James Williams at Conway Hall

Here's another of the talks given at the BHA's Darwin, Humanism & Science one-day conference I attended at Conway Hall on 6th June:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7EzHqwCDaE


James Williams is doing essential work. Check out this recent Mail Online article, then read the comments the editors selected. There are obviously some out-and-out creationists in that group, but most of them appear to be from the United States.

Science is mocked: the presupposition of supernature

One of the recurring points of disagreement in intelligent atheist/theist debates is the presupposition regarding supernatural occurrences. Theists often say that the atheist is biased against supernatural occurrences because he or she does not believe they can happen, and is therefore ruling out the existence of God a priori - because God, by the most commonly accepted definition, would be a supernatural being capable of performing supernatural actions.

Conversely, the theist who believes in miracles is explicitly including the possibility of supernatural occurrences, and therefore (the argument goes) is actually more open-minded - ready to accept the claims of science and the claims of supernatural action.

But how does this work in practice? Is it reasonable for the atheist to rule out supernature? What if we accept that supernatural effects may, from time to time, occur - are these effects, occurrences, "miracles", bound by any laws, natural or otherwise? They are certainly not bound by the laws of science. If we accept miracles, where do we look to determine when and where they may or may not occur? It seems that miracles could only be bound by the whim of a supernatural being, who may or may not have written down (or caused to have been written down) some holy scripture in which these somewhat arbitrary whims are spelled out.

Personally, I don't believe in miracles. I've not personally seen any compelling evidence for miracles, and my understanding of the world I live in suggests to me that miracles are occurrences that by definition can't happen. Any investigation into what can and can't happen in any given set of circumstances must by definition give due consideration to what is possible, and by implication, what is impossible. If an investigation doesn't rule out supernatural occurrences, then in effect nothing whatever is ruled out. On what basis, therefore, can such an investigation proceed? This is a rhetorical question - I contend that in such circumstances no meaningful investigation can be carried out. For that reason I consider it justifiable to rule out supernatural occurrences, and if as a result I'm accused of making an a priori exclusion, I can only reply "guilty as charged."

In a discussion of the evidence for, say, the Resurrection of Christ, the arguments about who saw the empty tomb, or who conversed with Jesus after his death, become irrelevant, because if the Resurrection is true, all bets are off - anything is possible, and science is mocked. God could have implanted fake memories into people's brains, or performed any number of impossible actions - feats well within the capabilities of a supernatural being whose powers are essentially undefined, but which include the power to raise someone from the dead.

Burnee links for Sunday

A Lapsed Atheist Repeatedly Gets It Wrong | Friendly Atheist by Hemant Mehta

The god mob : Pharyngula

Atheism - Creation Ministries International
Much as I'm reluctant to be the cause of increased "Google juice" for a creationist website (that's why I'm using the "rel=nofollow" html tag with the above link) this very long article dated 11 June 2009 at Creation Ministries International, simply entitled "Atheism", is a comprehensive run-down of arguments for and against god-belief. It's highly biased - as you'd expect - but surprisingly useful to have all the fallacies and flawed arguments in one place.

Chiropractic evidence: The curious case of the missing study « Richard Wiseman’s Blog
A perfect illustration (in Richard Wiseman's typically non-judgmental but nonetheless quietly damning style) of why the woo artists can't be trusted when they talk about "evidence".

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? | | AlterNet

Salvation at the end of a television show - Hurriet DailyNews
(via RD.net)

Back 'cures', a brave scientist and an epic court battle: How Britain's libel laws are threatening free speech | Mail Online
The Daily Mail is famous for its campaigns - I'm reliably informed that this one is closely tied to the paper's abhorrence of bad verdicts from incompetent judges.

The curse of religion | AC Grayling | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Teach primary children evolution so they don't mistake Fred Flintstone for scientific fact | Mail Online
The gist of this article mirrors the general thrust of the lecture James Williams gave during the BHA's recent Darwin, Humanism & Science one-day conference at Conway Hall.
[UPDATE 2009-07-06: If you don't think creationism is a problem, just take look at some of the comments on the Mail article....]

The lure of Linux (repost from other blog)

I've had my MacBook for just over three years. Its AppleCare has now expired, though in the last six months I've been glad I shelled out the extra £200 for the cover. I ordered the MacBook a mere two weeks after Apple announced it (you can read about that elsewhere on this blog), and once it arrived I used it heavily ever since - it has become my main machine.

The MacBook has not been without problems. The WiFi sensitivity was phenomenal when I first used it, but over the months it deteriorated to the point where it became a serious pain, and I resorted to using powerline adaptors at home, while at work I had to shift the laptop around my office in order to connect to the wireless router downstairs.

