Science vs Creationism

Fun video.



HT Pharyngula

I'm not so sure about this country I live in anymore

I have a friend from Pakistan that I talk with often. I've learned a lot about life in Pakistan since meeting this person. Media is state controlled. Elections are bought and paid for. How odd it would be to live in a world like that, where the free expression of ideas and free elections really weren't available.

But I'm starting to notice things in this current election that are starting to make me wonder.

I watched the Republican debate Saturday. There is one candidate that does not take corporate donations, has never taken lobbyist money in 20 years of congressional service, and so he obviously doesn't have corporate backing. To me he looked like a man amongst boys, but I will admit I'm liberterian, so obviously I prefer him. I'm of course talking about Ron Paul. He was involved in a few of the heated exchanges, so he certainly made the debate interesting.

But the post debate coverage was a little strange. I think it was Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopolous. They started by speaking with reporters from the camps of each candidate to get the candidates spin on the debate. They spoke with 5 reporters and excluded the spin from only 1 candidate. Ron Paul.

This debate was sponsored by facebook, and if you know about facebook and myspace you know that Ron Paul owns both. He is far and away the favorite Republican candidate amongst facebook users. Diane Sawyer said "Let's see what facebook users are saying." The first of two questions on facebook asked which candidate was most presidential. Ron Paul was winning handily. The second question asked which issue was of greatest concern. Most respondents indicated that it was the economy. Comments were streaming in. Most were about Ron Paul. How did ABC describe what was happening on facebook? They mentioned the results of the economy question and mentioned a couple of generic comments that had nothing to do with any particular candidate.

In fact, Ron Paul's name was never spoken. I noticed on facebook that the initial two polling questions about who was most presidential and the one about the economy were removed and replaced with a single poll question which asked "What was the biggest surprise of the night?" There were 5 options, each having to do with one of the Republican candidates, except one. Ron Paul. What is going on here? Why is he not being mentioned?

In last night's debate on Fox in NH Paul was excluded. Paul is polling near third in NH, and with the selection process just now getting underway he's certainly a viable candidate. The NH Republican Party thought so, and they withdrew their support from the debate because of Paul's exclusion. Fox didn't let this stop them as they declared at the beginning of the debate "One of these 5 candidates will be the Republican nominee."

I pay less attention to the Democratic side of things, but from what I can see things look pretty similar. I watched Bill Moyers interview Dennis Kucinich. He pointed out that the magazine The Nation declares that the person that truly embodies the values true Democrats is Kucinich. I know a lot of liberals, and they all love Kucinich. In fact, most of them either despise Hillary or simply are not thrilled about her. Yet Hillary seems to be the de facto nominee. Even when she loses the caucus in Iowa most of the resulting coverage is about her. John Edwards, who took 2nd in Iowa, seems to be barely mentioned. Is it any coincidence that Hillary has more corporate donations than any other candidate?

Fascism is defined in different ways. One way says that corporations are simply wedded to the government. Government bails them out when necessary, imposes regulations that help exclude competition, etc, and corporations return the favor by dolling out the money by lobbying and contributing to campaigns. Hillary and Guiliani play this game very well, and get a lot of coverage despite the fact that the American people don't seem too thrilled about either, whereas Paul and Kucinich don't play this game, and they can't seem to break through the media stranglehold. Paul and Kucinich both do very well in the unregulated media (the internet) and not so well in the media that is owned by large defense contractors (NBC), and other huge corporate giants (ABC, Fox, CBS). Is the U.S. really all that different from Pakistan? I'm afraid I'm not so sure.

The "Atheism" of Adolph Hitler

You often hear it claimed that Hitler was an atheist, and this is supposed to demonstrate that atheism leads to moral depravity, or something of that sort. I've heard conflicting claims, but certainly the quotes here seem to indicate he wasn't an atheist.

Not that this shows that theism (or Roman Catholicism, if it can be shown that Hitler was Catholic) is proven to be deviant on the basis of Hitler's actions. Hitler may have thought that God was on his side, but he probably wasn't motivated by his Christianity to kill as he did. He had other motivations. In the same way Stalin was an atheist, but it's not clear that it was his atheism that motivated him to kill as he did. He had a communistic ideology that he thought validated his murderous actions.

On the other hand we do somewhat regularly see religious people do immoral things because of their religious convictions. The obvious example would be 9/11 hijackers. Muslims violence that resulted from the Danish cartoons stems from Islamic prohibition of the creation of graven images. Normal, moral people don't stone adulterers, but Muslims in some countries do because of their religious convictions.

It's easy to pick on Islam in this regard, but it's also easy to find examples of immoral behavior that stems from peoples' Christian religious convictions. Fred Phelps and his church delight in the death of U.S. soldiers because the Bible teaches that God wants to render punishment to nations that turn from him. They believe it is pleasing to God to render this punishment, so if it pleases God it should please us. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed for the very purpose of promoting Southern slavery. It is obvious that religious convictions motivate people to act in immoral ways. It would be interesting to see examples of people that are driven to act immorally on the basis of atheistic convictions.

Can Steve Hays Learn Empathy?

Steve over at Triablogue seems to think that posing the question "what does the world think of the United States and our foreign policy" reveals some sort of self-loathing on the part of the American questioner. I think what it reveals is Steves inability to empathize with someone on the other side of the fence, which was apparent to me immediately after I came into contact with him.

One way to help understand the perspective of some foreigners is to simply but the shoe on the other foot. Can Steve do this? I don't think he can. For people who can though, here is one way to think about some of the events that are now occuring some of the world's Muslim countries.

Let's suppose that the election in 1984 had just occurred and Ronald Reagan had been elected to a landslide victory with your support. Let's suppose further that his defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, went to war in Mexico without Reagan's knowledge, so he fired him. In response Weinberger had Reagan arrested and would have hanged him without Canadian intervention. Weinberger then assumed power. Suppose that Weinberger was flooded with support from the Chinese and was able to sustain his grip on power because of their support. How would we feel about the Chinese? We would feel exactly the same way that people in Pakistan feel about us.

Let's suppose the Chinese had forcefully overthrown our government in the past. Let's suppose subsequent to that they had encouraged Vicente Fox of Mexico to attack us and they provided him with military arms to acomplish this. Let's suppose that war cost a million lives. Let's suppose that after this war the Chinese then declared that Vicente Fox was evil, and they invaded Mexico and attempted to set up military bases there. How would we react? Would we want to support the Mexican rebels against the Chinese? Would we want to develop nuclear weapons to protect ourselves from the Chinese? If you can understand why you would react this way, then you can understand why Iran reacts as they do.

But I don't think Steve can understand. In his world skeptics are nothing but evil people in rebellion against his God, and truths as he understands them are simply rejected due to pride and unwillingness. Iranians are simply insane and irrational for opposing our efforts. Osama bin Laden probably attacked us simply because he hates God and Christianity. Don't think about things too deeply. Just label these people evil, and bomb, bomb, bomb, and hope for the best. Life is pretty simple in Steve's world, and unfortunately he's not the only American with this attitude.

What Happened?

What did happen in the days following Jesus crucifixion? Here is what happened according to the gospels, as best as I can ascertain:

Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea removed Jesus’ body from the cross, wrapped it in an enormous 100 lbs of spices. They placed him in the tomb there (Jn 19: 38-42). The women followed Joseph and saw how the body was laid. Thinking that 100 lbs of spices wasn't enough and that perhaps the next day they would want to remove the cloth that wrapped Jesus and stuff in more spices they went to prepare spices. (??) They then rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment (Lk 23: 55-56).

In the morning, just after sunrise (Mk 16:2), while it was still dark (??) (Jn 20:1), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome and other women (Lk 24:10) went and bought still more spices (??) (Mk 16:1). When they got there they saw that the stone had been rolled away (Mk 16:4). Apparently an earthquake had occurred and an angel rolled away the stone and sat on top of it (Mt 28:2). They ignored him and went in and saw a young man to the right (Mk 16:5). He spoke. 6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'" Then two men in clothes that gleamed like lightening stood beside them (Lk 24:4). They said "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'" 8Then they remembered his words. At some point the angel that had been sitting on the stone from Mt says "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

The women fled from the tomb and said nothing to anyone because they were afraid (Mk 16:8). They were also joyful and fled to tell the disciples (??) (Mt 28:8). On the way they met Jesus, clasped his feet, and worshiped him. He told them to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee (Mt 28:9)

While they were on the way the guards reported to the chief priests what had happened and the chief priests bribed the guards to say that the body had been stolen. (Mt 28:11).

