Charles Darwin and the children of the evolution - Times Online

There's so much wrong with this article.

For a start, whatever these psychopaths are saying about following "natural selection", that's not what they're doing. They are instituting their own kind of artificial selection — trying to give what they see as Darwinism a "helping hand". This is no different from what Hitler attempted with eugenics, which was based not on "random mutation and natural selection" but on the kind of artificial selection that dog-breeders (for instance) have been doing for centuries. All this article shows is that many people don't understand what Darwin's theory says (and have probably learned what they "know" from creationists — who consistently get Darwin wrong).

Dennis Sewell, the author of this article, also seems to fall into the trap of somehow associating morality (or lack of it) with Darwin's theory. Unfortunately for morality, scientific facts are not amenable to opinion. The science is either true or false. Creationists are fond of saying that Darwin's theory leads to immorality, which, even if that were the case, has no bearing whatever on its scientific validity.

All this article shows is not that Darwin's theory has somehow been detrimental to some people's morality, but that some people are appallingly ill-informed about it. The fault lies squarely in the lap of education, and illustrates perfectly why evolution should be part of the primary school curriculum.

One last thing: citing Ann Coulter in support of your argument is, to put it mildly, ill-advised.

Humanist Symposium #45

The 45th Humanist Symposium is now available at Confessions of a Closet Atheist. This is my first time participating in any kind of blog carnival, and I'm proud to be in such varied and interesting company. (For my money the pick of the bunch is Greta Christina's contribution, which is typically insightful and comprehensive.)

Burnee links for Tuesday

Review: Unscientific America : The Uncredible Hallq
If you thought the reviews so far were bad....

Letters to the Earth — The First Question
Why is there something rather than nothing?

Can We Talk About Religion, Please? - The Moral of the Story Blog - NYTimes.com
Yes we can, but it's still likely to raise disproportionate ire among religionists who think they have immunity from criticism.

'Give us your misogynists and bigots' by Richard Dawkins - The Washington Post - RichardDawkins.net
Linked from RD.net rather than the Washington post, to give the piece some context.

U.S. resists anti-defamation resolution - World Faith- msnbc.com
At last the US speaks out against the OIC's insidious UN resolution.
(Via Pharyngula)

Science and free speech go hand-in-hand — British Humanist Association
How inconvenient and irresponsible of Professor David Nutt to point out that scientific evidence isn't something that is subject to a vote.

The internet has done for Scientology. Could it rumble the Christians, too? | Marina Hyde | Comment is free | The Guardian
We can only hope....

Decomposing Humanism: Why Replace Religion? | Religion & Theology | ReligionDispatches
Austin Dacey makes the point that it's not necessary for Humanism (with a capital H) to replace religion.

Guest Voices: The secularist case against "Atheism 3.0" - On Faith at washingtonpost.com
Here's Austin Dacey again, hoping (probably in vain) that we can focus less on the "atheism vs religion" arguments and more on things that really matter. (Plus there's a book to promote.)

Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists? | Belief | AlterNet
Frank Schaeffer delivers a diatribe against Dawkins and Hitchens (but Dennet is a nice chap, apparently). But wait! Didn't he forget Harris?

Ray Comfort Replies to Eugenie Scott : Pharyngula
So that misguided people don't simply shut their ears to reasoned criticism one should give them the benefit of the doubt. Some people, however, are willfully, obstinately ignorant and deserve to be ridiculed without mercy.

''The Evolution of Confusion'' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009

''The Evolution of Confusion'' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009, RDFRS, Josh Timonen - RichardDawkins.net

For a superb take-down of theology, watch this video of Dan Dennett at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 convention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ



I concur with his characterisation of philosophical theology as "a pseudo-sophisticated mug's game" and "willful obscurity".

Burnee links for Sunday

England’s libel laws don’t just gag me, they blindfold you | Simon Singh - Times Online
Simon Singh outlines why his libel case is important.

CFI Opposes “Defamation of Religions” Resolution at the UN | Center for Inquiry
There's something seriously adrift at the UN if these kinds of resolutions get repeatedly passed.

Alpha course poll finds 96% of people do not believe in god — British Humanist Association
I wonder if the BHA's Public Affairs Officer Naomi Phillips, quoted in this press release, has considered the possibility that the Alpha Course poll may have been Pharyngulated.

Jack of Kent: The Legal Scholarship of Dr Lionel Milgrom
... or lack of. A valuable lesson in the world of today's media: as a basic principle when discussing controversial issues, at least get your facts right.

Butterflies and Wheels Article — "How Pleasant to Know Mr Ham" by Ed Turner
See also my recent Skepticule interview with Ed Turner.

Fancy a coffee? Look out – the evangelists are waiting for you! | National Secular Society:

"The Waterlooville branch of Costa is hosting an Alpha Course starting this week, the first time one has been seen outside a church. Organiser Gary Chapman, from Church of the Good Shepherd, had the idea after attending two separate training sessions about Alpha and Café Church."

