Here's a video of my talk at Eschaton 2012 in Ottawa (Dec. 1, 2012).
Showing posts with label Rationalism v Superstition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rationalism v Superstition. Show all posts
Intelligent Design Creationists Choose ENCODE Results as the #1 Evolution Story of 2012
The folks over at Evolution News & Views (sic) have selected the ENCODE papers as the Number 1 evolution-related story of 2012. Naturally, they fell for the hype of the ENCODE/Nature publicity campaign as you can see from the blog title: Our Top 10 Evolution-Related Stories: #1, ENCODE Project Buries "Junk DNA".
Most of the article is just the reposting of an article by Casey Luskin but some anonymous editor has added ...
Even Science magazine selected the ENCODE results as a top-ten breakthrough and noted that 80% of the human genome now has a function [Science Magazine Chooses ENCODE Results as One of the Top Ten Breakthroughs in 2012]. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be content to point out that many scientists are as stupid as many Intelligent Design Creationists!
I can still mock the creationists for claiming that "Darwinian evolutionary theory" supports junk DNA.
Most of the article is just the reposting of an article by Casey Luskin but some anonymous editor has added ...
Editor's note: For the No. 1 slot among evolution-related news stories of 2012, this one was an easy pick. The publication of the ENCODE project results detonated what had been considered among the sturdiest defenses that Darwinian evolutionary theory could still fall back upon: "Junk DNA." Casey Luskin's initial reporting is featured below. See also our response to the ensuing controversy over ENCODE ("Why the Case for Junk DNA 2.0 Still Fails").Normally I would make fun of the creationists for misunderstanding the real scientific results in the papers that were published last September but, in this case, there are lots of real scientists who fell into the same trap.
Even Science magazine selected the ENCODE results as a top-ten breakthrough and noted that 80% of the human genome now has a function [Science Magazine Chooses ENCODE Results as One of the Top Ten Breakthroughs in 2012]. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be content to point out that many scientists are as stupid as many Intelligent Design Creationists!
I can still mock the creationists for claiming that "Darwinian evolutionary theory" supports junk DNA.
This Is Why Christians Want Guns
Here's what could happen. This is an interview by Janet Parshall of Mathew Staver. Believe it or not, Mathew Staver is Dean of the School of Law at Liberty University. He is also the Chair and Founder of a right-wing extremest group called Liberty Counsel. Mat is worried that the Supreme Court of the United States—the ultimate source of what's legal and what's not—could actually allow same-sex couples to get married!!!!
The consequences would be devastating, according to the Dean of Law. He says,
This is the thing that revolutions literally are made of. This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing. This would be the thing that revolutions are made of. This could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war. I’m not talking about just people protesting in the streets, this could be that level because what would ultimately happen is a direct collision would immediately happen with pastors, with churches, with Christians, with Christian ministries, with other businesses, it would be an avalanche that would go across the country.I'm sure it's a great comfort to most Americans that these people have the weapons they need to start another civil war over legalizing gay marriage.
[Hat Tip: Hermant Mehta: Christian Right Leader: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Result in Another Civil War.]
Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics
In lieu of Saturday morning cartoons, I offer this video. David Klinghoffer likes it [The Awkward Secret that Plagues Population Genetics and Darwinian Evolutionary Theory]. Enjoy.
Texas Wants to Protect the IDiots in Universities
The elected members of the Texas legislature are well aware of this discrimination against stupidity so they've taken steps to stop it. Bill HB285 "Relating to prohibiting discrimination by public institutions of higher education against faculty members and students based on their conduct of research relating to intelligent design" should do the trick, if it becomes law.
Here's the key provision,
An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.I suppose it was inevitable that politicians in Texas would finally recognize that their children might flunk out of university.
Do Some IDiots Actually Question the Existence of Natural Selection?
Paul Nelson doesn't deny that natural selection is a real phenomenon. He may be an IDiot (and a YEC) but he's not THAT stupid. On the other hand, one didn't have to wait too long before getting confirmation that some other IDiots really are THAT stupid.
And guess what? They are allowed to post on the main Discovery Institute blog, Evolution News & Views (sic)!!! You have to read How "Real" Is Natural Selection? by Tom Bethell ... otherwise you'd never believe me.
Here's what Tom Bethell says about natural selection.
Read more »
Barry Arrington Explains Other Ways of Knowing
I'm not aware of any other way of knowing that has produced something we can reliably classify as "knowledge" by any reasonable criteria. From time to time I've asked for examples but nobody has been able to provide any example of "universal truth" (i.e. knowledge) that has been reached by any other process.
Today Barry Arrington of Uncommon Descent decided to enlighten us [Science is Good, But Not That Good].
