Spiritual Atheism?

Experience of the transcendent is universal. Though I do not believe the sensation is supernatural, the experience itself is undeniable. A post at de-conversion.com makes an appeal to understand a skeptic’s right to share in this. I am not completely on- board with the post’s repeated use of the term “spiritual”; I think “numinous” would have been better. Still, I hope it may speak to those in religious traditions that feel awe at the Universe is limited to dogmatic observance.

PZ vs. Big Stupid Part 1

I’ve been away for awhile, and it was a bad time to absent. I briefly mentioned PZ Myers of Pharyngula in an earlier post, but never bothered to detail his personal experience with the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. Damn, did I miss a chance to get in on the ground floor! The story is all the rage, so for now I will forgo my typical rant for a sketch of the picture thus far. (Never fear, I’ll rant plenty in the near future.) This post was underway days ago, but more has developed. The details are entertaining, so please follow the links. The rundown will be divided between two posts.

Many of you have heard of the PZ Myers vs. Expelled war being waged in the blogosphere. The film is an alarmist piece of Intelligent Design propaganda hosted by self-described member of the “intelligencia”, Ben Stein. It uses the bogus argument of threats to “academic freedom” and repeatedly attempts to relate evolution to Nazi atrocities. The film has been shown in restricted screenings meant to shield it from critical press, and has received scathing reviews from those who are not emotionally invested in its dogma. I had been following the story since Myers, who appears in the film, complained about the deception used by filmmakers to secure interviews. Dishonest? Yes. Surprising? No.

Then came a report that the beloved (to me) Myers and fellow biologist Richard Dawkins “crashed” a “private” screening of the film . Myers was expelled from the theater while Dawkins was allowed to remain. PZ blogged his account as did Dawkins and others. The two even posted a video conversation on the matter. Myers was vindicated. Bottom line: PZ had requested (and received) an on-line invitation in his name. He had a right to be there but was asked to leave with no provocation. The creobot proponents of Expelled have given conflicting accounts of PZ’s removal, but associate producer Mark Mathis revealed his true motivation in the heavy- handed treatment of Myers: “I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more”.

And they call me a bitch. Mr. Mathis, do you see the irony? No? Then you’re an imbecile. Yes? Then you’re an asshole.

At this point it gained the attention of mainstream media and was the #1 subject of the blogosphere. The site Expelled Exposed was begun as an educated response to the film.
This was the story so far. I was biding my time till I could sort through the rubble of the media explosion. Then came the press teleconference…

to be continued…

Academic Freedom From Reason

Tampa Bay Online reported this morning that Ben Stein, “star” of the infamous-before-release film Expelled made an appearance in FL Wednesday. It seems Stein is using the recent battle over academic standards in FL to push Expelled. He joined conservative Intelligent Design proponents in championing the Academic Freedom Bill. The bill, supporters say, would allow criticism of scientific evidence and theory in the classroom, not teaching of nonscientific ideas. Dr. James Dobson’s Florida Family Policy Council is one supporter of the bill. Its president even stated “[The bill] only allows the criticism and the presenting of relevant, objective scientific evidence which criticizes chemical or biological evolution.” This statement should be suspect, coming from the ultra conservative organization. As if to drive the point home, Casey Luskin of the of the Discovery Institute (of course) called Intelligent Design scientific.

While legislators battle over the language of the bill, its possible interpretation as law, etc Ben is present to plug Expelled in a news conference. Very subtle. Now that you have addressed the media directly, how about finally allowing them to view the film?

Ok, their target audience wasn’t the media (which have been barred from viewings), but the legislators. According to Pharyngula, their attempt to lure legislators into an IMAX viewing failed miserably. My faith in mankind is held fast by a hair.

Caution Biblical Literalists: Awakening Ahead

This quiz is taken from The Jesus Myth. As someone whose childhood (and beyond) was scarred by the effects of biblical religion, I find it an important “test” for those who take anything the bible says as fact. Thank you, David for allowing me to reproduce it here:

“The following will be an open book test to which I will even give you the references. Please leave your answers in the comments section. Oh, and grab your Bible!

