Send Them Crawling Back to Their Old Hovel

A common creationist reply to examples of evolution in prairie mice, fish, insects, bacteria, and viruses is that those organisms are still prairie mice, fish, insects, bacteria, and viruses, respectively. Despite the level of obliviousness to the genetics and physiologies that differentiates populations from one another, creationists have no problem promoting the "microevolution but not macroevolution" meme. This tactic is simply them crawling into a hole filled with ignorance. Ignorance of biology specifically and science in general. But what happens when they attempt to crawl out of their hovel...?

Nick Matzke indicates that criticisms concerning the classic example of natural selection, the peppered moth story, arose vehemently from the creationist corner when a simple critique of methodology was addressed by, ironically, scientists who study peppered moths. However, to due to the incompetency of the creationists, the creationists failed to differentiate criticisms from a complete dismantling and declared early victories for an alleged defeat of a "Darwinian" paradigm.

However, the very scientist who creationists quoted to support their early victories has been for the past seven years carefully studying the bird predation of the peppered moth. From a news story about his recent talk:

Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.

He wanted a definitive test of the idea that selective predation by birds really was responsible for the differences in the chances of survival among black and peppered varieties of B. betularia. His garden outside Cambridge is in an unpolluted area so in this setting it should be the typical or peppered variety of the moth that has a better chance of survival than that of the black or carbonaria form; it is unlikely to be seen by birds against the mottled background of the lichen-covered trees.

In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting.

"I conclude that differential bird predation here is a major factor responsible for the decline of carbonaria frequency in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007," Professor Majerus said.

"If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution," he said.

Though I would use my words more carefully than Majerus at the end, it would only be because he has tenure at a prestigious university and I am simply a student in progress of my bachelors. Simply put, the peppered moth story is a classic example of natural selection in action. Though the science literature is full of other examples, none are as more easily comprehensible as the story of the peppered moth as it is built off of visualization, a tool even the below average student possesses. So instead of saying generic evolution, as Majerus had, I probably would have simply stated natural selection.

That point aside, Matzke gave us an enlightening tidbit at the end of his post. From the ARN blog:

IMHO...a couple of issues with the most recent peppered moth study. It's still a moth, and the evolution is an oscillation of populations, just like the finches of Galapagos. Of course, the Darwinists will appeal to the "great creators", random chance, natural selection, and the jackpot, hundreds of millions of years. Given enough time, anything can happen, right?

Game. Set. Match. The IDists are forced to crawl back to their creationist meme. Given enough time, perhaps they will finally own up to their history. However, this is doubtful. Those in great denial will do anything to remain in that ignorance-filled hovel.

We Have Found God!

Okay, not really. However, astronomers have found a big void in outer space:

Astronomers have found a giant "hole" in the universe that measures nearly a billion light-year across. The large galactic void is empty of galaxies, stars, dust clouds and, oddly enough, even dark matter. The discovery has left scientists clambering for a plausible explanation, however, as of right now one hasn't arisen. Scientists claim that a galactic void this large is far from a normal occurrence.

Cold, empty, impersonable...yes, those are all characteristics exhibited by the popular gods.

An Atheist Survey

angelsdepart posted an atheist survey. I have not had the chance to air out my views on various topics. Perhaps I can utilize this venue to give a general description for each topic covered.

1. Why do you not believe in God?

I do not subscribe myself to various versions of deities, such as the God of Abraham or those of the Hindus, due to lack of historical accountability of the various myths espoused by their holy books, priests, shamans, etc., failure for consistent reproducibility of outcomes for specified rituals, and the gods possessing the faulty attribute of pure self-interest. There are also unique and general philosophical questions and faults possessed in analyzing each dogma.

I do not subscribe myself to a form of agnostic deism for pragmatic reasons. It is impractical, in my opinion, to state that some unknown and unknowable entity is involved in the underlying mechanics of the universe, whether the mechanics involve solely creation of the universe, shaping the universe into its current state or form, or being completely involved in every function within this universe. I simply do not find this approach any pragmatically different than the metaphysical naturalism with which I ascribe to. That is, the questions of our existence and life in general yield either similar answers or the answer is completely impractical. I will expand on this thesis at a later date.

2. Where do your morals come from?

I am human. Despite the push for individualism in modern society, our physiology is not that much different from person to person. So my morals and ethical decision making stem from not a static list of rules in a handbook but a living document of human experience and human empathy.

3. What is the meaning of life?

This question always makes me ponder a similar question: "Does life really have a meaning?" If the answer is yes, then the question above is asked. But what if the answer to my inquiry no?

The answer is yes or no depending on what one means by "meaning". Does life have an extrinsic definition or goal? No. There is no universal goal to life. Biologically speaking, this generation's goal is to continue the species via reproduction. But is that really a universal goal or a consequence of evolution and the history of the phyla? Socially we have goals and terms to meet and exceed, but are those really universal? No, not at all. So, no, there is no extrinsic, or rather platonic, meaning to life.

