Karl W. Giberson

Posted on November 21, 2008 by Michael

Every once in awhile, a scientist will come out and say science and religion can co-exist. There will be some press coverage because of the obvious tensions between evidence-based thought and willy-nilly faith. So it comes as no surprise that physicist Karl Giberson is receiving some attention for his recent claim and book that says evolution and God can co-exist. (I presume the man has a longer history in the creationism-evolution issue than what LiveScience seems to suggest, but he evidently has yet to make a big splash.)

Obviously, he thinks one can be a Christian and accept evolution, but these two sets of knowledge “don’t make as much contact with each other as people think,” he said. Many fundamentalists “elevate Genesis beyond what is appropriate.”

Fundamentalists’ spin on the creation story in Genesis “robs it of everything that is interesting,” he said. Instead, readers should recall that the Bible repeats the refrain that God found what he made “good” and looks at the world as good.

It is true that bastardizing such a great piece of literature to literally mean something which is utterly absurd is a crying shame, but that doesn’t suddenly make evolution and religion, especially Christianity, compatible in any meaningful way. At best, perhaps the particular Christian god fully guided the process of evolution, making it mimic precisely what would be expected without any sort of foolish guidance, but that’s a rather superfluous compatibility. What’s more, that can comply to most any concept of a god that humans have had in the past 10,000 or more years. It’s a very non-cromulent way of thinking.

“It makes the world so much more interesting,” Giberson said. “The mystery of God’s existence is a more satisfying mystery than the mystery of how can all this arise out of a particle.”

Despite being a rather subjective claim, it seems difficult to fathom how anyone can honestly believe such a thing. First of all, it’s unclear how a mystery can be “satisfying”. It can be interesting and exciting and all that. Most of the good ones are. But satisfying? It’s when we solve the mystery or at least a piece of it that satisfaction becomes present. And, of course, the only way we can do that for most of the big questions is through the best way of knowing – science.

But what is your evidence, Shermer said, for belief in God?

“I was raised believing in God, so for me, the onus would be on someone to stop me from believing,” Giberson said, adding that “there is a certain momentum that is already there.”

This reminds me quite a bit of the silliness of George Smith. Apparently, an objective look at two sides is out of the question. It is the job of the non-believer to dismantle the long-term indoctrination of the believer. I almost don’t want to explicate on why this is so damn wrong. But I will.

Blind, stupid faith offers nothing of worth to a discussion. Once that argument is presented, any debate falls to shreds because faith is specifically belief without – or even despite the lack of – evidence. Perhaps an argument as to why faith is a bad way of knowing (indeed, it seeks to avoid a knowledge of anything) can be presented, but then one is simply dealing with a stubborn child. Perhaps it is that the onus is to lower one’s self to explaining why faith informs us of nothing.

Filed under: Creationism, Evolution, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

I am Darwin

Posted on November 18, 2008 by Michael

There is a campaign being put on by i-am-darwin.org where users are encouraged to submit videos to YouTube where they describe how Darwin has influenced their lives. It shouldn’t be terribly difficult since the man made one of the most significant scientific discoveries yet known to man.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Watch out for this guy

Posted on November 12, 2008 by Michael

Bobby Jindal is currently the governor of Louisiana. There’s been quite a bit of talk about him making a run for the presidency in 2012. Aside from being a Republican and thus inherently wrong a vast majority of the time, he is also known to support creationism. He has come out in support of intelligent design. Worse yet, he’s anti-science when it comes to just about everything else that contradicts his distorted view of reality.

Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.

…

Political observers said Jindal’s signature will please one of his key local constituencies: conservative Protestants in north Louisiana.

Doesn’t it seem strange that the bill focuses on a few issues with which conservatives object? Actually, no. It isn’t strange at all. This is a man that is willing to sacrifice quality science education for his own selfish political ambitions. He signed a bill which undermines education in biology and on the climate, among other issues. He hates science. He loves getting backward-thinking hick votes.

Think of Sarah Palin with a funny name and a penis.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Novel Information

Posted on November 11, 2008 by Michael

One of the more “sophisticated” creationists misconceptions about evolution/natural selection (they often conflate the two) is that new information can never be created. This actually has no sophistication in it at all, but it sounds fancy and for that reason it helps to trick a good number of people. It’s especially a shame when it confounds those who want to learn some actual science. So here’s a simple example of “novel information” being added to a genome.

Scientists Decode Cancer Patients’ DNA

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 10 (UPI) — Scientists in St. Louis say they have decoded the complete DNA of a cancer patient and traced her disease — acute myelogenous leukemia — to its genetic roots.

The research team at the Genome Sequencing Center and the Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis said the first-of-its-kind achievement involved sequencing the genome of the patient — a woman in her 50s who ultimately died of her disease — and the genome of her leukemia cells, to identify genetic changes unique to her cancer.

“Our work demonstrates the power of sequencing entire genomes to discover novel cancer-related mutations,” said senior author Richard Wilson, director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center. “A genome-wide understanding of cancer, which is now possible with faster, less expensive DNA sequencing technology, is the foundation for developing more effective ways to diagnose and treat cancer.”

The study appears in the journal Nature.

When a cancer occurs, it is the usually the result of the loss of cell cycle control. Instead of the cell being told to die, it continues to replicate; it may lose its contact inhibition, meaning when an area gets too crowded, cells continue to replicate – this should not happen. There are other ways cancers occur, but they aren’t important for my purposes. What is important is the fact that a change in information in a genome is what caused the cancer in this woman in question. Let’s be clear from the get-go: this is not evolution. Individuals do not evolve. But what this does show is that novel changes occur to genomes all the time.

Recently, Steve Jones said evolution in humans is coming to an end. I haven’t heard his entire presentation, so I’m guessing he thinks it’s actually just slowing down, not ending. But either way, he’s wrong. But I bring him up because the reason why he’s wrong is interesting. He says that the fewer mutations present in reproducing males are contributing to less diversity in offspring. He says this because younger men are reproducing more than older men and older men, especially 35 and older, have more mutations in their DNA. (He later refutes his point by saying survival rates are up, inherently suggesting mutation rate must be up).

So why is this important? It’s important because mutations equal “novel information”. That’s what happens when cancers occur. That’s why the research team sequenced the genome of the woman plus the genome of her cancer cells. There are differences and those differences result in markedly different things. In this case, it’s unfortunate that cancer occurred. In other cases, it’s genetic diversity.

This is a bit of a roundabout way of explaining this, but I hope the point comes across. Cancer is a change in information. It’s obviously a bad one and it doesn’t get passed on in somatic cells, but let’s focus purely on the point: it is a change in information. It is a creation of new information. Although it is bad, it is new and it results in genotypic and phenotypic changes.

Filed under: Creationism, Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Survey: 1 in 3 British teachers think creationism should be taught

Posted on November 8, 2008 by Michael

One in three.

One in three Brit teachers believes creationism should be at par with evolution

London, Nov 7 : One in three Brit teachers believes that the theories of creationism and intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, according to a new survey.

According to the survey of 1,200 teachers, 53 per cent thought that creationism should not be taught in science lessons, while 29 per cent thought it should, reports Timesonline.

However, 88 per cent said that if students raised the issue in a science lesson, they should be allowed to discuss it.

Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of scripture as an explanation for the origins of life.

Intelligent design is a more modern version, which says that life is so complex it cannot be explained solely by evolution.

According to National curriculum guidelines, creationism has no place in science lessons.

Last year, Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Royal Society director of education, provoked a furore by calling for creationism to be treated in science lessons as a legitimate ‘world-view’.

It’s nice to see a news article which calls intelligent design what it is – a “modern version” of creationism – but it’s still unfortunate to hear such a silly thing be called a “theory”. Maybe it’s stupid statements like this that have played into the awful science education of so many British teachers.

It should be of note that while creationism is rampant all over the world, including Britain, this was a survey of all teachers, not just science or biology teachers. Regardless, however, of one’s particular field, there’s little excuse for thinking magic is at all a legitimate world view.

Filed under: Creationism, Evolution, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

How Natural Selection is Cumulative

Posted on November 8, 2008 by Michael

Tale Of Two Snails Reveals Secrets About The Biochemistry Of Evolution

In the new study, Emilio Rolán-Alvarez and colleagues note that scientists long have known that animals of the same species can have different physical characteristics enabling them to survive in different habitats. One famous example is the different beak sizes and shapes that evolved in Darwin’s finches, enabling the birds to live on different foods in different habitats on the Galapagos Islands. Until now, however, scientists knew little about the invisible biochemical changes behind such adaptations.

To help fill those gaps, the scientists studied two populations of marine snails that live only a few feet apart on the Spanish coast. One group lives on the lower shore, typically submerged in water and protected from large changes in temperature. The other group lives on the upper shore exposed to daily changes in temperature, humidity and other environmental conditions. Tests with mass spectrometry showed major differences in about 12 percent of the proteins in the snail, a subset of proteins that apparently enables the snails to survive in different environmental conditions.

This is a wonderful example of the how natural selection works in a cumulative way. Rather than the misconception that entire organs and bodily systems come into existence in one fell swoop, this study of snails offers a taste of reality.

Notice that these snails have the same set of proteins. However, between the two groups, there are differences within the proteins. Essentially, the proteins are expressed differently. At least part of the reason has to do with differing levels of ATP, or energy. That is, these proteins are regulated slightly differently, but differently enough to allow for this species of snail to live in two distinct environments. This can be important in explaining the cumulative effects of natural selection – this is still one species of snail, but they have minute differences in just 21 proteins which allow for slightly different living conditions. If the snails continue to diverge and actually fully speciate (they are in a state of sympatric incomplete speciation now) – i.e., they cannot or simply do not produce fertile offspring – then it is highly likely that such an event would be contigent upon this first deviation in protein regulation.

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

Solid Argument

Posted on November 4, 2008 by Michael

This is from a bigoted article by Gerald Christian Nordskog, with Dr. Ted Baehr and Dr. Tom Snyder. The bigotry isn’t particular important (or well constructed). The interesting piece is when these mooks try to venture beyond their expertise of hate-mongering.

Most homosexuals seem to have adopted an irrational, unscientific view of the now defunct evolutionary model. They fail to realize, however, that, if evolution were really true (which it isn’t), there actually wouldn’t be any human homosexuals in the world. Why? Because, according to evolutionary theory, nature would have “selected out” over time, by the so-called “natural selection” evolution process, any truly genetic homosexual tendency because homosexual people do not procreate, or create any descendents. Thus, their deviant tendencies would have been eliminated from the gene pool by the untenable methodology of evolution.

No biologist is going to claim there is a gene which determines sexual preference. That isn’t how genetics work. Although studies have been conducted which have found that the genetic marker Xq28 conveys a tendency toward homosexuality, there is nothing that says homosexuality is deterministic. In fact, that study is far from solid but if it were true, it still wouldn’t say homosexuality is deterministic. This is essentially the problem encountered (unwittingly) by these bigots.

I may have a gene which gives me a predisposition to strong muscles around my shoulders. That doesn’t mean I’m going to be a great pitcher for the 2013 Boston Red Sox. It doesn’t even mean I would necessarily even have a chance at making it into an Independent League. Most genes have some degree – often a high one – of interaction with environmental conditions. This is why there is no “gay” gene(s) – and just the same, this is why there is no “straight” gene(s).

But just to be antagonistic toward these bigots, one possible way a gene which gives a predispotion (though not determinism!) toward homosexuality can be maintained in a gene pool is through sexually antagonistic selection.

The results of this model show the interaction of male homosexuality with increased female fecundity within human populations, in a complex dynamic, resulting in the maintenance of male homosexuality at stable and relatively low frequencies, and highlighting the effects of heredity through the maternal line.

These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits, and which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings.

Bigotry never wins.

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

Did you know evolution leads to autocracies?

Posted on November 4, 2008 by Michael

Yes, that’s right. The more states improve their school systems, the more scientists become effective at conveying their fields, the more the facts of evolution are known, the more and more we will head to an autocracy. At least that’s what crazy ol’ Rev. Dallas E. Henry thinks.

Secular humanists cling to the theory of evolution as truth. If mankind is nothing more than a highly adapted animal with this life being all there is, then there is no higher moral law with which to concern ourselves. With only human laws, people will risk the odds in getting caught to engage in abhorrent behavior. If this life is all there is, people can do whatever they feel like and the only authority they have to answer to is other people. If enough people live by this philosophy, either anarchy or an autocracy (government by a single individual ruler) will be the result.

So in other words, if a nation becomes too secular it will fall into utter chaos. Or it will fall in line under the strict control of a single individual. Yes, that’s right. Rev. Dallas Cowboys believes that the more people come to understand science, the more government will become one particular way. Or the more it will become exactly the opposite way. Whatever. Let’s not parse words. It’s just important that we all realize that evilution will lead to something bad, even if Rev. Cowboys is incapable of putting forth a coherent argument toward that point.

Oh, and it isn’t just evolution. It’s all of science.

Paul wrote to the Romans, “although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God…” Secular Humanists and atheists rely totally on science to explain everything. In reality, natural law has become their God. Natural law is a description of what has been observed to happen when certain conditions occur i.e. the law of gravity states that if something falls from the sky it will eventually hit the ground. Anything contrary to that defies natural law and therefore cannot be true. Science is anti – God; it is a gift from God. But when man’s knowledge begins to take precedence over God’s eternal power, “they became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened.” These people refuse to allow room for anything supernatural to exist. If it cannot be explained logically, it can’t be true.

Carl Sagan put it best when he said, “You can’t break the laws of Nature; there are no penalties for doing so. The real world…is merely so arranged that transgressions can’t happen.” It does not matter if Rev. Cowboys thinks something contrary to gravity or the speed of light can occur through the magic of his particular god. I return to Sagan here, “The Universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.” And that’s exactly what Rev. Cowboys is espousing – his ambition. Sure, he has it all gussied in this whole god-guise. But it’s still his ambition, likely instilled in him since birth, or perhaps through some personal experience which he incorrectly attributed to the predominant god of his culture. His ambitions and anti-science spewing vitriol will always pale, however, in comparison to the work of scientists, just as the ugliness of his horribly evil teachings based upon his horribly ugly god contrasts so starkly with the beauty that is revealed through science.

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

Expelled corrected

Posted on November 3, 2008 by Michael

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

Not attending church makes you an atheist

Posted on November 1, 2008 by Michael

In an article from WorldNetDaily, Tom Flannery makes the claim that those who do not attend church are de facto atheists.

With the emergence of the New Atheist movement in recent years – led by the unholy trinity of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris – many have become convinced that religious faith is, as Dawkins puts it, “dangerously irrational.”

So, a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, entitled “What Americans Really Believe” must have come as quite a shock to their systems. It turns out the empirical data show that atheists are the ones who are susceptible to irrational thought, much more so than traditional believers.

According to the study, 31 percent of people who never attend worship services expressed strong belief in such things as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, advanced civilizations like Atlantis, haunted houses and the possibility of communicating with the dead. Only 8 percent of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week shared those beliefs.

Does everyone see the disconnect? He’s calling the 31 percent of non-church attending people atheists. He offers no studies to back up such a claim. Conveniently, had he actually read the study, Tommy would have discovered that there are more statistics.

Is the atheist population in the United States rapidly increasing? Several books by atheists hit the bestseller list in 2006 and 2007, seemingly signaling a breakthrough for the Godless Revolution (Ch. 14, p. 116). ISR researchers did find an increasing number of Americans (11 percent) who claim no religious affiliation, but they also delved into the actual religiousness of those who report having no religion. The Baylor Survey shows that a majority of Americans who claim to be irreligious pray and are not atheists

11% of Americans in this survey claim no religious affiliation. A majority of these people do still believe in a god. In fact, of these people, a little more than a third are actually atheists.

During the past 63 years, polls show the percentage of atheists has not changed at all, holding steady at only 4 percent of Americans who say they do not believe in God.

What’s more, Tommy makes the claim that believing in Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster makes these atheists (who he estimates at existing nearly 800% more than they actually do) more susceptible to irrational belief than those who believe in god(s). Well isn’t that just begging? Tommy’s assumption that god is inherently rational begs the question all these atheist books have been raising.

And then there’s this.

Religious and mystical experiences are an overlooked aspect of our national religious life and are often neglected by researchers and ignored by theologians. The Baylor Religion Survey asked respondents about these experiences: hearing the voice of God, feeling called by God to do something, being protected by a guardian angel, witnessing and/or receiving a miraculous physical healing, and speaking or praying in tongues. The ISR researchers found that such experiences are central to American religion. Forty-five percent of Americans report having at least two religious encounters (Ch. 6, p. 59). Denomination matters, the researchers found. Conservative Protestants are more likely than liberal Protestants, Catholics or Jews to report religious or mystical experiences. However, these experiences are not limited to conservative Protestants. They occur with considerable frequency in nearly all religious groups. The survey also showed that women, African Americans and Republicans are more apt to have religious and mystical experiences.

It is actually the religious who believe they have been talking to and/or experiencing some invisible magic sky fairy. This is not a characteristic of atheists, “New” or old.

However, the ISR researchers found that conservative religious Americans are far less likely to believe in the occult and paranormal than are other Americans, with self-identified theological liberals and the irreligious far more likely than other Americans to believe (p. 130). The researchers say this shows that it is not religion in general that suppresses such beliefs, but conservative religion.

Religion doesn’t quash inane beliefs. It is the far right wing of the religious nuts that view their beliefs as being the only ones with any truth to them. While this incidentally works to their advantage in the case of rejecting belief in UFOs or Bigfoot, it puts them at a severe disadvantage when it comes to accepting the scientific fact of the underlying theme of all of biology – evolution.

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »