None of the 1.4 million species on the Earth has half an eye. All have the necessary functioning equipment, from the brain, to the teeth, to the eye, to limbs, to reproductive necessities. Everything that we see in creation is in full working order—from the sun, to the mixture of the air, to the seasons, to fruit trees and vegetables, to the animal kingdom—from the tiny ant right up to the massive elephant.

The man is a gibbering loon spewing drool over those who are so determined to have their religious fantasies confirmed that they don't even notice the spittle dripping off them.

The logical fallacy Comfort is suffering from (or dishonestly foisting on others) involves thinking that any of the ancestors of extant organisms had the same needs as its descendants have today. There were never any "half-evolved" organisms ... each was evolved to fit its environment well enough to reproduce its kind. We have a word for populations of organisms that weren't well enough adapted to their environment to reproduce: "extinct."

I call this the "wrong end of the telescope" fallacy. What we see around us today is the result of billions of years of evolutionary changes. Changes that are constantly being filtered through selection, with the traits that make the organisms well suited to the (changing) environment increasing in frequency, while those which are detrimental decrease, and those that are close to neutral becoming fixed in a population randomly, where they may become favorable or detrimental at some later date because of changes in the environment. Life in the past worked well enough to survive in the same way that extant life works well enough to survive. It goes without saying that we are all descendants of a (very long) line of successful reproducers, even if those ancestors could no longer do well in our environment.

And, of course, in the childish sense that Comfort means, there are "half-eyes" (see hagfish) and "half-utters" (see platypuses) around today and those sorts of organs function well enough that those creatures have not gone extinct, just as did all the different organs our ancestors had.

There is nothing "mature" about life today. It is continuing to change and evolve all around (and in) us; it just takes place at a pace so slow that ephemeral creatures like ourselves have to look very hard to see the evidence for it. Since Comfort so desperately doesn't want to see the evidence, it is hardly surprising that he makes up such incredibly lame and ignorant excuses to keep his eyes squeezed so very tightly shut, his fingers buried so very deeply in his ears and his humming of Amazing Grace so very loud.

He certainly didn't get this "objection" to evolution from studying what scientists have so patiently explained, at length, about the theory of evolution but apparently have keep hidden away from his eyes in libraries and museums and other places of actual learning.

Maybe now someone can do another paragraph before their brains melt.
.

Philosophy, Science and Law

2009-11-02T23:59:00.005-05:00

Michael Ruse has a piece in the Guardian that is not very good. Russell Blackford neatly (and humorously) deconstructs it.

But Russell, himself a (non-American) lawyer, as well as a philosopher, defers to Jerrry Coyne on one point that at least needs expanding on. According to Russell, Ruse's "worst howler" was when he said this:

If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?

Russell quotes Coyne with approval:

[L]ots of things that we teach students make them question not only their faith, but their fundamental values. This is GOOD. Questioning your principles is one of the main aims of education, as Socrates knew well. As biology teachers, our job is to teach evolution, for that is the true account of the history of life. If that account leads some people to question or leave their faith, that's just too bad. But it's not the same thing as telling students that there is no god.

Quite true. As I have pointed out before, any "spillover effect" the teaching of evolution may have on any (or all) religious belief is not unconstitutional. There is a clear secular purpose to teaching our best scientific understanding of biology, and if that causes students to question their religious belief, that's too bad as far as the Constitution goes.

But there is a subtle (perhaps obscure, due to Ruse's poor formulation) difference between what Ruse said and what Coyne and (by extension) Russell are saying. Ruse was focusing on the proposition that the "new atheists" are claiming that Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity (and, presumably, other Abrahamic religions, among others).

It is quite one thing to say that religion has to take its chances with the teaching of science and quite another to teach that science is incompatible with religion. To teach the latter is most definitely to teach that there is no god -- at least as long as we want to teach that science is factual, as opposed to just another philosophy.

There is a conundrum as long as Coyne, et al. want to maintain that science and religion are incompatible: why should the institutions of science abandon the position that science and religion are conceptually compatible if evolution is not the equivalent of atheism; why should the First Amendment not bar the teaching of evolution if science and religion are conceptually incompatible?
.

Constitution Avenues

2009-11-01T23:27:00.000-05:00

A thought:

The epistemological problems generated by supernatural theism necessitate the faith commitments required of believers. The insufficiency of human cognitive faculties for knowing the supernatural demands willful assent without conclusive evidence—faith—from those who seek temporal meaning in a transcendent reality. The significance of such commitment lies in the sustained effort it requires and the hoped-for recompense that believers see as its culmination. The U.S. Constitution was written to safeguard such commitment against government interference. However, it was also intended to insulate public policy from religious influence given the social tension—sometimes conflict—that results from the inability of believers to resolve disputes over doctrines that some of them would force upon others. The fundamental cause of such disputes is the lack of both a methodology and a epistemology that would enable believers not only to demonstrate to other knowers the existence of the supernatural object of their commitment, but also to reach consensus among themselves concerning the doctrinal corollaries of their belief.

ID raises the same questions as supernatural theism in general: if a supernatural creator exists, how can one know this, and how can one demonstrate one's knowledge to others? Further, how can the doctrines comprising different religious traditions be evaluated in order to determine which, if any, are correct? These issues remain unresolved because there is no way to address questions arising from beliefs that cannot be buttressed by common cognitive access to the object of belief. Consequently, the epistemological problems underlying supernatural religion have historically found and still find expression in social animosity and civil conflict. The potential for such conflict explains why the nation's founders formally—and intentionally—separated church and state in the First Amendment to the Constitution. James Madison warned that "every [legislative] provision for [the rights of conscience] short of this principle [of religious liberty], will be found to leave crevices at least thro' which bigotry may introduce persecution."

- Barbara Forrest, The non-epistemology of intelligent design: its implications for public policy, Synthese (2009)

Relief Pitching

2009-10-31T23:02:00.002-04:00

The Yankees are playing tonight so just read this nice article about Richard B. Katskee's visit to Susquehanna University. Katskee was the lawyer for Americans United for Separation of Church and State at the Kitzmiller case. This, from Katskee, is nice:

Katskee said this minority believes that the planet is heating up because we are moving closer and closer to Armageddon as described in the book of Revelations in the New Testament of the Bible. Therefore, if we reverse global warming on that view, Katskee said we are delaying the end of days, frustrating God's plan.

Katskee said: "Of course they are entitled to their religious beliefs, no question about it. They are entitled to teach those beliefs to their children, they are allowed to talk about it in church, at home, in the mall, whenever they want. We are all entitled to those things -- that's what religious freedom means. The real issue is: are they allowed to use the law to impose those beliefs on everybody else?"

Or, for comic relief, you can read Ray Comfort's "response" to Eugenie Scott. Needless to say, it is a typical creationist screed: Darwin was a bad man, therefore don't believe him; evolution is "atheistic;" and my favorite:

The problem when arguing with those who believe in atheistic evolution is that they move goal posts by redefining atheism or evolution or the word species. From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've. And Darwinism is as nebulous as a puffy cloud on a hot windy day, forever moving, changing, and expanding—because its bounds are limited only by the fertile human imagination.

Nasty science! It keeps learning and updating itself and, therefore, is never certain, while Comfort's religion aspires only to maintain the beliefs of Bronze Age shepherds.
.