However, there is a particular pattern or certain reduced formalism we all undergo during our living. Thus, my answer is a cliché; the meaning of life is to live. What I mean by to live is this pattern with which we experience: growth. We grow physically due to biological processes. We grow emotionally from social experiences. We grow in knowledge through experience. These three avenues of personal growth is life. How one wishes to involve themselves with each arena (eg. with life) is solely up to their own.

4. Is atheism a religion?

No. It is a view on/of religion, but religion is often defined by ritual practices concerning a belief in divinities and higher entities. Atheism could be viewed as a religious opinion or religious point of view, but in and of itself it is not a religion. Nor is deism based on my definition above, as deism typically does not involve rituals or dogma.

5. If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

I take as much command of myself and attempt to maintain as much order as possible. As a result, I often find myself volunteering and taking action to fix or ease the tensions created by the troubling situation. From a personal account, when Hurricane Katrina made landfall and devastated the coast of Mississippi and the storm surge laid waste to New Orleans, while everyone was praying for a solution I was attempting to act out a solution. I became a Red Cross volunteer and worked the shelter established at the local conference center (the Rivercenter of Baton Rouge) during the day. During the evening and "graveyard" hours I volunteered at the temporary triage set up at my university (Louisiana State University) as an orderly/nurse practitioner. Essentially I used what resources I had available (my physical strength and manpower) to help ease the suffering of the victims. I have also volunteered several times to help clean up the hardest hit portions of New Orleans and Mississippi, regions which to this day are still wastelands and ghost towns.

Thus, I do not pray nor do I hope. Those do nothing. I act, and my action depends on the situation in question.

6. Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

Should atheists in general do so? No. But for those who believe that the development and retention of religion is the worst thing to have occurred in human history, then I think they are obligated to discuss the reasoning behind their viewpoint. It is their job to convince people that their position is valid. Validity does not always imply conversion.

7. Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20^th century committed by atheists?

Yes, but not due to their atheism. People should be measured by their actions not their thoughts. Besides, only the individual truly knows what they believe; others can only guess and weigh the words of individual testimony.

8. How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

Ironically, this question is spot on. But I would phrase the question more like: "how could anyone know anything about God?" There are reported ways of how the nature of the divine can be determined (eg revelation), but the sheer amount of differences amongst individual revelations questions the reliance of such methods.

Simply put, people can be wrong due to flawed methods of determining what they seek.

9. Why does the universe exist?

Is there a platonic reason for the universe's existence? No. The universe exists because the universe exists. This simple tautology is the logical truth of the matter. Everything else is a conjecture, a guess, or an attempt to rationalize opinions with this truth. Though conjecturing can be fun and even lead one to defining and learning more about oneself or the world we experience, it does not give a finite or satisfactory answer to this question. But we do know how the universe exists and why it is in its current form. That is nothing particularly special to this question, though.

10. How did life originate?

Based on current understanding, the organic molecules of life were synthesized and collected on Earth to form the first cell-like blob of chemical mass. Eventually, these chemical mechanisms began constructing structures and patterns we recognize as being patterns found in living organisms.

11. Is all religion harmful?

One cannot make a general statement that encompasses all forms of religious belief. Conviction and piety via asceticism may prevent the individual from experiencing what human culture and nature offers. However, that is the individual's choice. In social settings, religion tends to be more harmful than good. Mob mentality comes to my mind when church services gather. The unquestioning attitude exhibited by some dogmas also illicit more harm than good.

In general, the question cannot be addressed. Specifics need to be specified for a complete analysis.

12. What’s so bad about religious moderates?

From my experience, they do not address the fundamental problem that plagues fundamentalism: the failure to practice what one preaches. Moderates tend to tolerate their highly deluded and misinformed brothers and sisters in this aspect.

13. Is there anything redeeming about religion?

Personal reconciliation with the individual and his/her environment is the only redeeming quality I can think of.

14. What if you’re wrong about God's existence?

Which one's existence, though?

15. Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

On an individual level, sure. I don't dislike a particular person because of their personal belief system. However, religious groups that attempt to qualify their political stake from sectarian values as opposed to secular ones deserve criticism.

16. Are atheists smarter than theists?

Atheists are definitely smarter than the theists who insist and argue through dogma that their religion is the One and Only Truth^TM. Comparisons to theists of other persuasions require specifics.

17. How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

Basically, it has not been historically verified that he rose from the dead and was lifted into heaven. But even if he had done and said everything in the Bible, the possibility of Jesus being a ploy for the archetypal "god of evil" to dissuade everyone from the archetypal "god of good" is a possibility (see answer to 8 for why). I guess, though, this is when faith comes into play.

18. Would the world be better off without any religion?

In my opinion, yes.

