Quote of the day
Scanning through the vast shadowy morass that is the collection of comments on digg, I saw this and laughed aloud (or ‘LOLed’ as I think the not-so-hip kids call it):
creationism, for people who think their god is too stupid to come up with evolution. — ‘0ceanic’ on digg
Class. :-)
Science vs Norse mythology
Science vs Norse mythology
Click to embiggen.
/hattip: yottaparsec in The Atheist Experience’s Ustream chatroom
Edit: from The Pain
The truth about Ben Stein (and ‘Expelled’)
Courtesy of the Rant Puppets.
/hattip to Pharyngula for making me aware of this site.
Hitchens on eyes
Christopher Hitchens lets loose with a bit more of that fighting talk that he’s (in)famous for in his article Losing Sight of Progress: How Blind Salamanders Make Nonsense of Creationists’ Claims over at Slate Magazine.
Genesis, but accurate
/hattip Pharyngula
BBC Natural History Unit becomes Supernatural “History” Unit
Thanks to a letter sent to the National Secular Society, I’ve been made aware of BBC (i.e. taxpayer) provided webcams at the creationist Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm near Bristol.
Obviously, the BBC has moved on from the need to report on reality, and can now comfortably spend the licence fee on supporting the unverifed (and unverifiable) claims of special interest groups.
Oddly enough, these webcams are still advertised within the “nature features” part of the BBC Bristol web site. I guess they haven’t got around to re-organising the web site since the supernatural became a part of everyday existence.
Oh, the zoo farm also kindly offers educational resources, in topics like evolution, geology, solar astronomy and history.
Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed
It’ll never happen
although if the Discovery Institute get their way, they shouldn’t have any right to complain at all.
Although it does beg the question as to why they don’t put pressure on their churches to do this already, to lead by example so to speak, if they’re all about “fairness”.
Pedro deals with the “one in a million” fallacy
Pedro over at Way Of The Mind has recently posted about the fallacy often used by creationists to argue that “life could never happen by chance”. Go and read it, then come back, and I’ll give you my take on it.
Back? Ok.
One of the things that Pedro didn’t address is his post was the notion of the passage of time. He’s quite correct in saying that rolling a dice however many time to get 66666666666666666666 is extremely unlikely in any realistic lifetime, but that’s if we think that all life came about because of a lucky of a one-time hit. Thankfully, that’s not what evolution (in the timescales offered by the evidence of geophysics, palaeontology, cosmology and the other long-time sciences) predicts.
So, carrying on with Pedro’s dice analogy, and written using simplified terms from the language of biology, I decided to knock-up this little Ruby program (because it’s relatively easy to read, even for a non-programmer) to demonstrate this:
AVAILABLE_GENES = (1..6).to_a WINNING_GENES = [6] SUCCESSFUL_GENERATIONS = 15 @genome = "" @generations = 0 while @genome.length < SUCCESSFUL_GENERATIONS @generations = @generations + 1 @point_mutation = AVAILABLE_GENES[rand(AVAILABLE_GENES.size)] puts "Generation #{@generations}: " + @genome + @point_mutation.to_s @genome << @point_mutation.to_s if WINNING_GENES.include?(@point_mutation) end puts "Successful genome #{@genome} took #{@generations} generations."
I’ll explain a little about the program works here:
AVAILABLE_GENES is the range of possible “genes”, including both “good” (aiding to survival and reproduction) and “bad” (no surviving offspring) mutation possibilities (in this case, the range of values from 1 to 5)
WINNING_GENES is the list of “genes” that allows a generation of offspring to survive and reproduce (in this case, just 6)
SUCCESSFUL_GENERATIONS is the number of generations of surviving offspring that we want
@genome is the “genome” of the current generation
@generations is a counter to see how many generations that we’ve tried so far
When we run this program, it adds “mutations” (in the form of dice rolls) to a “genome”. If the new mutation is advantageous (i.e. a ‘6′) and aids in survival and reproduction then the gene is added to the genome. If the gene is bad (not a ‘6′) then that generation dies without reproducing, and the current genome remains the same.