1. What time of day did the women visit the tomb of Jesus?¹
2. Who were the women?²
3. What was their purpose?³
4. Was the tomb open when they arrived?⁴
5. Who was at the tomb when they arrived?⁵
6. Where were they (the messengers) situated?⁶
7. What did the messengers say?⁷
8. Did the women tell about what had happened?⁸
9. When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?⁹
10. When did Mary first see Jesus?¹⁰
11. Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?¹¹
12. After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?¹²
13. Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?¹³
14. Did the disciples believe the two men?¹⁴
15. What happened at the appearance?¹⁵
16. Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?¹⁶
17. Where did the ascension take place?¹⁷

---

¹ Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1² Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10 and John 20:1³ Matt. 28:1, Mark 15:47 and 16:1, Luke 23:55 and 24:1 and John 19:39-40⁴ Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2 and John 20:1

⁵ Matt. 28:2-7, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4 and John 20:12

⁶ Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4 and John 20:12

⁷ Matt. 28:5-7, Mark 16:6-7, Luke 24:5-7 and John 20:13

⁸ 28:8, Mark 16:8, Luke 24:9, 22-24 and John 20:18

⁹ Matt. 28:7-8, Mark 16:10-11, Luke 24:6-9, 23, and John 20:2

¹⁰ Matt. 28:9, Mark 16:9-10 and John 20:2,14

¹¹ Matt. 28:9 and John 20:17, 27

¹² Matt. 28:16, Mark 16:12,14, Luke 24:13,36, John 20:19,24 and 1Cor. 15:5

¹³ Matt. 28:16-17, Mark 16:12-14, Luke 24:31-36(By the way, this is about 60-100 mile away from the answer found in Matt.), John 20:19

¹⁴ Mark 16:13 and Luke 24:34

¹⁵ Matt. 28:17-20, Mark 16:14-19, Luke 24:13-51 and John 21:19-23

¹⁶ Mark 16:19, Luke 24:50-52, John 20:26, 21:1-22 and Acts 1:3

¹⁷ Matt. no ascension, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:50-51, Acts 1:9-12″

Giving credit

I’ve got my dirty martini, but before settling in to watch schoolgirls mysteriously swallowed by the Australian outback, I wanted to make a quick nod to Panda’s Thumb. In my last rant, I took on Michale Egnor’s refutation of recent biological advances as they relate to natural selection. I mentioned Panda’s Thumb without realizing Mike Dunford had already called attention to Egnor’s propaganda. His title was wittier as well. Just wanted to give credit where credit is due.

Darwin Egnored

That bastion of critical thinking, The Discovery Institute, has given Michael Egnor another chance to shoot himself in the foot. The ammunition was lovingly provided by biologist Jonathan Wells. Recently Wells posted the important advance made by French scientists in crystallizing enzymes which bacteria utilize to break down antibiotics and thus become resistant. This is an important achievement, the specifics of which I cannot argue as I am not a biologist. The whole thing is made a mockery by Wells with such statements as “…most cases of antibiotic resistance (including resistance to penicillin) involve complex enzymes, and the only “explanations” for them put forward by Darwinists are untestable just-so stories about imaginary mutations over unimaginable time scales.”

Such babble about “just-so stories about imaginary mutations” only muddies the waters of fact, but that is Wells’ objective. I leave it to my better such as PZ Myers and Laurence Moran (whose blogs I relish) to best him in the field of biology.

Michael Egnor’s latest apologist pile of poo makes accusations regarding the research and displays pathetic use of semantics. (Both Myers and Moran get mention in the post, mainly to note their contempt for Wells and thereby, I assume, court sympathy for his viewpoint.) As for assumptions, take for example the assertion by Egnor that

“The origin of biological complexity is of interest to evolutionary biologists, but it’s hard to see how medical research hinges on whether the variations that gave rise the remarkable complexity of living things were teleological or non-teleological.”

In almost the same breath Wells declares

“It may even be that the dogmatic assumption that biological function is not teleological is an impediment to scientific research. The method by which a system is studied is dependent on the assumptions scientists make as to how the system arose. “

Which is it? Is purpose of design relevant to the research or not? Apparently it is not relevant, yet even if it happened is, disbelief in purpose is most probably a stumbling block to progress?

Egnor then takes to task Dr. Frédéric Dardel, the lead researcher of the team that made the discovery in the first place. Dardel, in a post on the Panda’s Thumb (a great blog that routinely goes over my head) stated that the research made use of natural selection in order to achieve its breakthrough. Egnor argues

“His (Dardel’s) assertion that ‘…we selected bacteria…by plating…’ is artificial selection, not natural selection. Artificial selection is breeding, in this case microbial breeding. The principles of breeding date back thousands of years, and owe nothing to Darwin.”

