Giberson

Posted on August 11, 2009 by Michael

Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk have a column stating that they are scientists and they believe in both God and evolution.

We are scientists, grateful for the freedom to earn Ph.D.s and become members of the scientific community. And we are religious believers, grateful for the freedom to celebrate our religion, without censorship. Like most scientists who believe in God, we find no contradiction between the scientific understanding of the world, and the belief that God created that world.

Most of the article is just an emphasis on this basic statement. I was hoping to get a substantial post out of this when I first saw it, but I’m scavenging here.

We are trained scientists who believe in God, but we also believe that science provides reliable information about nature. We don’t view evolution as sinister and atheistic. We think it is simply God’s way of creating. Yet we can still sleep soundly at night, with Bibles on our nightstands, resting atop the latest copy of Scientific American.

It isn’t surprising that they use “and” rather than “or” between sinister and atheistic. Christians love to associate atheism with all sorts of evil things. Don’t believe it.

Our belief that God creates through evolution is a satisfying claim uniting our faith and our science. This is good news.

This is only good news for those who have long realized that religion and science are at odds, but who wish to bring the two together, ignoring all the issues raised. For instance, how can one maintain that prayer can affect the natural world, yet then ignore the scientific studies which show that, no, that is not true. Or, alternatively, claim that science cannot measure the supposed effects of prayer. Of course it can! The claim is that X occurs in the natural world. If that’s the case, it is always subject to study using the scientific method. The natural world (i.e., reality) is science’s realm. Enter your fairy tales into it and you leave the safe haven of the supernatural, mythical world.

There is nothing satisfying about a claim uniting Christianity (or any religion) and science. One makes claims about the natural world without evidence while the other is predicated on the very idea that evidence is absolutely critical in determining the truth of anything, especially counter-intuitive or improbable claims. There are only two gods which can work with science: a hands-off deity and a god which only works through natural laws. The first is pretty harmless. The claim is simply that God X set the Universe in motion. That temporarily satisfies the first cause-question, though it quickly falls apart when one asks “Well, what created God X?”. The other god, the one that works purely through natural laws, is only superfluous. This one can have theology around it and thus can be quite dangerous. However, as far as science goes, its use is as good as me saying that fairies guided every particle into place at all times. There’s no evidence for my fantastic claim, but it doesn’t technically interfere with what science says. But, of course, a god which causes virgin births, turns water into wine, and floods the entire Earth is far from being compatible with science. Very, very far.

Huh, look at that. Turns out even the short dumb things the New Creationists say can generate a lot of rebuttal.

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

The pride of bigotry

Posted on August 1, 2009 by Michael

090801-lg_918099455

These are some of the wholly ignorant individuals who are seeking to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage bill before it officially becomes law. They’re actually proud of themselves. It’s gross.

Bob Emrich is a hateful, stupid man. He has absolutely no idea that he’s actually advocating for discrimination against himself. He thinks homosexuality is icky or perverse or just like having sex with a dog or he’s uncomfortable in his own sexuality or he’s just another mook propping up the bible for his own ends (which is easy because that is one of the most morally malleable books ever written) or maybe it’s all of those things. Ultimately, he has no universal justification for denying people the right to marry on the (purely legal) basis of sex/gender. I doubt he’s smart enough to come up with many principled arguments for his beliefs in the first place, but even if he was capable of that, such an argument does not exist for his absurd position.

It’s an utter disgust that people like this are given legitimacy. Why don’t more people just lash into crap like this? Bob Emrich has a lot of bad ideas predicated on a lot of bad bigotry. I hate to be redundant with “bad bigotry” but aside from the grammatical flow, it supports the notion that Emrich doesn’t even understand the true basis for his hatred. He has no idea that through his outright bigoted, hateful views of homosexuals (what did they ever do to anyone?), he is taking legal aim at absolutely everyone. And that’s what this all is: a legal issue. Emrich has no logical basis to be demanding that the state of Maine discriminates against everyone on the basis of what chromosomes they have (again, go here).