Each generation, it tries to “reproduce” with a new gene mutation, the successful survive and the unsuccessful remains the same
Of course, this program is (deliberately) incredibly simplistic (it doesn’t take into account populations, retrograde mutations, what constitutes a successful gene, predators, environment, etc.) but it should serve to illustrate the basic point that a successful genome can be arrived at quite easily over time given enough opportunity to reproduce.
Running the program, what do we see? I’ll save the full listings, but I’ll run it a few times to see what we get (further runs are truncated for space):
Desktop:$ ruby dice_simulation.rb Generation 1: 2 Generation 2: 4 Generation 3: 6 Generation 4: 66 Generation 5: 661 Generation 6: 663 Generation 7: 664 Generation 8: 661 Generation 9: 661 Generation 10: 661 Generation 11: 662 Generation 12: 663 Generation 13: 662 Generation 14: 661 Generation 15: 665 Generation 16: 662 Generation 17: 665 Generation 18: 666 Generation 19: 6661 Generation 20: 6663 Generation 21: 6666 Generation 22: 66662 Generation 23: 66666 Generation 24: 666666 Generation 25: 6666664 Generation 26: 6666664 Generation 27: 6666665 Generation 28: 6666666 Generation 29: 66666661 Generation 30: 66666661 Generation 31: 66666661 Generation 32: 66666666 Generation 33: 666666661 Generation 34: 666666663 Generation 35: 666666666 Generation 36: 6666666665 Generation 37: 6666666664 Generation 38: 6666666661 Generation 39: 6666666663 Generation 40: 6666666664 Generation 41: 6666666666 Generation 42: 66666666661 Generation 43: 66666666663 Generation 44: 66666666663 Generation 45: 66666666664 Generation 46: 66666666664 Generation 47: 66666666664 Generation 48: 66666666661 Generation 49: 66666666665 Generation 50: 66666666664 Generation 51: 66666666663 Generation 52: 66666666666 Generation 53: 666666666665 Generation 54: 666666666664 Generation 55: 666666666665 Generation 56: 666666666666 Generation 57: 6666666666663 Generation 58: 6666666666661 Generation 59: 6666666666664 Generation 60: 6666666666662 Generation 61: 6666666666666 Generation 62: 66666666666661 Generation 63: 66666666666665 Generation 64: 66666666666661 Generation 65: 66666666666662 Generation 66: 66666666666665 Generation 67: 66666666666666 Generation 68: 666666666666661 Generation 69: 666666666666662 Generation 70: 666666666666665 Generation 71: 666666666666666 Successful genome 666666666666666 took 71 generations.
Desktop:$ ruby dice_simulation.rb Generation 1: 3 ... Generation 7: 6 Generation 8: 62 Generation 9: 63 Generation 10: 65 ... Generation 16: 66 Generation 17: 665 ... Generation 27: 666 Generation 28: 6663 ... Generation 42: 6661 Generation 43: 6666 Generation 44: 66664 Generation 45: 66662 Generation 46: 66665 Generation 47: 66666 Generation 48: 666662 ... Generation 55: 666666 Generation 56: 6666662 ... Generation 62: 6666666 Generation 63: 66666664 ... Generation 78: 66666666 Generation 79: 666666665 Generation 80: 666666662 Generation 81: 666666666 Generation 82: 6666666666 Generation 83: 66666666663 ... Generation 90: 66666666666 Generation 91: 666666666663 Generation 92: 666666666665 Generation 93: 666666666666 Generation 94: 6666666666664 ... Generation 97: 6666666666666 Generation 98: 66666666666664 Generation 99: 66666666666662 Generation 100: 66666666666661 ... Generation 107: 66666666666666 Generation 108: 666666666666665 Generation 109: 666666666666662 Generation 110: 666666666666666 Successful genome 666666666666666 took 110 generations.