There's an Alpha Course running (in a church) about two miles from me in Cosham, and Waterlooville is the town where I work. Is this all a reaction to the success of the Atheist Bus Campaign?

New Tory MP declines to take religious oath | National Secular Society
This is a good sign, although it seems that god-belief still pervades the Conservative leadership.

Sneaky card looks fun : Pharyngula
Yes it does. And it's refreshing to see something like this steering away from modern technology for a change.

Listen and cringe : Pharyngula
My friendly neighbourhood creation museum gets the once-over. Again.

Little Kitten - Tim Minchin Goes Rock’N’Roald
I found Tim Minchin's brief but intense gig at TAM London hugely impressive. And now I discover he's involved with the Royal Shakespeare Company — the best theatre company in the world — who themselves have an impressive record with musicals (I was present for the Barbican press night of Les Miserables — a critical failure but an economic masterstroke. I doubt the RSC would be currently rebuilding their Stratford-upon-Avon base without the income accruing worldwide from every single performance of Les Mis.)

On Faith Panelists Blog: Business as usual for Vatican Enterprises, Inc. - Paula Kirby
One more item on the list of reasons why the Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world.

It’s Been a Year Since I Lost My Religion « Struck by Enlightning
See? It really is worth it.

I Must I Must Increase My Bust « The Merseyside Skeptics Society
Well, not me personally, but, you know....

There is a line to be drawn — why I'm against "accommodationism"

Most people who meet me would, I think, consider that I'm a fairly easy-going chap, not prone to outbursts of vitriolic invective or uncompromising rage.

I'm usually prepared to accommodate people's foibles and make allowances for mild idiosyncrasies. This makes for a quite life, without avoidable friction. And it's fine as far as it goes. It's fine if others are prepared to be included in the give and take. But being easy-going doesn't mean you need to be a doormat. There comes a time when easy-going ceases to be a beneficial strategy. When others won't play by the rules, and take advantage of someone's attitude of tolerance, that's when the normally meek and mild need to take a firm stand.

Nowhere is this more important in today's multicultural world than in matters of belief — especially unsubstantiated belief. That's why, in the matter of the current belief/non-belief/accommodationist debate, I'm firmly on the side of Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

"Accommodationism" is all very fine and dandy, but it doesn't work. Giving leave to those who proclaim unsubstantiated belief to have sway over matters that are capable of objective substantiation simply opens the gate to mysticism and woo. Whether it's "alternative" medicine being endorsed by the National Health Service, or the validity of moral edicts derived from ancient scripture, those of us who base our lives on what is objectively true have a duty to point out unsubstantiated assertion, especially if someone is attempting to influence decisions that will affect other people. It's no good attempting to excuse behaviour of this sort with words of conciliation. Unsupported, dangerous nonsense should be stamped on, forthwith.

Believers in woo can be left to wallow in their fantasies, but the moment they become purveyors of woo they implicitly open themselves to public scrutiny, and we should not be shy in calling them on anything that appears to fail the evidential test. Assertions not grounded in evidence should be brought into the light of rational analysis, even to the extent of naming and shaming. The purveyors of woo, be they magical thinkers or faith-based dogmatists, should be made to account for their claims or else withdraw them. Those who refuse should be publicly shunned.

"But your reality isn't the only one," they say. "What's real for you, isn't necessarily real for us." OK, fine. Show me your "reality". Show me, in particular, what makes you think it's real. Show me the evidence. If you won't, then don't expect me or anyone else to give it credence.

There is a line to be drawn, and it's here. I'm an easy-going chap, most of the time. Rant over.

Evolutionary Theory: Is This All There Is?

Yesterday I received my ticket for a one-day event on Saturday 31 October at Conway Hall put on by the Humanist Philosophers, supported by the South Place Ethical Society and the British Humanist Association, entitled Evolutionary Theory: Is this all there is?

Here's the blurb from the BHA website:

Evolutionary Theory has a lot going for it, but how far does it go? Can it provide adequate explanations of human psychology - emotions, imagination - of our moral sense and aesthetic appreciation? Does Evoluntary Theory have anything valuable to say about our free choices and the meaning of life?

These questions will be explored in three discussions, chaired by Peter Cave (chair of Humanist Philosophers and author of 'Humanism: a beginner's guide'), with opportunities for questions and contributions from the floor.

Human psychology: 'Are human minds made by memes?' with Susan Blackmore, Visiting Professor of Psychology at the University of Plymouth and Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge

Ethics: 'Can there be genuine value and virtue in a godless universe?' with Emeritus Professor John Cottingham, University of Reading; Professor David Papineau, King's College, London; Professor Janet Radcliffe Richards, Director of the Centre for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine at University College London.

Meaning and purposes of life: 'What does evolutionary biology have to say about the meaning of life?' by Michael Reiss, Professor of Science Education and Assistant Director of the Institute of Education and Emeritus Professor Richard Norman, University of Kent.

It should be an interesting day. Michael Reiss resigned his post as education director of the Royal Society after his controversial statements about how creationism should be treated in school classrooms.

(As of today, tickets to the event are still available.)