Pathetic, America

Posted on March 23, 2011 by Michael

This is just more confirmation of the general superiority of Canada to America.

via Why Evolution Is True.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, the Canadians apparently beat us in another department as well…

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Our failing schools

Posted on February 14, 2011 by Michael

It isn’t possible to list and discuss every single problem public schools in America face today. It would probably even be unwieldy to discuss just a small percentage. But there are some big issues that need to be tackled.

Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.

This presents an obvious issue: teachers aren’t telling students a fundamental truth about the world. That’s more than a shame and we need to correct it. First, fire every single biology teacher that professes creationism to students. Second, give the teachers that are too timid or ill-prepared on the topic better tools. (I don’t know why a biology teacher should be ill-prepared to teach something so basic to an entire field, but here we are.) There are plenty of computer programs, textbooks, popular books, videos, documentaries, etc out there that can bring evolution to life for students.

But there is a deeper issue here. We have national standards for education that just aren’t being implemented. Sometimes it’s because the standard is only recommended, other times it’s because of bad teachers, and still other times it’s because of conflicting local standards. I know how popular it is to claim that local governments should be putting forth their own ideas on education, but it isn’t that black and white. There are necessary levels students need to be obtaining in order to be prepared for higher education. When local governments are given too much power, we often see lower standards.

That’s no good.

There is an expectation on the higher education level that students often are not meeting. This either slows down introductory courses or forces students to take sub-100 level classes in order to catch up. It’s a waste of money and time. Part of the solution has to be better implementation of national standards. This is what colleges and universities across the country need. It is at that level that the tempo is being set; we need to force our primary and secondary schools to meet that challenge.

And if anyone wants local control, by all means, draft proposals that require students to exceed far beyond anything our national standards might demand.

The original study can be found here. Thanks to Nancy H for the links.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 29 Comments »

A basic point about evolution

Posted on February 7, 2011 by Michael

Evolution is an entirely natural process. It occurs through well understood mechanisms for which we are gaining ever improving detail. The belief in theistic evolution runs counter to all this; it is not compatible with the theory. Yes, yes, there are people who say they accept both their interventionist god and evolution and therefore their views are not contradictory, but that holds no relevance here. Things don’t become compatible simply because a lot of people believe them simultaneously.

In order for one’s views to be consistent with evolution, one can only hold two positions: atheism or a sort of deism. By “a sort of deism” I mean either exactly deism or something where, okay, there is a god who intervenes in human affairs, dictates our morality, and does all that other magic bigoted thought-crime sort of thing, but this god does so incidentally. That is, since no particular form of life, much less characteristic, much less species, was ever destined to exist by any law of biology, a god which it is believed made humans (or intelligent life, a la Miller) inevitable is necessarily false. Only a god which had no part in evolution is tenable; evolution is a miracle free process.

So let’s break it down:

Atheism: Entirely compatible with the theory of evolution. The process of natural selection is miracle free and excludes all directed intervention.

Traditional Deism: Compatible, but likely unsatisfying. By “traditional” I mean the deism which says there was a creator with intention that began the Universe, but that creator’s interest ended there.

Other Deism: Compatible, but still unsatisfying. I use “other” because there is no particular name for this sort of deism as far as I am aware. This is the deism which says we have a moral lawgiver and all that swell BS, but it can only be incidental. The theory of evolution tells us that humans were not destined to exist, therefore we cannot say that this interventionist god planned on us, as if we’re somehow special.

Theistic evolution: Not compatible. No species are destined to exist. That includes humans.

Creationism: Moronic anti-science nonsense. It isn’t compatible with any major branch of science.

I have excluded agnosticism because it doesn’t mean much to say that this or that is or is not compatible with “idunno”.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , | 33 Comments »

Okay, I have to steal this one

Posted on January 2, 2011 by Michael

via PZ

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics, Humor | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Expected distortions

Posted on December 15, 2010 by Michael

Michael Behe recently had a paper published in The Quarterly Review of Biology, a non-creationist journal. Here is Jerry Coyne’s conclusion:

Behe has provided a useful survey of mutations that cause adaptation in short-term lab experiments on microbes (note that at least one of these—Rich Lenski’s study— extends over several decades). But his conclusions may be misleading when you extend them to bacterial or viral evolution in nature, and are certainly misleading if you extend them to eukaryotes (organisms with complex cells), for several reasons:

Go to Professor Coyne’s site for the whole review.

It’s all fair enough and no one is really up in arms about Behe’s paper itself. But isn’t it interesting how quickly the creationist intelligent design crowd started distorting the facts?

Over at the intelligent-design site Uncommon Descent, the ever befuddled Denyse O’Leary has already glommed onto the review I wrote yesterday of Michael Behe’s new paper. And, exactly as I predicted, she distorts Behe’s conclusions:

So, not only must the long, slow process of Darwinian evolution create every exotic form of life in the blink of a geological eye, but it must do so by losing or modifying what a life form already has.

In other words, she’s extended Behe’s conclusions, based on viral and bacterial evolution in the lab, to evolution of “every exotic form of life” on the planet. This is exactly what one cannot do with Behe’s conclusions.

It really isn’t a surprise that this happened; Creationists are always distorting scientific papers – and specifically so they can prop up their religious beliefs. I’m just impressed with the utter accuracy of Professor Coyne’s prediction.

This distortion is hardly news, of course—I’m completely confident that Behe not only expected it, but approves of it—but I feel compelled to highlight it once again. Luskin’s three distortions, which correspond to the three caveats attached to Behe’s results:

1. Luskin doesn’t mention that Behe’s analysis concentrated only on short-term laboratory studies of adaptation in bacteria and viruses.

2. Luskin also doesn’t mention that these experiments deliberately excluded an important way that bacteria and viruses gain new genetic elements in nature: through horizontal uptake of DNA from other organisms. This kind of uptake was prohibited by the design of the experiments.

3. Luskin implies that Behe’s conclusions extend to all species, including eukaryotes, even though we know that members of this group (and even some bacteria) can gain new genetic elements and information via gene duplication and divergence. And we know that this has happened repeatedly and pervasively in the course of evolution.

About an hour ago I finished up my last assignment for this semester, and man, it’s always a relief when that special moment arrives. But after reading this creationist intelligent design proponent garbage, I’m already getting antsy to go back and continue with my legitimate education.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Re: Dembski-Hitchens debate

Posted on November 24, 2010 by Michael

I’m currently watching the Dembski-Hitchens debate now that it’s back up. I’m embarrassed. And in two ways. First, you know that feeling you get when you watch someone doing something incredibly awkward and you actually feel embarrassed for that person? That’s how I feel about Dembski right now. He keeps repeating the same creationist canards. They have all been addressed. He needs to find something new (and maybe something factually true? I’m not sure if that touches on any of his personal interests, though). And second, I’m embarrassed that I had some initial surprise when he started going over all this garbage. I should have known better.

Update: Holy crap. I can’t believe he just implied that for something to be vestigial that it must be useless.

Update: Most of Dembski’s end is just a series of personal attacks on Hitchens.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

On Adam and Eve

Posted on October 31, 2010 by Michael

Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, over 40% of Americans believe the Universe is less than 10,000 years old. (We can presume the majority of those people derive their erroneous belief from the Bible.) This means a huge swath of people in the U.S. have beliefs that are inconsistent with science – and the reason is religion. However, we can at least give these people some credit. Their belief that the Bible is inerrant practically demands that they believe in a young Universe; they’re consistent. But there’s a more important reason for their beliefs: Adam and Eve.

Christianity is based upon Jesus dying for our sins as brought about by Adam and Eve (especially that dirty, filthy, sub-human woman Eve, amirite?). Without Adam and Eve, Christianity falls apart at the seams. Couple that with extreme ignorance, and you’ve got creationists. But what about the Christians who ‘accept’ evolution? We know they don’t really accept it, but they at least superficially claim they do. So what about them? They are necessarily rejecting the idea that Adam and Eve literally existed. Without these two, The Fall didn’t happen and Jesus was not necessary. In this view of Christianity, God created people as disobedient to him. Not only does this make God all the more twisted and weird, but it further compounds the Problem of Evil that Christianity is unable to answer.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Political savvy at its best

Posted on September 29, 2010 by Michael

Creationist Paul LePage doesn’t seem to much understand how this whole darn politics thing works.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Calling dishonesty

Posted on September 17, 2010 by Michael

I’ve never been a big fan of calling someone dishonest with much ease. There are exceptions (a lot of politicians by virtue of being politicians, people who understand the science behind something but intentionally contradict it at the behest of a big corporation, i.e., researchers who long denied the effects smoking has), but I’m not usually ready to throw out a label of “dishonest” without good reason. I’ll say it for virtually all public-figure young Earth creationists because they present arguments they know are wrong (i.e., Kirk Cameron and his crocoduck; even when it was explained to him that evolution predicts no such thing, he continued to claim otherwise. I don’t think he’s smart, but he can’t be that stupid), but I won’t say it for the random young Earth creationist because they usually don’t know why their arguments are silly. For the former, I have good reason. For the latter, I do not.

And then there are theists in general. I believe most of them think their positions are valid and logical. They don’t inherently make arguments they know or believe to be false simply so they can push an agenda. This is true for all religious members as well as atheists, agnostics, and whatever else we care to name. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t big name theists willing to distort facts, make up history, and outright lie.

Enter the Pope.

‘As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society.’

Specifically, he means Nazis. This is a fallacious argument that attempts to link what just about everyone recognizes as a terrible regime to atheism. Hitler wasn’t an atheist and the Nazis did not promote atheism. The Pope is being overtly and brazenly dishonest.

In light of this, PZ has a series of Hitler quotes that help to demonstrate what the German leader thought. They’re worth a look in their entirety, but I’ll provide just a few here.

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” (1936 speech)

~~~

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.” (1922 speech – this one goes on for longer than what I’ve represented here)

~~~

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.” (Mein Kampf)

~~~

“ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED

Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers

Wireless to the New York Times.

BERLIN, May 13. – In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members …” (New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler’s outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree)

Far from being an atheist, Hitler believed in God. Furthermore, he actively suppressed atheist groups. The Pope, having lived in Nazi Germany and having been forced to join them, knows this. His people know it. Everyone frickin’ knows it.

But my favorite quote of all (which isn’t on that list):

Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth. Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law–one may call it an iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. (Mein Kampf)

Mmyes. In addition to not being an atheist, Hitler didn’t even accept the fact of evolution. Only a fundamentally dishonest theist would bother to argue otherwise.

Filed under: Creationism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 14 Comments »

Show me one ape-human. Just one!

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Michael

That’s what Melody Weeks of Oakland wants, anyway. At least that’s what she said in her response to one of my past letters to the editor.

After reading two letters from Michael Hawkins regarding his discriminate view that “creation” shouldn’t be taught in public schools, I am compelled to write this letter.

He considers evolution a science that should be taught because evolution is “scientifically proven.” OK, show me one human being conceived, carried and delivered by apes. What? Can’t do it? Then I guess you can’t prove it, eh?

His is one of theory and speculations by “educated” human beings.

I can’t prove creation. I believe in it as it is so logical but only by faith. So why is creation any less of a theory than evolution? What is Hawkins so afraid of that he can’t provide children different theories and allow them, their parents, and their personal faith to dictate their own beliefs?

Is this the only problem he has with candidate Paul LePage? Personally, I think it’s about time we get rid of career politicians and lawyers in any branch of government. Maybe then, the average American, could understand the tax laws and state regulations under which they are forced to adhere.

I think a good farmer would be the very best candidate as they know what it’s like to work hard for very little. They share no entitlements unlike our current “leaders.” Why can’t our representatives, senators and Congress brown-bag it for lunch? Why are they given $30 for a meal? And the rest of us, if we’re lucky, eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Oh yeah, because they write the laws that entitle them to it. I keep forgetting. I just live here, and pay taxes for them to thrive.

Melody Weeks

Oakland

I’ll humor Melody.

1) All humans are apes. There is no evolutionary or taxonomic distinction.
2) Yes, evolution is a theory. Just like gravity.
3) Creationism is less of a theory than evolution, Melody, because (as you point out) it is based upon faith. It has no evidence; not in its common form, not in its dishonest intelligent design form, not in any form. Evolution has nothing but evidence behind it. (This, by the way, is one good example of the damage religion, and specifically faith, does to science education.)
4) I’m afraid of telling children things known to be false. That is a wrong in the world.
5) No, I also have the problem with LePage that he’s a liar who sucked money from the state while claiming his policies somehow saved the city of Waterville.
6) I don’t care about the rest.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »