Spengel's Confusion and Whig Whag Over 1934

I can't help myself. I'm such a masochist that I actually read the writings of idiots for my own self-pleasure. Perhaps its a reflection of my arrogance, or perhaps I have some deep doubt of my own self-confidence and need reassurance that I'm more intelligent compared to the average Joe.

There are three topics that I am knowledgeable in that my masochistic side comes out: historical criticism, global climate studies, and the theory of evolution. These three topics come up with various frequency on my favorite baboon's web log, Mark Sprengel.

Recently, he commented on the recent hub-bub surrounding the 1998 temperature readings. For the full scoop beyond Sprengel's comprehension, read RealClimate's comment.

And don't worry. I expect fully well that everything will continue to fly over Sprengel's head.

William Dembski: Spinning Faster than a Whirling Dervish

William Dembski seems to be all in a huff over Kevin Padian's recent book review in Nature (Nature 448, 253-254). In short summary, Dembski begins with a false assessment and faulty aspiration, enters into a non sequitur discussion, and ends with a discussion of the back-slapping from his cronies and fellow misfits.

I especially enjoy Dembski's flaunting of his degrees and denouncing of others. Aside from his digression from Christian humility, his pandering to academic titles and associations as opposed to the arguments at hand is nothing new. Evasion is the key tactic of the intelligent design advocate, and the better rhetorical fluff surrounding your words the better.

Aside from that observation, I have been doodling in the margins of some of Dembski's original works. I doubt I can make as such a strong mathematical argument as Richard Wein (whom Dembski dismisses solely for his degree and not the arguments) or Wesley Elsberry and Jeffery Shallit. Or maybe I can and actually press a quantitative answer from Dembski, else he would be made a fool by an undergraduate.

I can only dream concerning his history of evasion.

Chuck Norris Tomfoolery

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars wrote about the National Council on Biblical Curriculum in Public School's (NCBCPS) front page on August 12, 2007. On the front page was a column by Chuck Norris, an advisory board member of the NCBCPS, concerning the steps to get the Bible offered as a textbook in school curriculum. Brayton noticed a pernicious phrase in Norris' column which appeared on the front page of the NCBCPS: "Your first step to get God back into your public school".

A commentor by the name of "M" on Brayton's post mentioned the phrase was missing on the front page. August 13, 2007, Brayton informed his viewers that the phrase was still located in the original column. However, this is not true anymore. An August 8, 2007, Google cache shows the original column text, but the present column now reads: "Your first step to get the Bible back into your public school" (emphasis mine).

Though perhaps Norris can get away with the editing representing the scope of the article moreso than his internal desire to spread Christianity to the masses, anyone of sound mind and judgement can clearly see Norris' and the NCBCPS's real agenda to bring Bible curriculum to public schools. Below are screenshots I made of the current column and the Google cache.

Current column, located here.

Googel cache, located here.

iPhone Shuffle: The Dawning of a New Age

Chick Tracts on Film?

A group of industrious people have made short films out of the infamous Jack T. Chick tracts. They have some short tidbits on their site. Below is their trailer.

Behe's Edge Misplaced

In the spirit of a new blog I stumbled upon, I decided to help out my local bookstore some. I was absolutely appalled at what I saw at my local Barnes & Noble. I am sorry that the pictures are fuzzy; I must learn to take steady photos with my cellphone.

First, I hit my college bookstore. It was atrocious, nay horrendous, to see Behe's diatribe, Edge of Evolution, parked right next to the collected works of Charles Darwin! (But admittedly funny to see a good book against ID, Intelligent Thought, not far from it) I was so traumatized by the site that I had to sit down in the comfy chairs that are only a few steps away from the science section (thank goodness...I wouldn't be so well-read in science and mathematics if the chairs were further away from that section). When I returned, I was resolute to move Behe to his rightful place: the religion aisle. But there were no openings in that section. So I decided on Plan B and placed the two Behe books in fiction. Sadly, the fiction picture did not come out very well.

