Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts

Just how far will a Christian go to dodge their burden of proof?

I've posted before on the "mixed up burden of proof" and the problems that religious people have with it.  I've said before that the burden of proof is always on the person making the claims.

And yet, religious people just don't get this very simple concept.

It's come to my attention recently that once again people - especially Christians - are attempting to shift this burden of proof from the claimant to the respondent.

Part of this seems to be due to a persistent "Atheism is a religion" meme.  This is the idea that atheists take the non-existence of a deity on faith, not on evidence, and therefore atheism is no different than a religion.

I'll freely admit that there are atheists who deny the possibility of any deity or deities.  And I'll agree that they do so on philosophically shaky ground that leaves them as vulnerable to the charge of "faith" as any religious adherent.

This is exactly why atheists have pointed out the difference between so called "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", or the differences between explicit and implicit atheism.

Personally, I'm an explicit, "weak" atheist.  I have never found enough evidence to convince me that at least one deity exists, and so I live my life as if no deities exist.  However, I could be wrong.  All it would take to convince me that I'm wrong is sufficient evidence.  And if I received such evidence that at least one deity existed, I would change in a heartbeat to live my life as if a deity existed.

This willingness to change one's mind when presented with evidence is not a hallmark of religion.

I recently ran into a cartoon by Christian web cartoonist Adam4D, which demonstrates this frantic attempt to shift the burden of proof of God from the Christian to the atheist.

The cartoonist then segways to a teleological argument using the Watchmaker Analogy.  Of course this argument has multiple problems.

As pointed out by judge John Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the argument from design is subjective.  Even Professor Behe couldn't show that there was any real way of determining something was created through a natural process or through a divine process - only that it "looks complex".  In other words, it was only through subjective terms that a Christian can claim that a tree is divinely created and a snowflake is not.

I often hang out in the online discussion forum of Reddit, and recently I've again run into a Christian who has tried to assert that atheists are making a positive claim that must be met by a burden of proof.  Like many such discussions, they go nowhere very quickly as the Christian in question refuses to admit that any other response is logical.  (You can click on this image to enlarge it.)

Here you will see that the username "cousinoleg" has asserted that there are only three positions that one can take in regards to a claim.  These three positions are either ignorance of the claim, acceptance of the claim, or denial of the claim.  This has left cousinoleg in a very vulnerable position in this discussion.

This method is not very reasonable.  The reaction to a positive claim might not be denial that the claim is true, but merely an assertion that the respondent does not believe the claimant.

Or a positive claim could be met with a counter claim that invalidates the first claim.  If it is not the claimants burden to prove that what they say is true, then a counter claim will automatically annul the original claim until it is proved false.

For example, let's take Adam4D's original cartoon, and modify it, for educational "Fair Use" purposes.

Click here to see this modified cartoon enlarged.

Here we can see that if the claimant denies his or her duty to prove their claims, then those claims are immediately subject to being countered by an opposing claim - that also is not required to be proved.

More simply put, my claim that invisible elves exist disproves your claim that a God exists.  If you are not required to prove your claim of a God, then I am not required to prove my claim of elves.

Finally, this entire blog post should be completely unnecessary.  I've taken pains to write it all out because lots of religious claimants just don't seem to get this.  Frankly, Christopher Hitchens said it best:
"What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


Humans need vitamin C to live. This implies that evolution is true.

So humans need vitamin C to live. We get vitamin C mostly through fruits and vegetables.

But what if humans can't get vitamin C? Lack of this vitamin leads to Scurvy, a disease that leads to death. There is lots of evidence of sailing ships losing much of their crew and passengers on long distance voyages because they didn't have a source of vitamin C onboard.

This leads to an interesting question. What about the Eskimos? The Inuit and Yupik live in the Arctic. During the summer these people had access to grasses, berries and seaweed, and could get vitamin C from that. But winters in the Arctic are long and dark. Plants became unavailable to them.

So these people got vitamin C from animals. Seal liver and whale blubber both have good concentrations of vitamin C. (Only if eaten raw! Cooking vitamin C destroys it!)

The Inuit didn't get Scurvy.

This leads to another interesting question. Why do these animals have vitamin C in them, and we don't?

It turns out that most mammals don't have to eat foods rich in vitamin C because their bodies make vitamin C naturally.

Ascorbate (the "ascorbic" part of ascorbic acid - the scientific name for vitamin C) is a basic requirement for life by all animals and plants. It is made internally by every plant, and almost every animal on Earth. Dogs and cats make their own vitamin C. You could get vitamin C from fresh Cow liver. (Raw, of course.)

But in apes, monkeys and humans, the ability to make vitamin C is... broken.

And I mean "broken" literally. Animals can synthesize vitamin C from basic carbohydrates through a series of chemical steps in the cell, driven by enzymes. In humans, this sequence of steps is interrupted at the very last step by the lack of one specific enzyme.

Scientists can detect these steps being performed in our cells, and can see what is missing. On investigation, it has been discovered that the gene that makes this enzyme in other animals is not functioning in humans.

At some point, our Simian ancestors suffered a genetic mutation that turned off vitamin C synthesis. But no one noticed, because of all the fruits and vegetables that were being normally consumed as part of a standard diet of anthropoids - apes, monkeys and humans.

This mutation would have been a harmful mutation if circumstances had been different. Our ancestor who couldn't produce vitamin C would have died, leaving no offspring. But vitamin C was still readily available by eating fruits and vegetables rich in vitamin C, and since this was our ancestor's diet this genetic mutation was neutral - not deadly.

This leads me to other questions. Are there other animals that are unable to produce their own vitamin C? The answer is yes. Most bats, all Guinea pigs, some birds. And what is interesting is that their vitamin C generating machinery is "broken" in different ways. For example, Guinea pigs also have the same missing enzyme, but it is due to a different gene malfunction. It's not the same gene as the one in humans.

Another question. We humans are learning how to do "gene therapy". And restoring the process that produces vitamin C in our cells seems like low hanging fruit (excuse the pun). Can we not "fix" humans so that our progeny will produce vitamin C naturally?

I've discovered that there are lots of people looking at this, and some studies and experiments indicate that restoring vitamin C synthesis is possible. But really, we still don't know enough about human cells to guarantee that there are no unintended consequences. Like a higher risk of cancer due to the method of genetic modification used.

And lastly, an observation. The study of why humans don't synthesize vitamin C naturally only makes sense when considered together with the theory of evolution. Without this basic foundation, we are unable to understand what has happened and why.  Instead we would be left with silly ad-hoc non-explanations like, "God did it".

Tony Hanna of Iowa - Liar for Jesus.

In my last post I spoke about an email discussion with a Christian who is concerned for my soul.

During this discussion Tony mailed a booklet by Mark Cahill, called "One Second After You Die". In this booklet Cahill quote mines Darwin - quote mining is a form of lying.

When I pointed this out to Tony, he later responded with a copy and paste of another text - the "last words of dying atheists". One of these quotes is supposed to be from Thomas Paine, in this quote Paine is supposed to have said:
"I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! . . No, don't leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of Hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one."

This quote is of course a lie. It was proven a lie in the 19th Century. Thomas Paine never said this.

I pointed this out to Tony and his reply was:
The fact is im not lying. I go according the the book of truth, the bible. The bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Pretty simple even an 3 year old can figure that out
You can read the whole email exchange at the RationalValley.com forum, supported by the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics.

