Thought of the day

Sometimes I hear theists defend the lack of science on their side by noting that ‘science only deals with material things, not immaterial things’.

What a meaningless statement. That’s like defending one’s beliefs about mythical beasts by saying that science only deals with material things, not unicorns dancing in the aether.

Richard Dawkins on postmodernism

This is hilarious.

PZ Myers’ “The Happy Atheist”

I was considering reading PZ Myers’ new book “The Happy Atheist” so I could do a brief review of it here. However, I have decided against it after reading the user reviews on Amazon. Here are a few random excerpts:

“The Happy Atheist” is just a collection of blog posts cleaned up and converted into a book format, arranged in an order so they make sense. Unfortunately this leads to a lack of substance on some of the chapters, as it doesn’t appear anything new was added. In some cases this is a serious problem, because a book is not a blog – and it’s not unreasonable to expect a book to cover issues in more depth than a two page blog post would. There are some chapters just screaming out to be expanded on so that more info could be presented, more sources cited, more angles covered, more caveats added, etc. Reading along you can pretty much guess where the links to other blog posts or news stories would have gone in the text – but this is a book, so I can’t click them, and all that extra info is lost.

and

Hoping this would be entertaining, as it didn’t appear more than a series of essays, I figured it wouldn’t be a scholarly book or researched tome. Instead, it was a collection of essays that I realize much have been part of his blog. The Introduction, About the Author and next couple of chapters really had me interested. By the 7th, I was pretty bored.

I found myself skipping over whole passages, as they were just repeating themselves. It was chapter after chapter of stories outlining arguments and disagreements between him and different people and organizations. It just didn’t keep my interest.

and

If you read his blog,this books adds nothing. It breaks no new ground, offers no new perspective and has no insight. It is a very insular work, reflecting the experiences and thoughts of someone trying to “jump in late” with an atheist book – but not really having any justification or reason to do so. You get the sense he is like a “little kid” on the atheist schoolyard. His heart is usually in the right place but he’s immature (which you can also see on this blog sometimes). He’s just out of place on the basketball court where the older kids like Harris, Dennett, Hitchens and Dawkins play.

Dr Myers is intelligent, and some of writing here is worth being read – but there is no coherent whole or central idea. Nothing here justifies a book.

and

Almost word for word, sometimes with a different intro or ending, and perhaps a few other very small changes, here are the chapters, er blog posts, that I found online with the same titles:

4) The Great Desecration
11) The Top Ten Reasons Religion is Like Pornography
13) Happy Easter! is from an original post titled “Sunday Sacrilege: The Silliest Story Ever Told.”
17) Imagine No Heaven
18) Daughters of Eve
19) Prometheus’s Sin
20) So Alone
21) One Nation Free of Gods
22) An Embryo is Not a Person
23) The Courtier’s Reply
28) We’re Happier out of a Straightjacket Than in One
31) The Active Hand
32) The Proper Reverence Due Those Who Have Gone Before
33) Niobrara
34) We Stand Awed at the Heights Our People Have Achieved.

If someone is putting out a series of blog posts as a published book for a price, readers would want to know so they can make an informed choice before laying down the required money to read it. A publisher would most definitely want to know. They surely paid him a huge advance, probably in the tens of thousands of dollars. Did they know?

So, in short, it appears that I have basically already read the book by virtue of having read most of these blog posts. It looks like PZ was just looking to get some of his more popular or contentious ideas into the public sphere as a way to make an easy buck. I see no reason to purchase this book.

In other news, Richard Dawkins has a new book coming out in a few weeks. I will be devoting a bit of money towards that purchase.

Thought of the day

My job is in making math and science textbooks available to blind students, so basically they get the ever-so-great honor of learning from how I choose to interpret and present the material. Right now I’m working on an engineering mechanics dynamics book. It’s a lot of pre-calc and physics, but in a relatively difficult context; I certainly wouldn’t want to take a course on this stuff, even with my ability to see all the diagrams and examples, so I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to do this stuff while blind.

I know this isn’t interesting to anyone else, but I find it incredibly impressive that there are blind students who are able to master this stuff.