When I returned to the science section, I saw the most hilarious book title ever: The Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design. Perhaps the book isn't news because it was published eight months ago, but I can't help to chuckle at the irony in the title: only an idiot would attach themselves to the intelligent design movement. So I flipped through it. The expected arguments were presented in their expected formats. Perhaps if I have enough time, I'll return to that bookstore and review the book in total (I refuse to buy it; I'll just jot down notes as I read). That is, if it didn't get accidentally thrown away. I decided to place this book where it truly belonged; on top of the garbage can.
Next stop, the big Barnes and Noble in my city. I was more frustrated here, however. For one, it is a two story bookstore with all the fiction, philosophy, and religion books on the second floor and the science section on the first. Being secretive would be a difficult task. Secondly, their science section sucked. Dawkins' God Delusion, though a good beach read for a freethinker, was improperly placed in the evolutionary biology section. Perhaps it was just easier to shelf his book next to his other works, but really the book belongs in general science, along with his Devil's Chaplain (which, I would argue, is specifically philosophy of science, but that's too specific for most bookstores). Not far from Dawkins, however, is Of Pandas and People. This book was, without haste, placed on top of the nearest garbage can.
Now, there were four Behe texts advertised in the New Science section and three more stuck in the evolution section. Notice how a big text called Evolution is right next to it. I forget whose work that is, but I recall flipping through the pages and chuckling. That author would be upset if he found out he was only centimeters away from a demagogue. So, I eased his pain. I moved Behe's Darwin Black Box to the Religious Fiction section (picture too fuzzy), and I took all of Behe's books to the most proper section I could think of at the time: New Science Fiction.
What's hilarious it took me two trips to complete that task (I guess Behe isn't that popular in my home town). In between those trips, one of the copies of Edge was taken. I finished my evilness and saw the person who was flipping through the pages setting on that stores' set of comfy chairs. He was your average Sci-Fi nerd stereotype with the fogged glasses and nasal wheeze. I heard him mutter to his friend: "This is the best science fiction book ever". Very fitting, if I dare say so myself. I also found one of William Dembski's books (see below) in the science section, so I placed his in fiction. If you alphabetized Dembski in the Fiction section at my store, he ended up between two teen-girl novel series. Touching.
Lastly, I stumbled upon the Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design by Jonathon Wells. I knew exactly where this book belonged: in the bargain bin. I even removed the red dot that represent "cheap book" from one of the flimsy books in the bin and placed it on the cover. I wonder if any commotion occurred due to that act of pure vandalism? Surely not; I can't think of any person who would even pay $1 for inanity.

I apologize again for the fuzzy pictures. I'll try better to take clearer shots next time with the camera on my phone.

Mathematical Biology Joke

I found this rather entertaining mathematical biology joke. You can read the context at The Loom.

A shepherd is tending his sheep, and a man comes by and says, "If I guess the correct number of your sheep, can I have one?"

The shepherd says, "Please try."

The man looks at the flock and says "Eighty-three."

The shepherd is completely amazed that he got the right number. The man picks up a sheep and starts to walk away.

The shepherd says, "Wait! If I guess your profession, can I have my sheep back?"

The man says, "Sure."

The shepherd says, "You must be a mathematical biologist."

The man says, "How did you know?"

"Because you picked up my dog."

Dembskian Intelligent Design: A Front for Religion

(Note: This was my first post at my first web log. However, that web log has since been deleted, and I cannot even remember its title. I thought I had posted this when I moved to this blogging service, but I guess I did not. The following was my first attempt to expose the ID movement as religiously-centered organization moreso than a truely scientific enterprise. Go easy since it was my first rant against William Dembski)

From The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design':

Two years ago, at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's [William] Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

Willaim Dembski's remarks in this meeting and a trend in his writing gives evidence that his version of Intelligent Design is simply a ploy to teach religion, specifically Christianity, in the school system. Intelligent Design is simply a front to religion. As demonstrated by the previous quote by Dembski, one of the leading components of the movement, as well as what he wrote in his paper titled "The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design" (published in Debating Design by Dembski and Michael Ruse, Cambridge Press 2004):

Inteligent Design...teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms (323).

Or in other words, the agent of intelligence is above natural mechanisms or essentially is God. Dembski has thus rehashed the First Cause argument of Aquinas to include an intelligent entity which is seperate from the universe but still mintains interactions within it. Though plausible, this statement is not back with empirical evidence or even deduced nor induced by observable datum but asserted. Dembski continues on in the conclusion:

Science is supposed to give the full range of possible explanations a fair chance to succeed...[S]cience may not, by a priori fiat, rule out logical possibilities. Evolutionary biology, by limiting itself exclusively to material mechanisms, has settled in advance the question of which biological explanations are true, apart from any consideration of empirical evidence (329).

Utilizing natural mechanisms as the sole explanation is not an arbitrary assignment from authority, or a fiat. It is from the lack of supporting evidence of a transcendent intelligence. Namely, by the definition of the term itself we would be unable to observe nor comprehend such a specimen, and as such it would simply be speculation as opposed to evidentiary synthesis concerning the pathway of origins. What is worse is this speculation is based entirely off of propositional logic, the form of logic which some scientists would argue is the antithesis of the scientific method or just simply bad science.