Desktop:$ ruby dice_simulation.rb Generation 1: 6 Generation 2: 61 Generation 3: 66 Generation 4: 665 Generation 5: 665 Generation 6: 666 Generation 7: 6662 Generation 8: 6662 Generation 9: 6666 Generation 10: 66662 Generation 11: 66665 Generation 12: 66666 Generation 13: 666663 ... Generation 23: 666666 Generation 24: 6666662 ... Generation 31: 6666666 Generation 32: 66666663 Generation 33: 66666666 Generation 34: 666666663 ... Generation 42: 666666666 Generation 43: 6666666664 ... Generation 48: 6666666666 Generation 49: 66666666663 Generation 50: 66666666666 Generation 51: 666666666665 Generation 52: 666666666666 Generation 53: 6666666666662 ... Generation 75: 6666666666666 Generation 76: 66666666666664 ... Generation 84: 66666666666666 Generation 85: 666666666666662 ... Generation 88: 666666666666666 Successful genome 666666666666666 took 88 generations.
As we can see, each time we run this, we get different numbers for how many generations it can take to get a successful gene, and sometimes there are 10 or 15 generations without a successful mutation. However we can also see that, eventually, there are successful mutations that add to the genome.
Another thing to note is that if we increase the range of AVAILABLE_GENES to, say 1..9, it will usually take more generations to see the target genome come about. If, however, we add genes to WINNING_GENES (e.g. [1,6,8]) we will reduce the number of generations required.
In fact, in relation to the one-time hit that I mention above, that’s exactly what the creationists propose, and who could blame them for invoking magic in the form of creator-gods with something so unlikely?
My point? One way we can get to a specific genome is by *poofing* it into existence in one step. The other is by adding a little bit per generation over a long period of time.
While evolution doesn’t deal with trying to achieve a specific genome, I know which situation the science supports better.
BBC: Scientist/priest says teachers are scared to teach evolution
Professor Michael Reiss, scientist, priest and head of science at London’s Institute of Education, has written a new book aimed at encouraging teachers, who it seems are avoiding the teaching of evolution in schools for fear of the “controversy” and not wanting to dismiss creationist pupils’ beliefs out of hand.
This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.
Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.
He said: “The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
“That’s one reason why it’s more of an issue in schools.”
The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins
said Reiss.
Reiss’s book, Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin’s theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.
(BBC)
While I admire Reiss’s efforts to help get science where it belongs, I wonder if he also thinks that these other ideas should be considered in science lessons, so that they can be summarily dismissed also:
- the “stork” hypothesis of reproduction
- the “intelligent falling” hypothesis of gravity
- the “to test our faith” hypothesis of palaeontology
- the “pirates” hypothesis of global climate change
There’s just as much evidence for these as there are for creationism (i.e. none whatsoever).
Read the full article over at the BBC.
Dembski, Darwin and Denominations (of cash)
Over at his hive of stupidity, bigotry and intolerance, Uncommon Descent, William Dembski is making more ridiculous noises, this time about the fact that we have the etched image of Charles Darwin on the £10 Bank of England note.
His idea is that Darwin dissenters, when offered one of these notes, should ask for two five pound notes instead, saying something like this:
No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.
How very droll, especially when this comes from a man that believes one of the vilest books in (not of) history should be considered not only the ultimate source on morality but also of scientific knowledge.
Anyway, onto Dembski’s statements.
British paper currency — the 10-pound note — features Charles Darwin. (The custom is that the notes all have the Queen on one side and a famous Briton on the other. The notes are in denominations 5, 10, 20, and 50; there are no 1-pound or 2-pound paper notes, these are coins).
If this paragraph exemplifies the amount of research that Dembski puts into a project, then I’m not surprised at the bampot conclusions he comes up with. A few corrections:
1) There are several forms of £10 note - it’s only the Bank of England £10 note that features Darwin.
2) The custom of the Queen on one side again only applies to Bank of England notes.
3) There are still £1 notes issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland, although these are beginning to be phased out.
Three mistakes in the very first paragraph — way to research, Dembski!