Fun fact of the day

Take a quick look around a world map and you may just figure out the location of a magma hot spot. The island chain of Hawaii, for example, was born via this way. Hawaiian Islands As the Pacific plate moves, hot magma beneath the Earth’s crust pushes through, forming new land over millions of years. This process has given us the 4 main Hawaiian land masses in addition to well over a hundred tiny islands. Other areas of the world where we see this include the Galapagos islands and the peaks of Kilimanjaro.

Censorship

I’m a big believer in fighting speech with more speech. That’s why it’s so easy for me to explain to people why I don’t like people like PZ Myers and the thought-police at Freethoughtblogs:

There is a facebook page called The Patriot Nation, and it’s exactly what you’d expect: people raging against an America that isn’t white. And it is on facebook, so hell no, it’s never going to get taken down, even when it lies.

and

I just got a comment on twitter about this post:

@Miserere22: @pzmyers hopefully she gets raped. no offense.

Hopefully their account gets reported by people all over the world. No offense.

and

This is the lounge. You can discuss anything you want, but you will do it kindly.

Status: Heavily Moderated

I found all this within the first 4 pages of his blog.

Links here, here, and here.

Theistic evolution

The problem I have with theistic evolutionists who believe humans are special is that they seem to be ignoring or unaware of the fact that evolution is a continuum. At no point does one species simply become another species. It is simply the presence of time and absence of generation-by-generation fossils that allow us to declare one group such-and-such species and another group this-and-that species.

So think about this. It’s generally estimated that humans, as we anatomically know them today, came about around 250,000 years ago. (It’s 100,000 by other estimates, but let’s just pick a number, so in this case we’ll say 250K.) That doesn’t mean that in 250,000 B.C. we went from one Homo primate to Homo sapiens. It was gradual. Now, if we stretch things out, it becomes easier to make distinctions. So 500,000 years ago, let’s say, it’s pretty clear there are no humans walking the Earth. How about 400,000? Nope, still none. 300,000? We’re closer, but humans aren’t there yet. Then we get to 250,000 and it looks like we’ve got humans, more or less. But what if we had more exact fossils? Could we say 260,000? How about 255,437? Would that even make sense?

The answer is an emphatic “No”. The viable offspring of two sexually reproducing organisms isn’t a different species. Sure, we have things like mules and ligers, but those only go to the point being made here – they aren’t viable. And if they were viable, it wouldn’t be worth declaring them different species. It’s all a continuum.

So the question to put to theistic evolutionists who believe humans are special is, At what point did we become special? If it was in 255,437 B.C., then why weren’t the parents of that human special? What made them fundamentally different from their offspring?

Thought of the day

Acknowledging sexism towards men is not the same as dismissing or minimizing sexism towards women.

Cornelius ‘Common Creationist’ Hunter

Cornelius Hunter has a history of struggling to understand simply concepts. Today is no different:

As with the so-called vestigial structures—another evolutionary construct—function is, ultimately, irrelevant. A structure is “vestigial,” or DNA is “junk,” not by virtue of any objective criterion dealing with function, but because evolutionists say so.

His post was primarily about so-called ‘junk DNA’, but I’ve addressed that topic in the past, so I will only mention it to note that it only ever betrays a deep ignorance when creationists talk about it. What I really want to discuss is Hunter’s mention of vestigial structures. First, let’s define our term:

[Vestigial] refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.

Vestigial structures provide a clue to the evolutionary history of a species because they are remnants of structures found in the ancestral species.

It’s easy to see Hunter’s error. A vestigial structure need not be related to function whatsoever – and that doesn’t therefore mean that it is merely the say-so of biologists that makes it vestigial. The human ear, for instance, has vestigial muscles that don’t do anything; in our ancestors (and cousins), their function is to swivel the ear for better directional hearing. That’s vestigial, it’s evolutionary, and it’s science. DNA comparison can, does, and will show that when looked at. Furthermore, a vestigial structure can have a function while still being vestigial. For instance, whales have remnants of hind legs that clearly are not used for walking. However, they do play a role in where muscles are attached. Again, that’s vestigial, it’s evolutionary, and it’s science. Hunter just isn’t familiar with these things.

I got Howie’s signature

Howie Carr