The claim for intelligence is that there is specified complexity in life. The argument in Dembski's essay essentially relies upon the observation of complex systems, such as the bacterium flaggelum or the existence of DNA and RNA transcription and translation processes, in order to be evidence of intelligent design. He argues that Darwinism takes natural explanations a prior, a position which is not objectively verifiable. He calls such a technique "armchair philosophy"; ironic, since it is not justifiable to see a complex system and sum it up as stemming from a purely intelligent source. As previously mentioned, this proposes that complex systems cannot be established without an intelligence behind the formation. This is a dubious statement; snowflakes form complex patterns without the aid of an intelligence. As well, natural chrystals show signs of complexity; these structure came about via natural processes.

Dembski concludes with a quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, Dembski's position and the totality of Intelligent Design movement has a problem; namely, the problem is that it is not science but arm chair philosophy. The "facts" are based on dubious and weak propositions. His position is against the observation of natural known processes and predicting the combination or recombination of these naturally known process, as as well as concievable and evident ancient processes to give rise to new processes in a biological system. He argues that using unknown variables is simply unscientific. His position is simply summed up as since we have evidence of intelligent beings creating specified complexity, for example humans manufacturing machinery, and we extend this observation into the search of intelligent life, for example the SETI project scans deep space for electromagnetic activity that could be translated into possible communication, then why can not that extension be made into an intelligence which is not dictated by natural laws? The intelligence, by default, is transcendent of natural laws ; as such, it is not affected by these laws which would leave a verifiable path of existence. Being organisms with a perspective subjected to such natural laws, we are limited to percieving only that which exists in the realm we live in, namely one of natural processes and natural observances.

Science is then forced into the realm of naturalism as adding the variable of a transcendent intelligence becomes excedingly complicated and speculative. Science cannot justify the position with the subjective claim of the existence of truthful specific complexity, especially considering the examples given in papers pushing specific complexitiy have been shown to not be complex nor specific. Science cannot justify positing an unobservable as the general causation. Science is limited to positing causation on observables such as Newton's gravity or Maxwell's heat and electromagnetism. It is "armchair philosophy" to sit back and posit an intelligent designer without valid justification.

Dembski, combined with his previous quote from the article, is simply attempting to inject Intelligent Design into the education system. By first positing the logical possibility of an intelligence and by describing the intelligence as a being that transcends natural laws, he has essentially created the essence of God natural theologians had developed a millenia ago. This is a tactic that is clear, and one can only hope that our education system can maintain its protection from this unscientific, religiously motivated movement.

Jesus and Cruise Missles Go Hand in Hand

Ah, my favorite Christian organization (Campus Crusade for Christ International) seems to be back in the news causing commotion. However, this time it's with the Pentagon.

The Pentagon's Inspector General recently released a 45-page report concerning the alleged misconduct of several DOD officials concerning the making of a religious video by Christian Embassy. Christian Embassy, according to its website, is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement." Clicking around on their site reveals they are associated with the CCCI, a known fundamentalist evangelical organization with a statement of faith as ridiculous as that movie Good Burger (except not as comical because the followers actually believe in it).

You can watch the movie in question here for self-amusement. It makes me a bit uneasy to see several top military leaders in a seemingly official capacity (eg rank and uniform) proclaiming their unyielding faith. My uneasiness isn't only because I feel their belief in the make-believe to be abhorrent (let bygones be bygones), but when proclaiming such nonsense in an official capacity makes it seem like the entire lot of our military are fanatical fundamentalists bent on spreading the gospel by rifle and missle. It's bad enough our government is ran by a man who is "born-again"; it would be nice to have some reassurance that there are some sane people left in the higher ranks of the organization whose mission is to protect our Constitution.

But who am I kidding? The American government (and now our military) seems to be a gathering place of kooks and woos. This video is just more of a wake-up call then anything else. It also contains a bit of irony. Pentagon chaplain Ralph Benson states his solution to the "war on terror":"What more do we need than Christian people leading us?" Ironic, because it seems like it was our President who under the moral compass and guidance of (his brand of) Christianity got us in this mess.

Piety is one thing, but I think we need more than just people who are pious to get out of this mess. Something tells me someone with good common sense and a strong head concerning foreign affairs would be more beneficial than someone who believes that God speaks to him or that modern morality should reflect the ancient writings of ignorant goat and sheep herders. This country's leaders make me sick at times.

(Hat tip: Pharyngula)

Random Amusement from the Library

My university library uses the LCCO. I decided to look at my school's Bible collection out of boredom today when I discovered that the Bibles are humorously classified in the BS section. That is, every call number begins with the letters BS.


Bible BS (from CollegeHumor)

Perhaps it's a cheap laugh, but I needed one today.