Early on the MacBook suffered from the well-documented random shutdown problem, though this was relatively shortlived, being cured by a firmware update. The battery became unreliable, shutting off at about 20% without warning. This sounds in retrospect like a catalogue of serious defects, but unlike other technologies I'm used to, the MacBook didn't fail catastrophically. Rather, it exhibited that preferable mode of failure known as "graceful degradation" - most of what happened to it could be got around (such as by using powerline adapters instead of WiFi as mentioned above, or use of the mains power supply instead of the battery).

The last straw, however, was a defective touch-pad, which admittedly could have been got around by using a mouse. But by that time the cumulative problems, and the fact that less than six months of my AppleCare cover remained, prompted me to take the laptop in to be fixed. This was relatively painless, although it required two trips to the local (20 miles away) Apple Store. Repairs took about three days, and included a new battery and new top plate (keyboard and touch-pad). Although when I took the laptop in I was unable to demonstrate the poor WiFi performance (which typically reduced when it had been in use for 30 minutes or more) the WiFi seemed much improved after I got it back.

On the whole I was pleased with my AppleCare experience, even when the MacBook's WiFi did fail catastrophically a few months later, leaving me only days to get it fixed under warranty. In fact the laptop was out of warranty by the time I picked it up after it was fitted with a new Airport card.

Now, more than a month later, I'm typing this on a fully functioning first-generation MacBook that I've enjoyed using for over three years. When I bought it I expected it to be trashed by now; I knew it would get heavy use, and a three-year life-span for a laptop computer in constant use is pretty good.

What, however, has any of this to do with the title of this post, "The lure of Linux"?

Even though three years ago I switched from being a PC user who occasionally used a Mac, to a Mac user who occasionally used a PC, I've never nailed my colours wholeheartedly to any single platform. I have a cheap desktop PC that I intended to use as a dedicated Linux box but truth be told, it's not had much use. The problems with my MacBook, however, prompted me to consider what I would do when I eventually had to get it fixed. How would I connect away from home? I've also been conscious that the MacBook is not a cheap item - I'm wary of taking it anywhere where its security might be in doubt. And that's how I came to investigate netbooks - cheap and small notebook computers that allow computing and connecting on the move. I thought one of these would be the ideal portable backup solution.

I read reviews, and settled on the Acer Aspire One, which came in several configurations: Windows XP, or Linux, both with either a 120 Gb hard disk or 8 Gb solid state disk. Fortunately the cheapest option was also my preferred option: Linux, with a 120 Gb hard disk. I resolved to try out the supplied operating system, Linpus Lite (a version of Fedora Linux), on the understanding that I could replace it with the latest version of Ubuntu if I didn't like the supplied OS, in the knowledge that other people had successfully installed Ubuntu on the Aspire One.

Linpus Lite was indeed not to my liking, not least because I couldn't get it to see any of my network shares, and was reduced to shuffling files using a USB thumb drive (or by emailing them to myself!) - the Aspire One has no removable drive. So I downloaded and installed the Ubuntu Netbook Remix, which worked well and allowed me to use the applications I'm used to: OpenOffice (I use NeoOffice on the MacBook), Firefox 3 with the indispensable Google Toolbar and the other Firefox plugins I'm used to, Thunderbird to access my Gmail using IMAP, Skype, VLC. I was even able to use iPlayer Downloader once I'd figured out how to install Ruby. This setup didn't work right away - there were some tweaks I had to perform in order to get the WiFi working in the first place, but these were documented in detail in the Ubuntu Wiki.

But the one thing I could not make work was YouTube. I tried all sorts of fixes, different plugins, but nothing worked, and I resigned myself to not having Flash Video working on my netbook.

So, it (mostly) worked - sufficiently for use as a mobile backup, though there are a couple of things that irk me about the Aspire One. A minor point is that the keyboard is small, so I tend to mistype frequently (though this may improve with extended use). The other is more critical, in that the battery life is poor - two hours if you're lucky. I understand that there is a higher capacity battery module available for the Aspire One, though I haven't seen it.

I read recently that there was a new version of Ubuntu available, and knowing that I would shortly be once again without my MacBook I decided to upgrade the OS on the Aspire One. The Netbook Remix version was available only from the Ubuntu site, rather than via BitTorrent, which I'd used in the past, so I had to wait a while for it to download (it was nearly a gigabyte), and the image was only available for booting from a USB memory drive, so I had to find out how to make a bootable USB drive, which, after several false starts, I did on the Mac mini using a Terminal window. A clean installation of Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope went smoothly on the Aspire One (I'd already backed up the little data I kept on it) and I then set up the various apps. And this time I decided to use the Ubuntu Package Manager to install the Adobe Flash Plugin. This (version 10) went without a hitch, and I was not a little surprised to find that I was now able to view Flash Video. A quick check over at YouTube confirmed that all was in perfect working order.