Tony Hanna of Iowa is a liar for Jesus. He is okay with lying in order to witness to the unsaved. He sends out an email that is titled, "I care where you spend eternity".

I'm quoting the text of this email below the fold.

I'm doing this as a service to other people who are witnessed to by this duplicitous gentleman. Now a simple Google search on Tony's name and a line of text from his email will showcase his willingness to lie in order to witness.

I know a great many very honorable Christians. And I know a few who are not honorable. Tony falls in the second group. I hope he realizes that his actions are not ethical and changes his ways.

Here is Tony Hanna's initial email to me:

I sent you this because I care where you spend eternity.

Where will you be three hundred million years from now? Will it matter how much money you made? Will it matter what kind of car you drove? Will it matter how big your house was? Will it matter who won the NCAA football and basketball games this year? Will it matter who you took to prom?

No!

The only thing that will matter is who is in heaven and who is in hell. Shouldn’t this be your first priority? Matthew 18:11 tells us that Jesus has come to save that which was lost. Do you realize that once you take your last breathe you will never be able to share your testimony of Jesus with another non believer ever again for all eternity.

2 Corinthians 5:10 tells us for we all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ. When we stand before the throne of God he is going to be more alive than we ever could have imagined. You will wish you would have shared Jesus with a whole lot more people down here on earth. Can you really guarantee that you will wake up tomorrow? Do you have a friend who needs Jesus and you have not had that conversation with them. Matthew 18:12 Jesus tells us “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wondered off? Have you been led astray? Do you value possessions more than you value your soul and your eternity? What do you think about when you go to sleep and put your head on your pillow? Because when you get to heaven there is one thing you can’t do, that is share your faith with a non believer. Why? Well, because in heaven there are no non believers. John 3:36 Jesus said “He that believeth the son shall have everlasting life, he that believeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him.

If you are a non-believer, I want you to stop and think about this. Look at the years on a grave. You are going to dead and in eternity a whole lot longer than you are alive on this earth. The fact is we are all going to take our last breathe, the only problem is we don’t know when the final bell will toll in our life. It doesn’t matter what you want to believe. It matters what is the truth. And the gospel is the truth. You say you’ve tried everything else, so try the bible. Jesus died on the cross for you and for the sins of the world. On the back of this tract is a list of heaven and hell testimonies. You simply go to the web site www.youtube.com and type in which one you want to watch. Once you have typed it in exactly as it is on the back you click on the first video that pops up. I hope you take time to watch these. If you have a friend who is an atheist show them these videos. What good is a friend here on earth if you can’t spend eternity with them?



www.youtube.com type in

Howard Storm Tony Davis near death experience part 1

Bill Weise

Tony Davis near death experience part 2

Tony Davis near death experience part 3

Mickey Robinson pt01

Mickey Robinson pt02

Mickey Robinson pt03

Mickey Robinson pt04

Bill Weise 23 Minutes in Hell

She went to heaven she went to hell part 1

She went to heaven she went to hell part 2

she went to heaven she went to hell part 3

Howard Storm Unsolved Mysteries

Earthquake Kelley visits heaven part 1

Earthquake kelley visits heaven part 2

Earthquake Kelley visits heaven part 3

Colossians 3:1-4 So, if you have been raised up with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who in your life is revealed, then you will also be revealed with him in glory. Heaven- It is a place where believers go when they die. It is where God lives and is worshiped. You can store up rewards and treasures in heaven. It is a place of exceeding joy, you will know others there, God prepares a place for you there, it is a home, and don’t we all love going home! There is no pain, suffering, sorrow, or tears in heaven. It is a place of glory, holiness, beauty, perfection, light and love. The best part of heaven is the people who are going to be there. Hell- A place originally designed for the devil and his angels. It is eternal and irreversible. You can’t get out once you are there and the judgment has been set. There is conscious torment, weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is a place of sorrows and a lake of fire where the fire is never quenched. Your memory works just fine and you will remember all the worldly pleasures you chose instead of Jesus. It is a place of hopelessness and suffering. A place for those who reject what Jesus Christ has done. You don’t want to go there and neither do I. Repent- You are inwardly humbled and outwardly reformed. Seeing your sin, hating your sin and confessing your sin and turning from your sin. Remember you are not comparing yourselves to others, but to the perfect, holy God who created you. Even if we choose to repent of our sins there is a problem. How do we get rid of those sins. Jesus- The Son of God, born to the virgin Mary. By accepting him his blood washes away all of your sins. It is a gift from God that he wants to give to me and you. I think we should accept this gift! John 14:6 Jesus said unto him, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me. Ephesians 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, Not of works. You don’t just add him to your life, but he changes you into a better person.


An email to Tony about Proof of God

I've been having an email discussion with a Christian who emailed me out of the blue with the following:
I sent you this because I care where you spend eternity.

Where will you be three hundred million years from now? Will it matter how much money you made? Will it matter what kind of car you drove? Will it matter how big your house was? Will it matter who won the NCAA football and basketball games this year? Will it matter who you took to prom?

No!

The only thing that will matter is who is in heaven and who is in hell. Shouldn’t this be your first priority?

This gentleman's name is Tony, and he cared so much about my immortal soul and the possibility that it would end up in Hell that he went out of his way to contact me.

Unfortunately Tony's delivery was pretty poor. In general it was just poor writing. It is an excellent example of how Christians should NOT witness to atheists. It was poorly formatted, difficult to read, different colors and fonts. I did what I have done with previous emails of this nature - I made fun of it, and then posted it to the Rational Valley online forum.

Usually in making fun of an email, you completely cut off the conversation. But Tony seems to be made of sterner stuff. After an initial return salvo, he decided to have a conversation - which I also posted at the link above.

Sadly, that conversation petered out - Tony was unable to prove that God exists, and he seemed to get a little frustrated with that.

But then I found out that Tony had mailed the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics a real live letter! The letter contained exactly the same text that he emailed in his first email to me, but it also contained a booklet by evangelist Mark Cahill called, "One Second After You Die".

After reading through Cahill's book I determined two things. He is at about the same level of evangelist as Ray Comfort. In other words, his theology is at about the same (poor) level as The Way of the Master, he denies the findings of science while misunderstanding the scientific method.

And Cahill, like Comfort, is deceptive in that both are willing to quote mine, or quote out of context an opponent's words in order to make them seem like they are saying something other than what they actually mean. This deception is a form of lying that Cahill does not seem uncomfortable with.

This deceptive theology and willingness to lie explained so much to me about Tony's poor ability to defend what he believes.

I thought that Tony should know this, so I emailed him the following: (Rest of the text is below the fold)

-------------
Update 21 Feb 11
Tony has decided to double down on his words, not only standing by Mark Cahill's lies, but cutting and pasting lies from others for good measure.

I want to emphasize that I know most Christians are very ethical people - but there are a few (loud) evangelists who are willing to lie for Jesus.
Tony,

Today CVAAS received the envelop of information that you sent to us.

I read with interest the booklet that you sent, "One Second After You Die" by Mark Cahill, because Cahill says he will provide solid evidence that there is a life after death. I was so happy - finally someone had solid evidence!

Let us go together through this book and examine Cahill's evidence...