A couple of days ago the Bank of England issued a new 20-pound note, using new security features, and took the occasion to change the “famous person.” This is a news-worthy cause for British Darwin-doubters, who should urge that Darwin be dumped from the 10-pound note whenever there is a new security-upgrade version, on grounds that he is the chief prophet of the materialist religion, and his presence on the 10-pound note is an inappropriate endorsement of that materialist religion and its related anti-religious ferment.
Um. “Materialist religion”? What the fuck is that? Oh… you mean the “‘materialist religion’ that isn’t a religion at all by any stretch of the imagination, but can be considered ‘materialist’ because we don’t take a bunch of scrolls written in the bronze age as the source of ultimate truth and bow down to an imaginary sky fairy” religion? Oh, why didn’t you say so?
Now, it’s true that Britain has no 1st Amendment, but still, Britain is trying to be multi-cultural. A part of the effort could include a long list of choice inflammatory quotes from the new anti-religion books currently out in the bookstores (and in Darwin’s own writings — see the previous post here at UD); the effort could point out that the government, by honoring Darwin, implicitly lends its prestige to their venom.
Fortunately, we in the UK aren’t as foaming-at-the-mouth as Dembski is. While the UK is historically a christian country, and we still have some stupid archaic laws (e.g. blasphemy — a victimless crime if ever there was one) and some institutional bias (non-elected bishops in the House of Lords) to that effect, for the most part we (christians and non-christians alike) get on pretty well. Sadly, of course, there is the the odd fundie wingnut doing the rounds. Yes, I’m looking at you Dogshit.
In fact, the British government recently put out a statement that I can’t see the US government putting out any time in the next few decades. The non-religious are just as much a part of society and just as valuable as those who are.
I do think it’s indeed rich (and not a little hypocritical) for Dembski to ask for people to point to a long list of choice inflammatory quotes from the new anti-religion books currently out
, when his holy tome is a greater source of cruelty and violence, injustice and bigotry than anything written by any non-believer.
Then Dembski goes on with the non sequitur, although getting back to his previous rant about Darwin. However, contrary to what Dembski thinks, the Bank of England says why it has Darwin on the £10 note, but it doesn’t have anything to do with racism:
Historical character - Charles Darwin (1809-1882). As a young man Darwin was employed as the naturalist on board the ship HMS Beagle an illustration of which is depicted on the back of the note. Also pictured is an illustration of Darwin’s own magnifying lens and the flora and fauna that he may have come across on his travels.
Bank of England
Dembski suggests an alternative to Darwin:
A worthy replacement on the 10-pound note would be William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery crusader, particularly in light of the new movie. As it happens the Fabian Society is also in favor of dumping Darwin, and offers Wilberforce as a possible new famous person — at least, that is what one website says. Thus, this effort would also kick-off a comparison of what good has been brought to the world by these two people — Darwin vs. Wilberforce. Nazi Eugenics vs. the abolition of slavery. Is there really any contest?
Darwin was a Nazi? Amazing, considering that he died in 1882. I really shouldn’t have to explain that stupidity of this statement, it really does go above and beyond any kind of sense whatsoever. A straw man and an ad hominem in one neat bundle. Oh, and perhaps you should do a little more investigation about Darwin’s attitudes to racism and slavery, possibly within the context of the 19th century. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good fundie rant, will you?
It also just goes to provide more evidence (as if any were needed) that Dembski isn’t seeking any “truth” with his ID crap, but that he’s on a personal mission to try to destroy the character of a man that’s been dead for over a hundred years.
Strangely, on searching the Fabian Society’s web site, I found no reference to their desire to replace Darwin or any other figure. I did, though, find a site that referenced their support to have Dadabhai Naoroji, a Parsi, on any denomination note, but it was in reference to having a non-white face, rather than replacing Darwin specifically.
Of course, Dembski picks William Wilberforce (because he was a christian) and uses the reasoning that he was a vocal opponent of the slave trade, thus setting up a false dichotomy of Darwin or Wilberforce. Sorry Dembski, there are other choices too.
I’ve also already mentioned Wilberforce previously. He wasn’t exactly christianity’s favourite son at the time — the church was a firm supporter of slavery.