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The moral elite

Posted on June 3, 2009 by Michael

“Elite” is a term that generally gets bandied about when someone is stupid. Obama was elite and McCain and Palin were Real America. In other words, they were amazingly stupid and Obama was intelligent. This applies to many conservative-liberal dynamics. So in essence, this dynamic changes the definition of elite. Put bluntly, it makes faux connotations to a word which is a positive attribute or characteristic. Unfortuntely, I’m going to delve into this bastardization of the English language, too.

We have a moral elite in the world. They are the righteous religious, the men and women (but mostly men) who believe they are right because they have always been told by their dogma they are right. In truth, they are moral scum. In 2008 campaign rhetoric, they are the most elite of the elite.

We recently had the killing of the abortion doctor in Kansas. The irony should not be lost on anyone. A pro-life man killed someone. In reality, he was actually pro-some-life. He went about picking and choosing. Religion is the engine which allows this. It is the wrong model for morality. It allows – nay, often encourages – itself to be subverted for evil. If it isn’t actively advocating for evil acts (i.e., telling people to murder rape victims), then it’s propping itself up for people to be immoral. The abortion doctor was killed because a religious man believed he was defending life. Religion leads to this conclusion, unavoidably.

Locally, religion has been a motivator in my hometown. A few years back we had a lingerie shop with live models. Women stood in the window downtown and showed off some underwear. Small acts of vandalism against the owner eventually built up to the slashing of her tires. She soon moved to another part of the state out of fear bred by religion. Years later another business opened up with the same idea, though with a focus on latex. Given that reality has a huge liberal bias, people apparently recognized that window models harm no one. It turns out the religious motivations were wrong. Again.

Now we have this incident. A man opened up a topless coffee shop in the next town over. He had plans of opening a stripclub, but recently announced he planned on just having dancing waittresses (pending board approval), sans the alcohol and lap dances. Sure enough, we have an act of vandalism. I use that word very, very lightly. In truth, this was an act of arson. A person, ‘morally’ motivated, burned down a building because it housed harmless activity of which he or she did not approve. The culprit is still unknown, but is there any doubt religion has its filthy hand in this?

Oh, and just to make matters worse:

An ambulance crew from Belfast was driving by at around 1:00 a.m. and spotted the fire. They woke the building’s occupants, which included owner Donald Crabtree, four other adults and two four-month old babies. They all got out safely.

Religion makes people do inane, dangerous things for which there is no secular basis.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Marriage is between people, not disparate ideas

Posted on April 29, 2009 by Michael

There are a couple of articles floating around about a new site run by Francis Collins and Karl Giberson

Our Mission: Faith and science both lead us to truth about God and creation. The BioLogos Foundation promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, and seeks to harmonize these different perspectives.

It’s just another accomodationist point of view. These people want to marry science and religion. It’s politically very tactful: people don’t like extremes, so taking a sort of middle-road is very appealing. Beside that, many people know enough to realize that biologists aren’t lying when they say evolution underscores all of biology but they don’t know enough to recognize they should reject their particular cultural god(s).

But here’s the kicker. These people aren’t really middle-of-the-roaders. They are creationists gussied up once again. They aren’t concerned with science at all. What they want to do is twist established fact to fit their preconceived worldview, science be damned. Let’s call these people what they really are: the New Creationists.

Simon Conway Morris presents a different perspective, arguing humans, or a human-like species, are actually an inevitable part of evolution. Morris is not proposing a different mechanism for human evolution, merely a different observation of its possible outcomes. Morris would agree that any slight difference in the history of human DNA would result in a different evolutionary path. Unlike Gould, however, Morris argues each of those possible pathways would inevitably lead to something like the human species. Morris writes:

“The prevailing view of evolution is that life has no direction — no goals, no predictable outcomes. Hedged in by circumstances and coincidence, the course of life lurches from one point to another. It is pure chance that 3 billion years of evolution on Earth have produced a peculiarly clever ape. We may find distant echoes of our aptitude for tool making and language and our relentless curiosity in other animals, but intelligence like ours is very special. Right?”