1. Is there a God?
"Every time you see a creation, like a building, you know there is a creator. Every time you see a design, like a cell phone, you know there is a designer. Every time you see art, like a painting, you know there is an artist. Every time you see order, like 20 plates in a row, you know there was an orderer."
This is exactly what you tried to pass off on me as good logic. Unfortunately it fails terribly. As I've said before, we can examine things - like a snowflake - that looks as if it were created even though we know it is not. A snowflake is self-organized through a natural process. No gods required.

And we're not just talking about snowflakes here - self-organization happens in all areas of science, from self-organizing computer software (using genetic algorithms, among other things) to physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics. Take a look at Conway's Game of Life to see how a universe with simple rules creates order.

To say that everything that is ordered requires an orderer is an example of a stupid statement made by someone who has not bothered to spend 5 minutes with Google to determine whether what he or she is saying is true or not. It is said by someone who does not care about what is true.

2. We live in a perfectly designed world

Cahill next quotes various different authors. First he quotes Marilyn Adamson's work on Everystudent.com. Ms. Adamson says things like:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

As an exercise in physics, I've created an Excel spreadsheet that calculates planetary gravity based upon mass and diameter of a planet. If you follow that link you can play with different planetary diameters and mass. Here is an interesting tidbit. A planet with 4 times the mass of Earth, and twice the radius of Earth, will have exactly the same gravity as Earth. Neat, huh? Even better, this world would have 4 times the surface area of Earth!

Whether a planet loses atmosphere or retains atmosphere is a function of that planet's gravity, not physical size. Gravity is determined by density and radius of the planet. A planet that is larger than Earth, and masses more than Earth, but is less dense than Earth, could have Earth's gravity. The reverse is true. A Mercury sized planet might be perfect for human life if it were much denser... dense enough to have a gravity that could retain an atmosphere.

The basic problem here is in thinking that because you are comfortable, that everything was made just for you. In 1998, author Douglas Adams gave an example of this sort of thinking in a speech in England.
"(...) imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise." -- Douglas Adams

Cahill goes on to quote Ms. Adamson again:
Water.... (...) has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.


Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.


Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees. Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.


Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe.

The human brain... (...) Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

Ms. Adamson then starts discussing how the eye evolved on her website - but Mr. Cahill declines to quote THAT part. I find this amusing - since Cahill does not believe in evolution, he will not discuss it. But he seems perfectly happy to quote out of context a religious person's words that support his argument while ignoring those words that do not support his argument. This dishonest practice is known as "quote mining" and I bring your attention to it because Cahill does this more than once.

What Cahill seems to miss is Adamson's statement about the brain. "Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories." This statement would seem to negate the idea of a soul. Do all of your thoughts, emotions and memories require a brain? I would say "yes". To put it in more simple terms, "every thought process requires a processor".

As for the necessity of water - perhaps life requires water. Scientists are currently unsure. The chemistry of self-organizing processes would seem to indicate that complexity and self-replication is possible using other "solvents". But water is a natural byproduct of Stellar Nucleosynthesis. Oxygen and Hydrogen are some of the most common elements in the universe. It is more rational to say that life has found a way to use this most abundant chemical, much like life found a way to survive the Oxygen catastrophe on Earth, and turn a deadly poison into a required element.

What Mr. Cahill does quote about the complexity of the eye comes from a book by Lawrence O. Richards, "It Couldn't Just Happen" (1989 - updated in 1994)

The quote from Mr. Richards is mostly about how staggeringly amazingly complex the eye is. He winds up with this:
Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct sub-systems. Yet together, they capture, deliver and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages a millisecond! It would take dozens of Cray supercomputers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task.
Well - the amount of information processed may be staggering for a human. But what about an animal that depends on just a bit of photoreceptor protein? Some bacteria have light sensitive patches. The gardener's favorite animal, Eisenia fetida - the common Redworm - has light sensitive patches that allow it to know when it is too close to the surface and in danger of predators. These are also "eyes" - and they are based on the same photoreceptors that are in Human eyes. But I daresay that the computer in your digital watch could probably handle the data rate.

And our eyes are far from perfect. First, we are trichromatic - the sensors in our eyes see the various shades of only 3 different colors. With those shades combined we are only able to distinguish between a million different colors. But there are animals (and a few human females) who are tetrachromatic. Tetrachromatics have sensors in their eyes that can see 4 different colors, and because of this they can distinguish between 100 million different colors.

Our eyes also have a blind spot - an area that lacks sensors. Our brain edits this spot out. Better yet, things that cross over that blind spot are actually added by our brains, as if they were there. You can see that happen in this video. What this means is that your brain is making things up - putting in things that the eye is not really seeing.

Also, our eyes lack sharp and clear vision through all of our detectors. Instead we have a little patch of detectors, called the Fovea, that are dedicated for sharp and clear vision. Because this patch of clarity is so very small (it has a field of view about the size of your index fingernail, held at arm's length) our eyes must constantly scan in order to build up a 3D image of our surroundings in our mind.

Compare the Human eye to that of the Mantis Shrimp - a creature that has a tetrachromatic eye that lacks a blind spot, whose whole eye sees sharp detail, and who can see far into the infrared and ultraviolet while also seeing the polarization of light - and you have to wonder why - if our eyes are designed - why this design is so bad.

Lastly, Mr. Richard's book was written in 1989 - he talks about how many Cray computers it would take to compute "1.5 million pulses a millisecond". This is another way of saying 1.5 billion pulses per second. Let's call each pulse an "instruction" that must be processed. In computing terms, this is measured in "Floating Point Operations per second" - also called a "Flop". Also, in computing terms the word Billion is replaced with the prefix "Giga". In 2003 a sub-hundred dollar GigaFlop processor became available. By 2009 it became possible to own a TeraFlop processor for under a dollar. "Tera" is the computer prefix for Trillion. This increase in computing power is a function of Moore's Law, and it is affecting all areas of computing and electronics.

One of these areas is the capture of visual information. You may not know it, but television standards are way behind the times. HDTV 1080i is defined in America as a 2 megapixel image. This is far behind what our current imagers are capable of doing. Modern video imagers are quite capable of 40 megapixels or higher, and digital SLR cameras can capture 60 megapixels or more.

But honestly, we really don't need these higher pixel resolutions for anything more than a new way to zoom. You see, our eyes just are not good enough to actually see more than 4 or 5 megapixels worth of an image on a 65 inch screen. And 2 megapixels is more than we can resolve on a 32 inch screen from more than a few feet away.

This is an excellent example of how human technology is better than the resolution of our eyes.

3 - the Uncaused Cause

Cahill again quotes Mr. Richards about DNA:
Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original compositor / sender.

This is not only a silly statement, it is certainly not a scientific position, and it demonstrates that Mr. Richard either lacks comprehension of the scientific method, or misunderstands it entirely. This is the position of, "I think it is so, so it must be true" - scientists do not work in this manner.

In reality, one example of the appearance of new information in existing DNA is through Polyploidy - the duplication of genes. We have abundant examples of this.

Mr. Richards continues:
There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information required for life.
Perhaps Mr. Richards believes this statement to be truthful. I would hope that is the case, because it is not. There is a non-intelligent cause for generating complexity in DNA. It is called evolution. Evolution is a blind, undirected process that works through random mutation regulated by the filter and ratchet of natural selection. Evolution has been observed in the lab, and is a theory that has more evidence behind it than the theory of Gravity.