Consider history for example. We know with a high degree of reliability that Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States in 1863. I did not arrive at this knowledge through scientific means. I know it because someone told me, and they in turn learned it from someone else, who in turn learned it from someone else back to the actual people who witnessed first-hand a man who called himself “Abraham Lincoln” sitting in the White House in 1863 and acting for all the world like he was the president of the United States.I guess that settles it. If lots of people tell you that god exists then it must be true. Epistemology is finished and the demarcation problem is solved.
Consider geography. I have never been to Russia, but I am quite certain that Moscow is the capital of that country. I did not arrive at this knowledge through scientific means either.
If timothya will stop and think a moment, he will realize that practically everything he knows he knows because someone told him, not because the truth of the proposition has been confirmed by science.
Lots of people tell me that Intelligent Design Creationists aren't very bright.
Eschaton 2012 Montage
A brief summary of what went on in Ottawa Nov. 30 - Dec. 2, 2012 from Atheism TV.
[Hat Tip: Veronica Abbas at Canadian Atheist.]
TED Tries to Clean Up Its Act
There have been a number of TED (or TEDx) talks on science that fail the top three criteria [TED: Alexander Tsiaras, "It was hard not to attribute divinity to it" ] [The Trouble with TED].
Apparently the high command at TED has woken up to the fact that they are being bamboozled by pseudoscientists. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy alerts us to a letter that they recently sent out to all TEDx organizers [TEDx Talks: Some Ideas Are Not Worth Spreading]. (I love his title!)
Here's a copy of the letter: A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science. And here's the opening praragraphs—you should read the entire letter because it contains a lot of information about how to recognize bad science.
Hello TEDx Community,Apparently TED will take down videos that spread pseudoscience. That explains why I was having so much trouble finding examples.
In light of a few suspect talks that have come out of the TEDx movement — some of which we at TED have taken action to remove, some being examined now — and this recent thread on Reddit [http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1444lm/the_ted_name_is_being_dragged_through_the_mud_in/], we feel it is important to reach out to all TEDx organizers on the topic of bad science and pseudoscience.
Please know this above all:
It is your job, before any speaker is booked, to check them out, and to reject bad science, pseudoscience and health hoaxes.
Vetting your speakers is hard work, and can lead to uncomfortable moments. But as TEDx organizers, your audience’s trust is your top priority, over and above any other personal or business relationship that may have brought this speaker to your attention. It is not your audience’s job to figure out if a speaker is offering legitimate science or not. It is your job.
The consequence of bad science and health hoaxes are not trivial. As an example, Andrew Wakefield’s attempt to link autism and vaccines was exposed as a hoax last year. But while his work was being investigated, millions of children went without vaccines, and many contracted deadly illnesses as a result.
We take this seriously. Presenting bad science on the TEDx stage is grounds for revoking your license.
James Shapiro Responds to My Review of His Book
I reviewed Shapiro's book, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century for NCSE reports. (NCSE = National Center for Science Education.) You can read it here.James Shapiro has responded to my review in the latest issue of NCSE reports: Reply to Laurence A Moran’s review of Evolution: A View
from the 21st Century.
Shapiro seems to be really upset that NCSE would choose someone like me to review his book. He opens his rebuttal with ...
Before I saw Laurence A Moran’s book review (Moran 2012), I wrote the following: “It is a shame that NCSE chose Larry Moran to review my book; not because of anything he said in the review but because he is hostile to new ideas and perspectives.”Read more »
A year ago, Moran posted a piece entitled “Physicists and biologists” on his Sandwalk blog [Physicists and Biologists1]. In this post, he ridiculed the enthusiasm I expressed in the book for physicists coming into evolutionary studies and bringing new skills and new ideas.Meanwhile, I welcome all those physicists who know nothing about evolution, protein structure, genetics, physiology, metabolism and ecology. That’s just what we need in the biological sciences to go along with all the contributions made by equally ignorant creationists.What a great way to make new friends for evolution science—equating physicists with creationists and calling them “equally ignorant”!
Breaking News: IDiots Don't Understand Genomes or Biology
A new finding about DNA differences in somatic cells overthrows a common assumption and might have dramatic implications for evolutionary studies.Okay, let's take a poll.
Young's Law (from Murphy's catalog of perverse tendencies in nature) states that all great discoveries are made by mistake. A corollary is that the greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake, but we won't go there. Anyway, a team of Yale scientists wasn't looking to overturn a huge assumption in genetics -- but they did. The ripple effects of their discovery remain to be seen.
We've all been told that every cell in our body has a copy of our unique genetic code. That's one of those simplistic beliefs that sounds sensible but is almost impossible to check. Doesn't the whole body arise from cell divisions of a single zygote with its unique genetic code? Yes, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the genes in cells downstream don't get modified. That was just assumed....
"Somatic mosaicism" is jargon for the finding that genomes differ from cell to cell -- not only in copy number variations (CNV's), but in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP's). The assumption that you have one genome is thus falsified. You have lots of genomes!
How many of you thought that mutations such as nucleotide substitutions, deletions, and insertions, could never take place during the thousands of generations that give rise to our somatic cells? (How were they supposed to be suppressed?)
How many of you thought that all of our cells, including red blood cells, contain copies of our unmodified genome?
How many of you thought that there were no polyploid cells in our liver?
How many of you thought that B cells, and T cells (and others) contain the same identical copy of our genome that's found in germ cells?
How many of you thought that spermatocytes and ovaries have exactly the same genome as our original zygote?
How many of you thought that cancer-causing gene rearrangements and mutations in somatic cells were impossible?
How many of you are completely ignorant of any medical problems due to genetic mosaicism?
If you answered "yes" to all of those questions then, congratulations!, you're as smart as an IDiot.
Sheeesh!
One thing is clear at this stage: the assumption that each individual has a unique genome has been overthrown to some extent. Think how this might impact common evolutionary studies. For years, evolutionists have claimed small differences between human and chimpanzee genomes. What if the percent difference is a function of the source cells used? Remember, the Yale team found differences between cells in the same organ -- human skin. If the percent difference grows or shrinks depending on the source, any conclusions about human-chimp similarities would prove unreliable.
I Get Mentioned, Again, on an IDiot Blog
When in the future they write the history of modern biology, if it turns out that contemporary ID theorists were onto something big, then Michael Behe's name will figure very prominently as one who helped launch the intelligent-design revolution.
When that history is written, whatever fate holds in store for ID, no one thinks that University of Toronto biochemist Larry Moran's name will figure prominently in any account as a thinker of great stature or influence.
So there's some irony in Moran's patronizing three-part series, at his blog Sandwalk blog, about meeting Mike Behe when the latter came to visit and speak recently in Toronto. Moran is full of condescension and, sticking to the science as always, carefully points out the discrepancy in physical stature between himself and Behe where Moran does have the advantage -- "He's a lot shorter than I imagined but otherwise looks just like his photos." Moran includes a photo of himself leaning over Behe with a smirk to prove the point. Well then!
Dennis Markuze Arrested, Again
A Saint-Laurent man has been charged, again, with abusing social media to threaten people who express their views online.
Dennis Markuze, 40, faces three new charges, including one alleging he violated the conditions of a sentence he received in May for the same offence. He was also charged with threatening the Montreal police officer who was investigating claims from several of Markuze’s past victims. Those victims alleged that Markuze’s threats have intensified in recent months.
In May, Markuze received an 18-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to uttering threats toward eight people he believed to be atheists. The court was told Markuze’s problems could be attributed to drug consumption, which caused him to believe he was “the Voice of God.” As part of his sentence, he was ordered to “abstain from participating in a social network, blog and discussion forum.” But during the summer, several people contacted The Gazette to report that Markuze appeared to be ignoring the court order.
[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]
My Posts on Michael Behe
Understanding Mutation Rates and Evolution
The Edge of Evolution
Evolution in Action and Michael Behe's Reaction
Mutations and Complex Adaptations
Blown Out of the Water
Joe Thornton vs Michael Behe
Irreducible Compexity
Defining Irreducible Complexity
Another Bad Review of The Edge of Evolution
Michael Behe in Toronto: Part 2
The gist of Behe's talk was that "Darwinism" can't explain macroevolution. The problem isn't common descent—Behe agrees that common descent is "trivial." The problem isn't natural selection—Behe doesn't have a problem with natural selection. The problem is random mutation. It's incapable of generating the required changes in a timely manner.
Read more »
Michael Behe In Toronto: Part 1
The first of Behe's talks was organized by the Copernicus Group who invited faculty and graduate students from the Dept. of Biochemistry and the Dept. of Molecular Genetics to a session at Hart House in the afternoon. Only eleven people showed up—four (five?) of them were from the Copernicus group. There were ten bottles of wine!
This was the first time I had a chance to meet Michael Behe in person. He's a lot shorter than I imagined but otherwise looks just like his photos.
Read more »
Ann Gauger Says Random Mutation Can't Possibly Account for Observed Evolution
There's a lot of discussion about this video on the Biologic Facebook page [Biologic Institute]. Some commenters (e.g. Nick Matzke) raise the issue of neutral mutations and Gauger responds (not very well). This is one of the main problems with the current IDiot propaganda. They confuse the probability of specific, single nucleotide, beneficial, mutations at a specific binding site—which have a low probability—with the total number of possible mutations at thousands of different sites, any of which could have an effect on development. Many of the mutations could have been neutral giving rise to an enormous amount of standing variation in the population. (This makes it much more likely that you will get multiple mutations.)