“Wrong! The history of life on Earth appears impossibly complex and unpredictable, but take a closer look and you’ll find a deep structure. Physics and chemistry dictate that many things simply are not possible, and these constraints extend to biology. The solution to a particular biological problem can often only be handled in one of a few ways, which is why when you examine the tapestry of evolution you see the same patterns emerging over and over again.” 4

The patterns Morris mentions are also referred to as convergences in the evolutionary process. In his most recent book, Life’s Solution, Morris gives many examples of physical traits or abilities found repeatedly among different species.5 Normally, such similarities are understood asthe result of common ancestry. However, the species in Morris’s examples are known to be distantly related. In many cases, not even these species’ common ancestor shared the same trait. The implication is that several different species have independently developed similar traits.

There is just so much wrong here. First of all, this is saying the roads of evolution are limited, thus humans (or something similar to humans) were inevitable. This is only true if one is to start from a certain, late point. An ape, for example, is limited to being a mammal for many thousands, even millions of years. It is bound to the land for a significant period of time. But go far enough down the line and it isn’t possible to count the possibilities of ape evolution. Taking this principle, we can walk back in time. Deep time. Three and a half billion years ago, eukaryotes weren’t inevitable. Hell, four billion years ago and life wasn’t inevitable, much less humans. It’s an absurd argument being peddled that is designed to harm the atheist position while strengthening creationists. This isn’t about marrying science and religion at all; it’s about propping up religion at the expense of actual science.

Second, this is saying that because similar features have evolved again and again and not as a result of common ancestory, this is evidence for limited pathways in evolution. This doesn’t speak to any of that goobbity-goop. What this says is that natural selection has a tendency to take common initial pathways and make similar structures. The eye is a good example. This website, being a creationist site, naturally abuses the example of eye, so I hope I can fix that a bit.

The eye has evolved independently about 40 times. This doesn’t mean that the eye is absolutely inevitable. If it did, then we should see more species with eyes. What we actually see is an entire planet with the same basis for life – DNA. From this DNA, we see cells. In eukaryotes, we see certain similarities with Vitamin-A parts of molecules in all eyed animals. In addition, most animals (regardless of whether or not they have eyes) have photoreceptor cells. All it really takes for an eye to evolve is a small pit, indent, or even surface area for these cells to rest. Having just a tiny bit of vision can give enormous benefits to any animal. Some squid, for example, have eyespots which allow them to detect the wavelengths of light. This helps them ‘know’ (they have no brains, only nervous systems) in which direction to go. Say a certain shade of green is common on the sea floor, which is where the squids food source (let’s say) lives. Being able to decipher between green and other shades is beneficial. Natural selection will favor those with better green detection. Going further, other animals can develop the same basic idea through mutation yet evolve it in completely different ways at completely different times. This isn’t evidence for some things being so improbable that ‘God done it’. It’s evidence for common chemistry and biology being molded by the far-from-improbable mechanism of natural selection.

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

It doesn't force you to be moral

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Atheism doesn’t force a person to be moral, it merely allows for it. And better than any religion.

Atheism comes with no specific set of beliefs, no system of thought. In common usage it is simply a rejection of all gods. This is compatible with a bunch of philosophies, both good and bad. Importantly, however, it is compatible with good intentions.

In the spirit of Kant, atheism allows perfectly for good will. That is, what a person intends is the important element in deciding the goodness or badness of an action, behavior, thought, etc. It’s the idea behind the phrase “It’s the thought that counts”. Give a person a fantastic birthday present because you want to impress everyone with your wealth and the intention is to self-aggrandize. Most people, myself included, regard that as a generally bad intention. But regardless of what one thinks of self-aggrandation, the point should be clear: intention matters. A low-quality gift given after much consideration to the happiness of the recipient is a much better gift, at least philosophically, than the fantastic present.

Atheism jives with good will. Any action with a good intention is ultimately good because consideration has been given to others; people are considered above all else. Religion is evil in this regard (and most regards, for that matter).

Religion teaches that good intentions should stem from a desire to please some magical man in the sky. This is not good intention; it is selfishness. It is a desire to please some god in order to gain access to a reward at the end of The Yellow Brick Road (or at least a desire to avoid punishment). That is action out of self-concern, not for the sake of being a good person. Religion does not allow for purely good intentions except when the actor forgets his particular god(s).

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

It doesn’t force you to be moral

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Atheism doesn’t force a person to be moral, it merely allows for it. And better than any religion.

Atheism comes with no specific set of beliefs, no system of thought. In common usage it is simply a rejection of all gods. This is compatible with a bunch of philosophies, both good and bad. Importantly, however, it is compatible with good intentions.