19. What happens when we die?

I have the view based on my little knowledge of neurochemistry that an hallucinogenic compound is released during the time the brain lacks oxygen to continue cellular metabolism. Essentially, during the time period preceding absolute death, our sensory data become significantly distorted between our consciousness and the sense organs. We see, hear, taste, feel, smell things which do not exist. We drop unconscious right before absolute death (eg. no sensory data is able to be processed) and then our brain is completely dead. Every thought, emotion, and memory is destroyed. Thus, our metaphorical soul or spirit physically dies.

Immortality is obtained through being retained by the memories of future generations; nothing more or less.

Religiously Oriented Chain Mail

I get chain mail every now and then from my religious friends. I don't know why exactly other than that I'm just on their address list. More than likely you have received something just like the following, so you don't have to read it all the way through.

A girl went to a party in sexy clothes and she ended up staying longer than planned, her boyfriend got drunk and passed out and had to walk home alone. She wasn't afraid because it was a small town and she lived only a few blocks away around the corner of 4th & 16th. As she walked along passing "MacDonalds" Mary asked God to keep her safe from harm and danger. When she reached the alley, which was a short cut to her house, she decided to take it. However, halfway down the alley she noticed a man standing at the end as though he were waiting for her. She became uneasy and began to pray, asking for God's protection. Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness and security wrapped round her, she felt as though someone was walking with her. When she reached the end of the alley, she walked right past the man and arrived home safely.

The following day, she read in the newspaper that a young girl had been raped in the same alley just twenty minutes after she had been there. Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy and the fact that it could have been her, she began to weep. Thanking the Lord for her safety and to help this young woman, she decided to go to the police station. She felt she could recognize the man, so she told them her story. The police asked her if she would be willing to look at a lineup to see if she could identify him. She agreed and immediately pointed out the man she had seen in the alley the night before. When the man was told he had been identified, he immediately broke down and confessed.

The officer thanked Mary for her bravery and asked if there was anything they could do for her. She asked if they would ask the man one question. Mary was curious as to why he had not attacked her. When the policeman asked him, he answered, "Because she wasn't alone. She had two tall men walking on either side of her."

Amazingly, whether you believe or not, you're never alone. Did you know that 98% of teenagers will not stand up for God? Forward this story to all your friends if you truly believe in God.

Anytime I read a story like this I cannot help but wonder: "Why didn't God protect the other girl as well?" I know this story intends on portraying God as some merciful protector, but it truly fails. God becomes instead a pretentious prick granting protection only to those willing to suck up to him.

But I guess the devout mind is rather simple to please. Give a story about God's "grace" and ignore specifics that actually show God's faults. The Christian God is not an all-loving deity willing to help humanity from our shortcomings. No, the Christian God is really a pathetic simpleton desiring to be surrounded by even more pathetic sycophants. Blindly devout Christians tend to sicken me in this respect. The blinders of faith are abound.

I May Have Found My Niche

I've always been trying to find my niche on the internet. I wanted something that could possibly set this blog apart from all the other atheist/secular humanist/liberal/science web logs in the blogosphere.

I really wanted this blog to be my forum against Creationism and other evolutionist positions. However, I am not strong in biology as the contributors to Panda's Thumb or Antievolution. Nor am I strong in cosmology like Phil Plait. And I can only dream to have the legal prowess of Ed Brayton. However, I do have a grasp on thermodynamics, but the Second Law "problem" has been addressed a billion times by scientists with more vigor than me.

But then I stumbled upon Mark Chu-Carroll's comments on a recent paper concerning homeopathic medicine, particularly the "science" of homeopathic dilutions. My strength and passion is in chemical physics. I have been a chemist in a loose sense since I can remember (who hasn't attempted to make gun powder or various polymers at home?), and the physics I know is related mostly to the fraction of a fraction of moles of molecules (sets of at most 500 molecules). That knowledge doesn't apply very well to arguments concerning genetics, population dynamics, and cosmology like most SciCre screeds attempt (and fail, obviously) to address.

So, from MarkCC's blog I found a disturbing peer-reviewed journal from a respectable publisher. Of course, with my knowledge and dealing with non-scientific institutions like AiG or the anti-science of the DI, this comes as a no surprise that people publish idiocy. However, it seems only a few bloggers enter into this new domain of stupidity. Though homeopathy deals with a number of non-chemistry topics, some of the notions utter bullshit espoused by homeopathic healers peddlers do relate to topics within my scope of discussion and direct knowledge.

So, I have created a new label for my posts, and a new scope of this blog. No, I will not stop commenting on religious fanatics and the antics of the IDiots. I will still advocate sound science and comment on bad science. I will also continue interjecting my personal philosophy and political theory throughout. Simply put, expect more details on homeopathic theories from me in the future.

Right now, I have some papers to print and digest.

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.