In other words, promote a boycott of the Darwin 10-pound note because it promotes racism. It’s like putting Robert E. Lee on the ten-dollar bill because he was a great general, and ignoring the cause he served. This would work particularly well because the goal of the Fabians and other multiculturalists is to re-define Britain to be racially-inclusive. Thus there is a particular reason to highlight the racism of Darwin and get rid of him.
This is simpleminded buffoonery. Let’s turn this around:
In other words, promote a boycott of the bible because it promotes racism, slavery, intolerance, murder, rape, torture…
You get the picture, I’m sure.
In fact, the bible does indeed promote these things, and even more so if you choose to interpret it a certain way. A £10 note, however, doesn’t promote anything of the sort, it doesn’t say anything about racism.
So, Demski claims that multi-culturalism is a good thing? Great, welcome aboard! Now, campaign in your own fucking country to get that christian-exclusive ‘in god we trust’ shit off your own money to cater for everyone: or maybe pluralise it for your cultural brethren hindus? Oh, not so multicultural now, are we? Hypocrite.
This would also be a good way to start a counter-reaction to the ‘Darwin Deification’ that we are going to get in 2009. Deifying Darwin is contrary to the multicultural goal of the British intelligentia (sic), and it encourages the worst anti-religious bigotry of Dawkins et al.
Darwin deification
? What crap is this? Who the fuck is deifying Darwin in Britain? Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so, Dembski.
And, just for Demski’s information, pro-equality is not anti-religion, it’s anti-special treatment, something that religions enjoy in abundance. Unless he’s also claiming that being pro-religion implies anti-equality, but we knew that already, didn’t we? Ask the women, the homosexuals and the non-believers in your own country to tell you about it. In fact, Dembski is so keen to attack a man dead for over 100 years, yet one mustn’t says anything uncomplimentary about his (not-even verified as existing) Jesus or his completely contradictory god.
Here’s a little advice from a native Briton to an American fundie: take your (our) pair of fivers, fold them until they’re all sharp corners, then shove them up your arse*. Actually, don’t: use your own almighty-fucking-dollar instead.
* That’s ‘ass’ to you, wingnut.
Thanks to TW over at Why Don’t You for alerting me to this amazing numbskullery.
Teach the controversy!
If you’re a creationist/IDer, then you may be interested in these other scientific theories which you can use to beat down those pesky, deluded Darwinists!
The scientific ‘theory’ that explains reproductive biology defeated
Poster, scientific paper, scientific paper with data and commentary.
The scientific ‘explanation’ of atoms and chemical properties busted
Improved periodic table of the elements with additional commentary.
Now, go get ‘em! Jebus loves you!
Creationism on my doorstep
I was wandering around my place of work earlier today, and I came across a glossy leaflet, obviously left deliberately, intended for some poor sucker student to pick up. I saved them the bother, and took it myself. Don’t worry, I’ll recycle.
The leaflet, entitled Intelligent Design, lists a number of meetings for talks and DVD screenings about “creation”. I thought it was frowned upon within the ID movement to talk about creationism. As far as I’ve seen in the US, they seemingly want to remove any explicit mention of god, but these folk don’t seem to have the same worries.
Many of the meetings have already happened, but for those of you who would like to attend (and perhaps ask for evidence of their “theories”) the remaining meetings, details are as follows:
Monday 13th November @ 9pm: “The Privileged Planet” An amazing DVD (big screen) showing the hallmarks of a designed Universe (astronomy)
Monday 20th November @ 9pm: “Unlocking The Mystery of Life” A ground-breaking DVD (big screen) showing that life has been designed (biology)
Monday 27th November @ 9pm: “Evolution and Creation” A presentation by Dr. Marc Surtees (biology)
Monday 4th December @ 9pm: “From Evolution to Creation” A riveting testimony of a man’s search for truth
Monday 11th December @ 9pm: “The Stones Cry Out!” A presentation on historical evidence for the Bible by an ancient historian
The meetings are held at Buccleuch Free Church, Buccleuch St. (next to The Human Bein, opposite Edinburgh University - David Hume Tower).