Linux becomes more capable with each version, incorporating ideas from both Mac and PC. Ubuntu Linux will make PDFs of anything that can be printed, in much the same way as you can on any Mac. The previous version of Ubuntu on the Aspire One would not mount a USB drive partition if it was in Mac format, though unlike my Windows PC it could actually see it. The latest version of Ubuntu will not only mount the Mac partition but read it as well.

It may be true that Ubuntu is not suited to the computer novice - Linux seems to require a certain willingness to customise, to get down and dirty with the OS, that novices may be rightly reluctant to do. But it's no longer true (if it ever was) that Linux is a second class operating system. In principle it can do anything that Windows or OS X can do; the limitations are in the apps written for it, and many of the independent, open source and freeware software houses are increasingly including Linux versions. Linux is what most of the internet runs on, and it's the operating system running many digital video recorders and other consumer electronics devices.

Linux is a version of Unix - and what's underneath that silky smooth Macintosh OS X? Unix. All we need now is a Linux version of iTunes.

Creationists can't see evolution when it's right under their noses

From the Creation Science Movement blog:

Peppered moths back to form - Creation Science Movement

This creationist clearly doesn't understand what evolution is. His very words explain what's happening in evolutionary terms, but still Andrew Sibley denies that evolution is happening.

Scientists are reporting that the peppered moth, Biston betularia is now reverting back to its light form because of improvements to the environment. Of course this story is presented as evidence of evolution, but in reality it is just a change in the ratio of the numbers of the light and dark form. In other words, evidence of natural selection on pre existing genetic material, not an example of evolution at work.

Pardon me? Just a change in the ratio of the numbers of the light and dark form? How does this creationist imagine evolution works? If changing conditions now favour the lighter form, it's the lighter form that will reproduce more, and their offspring will also be the lighter form. The ratio of lighter to darker will increase further. It's evolution in action, and this creationist can't see it. This is the very definition of closed-minded.

Prior to the above, Stephen Hayes posted about laughter in humans and apes being homologous:

He who sits in the heavens laughs - Creation Science Movement

But why not 'homology', with a Creator in whose image we are made? This is the real 'alternative' which is always assumed to be unworthy of consideration. As Psalm 2 says 'He who sits in the heavens laughs'. Read the whole Psalm for the context - God laughs at arrogant, foolish men who seek to reject His rule, and warns them to 'pay homage to the Son' while there is still time.

Sorry, but invoking a supernatural being isn't in any way congruent with valid scientific research. Creationism will get nowhere if it continues to fall back on the ubiquitous "Goddidit" as an alternative to theories it doesn't like.

Burnee links for Sunday

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club: NOMA no more - the great accommodationism debate

Does religion have greater “epistemic authority” than science in some areas? « Why Evolution Is True

Science and religion: a history of conflict? | James Hannam | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
(via The Reason Project)

Derren Brown Blog » Blog Archive » Teenage girl dug up to be ‘corpse bride’

The Center for Inquiry Launches Campaign for Free Expression | Center for Inquiry

Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial – with SIMON SINGH | Centre for Inquiry London

Science and religion are incompatible in two major ways | Center for Inquiry

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club: There is only one world

New Humanist Blog: The battle of Conway Hall

Mysogynist Islamist group forced to leave Conway Hall | National Secular Society

Petition to: withdraw support for Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, an education focused, yet ardently creationist establishment. | Number10.gov.uk

The Digital Cuttlefish: Romeo And Juliet, 2009
(via Pharyngula)

The Skeptics’ Book of Pooh-Pooh » The art of distant healing with radionics

'Correspondence regarding the Templeton Foundation' by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, AC Grayling, Edwin Cartlidge - RichardDawkins.net

A. C. Grayling at Conway Hall - Darwin, Humanism & Science

While I get around to posting my thoughts on the Darwin, Humanism & Science event held at Conway Hall two weeks ago, the BHA has posted this recording of A. C. Grayling's talk with which he wound up the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbeY9_NErCs


I'm not sure why the first thing they've posted is the last thing on the schedule (unless it's the only thing they're going to post), but be that as it may, Grayling's talk was relaxed and informal, without slides, focussing on C. P. Snow's idea of "The Two Cultures".