The women arrived to tell the disciples. They told these things to the disciples. (Lk 24:10). Mary Magdalene also shared her fears that the body had been stolen (??) (Jn 20:2). They did not believe the women (Lk 24:11). Peter and John then ran for the tomb and saw the strips of linen. John saw and believed. (Jn 20:3-9). Peter left, wondering what had happened (Lk 24:12).

Mary Magdalene stayed, weeping. She saw two angels in white. They asked her why she was crying. She told them it was because they had taken her Lord and she didn’t know where he was. (??) Jesus then appeared and she didn’t recognize him. (??) He asked her why she was crying. She thought he was the gardener and asked him if he had taken the body and if so, would he tell her where the body was so she could get it. Jesus then spoke her name and she recognized him. He charged her not to touch him (??) because he had not yet gone to the Father. Mary then went to tell the disciples. (Jn 20:10-18)

That same day Jesus appeared to two people about seven miles from Jerusalem on the road to Emmaus. (Lk 24:13-32). They left immediately and headed for Jerusalem to tell the eleven (Lk 24:33).

Later that evening (Jn 20:19) the men from the road to Emmaus arrived (Lk 24:34-35) and told of what had happened. While they discussed this Jesus appeared to them. He proved that it was he, and he ate with them. He charged them to stay in Jerusalem until they received power. (Lk 24:36-49). Thomas wasn’t with them at the time. When he heard of these things he didn’t believe. A week later Jesus again appeared and proved himself to Thomas (Jn 20:24-28).

Jesus then appeared to the 500 brethren, to James, and last of all to Paul (I Cor 15:6-7).

Despite the fact that Jesus had told them to wait in Jerusalem the disciples left for Galilee (about 70 miles away) to meet Jesus in the mountain he had appointed for his meeting with them as Mary Magdalene had said. They saw him, worshipped him, but some doubted. (Mt 28:16-17).

Jesus then lead them to the vicinity of Bethany where he ascended (Lk 24:51). Two men appeared and said: "Men of Galilee (??), why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (Ac 1:11)

Dembski on the Daily Show

Hey, I didn't know Dembski appeared on the Daily Show. Here it is:



And here's another Daily Show commentary on evolution.

What's the problem, Frank?

My recent mention of Frank Walton reminded me that he had disallowed my comments on his blog regarding the claim that Darwinian evolution was getting peer reviewed in a sense and was the worse for wear because of it. The proof is that a list of people, some of whom teach at Biola, some of whom hold doctorates in subjects like Electrical Engineering, have signed a statement saying they aren't so sure Darwinism explains everything. I didn't think that made a lot of sense, nor did I think the fact that some teachers at Biola dissent from evolution was all that surprising, and I said so in the comments section. Frank replied that he didn't see why it matters that they are from Biola, and I replied. Frank apparently didn't like my reply. Is it offensive or something? Here is what I wrote:

I happen to have a couple of relatives that have attended Biola (the Bible Institute of Los Angeles for those that don't know the acronym), and from what I can tell they're about as conservative as you're going to get this side of a padded cell. One relative had difficulty gaining admittance to the apologetics program because of his beliefs about evolution. You guys I'm sure would think that's great, but that's not the point. The point is, this list is intended to show some sort of surprising dissent from educated people about Darwinism. But it isn't surprising at all that Biology professors at Biola don't think that Darwinian evolution ENTIRELY accounts for the complexity of life (even if they do grant macro evolution). It isn't surprising that people with Electrical Engineering degrees (who for all we know are evangelical Christians) dissent from evolution. We have no reason to think they have a better understanding of the issues than anybody else, or if they've been pounded at church with absurd argumentation from ICR types. These type of people on this list just don't mean anything.

Do you guys see how bizarre your actions are? Do you really think this is what constitutes peer review? Imagine a scientist that had a new theory about quantum mechanics. Can you imagine him trying to promote his theory by defending it in churches, by trying to get school board members to advocate his theory, by compiling lists of people, the majority of whom are not experts in quantum mechanics, to sign petitions saying they advocate his theory. I mean, it's just silliness. Why don't you do some science instead of trying to pass off your views with propaganda. How about some real peer review. How about proposing some real scientific tests that can be used to evaluate ID, rather than simply pointing to things in another theory that you don't understand. Evolution is about as well established as any scientific theory. This is a losing battle, guys. Try reinterpreting the Bible. It's your only hope.

Project Steve is an interesting counter to this type of reasoning.