I’m afraid that I can’t go, as I have a previous engagement, although if you do attend, I would be happy to publish any report about the meeting.
I’ll follow up on a critique of the Edinburgh Creation Group’s web site soon.
The Evidence Race
I think it’s amazing that there an increasing tendency for those of faith to claim that there’s more and more evidence (e.g. intelligent design/creationism) to the answers of life, the universe and everything, when in fact no new evidence for any of it has emerged in the past however-many years (or whenever it was that the church leaders of the day for any particular religion decided what was ’scripture’ and what was not).
Take intelligent design: this pseudo-science (although nothing of the sort) tries to debunk scientific evidence with opinion, bluster and general nay-saying. There’s no evidence for any of it.
I was listening to a podcast of an interview with Kent ‘Dr Dino’ Hovind the other day, and every single one of his arguments was based upon bone fide scientific articles, taken out of context, and then he attempted to debunk them based on semantic jiggery-pokery, or just ignoring the actual conclusions that were reached. However, at no point in this interview, even when asked directly, did he even try to pretend that he had any actual evidence.
So, my question to the creationists is this: what evidence do you have, apart from the contradictory nonsense of the first two chapters of the book of genesis (or whatever your cultural creation myth of choice is)?
- lack of specifics in past scientific research is not applicable, as this is simple straw-man nonsense.
- “because god did it” is not evidence; it’s opinion.
- “because the pope/bishop/imam/Bush/my granny says so, and they wouldn’t lie!” is not evidence; their authority is no more than that of myself.
- ‘holy book’ references are not evidence; one can read almost anything into the bible if you want to ‘interpret’ it enough.
- personal “revelations” are not evidence; they’re purely subjective and can’t be experienced by anyone else.
- ‘irreducible complexity’ is not an argument; there is no evidence that evolution cannot have arrived at the same conclusion. It is also only opinion.
Bring us evidence - real evidence. Something tangible, something measurable, something observable and repeatable - something that can be tested by anyone who has the wherewithall to do so. Then you’ll be allowed take part in the discussion.
Otherwise you’re out of the race. Sit on the bench, be quiet, and contemplate your navel.
This article was originally posted at In Defence of Reality.
-
Twitter
nullifidian @mojoey: poke baby Jesus with a stick!
-
Feeds
-
Readers
-
Recent Comments
-
Recent Posts
- FIPTAIPT
- And now, the weather…
- Happy appropriated pagan holiday!
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- What “secular” means (redux)
- Oh No! Six random things meme
- WordPress 2.7 upgrade
- Checklist
- It’s *still* a fucking cracker, or how some catholics are just fucking arseholes
- A review (not mine) of the Alpha Course
-
Tags
- advertising
- anti-science
- argument
- atheism
- bad argument
- BBC
- BBC News
- bible
- bigotry
- bishop
- blasphemy
- blog
- books
- cartoon
- catholic
- Charles Darwin
- chart
- christian
- christianity
- Christian Voice
- Christopher Hitchens
- complete and utter stupidity
- creationism
- culture
- Edinburgh
- education
- employment
- entertainment
- evidence
- evolution
- evolution denial
- faith
- fallacy
- funny
- government
- healthcare
- history
- homophobia
- humanism
- humour
- image
- intelligent design
- islam
- Jerry Springer:The Opera
- Kent Hovind
- legal
- literalism
- LOL
- London
- lying for Jesus
- magical thinking
- media
- medicine
- meetup
- Mohammed
- muslim
- news
- nullifidian.net
- offense
- opinion
- parody
- personal
- petition
- photo
- Photoshop
- politics
- question
- quote
- reality
- reality check
- reason
- religion
- respect
- response
- Richard Dawkins
- Sam Harris
- satire
- science
- Scotland
- scripture
- secularism
- special treatment
- Stephen "Dogshit" Green
- superstition
- taking the piss
- technology
- television
- The Guardian
- The Independent
- theocracy
- The Telegraph
- The Times
- thought
- UK
- USA
- video
- web
- wingnut
- woo
- wow
-
Archives