In the spirit of Kant, atheism allows perfectly for good will. That is, what a person intends is the important element in deciding the goodness or badness of an action, behavior, thought, etc. It’s the idea behind the phrase “It’s the thought that counts”. Give a person a fantastic birthday present because you want to impress everyone with your wealth and the intention is to self-aggrandize. Most people, myself included, regard that as a generally bad intention. But regardless of what one thinks of self-aggrandation, the point should be clear: intention matters. A low-quality gift given after much consideration to the happiness of the recipient is a much better gift, at least philosophically, than the fantastic present.

Atheism jives with good will. Any action with a good intention is ultimately good because consideration has been given to others; people are considered above all else. Religion is evil in this regard (and most regards, for that matter).

Religion teaches that good intentions should stem from a desire to please some magical man in the sky. This is not good intention; it is selfishness. It is a desire to please some god in order to gain access to a reward at the end of The Yellow Brick Road (or at least a desire to avoid punishment). That is action out of self-concern, not for the sake of being a good person. Religion does not allow for purely good intentions except when the actor forgets his particular god(s).

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

Einstein on religion

Posted on January 21, 2009 by Michael

I came across a quote from Einstein regarding religion and thought I’d post it here. I’ve discussed Einsteinian religion in the past.

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity of the naive man. For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection… It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.

~ Albert Einstein, Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934

Emphasis mine.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Einsteinian Religion

Posted on November 18, 2008 by Michael

There are these perverse notions floating around about what Einstein believed or didn’t believe regarding religion and god(s). The page at Conservapedia – which deserves no link – will give the impression that Einstein believed in some sort of conscious, higher power. Any research will show this is highly unlikely. Einstein believed in ordering physical principles to the Universe which are ultimately far beyond the understanding of humans. This is not a god at all, which is why it’s somewhat unfortunate that he used the term “god” to describe these ordering principles. On the one hand, it’s misleading and it tends to invite people to attempt to associate a brilliant thinker with their own positions, as if appeals to authority confer truth to a statement or thought or idea. On the other hand, there’s a certain poetry to his language; we should all appreciate personification in our literature.

Ultimately, Einstein was an agnostic. Precisely where he stood on, say, Richard Dawkins’ Scale of Religiosity is unclear. I suspect he may be slightly to the left of someone like Carl Sagan (physically assuming “1” is left and “7” is right – see scale video). That may place him as a 4, as I would place Sagan as a 5. Unfortunately, neither man can clarify at this point. However, it is quite clear that neither one believed in any personal god – the seeming indifference of Nature to our plights, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, it all indicates a lack of personality, of personalization, no matter how much poetic personification we like to use.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments »

Really? Prince?

Posted on November 18, 2008 by Michael

Apparently, Prince hates homosexuals. He has evidently been a conservative Christian for some time. You’d think a guy who writes about fucking Darling Nikki and makes songs about sex toys and dresses flamboyantly might be a little bit looser. Nah. The virus that is religion has found another host.

Prince

Filed under: Misc, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , | 20 Comments »

Boy Dies Twice

Posted on November 17, 2008 by Michael

Boy dies two times.

NEW YORK – A 12-year-old New York boy with brain cancer has died after his family battled a hospital to keep him on a ventilator.

The lawyer for the Orthodox Jewish family says Motl Brody’s bodily functions ceased Saturday. A machine had continued to work his lungs after he was pronounced dead Nov. 4 at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

The boy had already been declared brain dead, but some adherents of Jewish religious law say death occurs only when the heart and lungs stop functioning.

The family had asked a judge to prevent further tests for brain activity. The hospital argued that its “scarce resources” were being used “for the preservation of a deceased body.”

After having no brain activity for nearly two weeks, a Jewish family thinks their child just died. They’re wrong. Despite what their irrational religious beliefs (sorry to be redundant) claim, their child died on Nov. 4. They wasted not only financial resources, but the medical resources of nurses and doctors who could have been improving and even saving the lives of those who were (and hopefully are) still alive. It was selfish and irresponsible of these parents to pit their crazy beliefs against the lives of others. Why do we give such deference to insane ideas?

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

« Previous Page