Cahill follows this all with a Carl Sagan quote, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." implying that Sagan may be talking about God. Cahill completely misses that Sagan was a skeptic, and at best an agnostic non-believer. Carl did say something during his Cosmos TV series that is relevant to Cahill's work, and has come to be known as "Carl's Law" - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Life after death, a supernatural creator, a young Earth - these are all extraordinary claims that lack even ordinary evidence.

Cahill does go on to talk about evolution. His first bit of evidence is a quote from Charles Darwin that he cribbed from the thinkexist.com website of common quotations:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I confess, absurd to the highest degree."

This is, of course, an incomplete quotation - taken out of context from Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species". If we refer to the 6th (and latest) edition of Darwin's book, we see that the quote is continued (on pages 143-144):

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

As you can see, the full quotation from Darwin goes on to show that biblical beliefs held by popular opinion "cannot be trusted in science". He then explains that evolution of the eye from a light sensitive patch to a full modern eye is no difficulty to evolution as long as every intermediate step is useful in itself. My example of the Red worm doesn't share our eyesight, but light sensitivity is still a useful survival trait.

Cahill then goes on to say in his own words:
As we mentioned before, the eye is way too complex to have evolved, and even Darwin knew that by his own admission.
Clearly, Cahill is either lying here, or he never practiced due diligence to understand the whole quote from "Origin of Species". If I say that Cahill didn't understand that he was quote mining, and that he didn't realize that his statement about Darwin was false, then it shows that Cahill is an idiot at best. At worst, Cahill is a knowing liar.

Cahill quotes Darwin again:
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

This is also from "Origin of Species", 6th edition, chapter ten, pages 264 & 265. And again, Cahill quote mines Darwin's words. Darwin finishes this paragraph by saying:
The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
Darwin then spends all of chapter ten discussing the problems with the geological record, and how it would be a stupid and non-scientific idea to expect a constant flow of intermediate forms in the geological strata. Still he shows us that in his time the collecting of fossils is a brand new endeavor, and he explains how fossils are only part of the evidence of evolution.

In fact, we have become pretty good at understanding geology and we have a great deal more fossils than Darwin had. We have been able to see transitional forms in fossils.

But even if there were no fossil evidence, the evidence in biology and DNA would be more than enough evidence to satisfy the theory of evolution.

Cahill's deceptive quote mining of Darwin is not enough. He also uses deceptive and selective quotes from several authors, scientists, and proponents of evolution - bending their words in order to make his point. He finishes with the statement:
And there you have it. Time and time again, the evolutionists themselves are admitting there is not any evidence of transitional forms to back up their theory. (...) Since there is no evidence of animals and man transitioning into another kind of creature, we had to have gotten here some other way.

This quote demonstrates that Cahill is not just poorly informed. Instead this shows that Cahill is being intentionally deceptive to meet his own agenda. He has lied, and the evidence is right there in print.

Isn't the truth important?

Cahill goes on with a bit of philosophy. He says:
One of the concepts that I learned in a philosophy class in college was the law of cause and effect. And what it means is that every material effect had to have an adequate cause before it to make that effect occur. In other words, it takes something to make something. You can't get something out of nothing.

So if your parents made you, and your grandparents made your parents, (...) you eventually have to reach what is called the first cause or an uncaused cause that got the whole thing started. So when you reach that Cause, you now have your answer on who God is.

Cahill's philosophy may be okay, but logic does not seem to be his strong suit. Either everything has to have a creator, or it does not. If everything has to have a creator, then all things must have a creator. There is no reason why there must be an uncaused cause. It is just as reasonable to say that all causes must have a cause. In other words - who made God?

Another problem is that on the quantum level some things happen in an uncaused way. For example, a single particle may experience radioactive decay in a manner that is uncaused (and apparently random). Quantum mechanical events may happen that result in an effect, and when the event is duplicated exactly, it will result in a different effect.

I've also mentioned in a previous email that we do get something from nothing all the time. Virtual particles appear from nothing, and usually annihilate each other and disappear again. But sometimes they become separated (as in Hawking radiation, for example) and then they become real.

Cahill says on page 20 of this booklet:
Most scientists now believe that the universe had a beginning. Of course that is a real problem to many of them. Why? Because if it had a beginning, it had a beginner! It is really that simple.
On page 17 of this booklet, Cahill quotes astronomer Fred Hoyle's writing in his book, "The Intelligent Universe", about how impossible it would be for a tornado in a junkyard to assemble a working Boeing 747 out of bits. I find it interesting to find Cahill's following words on page 20 - because Hoyle absolutely rejected the idea of the universe beginning, and worked against the Big Bang theory until his death in 2001. Although this isn't strictly quote mining, it is a selective presentation of an authority in order to attempt to give credence to Cahill's words.

The rest of Mark Cahill's booklet assumes that he has met his burden to prove that a god or God exists, and goes on to describe the Christian God of the Bible. He uses the Bible as evidence of God, and uses God as the reason why the Bible is an authority - clearly this is circular reasoning.

However, as I have shown, he has not only failed to prove that there is a God, Cahill has demonstrated that he is willing to actually lie in order to meet his agenda.

Cahill lied. The evidence is in print in his booklet.

Please tell me why I should believe anything else this man has to say or write?

Tony, I now understand why your argument about the afterlife was so fatally flawed. If this is what you take to be evidence, then you have been lied to. I'm sorry to be the one to bear this bad news to you.

I hope you read this email in its entirety. I've tried to be clear and as succinct as the material will allow.

I do sincerely thank you for Mark Cahill's booklet, "One Second After You Die". I think that this book demonstrates the deceptive methods that religious figures will go to in order to meet their agenda. And to demonstrate this, I have posted a copy of this email on my blog, "The Calladus Blog".

I have also posted our email discussion to www.rationalvalley.com, the discussion forum supported by Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics. I will also link to that discussion from my blog in order to demonstrate the problems with your argument for god, and the deception practiced by Mark Cahill.

I do this because I think truth is important, and because when people work against that truth it should be spotlighted.

I think that you also believe truth to be important too, Tony. And although I've poked fun at you, I hope you realize that I wish you nothing but the best, and my hope for you is that you will try to better defend that which you believe using evidence that no one can refute. If you honestly search for this evidence, if you expend real effort to understand how the scientific method works, and how we know what is true, then I know you will become a more critical thinker.

Sincerely,

Mark Boyd
President, Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics
Just to make things balance out, I've made a copy of this email and posted it to the Rational Valley forum. You can go there and read the whole conversation between Tony and I, from start to finish.

And I really do wish the best for Tony.

Religious Extremism Toward Teachers of Evolution

Blake Stacey is a writer that I admire very much - and now this... I'm quoting a recent post by Blake Stacey in full here, because I think it has direct bearing on what I've been doing over the weekend. Don't worry, the author was thoughtful enough to allow me to copy it through a Creative Commons license. Just check out Blake Stacey's website for more great writing.


=====
Creation, Power and Violence
by Blake Stacey
Science after Sunclipse blog

The amount of hatred one can earn simply by speaking one’s mind and doing one’s job never fails to astonish me. All the more remarkable is how the people who hate so viciously are the very ones you’d expect to be tolerant, or at least quietly begrudging — people whose ancestors, both familial and ideological, were themselves the targets of bigotry in generations past, when different powers were the oppressors. Yet today, even in a country which prides itself on a long list of freedoms, speaking the plain, factual truth of the world is a sure way to win oneself ire, derision and abuse.

Both history and current events teach us that forces of prejudice and inequity oppose the dissemination of truth to certain sectors of society. As recently as 2006, the Afghan schoolteacher Mohammed Halim was drawn and quartered by motorbikes, the remains of his body put on display so that others would think twice before defying Taliban law and committing the unforgivable crime of teaching female children. I doubt the Taliban thugs who beat the algebra teachers of Ghazni have any particular animosity towards the mathematics; given a moment’s reflection, they might wholeheartedly support the math lessons necessary to train engineers who then build weapons to be used against the United States. The crime in their eyes, I’d wager, is not the material, but the audience.

In the country where I grew up and am writing now, the story is a little different: most of the time, hatred against educators does not escalate to physical violence, although threats of violence are common enough, and most of the time, the factor provoking abuse is not the audience, but the lesson itself.

The plain truth I’m talking about is the biological principle of evolution. The single most powerful idea in biology, this discovery has withstood decades of criticism to emerge triumphant as one of the most well-checked propositions in human history. Learn about evolution, and you can go to work on diseases, or help find out where species both living and extinct fit into the family tree of life. You can understand the living world, and help preserve human life within it.

Open your mouth about evolution around the wrong people, though, and you can find yourself harassed, ejected from your job and even beaten in the street.

Just ask these people.

Steve Bitterman was an instructor who taught the Western Civilization course at Southwestern Community College in Red Oak, Iowa. In 2007, at the age of sixty, he was fired because he did not teach the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth. (How many faithful Christians there are in this country who see that story as an allegory, and a powerful, meaningful one, of the loss of innocence!) “I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here,” he said afterward. “From my point of view, what they’re doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century.”

Alex Bolyanatz was an assistant professor of anthropology at Wheaton College, a Protestant liberal-arts college in Illinois. He had been popular with both students and his fellow teachers, but in the spring of 2000, he received a letter from his provost issuing a stern rebuke: “During your term at Wheaton College,” Stanton Jones wrote, “you have failed to develop the necessary basic competence in the integration of Faith and Learning, particularly in the classroom setting.” Jones castigated Bolyanatz for not treating creationism with respect and instead teaching evolution as the plain, scientific truth. Bolyanatz had repeatedly made the point that evolution did not conflict with his own religious faith, but claiming that “The evolutionary model does not discount faith” was not enough to save his job. His experience parallels that of Howard J. Van Till, who taught physics at Calvin College in Michigan. When Van Till made the modest claims that evolution had been scientifically proven and that Biblical texts were influenced by the cultures in which they’d been written, angry community members pressured Calvin College’s Board of Trustees into forming an investigative committee, which subjected Van Till to four years of inquiry. He was, eventually, cleared, but not until the committee had performed, he said, “a test of the entirety of my theological position.”

Likewise, Richard Colling graduated from Olivet Nazarene University and taught there for twenty-seven years. A man of strong religious convictions, he argued that one could believe in the Christian God and still accept the scientific truth of evolution. In 2004, he published a book about this belief, and for his pains, he was barred from teaching general biology or having his book used in the school.

Colling had been granted tenure, so that at least his job and paycheck were secure, even though the ejection from the community he loved brought him significant anguish. Nancey Murphy of Fuller Theological Seminary did not have that shield, and so when her negative review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial aroused Johnson’s ire, she had to fight for her job. Johnson, a lawyer who was one of the instigators in rebranding creationism as “Intelligent Design,” has never displayed a grasp of basic biological facts, but that didn’t stop him from calling up a Fuller trustee and starting a campaign to get Nancey Murphy fired.

Gwen Pearson taught biology at the Permian Basin branch of the University of Texas, located in the city of Odessa. Her three years as an assistant professor ended with assaults on her integrity and her physical self:

This all became a great deal more serious when I began to get messages on my home answering machine threatening to assist me in reaching hell, where I would surely end up. I also received threatening mail messages: “The Bible tells us how to deal with nonbelievers: ‘Bring those who would not have me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ May Christians have the strength to slaughter you and end your pitiful, blasphemous life!”

An envelope containing student evaluations from my evolution class was tampered with. A student wrote a letter to the president of the university claiming that I said in class that “anyone who believes in God gets an F.” Despite the fact that she had never been in my class, and it was clearly untrue, a full investigation of the charge ensued.

There were other problems. Often I arrived in class to find “Dr. Feminazi” scrawled on the blackboard. An emotionally disturbed student assaulted me on campus. In town, Maurice Sendak’s award-winning book Where the Wild Things Are was removed from school libraries, as it might “confuse children as to the true nature of Beelzebub.” The California-based Institute for Creation Research (ICR) preached in the county stadium to 10,000 local people.

I finally resigned when I received an admonition from the dean in my yearly reappointment letter to “accommodate the more intellectually conservative students with a low threshold of offensibility” in my evolution course. Rather than compromise my academic freedom, I chose to leave what seemed to be a dangerous place.

Pearson was faced with an intolerable situation — people who had seemingly never contemplated the nobility of forgiveness — and left of her own volition, but Chris Comer was not so lucky. A dedicated employee of the Texas Education Agency, Comer was serving as Director of Science when she forwarded a brief e-mail message mentioning that the philosopher Barbara Forrest would be giving a talk at an Austin public events center. Forrest and her colleague Paul Gross are authors of Creationism’s Trojan Horse, a book which details how creationism has masqueraded as serious science in order to slip particular religious beliefs into the public schools. For sending a brief “FYI,” Comer was forced to resign.

Paul Mirecki was professor of religious studies and department chair at the University of Kansas. He planned to teach a class called “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies,” but canceled those plans after two men beat him in the street one December morning. He had displayed an acerbic tongue in online discussion forums, and he later apologized for his less temperate remarks; neither that apology nor sympathy for a physically assaulted human being stayed the KU administration, who forced him to step down as department chair.

The real occurrence of violence gives death threats a certain cachet of intimidating force. Eric Pianka, a biologist at UT Austin, gave a speech before the Texas Academy of Science, which was presenting him with a distinguished-service award. In his speech, he articulated his fears that overpopulation will lead to a disaster for the human species. The story then took a twist which a fiction writer would be hard-pressed to surpass: a creationist named Forrest Mims claimed that Pianka advocated releasing the Ebola virus to eliminate 90% of the world’s population. Other creationists, like William Dembski, soon picked up the story, leading to online hysteria. Within days, Pianka himself and others in the Texas Academy of Science received death threats.

“I don’t bear any ill will towards anybody,” Pianka told one reporter, and elaborated: “I’ve got two granddaughters, man. I’m putting money in a college fund for my granddaughters. I’m worried about them.”

The issue of creationism has been simmering for decades, sometimes frothing up into great legal battles which attract widespread attention. The most recent of these watershed events happened in Dover, Pennsylvania, where a school board tried to push “Intelligent Design” into the science classrooms.

Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican and faithful Lutheran, delivered a landmark verdict in which he summarized the claims of Intelligent Design proponents as “breathtaking inanity.” Once the verdict was revealed, Judge Jones became the target of character assassination and even received death threats for the crime of doing his job.

His decision put Judge Jones on the cover of Time Magazine, but you don’t have to be famous to have someone get very upset about you. Michael Korn sent threatening letters, adorned with skulls and crossbones, to several biology professors at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Several of the messages were delivered by slipping envelopes under the professors’ office doors after working hours; Korn’s missives referred to “killing the enemies of Christian society.” He then skipped town and is currently a fugitive from justice.

When will one of these threats come to fruition? When will self-righteous anger, fueled by ignorance, unchecked thanks to prejudicial culture, meet a loosening of inhibitions and end in grief? If you think this is such a long shot that it could never happen and isn’t worth bothering about, what about the sad story of Rudi Boa?

A 28-year-old graduate of Edinburgh University with degrees in chemistry and forensic science, Boa was backpacking across Australia with his girlfriend, Gillian Brown. At a bar in Tumut, New South Wales, Boa had an argument over religion with another traveler, Alexander York. Later that night, it appears, York attacked Brown and in the ensuing fight, Boa was stabbed, once, in the chest. York was found guilty of manslaughter. A community center in Phnom Penh, through which Boa had traveled shortly before his death, was later founded and named in his honor, using donations from the Boa family.

I wonder: when will this happen in America? All the ingredients are already here. It doesn’t take an organized conspiracy, just a culture in which the enemy has already been defined.

We fight over scarce resources, whether they be oil or cocaine, and we invent new scarcities over which to wage war, treasures whose very existence depend upon human perception and whose value can never be tested through experiment and rational investigation. Even when this contest does not lead to physical violence, it deranges lives and brings anguish.

Many of the names I’ve mentioned in this essay belong to faithful Christians. These people, who have suffered because they accept the scientific truth of evolution, are not raving atheists or infidel interlopers. They learned the hard way that some folks just aren’t satisfied with “theistic evolution,” with the idea that the Creation took a long time or that science and religion answer different kinds of questions. Compromise and coexistence are, quite simply, not good enough. Those who advise such a friendly relationship find themselves, dare I say it, expelled.

And stories which begin with unshakable hate do not end very well.

UPDATE (20 April 2008): I should have known that my Gentle Readers would have additional items to offer. See, for example, the story of Kanawha County, West Virginia and this list of incidents, which overlaps with my own.

Oh, and I’ve also been alerted to the unfortunate case of Terry Gray, a Christian biochemist whose negative review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial sparked an unhappy response from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which eventually forced Dr. Gray to recant.

"EXPELLED" Runs away and hides!

"I did so hit a home run! And if you don't agree with me then I'll just take my baseball and my bat and go home! So there!"

Ben Stein's movie Expelled has gone MIA. Emails have been sent out to all confirmed that showings are canceled due to "technical difficulties". Their RSVP website no longer advertises upcoming showings - they've evaporated and the only trace they've ever existed is in screen captures and Google cache.

The technical difficulty? I can't be sure, but I would guess that they technically hated using a boring, poorly made movie to perpetuate a lie, and getting caught doing so.

If Expelled gets set up to start allowing screenings again before the movie's official release, then it will be with very strict procedures to vet those who live in the reality based community.

Expelling Dr. PZed Myers from a movie called "Expelled" while allowing Dr. Dawkins in instead has got to be one of the worst public relations disasters ever. This is worse than Scientology's "Battlefield Earth" - it's worse than "New Coke".

For the next 20 years business schools will be using the mistake made by Associate Producer Mark Mathis as the textbook example of what not to do regarding public relations.

Mathis (and by association Ben Stein) are petty and dishonest. And when they got called on it Mathis naturally panicked and fled.

Are these the sort of people you want to represent your religion?

"Expelled" has gone truant in Santa Clara!

After all the religious spin put onto the ejection of PZ Myers while allowing Richard Dawkins into last night's showing of "Expelled", I decided that I wanted to see for myself just how easy it was to get an invite to the movie.

There seems to be some controversy about tickets - with one side saying that Dr. Myers didn't have a ticket and was acting the bully, and the other side saying that tickets weren't required, that a simple sign up was all that was required.

So I went over to the Expelled RSVP site, and signed up. BAM! I got an instant return email saying that I was golden, with a seat reserved for me. I could now attend the Santa Clara event next week Friday merely by checking my ID against a list at the door.

I told my friends about this, and started thinking... there's really no way to tell that I'm not just some average guy, and not the co-founder of an Atheist / Skeptic organization. I put "none" both in the organization and the title blocks of the registration.

My friend Richard, co-founder of CVAAS, went that extra mile and registered under our organization's name.

But it was all for naught, I'm afraid. I've just received an email notifying me that the Santa Clara showing of "Expelled" has been canceled "due to technical issues". A quick peek at the Expelled RSVP site shows that Santa Clara has been removed from the list of screenings.

Ah well, I really didn't want to drive to the San Jose area, three hours away through bad traffic to see a movie which has been described by those I trust as 'deceitful' at best, and 'boring' at worst. Now I have an excuse to not go. I guess I'll wait for it to come out on DVD, then dig it out of the Wal-mart bargain bin. It should be there right next to "Battlefield Earth".

Hm. I wonder if the Santa Clara event was canceled because members of the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics were attending? I'd guess not - 'cause that would mean that we're more "mighty" than even the dreaded PZ Myers himself!

"Expelled" Graciously allows Dawkins to watch film, but boots PZ Myers


I've been reading about this since it started happening last night. I got a notice via my cell phone / computer that biologist PZ Myers, author of the Pharyngula blog, was refused entrance to a showing of "Expelled" at the Mall of America in Minnesota.

PZ Myers then live blogged his experience from the Mall's Apple store - where he then explained that his family and his guest were allowed in. Dr. Myer's guest was Dr. Richard Dawkins.

The sheer amount of stupid attached to this shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Analogies abound, but what this reminds me of the most is the way that Scientology tends to react to its detractors.


Just how sound are your so called "scientific" ideas when they have to be protected using tactics from L. Ron Hubbard's methods of operation?

(A very fanboy wave to Dawkin's lovely and talented wife, Lalla Ward, for the original photo. I have no idea if she's the one who added the LOLDAWKINS text. Click the photo to see it in full!)

A miscategorization of a pseudoscience

I listen to a lot of Podcasts, so I go through several websites in order to find podcasts that are worth my time.

Podcast Pickle is one of the sites that I've used. But I have a quibble with them. So I sent them an email.

They never answered, or even acknowledged my email. So I'll post it here. Maybe someone else can get a response?

Question on Science Categories

Hi.

Under the category of "Science News" on the Podcast Pickle site (Home > All Podcasts > Science > Science News (64)) I find both "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" podcast shows listed. These include "Reasons to Believe Creation Update" and "Intelligent Design The Future" podcasts.

I understand with so many people creating podcasts and vidcasts about science that it is sometimes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, but I would have thought these two to be no-brainers. The overwhelming consensus among scientists world-wide is that evolution is an accepted theory and that neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism meet the most basic requirements to be a testable scientific theory.

I realize that you would need to appease those people who strongly believe that their particular brand of pseudoscience is real - and perhaps you would have to placate those who are so far on the fringe that it would be difficult to tell if their particular podcast is about science or not - such as Stephen Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science".

I recommend that you create a new category wherein you can drop subjects that would be difficult to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Leave it in the "Science" main category, but create a sub-category called "Edgy science" or "Fringe science" or some other name.

Although "Intelligent Design" proponents call their beliefs science, they are not. Placing them in a mainstream science category cheapens the classification and leads me to believe that I can soon expect to see "Homeopathic science news" and "Bigfoot news" in the same area. I hope that Podcast Pickle will reconsider this classification.

Another Atheist (me!) goes to church.

Overall, it's been a very depressing day.

It should have been better. This last week I've been working on a project that would bring a capable speaker to Fresno in order to participate in a symposium that is planned by the local New Covenant Church. The highlight of this symposium (to be held on April 18th) is to be a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and an Atheist / Skeptic not yet named. Needless to say, there is a bit of excitement in the local Atheist / Skeptic community right now.

My friends know that when given a project, I often research it to death. You know those boring research papers you had to write for high school? I loved those, and never made less than an “A” on them. My problem wasn't figuring out what or who to write about, my problem was always winnowing down the content to something less than novella size.

At the outset of this project, I decided that I needed to learn more about New Covenant theology, and what the New Covenant church was all about. I'd never heard about this particular sect before.

So over the last few days I've visited their web site, read their newsletter, read a couple of weeks worth of the Pastor's blog (and associated comments) and have downloaded and listened to two of the Pastor's podcasts. The pastor, Pastor Jän Van Oosten, is a gifted speaker – intelligent, up to date, and entertaining. His take on D'Souza's last debate (with Christopher Hitchens) prompted me to download and listen to the debate on Friday, while I carefully soldered together my latest Engineering design at work. (My take on the D'Souza / Hitchens debate? D'Souza is glib. Hitchens needs a vocabulary that doesn't go over the heads of his audience.)

As part of that research, today I did something that I've been told is, “beyond the call of duty”. I attended the New Covenant worship service.

No, no, I didn't burst into flame. No one had to drag out a fire extinguisher. I didn't even get a tan.

I'll go into New Covenant theology at a later point – suffice to say for now that their statement of faith doesn't match the doctrine of the churches of my past.


The first thing about New Covenant that strikes me is it's new facilities. Completed last spring, this state-of-the-art building looks more like a California modern contemporary-style office building for doctors than it does a traditional church. This church is computerized, highly organized, and filled with high-tech amenities that include a Starbucks-clone coffee shop with free wi-fi, a computerized check in for children's ministries, and CDs of the Pastors sermon, burned and waiting for you (for a small fee) as you exit the main chapel. Gone are the days of my past where after service our congregation would gather for free coffee, donuts and fellowship. The fellowship is still free, but the “Tall Coffee” was two dollars.

The main chapel is a spacious wonder of high tech, with special attention paid to acoustics and lighting, and is dominated by two enormous video screens high above a raised stage. A simple wooden cross hangs off to the left. There is no pulpit or rostrum, not even a simple podium. There is no separate area for the choir. There is, however, a 10 piece band that included both an electric keyboard and a baby grand piano, two sets of percussion, guitars, and a truly talented violinist whose efforts I freely admit made me sway in appreciation. There's no other way to say it – when she brought her violin to her chin, magic happened.

I would guess that the main chapel could easily hold as many as 1,200 people, and I would guess that it was about 80% full. Since New Covenant has two Sunday services I would further guess that membership is approximately 2000 per week. Please note that this is a “guess” - I thought it would be somewhat gauche to stand in the back and take a statistical head count.

There are two control booths at the rear of the chapel, one for audio mixing and the other for computer control of cameras and video screens. I don't know which controlled the lights. The control booths sang a siren song to my geeky nature, and it was a great effort to reign in my interest.

I still haven't touched on the youth facilities, upstairs chapel, meeting rooms, or building-wide music and address system... I'll instead be satisfied in saying that the overall impression I got was of a highly organized, wealthy and powerful congregation joyfully led by a charismatic pastor.

The contrast to the very small membership of the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics was... disheartening. This is the sort of organization that paints Atheists as a wealthy and organized threat, this is an organization that denies that humans have evolved.

As I said, Pastor Van Oosten is a gifted speaker. He used his gifts to concentrate on Genesis 2:4-25 where he stressed to the congregation that they were designed by God for a purpose, and that the entire universe is designed by God for our benefit. A very comforting message, and easy to see its attractiveness.

I found it depressing to realize that this large, wealthy and highly organized congregation was willing to host D'Souza, who has blamed both 9/11 and the Virginia Tech massacre on Atheism and “liberalism”. It was depressing to realize that this congregation rejects the scientific findings of evolution, and that many of the membership believe in a literal 6-day creation, a mere few thousand years ago.


Somewhat depressed, I spent part of the rest of the day at work, soldering my project together and thinking. On my way home I stopped off at the warehouse membership store, Costco, to pick up a copy of this years tax software. While browsing the books there, I was struck by the sheer volume of books that promoted pseudoscience and religion. Books like “The Secret”, and two (two!) fiction books that link Armageddon to the creation of supercomputers.

A little girl and her mother were browsing the books nearby. The girl, about 8 years old, picked out one of the books of real science – a coffee table-sized illustrated book of anatomy – and said clearly to her mother while pointing at an illustration, “Look! It's possessed by the Devil!” Mom then muttered something non-committal, and they wandered slowly away while I stood there slack-jawed with shock, wondering just what is it that we are teaching today's children?

On my drive home it was all I could do to not despair or grieve for the future of humanity.

It's been a bad day.

The "Chinese Room" and it's relationship to the way that Creationists Google their "facts"

I lost a good friend a couple of years ago due to his being engulfed by a fundamentalist version of Christianity.

During the process of losing my friend, through emails that spanned several years, I was often amazed at his responses to my questions. At the time I was just learning about the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis and didn't realize how many pat objections they had to basic science.

My friend, M., attended the same high school as I had – the same high school that left me woefully unprepared for college-level science. It took a long time for me to recover from that – I put in a lot of hard work to bring myself up to the level that a college freshman should be. I joined the Air Force in part to get that education.

So when M., as part of his argument against evolution, brought up the second law of thermodynamics, I was a bit surprised. From that 2001 email, M. says:
What about people who believe in darwin?

It takes much more faith to believe in darwinism than it does to believe in God. At least there is concrete evidence that God exists. The religion of darwinism only offers coincidences to justify a conclusion. Not only that, but darwinism defies 3 laws of thermal-dynamics. Darwinism is like saying that I can take apart a watch, put it in a shoe box, shake it around long enough and eventually all the pieces will be put back together to make a running watch.

How much faith does that take!
My explanation of thermodynamic systems and nearby energy sources, such as the sun, did little to sway my friend.

That exchange has sat in my memory as one of our pivotal conversations.

Our exchange bothered me because I kept asking myself where he learned to quote thermodynamics? From the quote above it is obvious to anyone who has taken physics that he has no understanding of what he is parroting. I did finally discover the second law of thermodynamics quoted as an argument by Kent Hovind and figured he got it from there.

I thought of M. and his argument again over the weekend as I finished the excellent Science Fiction book “Blindsight” published under a Creative Commons license by Peter Watts. You can read it online at rifters.com.

So much of this story is so plausible, artificial intelligence, brain-machine interfaces, nanotechnology, and having your personal awareness of self spread over a host of electronics.

What reminded me of M. was the recurring theme in this book about the difficulty of determining the difference between consciousness and a really good simulation of consciousness.

Peter Watts in his story shows how a computer can be intelligent and self-aware, but not conscious at all. Watts uses the “Chinese Room” thought experiment as an example.

From the book:
"You ever hear of the Chinese Room?" I asked.

She shook her head. "Only vaguely. Really old, right?"

"Hundred years at least. It's a fallacy really, it's an argument that supposedly puts the lie to Turing tests. You stick some guy in a closed room. Sheets with strange squiggles come in through a slot in the wall. He's got access to this huge database of squiggles just like it, and a bunch of rules to tell him how to put those squiggles together."

"Grammar," Chelsea said. "Syntax."

I nodded. "The point is, though, he doesn't have any idea what the squiggles are, or what information they might contain. He only knows that when he encounters squiggle delta, say, he's supposed to extract the fifth and sixth squiggles from file theta and put them together with another squiggle from gamma. So he builds this response string, puts it on the sheet, slides it back out the slot and takes a nap until the next iteration. Repeat until the remains of the horse are well and thoroughly beaten."

"So he's carrying on a conversation," Chelsea said. "In Chinese, I assume, or they would have called it the Spanish Inquisition."

"Exactly. Point being you can use basic pattern-matching algorithms to participate in a conversation without having any idea what you're saying. Depending on how good your rules are, you can pass a Turing test. You can be a wit and raconteur in a language you don't even speak."
This is an interesting line of thought, and there are some problems with this thought experiment – for example although the guy in the room doesn't understand Chinese, the entire system of room, guy and rulebooks make a sort of “virtual mind” that does understand Chinese.

But that's beside my point.

It occurred to me that the “Chinese Room” could consist of a guy at a computer connected to the Internet and using a really good search program, such as Google. The problem with this is, of course, that Google's “huge database of squiggles” isn't formulated with any sort of logic or coherence, so the operator has to discriminate among possible answers – which requires intelligence and education, or a really good method of filtering content.

My friend M. was demonstrating an aspect of the “Chinese Room” in his answers to my questions. I spoke of evolution, and he ran off a pre-formulated response that was either (poorly) memorized, or based on a hurried search through Creationist data. M. is very intelligent, but his lack of a good grounding in science, and his fundamentalist view, worked together to filter out the signal and leave the noise in his responses.

I see this “Chinese Room” effect in blog postings to sites that discuss evolution and science. It usually takes the form of someone popping in and writing something like “Evolution doesn't explain 'X'!” If an answer is given the response is usually a moving of the goalposts, “Evolution can't explain 'Y'!”. This drags on until the speaker is referred to the Index of Creationist Claims at TalkOrigins.com. If the Creationist in question objects, he is soundly taken to task.

For some Creationist objections to evolution, such as the second law of thermodynamics objection, the general response is often immediate ridicule. I think that this is due in part to recognizing that the writer in question does not actually understand what he or she is saying. (It's almost as if the writer has failed a Turing Test based upon basic science. Sooner or later, everyone eventually talks shit to an Eliza-like bot!)

I'm not saying that all Creationists have little or no understanding of the science that they are pooh-poohing. I'm sure that in many cases Creationists are actively lying about science for personal gain and for recognition among their peers. I'm also sure that in some cases there is a genuine misunderstanding, and that those people can have their ignorance cured.

But for some, there is a sort of willful stupidity – they exist in their “Chinese Room”, regurgitating poorly formulated responses from flawed Creationist databases, and call themselves “educated”, “well informed”, or “knowledgeable”.


I'm still waiting for a response from my last email to my friend, M. It's been two years now. But I have little hope that he will emerge from his own “Chinese Room.”

Not all Texans are advancing toward the Dark Ages

Unless you've been living under a rock, or unless you've restricted your news intake to merely what the so-called "Liberal Media" offers, you probably have heard about the education kerfluffle that is currently going on in Texas.

Christine Castillo, the now former Texas Education Agency’s director of science, was fired for broadcast emailing a "FYI" email about an upcoming talk in Austin:
...on Nov. 2 by Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, a co-author of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” and an expert witness in the landmark 2005 case that ruled against the teaching of intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., schools.
(A PDF formatted position paper on Intelligent Design written by Dr. Forrest can be read here.)

Ms. Castillo has sent out many "FYI" emails over the years for various other functions and events for which she was NOT fired. But now that the Texas Education Agency seems to have decided to follow the Creationist "Wedge Strategy", apparently Ms. Castillo became a thorn to be removed.

Other bloggers, more famous than I, have declared Texas to be "Doomed" based on it's so-called "neutral" position on science vs. pseudoscience. And I have to say, I'm pretty close to agreeing that Texas has become a fundamentalist state. I've seen first hand the warped thinking that fundamentalism has brought to a couple of my Texan friends. I'm almost to the point of writing most of the state off as an extra-large version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

The only thing preventing me from doing so are enclaves of sanity like Austin Texas, where the intolerant nutballery is kept to a minimum. Or other friends in Texas, who are actually quite sane when it comes to science.

I try to keep in mind that the great Molly Ivins made Texas her lifelong home, that Ann Richards was born and died a Texan...

And now I have one more small hope for Texas when I see writing like this from Rick Casey in the Houston Chronicle:
Promoters of creationism and intelligent design sometimes suggest that the biblical account deserves a special place in our schools (as opposed to, say, Hindu or Hopi creation stories) because the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.

Here are some historical incidents that prove that we were, indeed, founded as a Christian nation:

•In the early 17th century, Sam Maverick, an English immigrant to Boston and an ancestor of the famous Texas Mavericks, was jailed for repeatedly missing church.

•About the same time, Baptist preacher Roger Williams came to Massachusetts to escape religious persecution in England. After being quoted as saying local Puritan authorities "cannot without a spiritual rape force the consciences of all to one worship," he was secretly warned by Gov. John Winthrop that he was in peril.

He fled to live with a group of Native Americans, then purchased what is now Rhode Island from them, setting it up as a colony that honored religious freedom.

•In 1844, a Jesuit priest in Maine advised Catholic families to go to court to block a school board order that required their children to read the Protestant King James version of the Bible in school. The priest was grabbed by a mob while hearing confessions on a Saturday evening, stripped of his clothes, tarred and feathered.

•In 1859, 11-year-old Tom Wall refused to recite the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in his Boston public school. After consulting with his principal, Tom's teacher hit the boy across the knuckles with a 3-foot rattan stick.

The boy again refused. The punishment was repeated. The boy still refused. After half an hour of the painful punishment, he relented despite fearing that he was betraying his God. His father filed assault charges and went to court to challenge the reading requirement. He lost.

•In 1869, the Cincinnati school board voted 22-15 to honor the request of Catholic parents to end the reading of the Bible in school. Protestant parents filed suit.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 for the Protestants, saying the reading of the Bible was necessary for good government.

The doctrine of separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution. It evolved through the courts and through public consensus based on painful experience.

It was not a sop to Jews or Muslims or ACLU atheists. It was developed to keep some Christians from ruling the consciences of other Christians, just as for centuries they had attempted to do in Europe.

Its logic was most forcefully stated by the Christian judges of the Ohio Supreme Court, who overturned the above ruling with these words:

"When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both."
Maybe there is hope yet for Texas. I sure hope so.