This reminds me of the way ID/creationist use the word “theory” to disparage evolution in general. Natural selection is so named because nature will favor mutations most fit to a given environment based on various criteria. That is the process. That the bacteria selected for the experiment were “artificially” selected did not negate the fact that the results directly demonstrated the mechanism of survival based on fitness within an environment. Eventual mutations would then be fit per natural selection. It in no way disproves anything. On the contrary, it bolsters the fact of the “just-so stories about imaginary mutations”.

This is my reasoning. As stated, I am not a biologist and welcome any correction to this reasoning. In the mean time, I hope Myers and Moran keep up the good work. For my part I think I’ve earned a dirty martini before retiring to a (yet another) viewing of Peter Weir’s “Picnic at Hanging Rock”. I need an existential release.

Stylist In Chief?

I found this quote on The Spanish Inquisitor blog, and just had to share it.  Enjoy!

The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive. - Sam Harris

Stating the obvious

The International Society for Science & Religion’s statement on Intelligent Design reads, “We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology.” I admit it was refreshing to read.

The UK based ISSR also says it is against “efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion”, and state “in most instances biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels.” I suppose this is in keeping with the late Stephen Gould’s take on Nonoverlapping Magisteria .

How do the two operate side-by-side without conflict of authority? If religion does indeed pose no intrinsic threat to scientific understanding, it is because it has been rendered intellectually impotent by reason and scientific inquiry. The “wedge” is present, though many rationalize it away. Religions like the Emerging Church are quick to replace authoritative religious dogma with desperate, liberal reinterpretation in an attempt to keep belief alive. If you sever a limb of religion, it grows a mutated one in an adaptation that any biological organism would envy. How many limbs must be severed before the beast finally breathes its last?

Reconciling with Delusion?

Go Baylor University! A recent article in The Lariat Online details an upcoming discussion by the American Scientific Affiliation on the subject of “design”. The discussion will be on design on the cosmic scale, eschewing Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Probably a wise choice, if not an intellectually dishonest one. The article states:

“What we want to do is to understand and inform people about what science is saying as it relates to Christianity, and to promote discussion,” said Bryan senior Micaela Landivar, president of Baylor’s American Scientific Affiliation. “The goal is not to pick a side. We just want people to discuss this.”…

“(The American Scientific Affiliation doesn’t) take a strong position on intelligent design,” Bradley said. ( Dr. Walter Bradley, professor of mechanical engineering who organized the event) “They want to provide a forum where Christians can integrate faith and scientific work in the best possible environment. I think the ASA is open to different ways that we might do that.”

I was not familiar with ASA, so I took look at their website. I wish I could express surprise at what I found. From the ASA site:

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. In matters of science and Christian faith, we offer Christian scholarship, education, fellowship and service to ASA members, churches, educational institutions, the scientific community, and society.

I am curious at to what sort of “Christian Scholarship” they can offer to such diverse social circles that would associate them with science in any way.I

Can relate to science? Fidelity to the Word of God? Integrity in the practice of science? Look under ASA’s Beliefs link. I won’t bother to reproduce the theologically loaded, dogmatic exposition, but think it’s plausible to doubt the unbiased nature of the upcoming “discussion” on design.

So who elected these dolts?

Another volley in the battle that is Florida’s attempt at constructing a serious scientific curriculum…

An article published today on the Tampa Bay Tribunes website details Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio’s alarmist rhetoric concerning the teaching of evolution (sans “Intelligent” Design) in public schools. According to the article:

…in an interview in the Florida Baptist Witness, Rubio fed the anti-evolution hysteria by saying parents who teach their children creationism or intelligent design would be “mocked and derided and undone” in the public schools.

and this gem:

In the Florida Senate, Ronda Storms introduced legislation casting the creationism issue as academic freedom. Storms’ bill protects instructors who teach intelligent design under the guise of offering a “full range of scientific views.” Students would be tested but couldn’t be penalized if their answer reflected their disagreement with the scientific theory of evolution.

I had to suppress a giggle at the use of the term “scientific views”. Why test a student if they are not penalized for giving a wrong answer? I wish I had been given those kinds of tests in school. (Though, when growing up in Arkansas I am pretty certain “God did it” was – and still is — an acceptable answer.)

The article itself is factual and does justice to the intelligence of its readers. I admit I was a little worried about the obligatory scanning of the comments. They were, with a few exceptions, informed and rational. They ones which dared defend ID were summarily picked apart for their ignorance. Hence the title of my post.