Don't forget we're looking at a specific outcome (evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestors over 6 million years). There were thousand and thousands of other possible outcomes that could have given rise to intelligent beings (maybe smart chimps?) who would eventually spawn Intelligent Design Creationists.1 We don't know the total number of possibilities but it certainly isn't just one (1). Our species is a lottery winner and we all know that specific lottery winners are highly improbable.
1. I wonder if there are any possible pathways that would have given rise to truly intelligent beings and no IDiots?
Is It True? Today at 5:30pm
The Multifaith Centre at the University of Toronto is sponsoring a series of talks. I represent the control group (no faith).
The title of the series is "Is It True?" Tonight I will defend the negative position from 5:30-7:00pm in room 52 University College. If you're in Toronto, come out and participate.
The title of the series is "Is It True?" Tonight I will defend the negative position from 5:30-7:00pm in room 52 University College. If you're in Toronto, come out and participate.
Is it True? Uncovering the Heart of Each of the World's Religions
The University of Toronto Secular alliance (UTSA), in conjunction with Power 2 Change, Muslim Students Association and the Multifaith Centre is hosting a lecture and discussion series entitled "…is it true?"
This series will feature the following speakers:
Oct. 24: Islam (Amjad Tarsin, Muslim Chaplain, U of T)
Oct. 31: Christianity (Kyle Hackmann, Grace Toronto Church)
Nov. 7: Judaism (Yishaya Rose, Chaplain, Chabad House, U of T)
Nov. 14: Atheism (Professor Larry Moran, U of T, Secular Alliance)
Each speaker will speak on behalf of the philosophical framework to which they subscribe to. Following the lecture, there will be a period of Q and A following by an open discussion amongst attendees.
I encourage you to attend these talks as I suspect a lot of fruitful conversations can emerge. To this end, specifically, we are delighted to have biochemist Dr. Larry Moran, represent our side of the conversation.
University College 5:30pm-7:00pm, rm 52. Light dinner will be served.
Please find event page below:
Hope to see some of you there!
Evolution and Design
Arrington claims that there are only three positions in this debate.
In summary, there are three positions in play here.This isn't correct. I support the 4th position; namely ....
(1) The traditional theist observes the overwhelming appearance of design in living things and is content to conclude that things are they way they appear to be, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they are in fact designed for a purpose.
(2) The atheist admits that the appearance of design in living things is overwhelming but asserts that the appearance of design is an illusion and in reality natural law and random chance combine to produce a result that only appears to be designed.
(3) The Barr-type theistic evolutionist admits that the appearance of design in living things is overwhelming but asserts — like the atheist — that the appearance of design is an illusion and in reality natural law and random chance combine to produce a result that only appears to be designed. The TE then goes one step further by asserting that the explanation of the illusion of design is itself an illusion, because the randomness of evolution is in fact directed.
(4) When you step back and look at the big picture, living things do not appear to be designed and they do not appear to have a purpose. While there may be some features of living things that have been honed by natural selection, they are the exception, not the rule. Even those features with a strong illusion of design look much less designed when you examine them closely.
When I talk about Evolution by Accident I intend that to be an attack on Intelligent Design and also an attack on the Dawkins' view of evolution.
Michael Behe in Toronto!
There's also a reception for him at Hart House on Thursday afternoon. Let me know if you plan to attend either event. Maybe we can meet for dinner.
The talk on Thursday evening is on "What Are the Limits of Darwinism?" I assume he's going to talk abut irreducible complexity and the edge of evolution. Neither topic is suitable for discussion during question period. I think I'll ask him to explain how common descent is compatible with the actions of an intelligent designer.
The lectures are sponsored by The Copernicus Group.
The Copernicus Group is based in Toronto, Canada. The group provides lectures in the Greater Toronto Area on Science and Faith issues particularly in Origins Science – that is: the origin of the universe, life, species and related subjects.
The Copernicus Group derives its name from Nicholas Copernicus the Polish astronomer who in 1543 published his finding that the earth revolved around the sun. His discovery was not readily accepted because the view held by most educated people of the day was that the sun revolved around the earth. The conventional view was wrong because the foundational assumption regarding the universe – that the earth and human life must be at its center – was wrong. Today science has a very similar foundational assumption – all processes must be understandable to humans by naturalistic processes.
Foundational assumptions affect conclusions. As a result The Copernicus Lectures on Science & Faith will attempt to present scientific observations in a neutral manner – meaning that neither the Naturalistic assumption nor any religious assumption will be made as a starting point – and conclusions will be left to the audience members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
