Burnee links for Thursday

Christopher Hitchens: Unspoken Truths | Culture | Vanity Fair
It is an honour to read this towering intellect persisting in its failing frame. Hitch does his readers a unique service with unstinting insights into his ongoing condition. Lessons for us all.

Why the world might end next Saturday - Religion - Salon.com
An attempt to explain how nutcase Harold Camping has worked out that the "rapture" will occur on May 21st. What I want to know is this: if the date of the rapture is somehow encoded in the Bible, won't God be pretty pissed off with Camping for letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak?

Science explains the end of the world - On Faith - The Washington Post
Richard Dawkins was asked to comment on the lunacy of Harold Camping. He gives it the attention it deserves, dismissing it with utter contempt, and goes on to talk of other things. Would that the media in general took so sane a view of the matter.

Tessera: Good Girls Don't
It's hard to believe that stupid (and sexist) ideas like this one put forward by Nadine Dorries can get any traction in today's Britain, but she won the vote. Tessera gives a good analysis.

A telling telic misapprehension in Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God

The title of chapter 14 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God makes me wonder about the currency of it: "Debunking the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' Stereotype". The Scopes "monkey trial" was way back in 1926. It was dramatised in the black and white film Inherit the Wind. (A more recent BBC Radio drama — based on court transcripts — is available for download from RapidShare.)

The thrust of Edward Sisson's essay is that it's wrong to insist that the scientific consensus about evolution be taught to children, because in 1926 scientific consensus included the existence of the ether and the usefulness of eugenics. But if there's little actual controversy about a theory such as the ether (as there wasn't until science showed that the theory was false — indeed numerous experiments around the time of the trial were already spreading doubts about the ether's existence), how else should we determine what's to be taught in schools? Certainly not by reference to scripture — especially in the US where the teaching of religion is unconstitutional. Where there is genuine controversy it's legitimate to expose children to competing theories, but school science lessons should teach accepted science. The overwhelming scientific consensus, in 1926 as now, is that Darwinian evolution explains the way life came to be the way it is on this planet. Darwinian evolution, therefore, is what should be taught in schools.

But be that as it may, this chapter appears to be an unsubstantiated bleat for creationism, while at the same time offering no evidence for God, which is what Dembski & Licona's book is supposed to be about.

Towards the end of his chapter, Sisson clearly illustrates the usual creationist misunderstanding of evolution:

Indeed, Darwinians, who claim that all of life is motivated by an irresistible drive for survival, which necessarily means a drive for power, are poorly positioned to claim a special exemption from the very force they say rules life. (pp. 79-80)

Note the use of motivated, irresistible drive, drive for power, and force. These words impute intention — a telic force — when in fact Darwinian natural selection is nothing of the kind. There is no force, no drive, no motivation. It just happens. It's simply the way things occur in a system comprised of organisms capable of reproducing themselves, while at the same time being susceptible to reproduction errors that make them more or less suited to their environment. Darwinian evolution occurs that way because it can do no other.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952915

Alan Moore at TAM London 2010

I'm not a fan of comic books. Not that I have anything against graphic novels as such — it's just that I never really got into them. I've read Watchmen, seen the film, and enjoyed both, despite a certain ambivalence towards the superhero genre. I also have a couple of Neil Gaiman's Sandman series which I've yet to get to.

I didn't know what to expect of Alan Moore, though I was aware he is revered by many. I have to admit that the twenty-minute poem he proceeded to read to us on Sunday afternoon at TAM London 2010 left me cold. Maybe if I'd been more attuned to his oeuvre, or even his voice, I would have got something out of it. (I should point out that for me poetry in general is a bit of a blind spot, so I'm not qualified to assess its worth, and my comments in this regard are probably worthless.)




After the poem we were back to the discussion format, with Alan Moore in conversation with Neil Denny and Josie Long. My overall impression was of an expectation that the audience would be at least partially familiar with the subjects discussed, which I was not.

But you win some, you lose some. I know that there were people attending TAM London for whom Alan Moore's appearance was the highlight of the weekend. Alas, I'm not one of them.

The 2010 TAM London was a different animal from its predecessor. I've already mentioned the preponderance of discussion panels — a format that's fine in moderation (excuse the pun), but I would have preferred fewer of them and more of the structured talk format. I also noticed a shift towards an atheistic emphasis. This isn't something I'm against, because it fits with my own skepticism, of which my atheism is merely a subset. I suspect, however, that there will be some who feel that skepticism should not necessarily imply or assume atheism.

On the whole TAM London 2010 was highly successful and I'm glad I went. I look forward to the DVDs and to the announcement of the speaker line-up for TAM London 2011. And I'll finish with a couple of shots of the man himself wrapping up the weekend:

New episode of Skepticule Extra available

Episode 4 of Skepticule Extra, the podcast where my two co-hosts and I rant and ramble about generally skeptical and godless matters in the news and elsewhere, is now available for download. This time we go on about homeopathy, faith-healing, post-mortem conversion and books we have and haven't been reading.

Find it here:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/05/skepextra-004-20110501.html

Burnee links for Sunday

What your teachers are doing : Pharyngula
I'm reminded of the current obsession in the UK with CRB reports — if you merely enter a school building you're supposed to pay to have the Criminal Records Bureau look up your file so you can prove you're not a paedophile. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

The new atheist response to being told to quiet down - Butterflies and Wheels
Ophelia Benson clarifies her Gnu Atheist status.

Why I simply cannot get through Sam Harris’s new book « Choice in Dying
The Moral Landscape continues to confound serious thinkers.

Greta Christina's Blog: A Crisis of Faithlessness
What matters? Greta Christina does what in other circumstances would be called some soul-searching.

God among the blog-battles — an atheist rises to a challenge

As a result of something Paul Baird mentioned on the latest Skepticule Extra I listened to a discussion between Alex B and Matt Slick, which was precipitated by a challenge from another blogger (of whom more later). Alex B's conversation with Matt Slick was notable for the latter's insistence that Alex is a god-hater, to which Alex understandably responded that he couldn't hate someone whom he doesn't believe exists. There was also the tiresome insistence that Alex B had a belief — a belief that God doesn't exist. This latter point can be argued over at length, but surely its significance here is that Matt Slick clearly thinks that Alex really does believe that God doesn't exist. So how can he be a god-hater?

Alex seems to be getting a taste for the religious call-in show — he's had another go (which I've yet to hear), but so far his counter-challenge to Stormbringer, the blogger who challenged him to call Matt Slick, has brought forth no fruit. Whether Stormbringer does or does not eventually call the Atheist Experience is of little consequence. Such a call might prove entertaining, but judging by Stormbringer's blog — a few recent posts of which I've perused — the call would probably be short and inconclusive, and would likely highlight the true worth of his arguments and the level of his intellect.

A secret summer of intelligent design

In July of this year the Centre for Intelligent Design is holding a week-long summer school, to "...clarify the various strands of the design argument, its basis in science, its distinct stance with respect to religious faith, and its wider implications." Fancy going along? You might find the £300 price-tag a bit much, though for four days of full board accommodation plus lectures and networking it appears good value. That price, by the way, is half what was originally advertised, so I wonder if perhaps the event has not proved as irresistible a prospect as the organisers first hoped. If you're a student you might even get in for a mere £100.

I say "might". There appear to be some other obstacles to admission to this exclusive (maximum 50 attendees) event:

"Applicants should be able to demonstrate an interest in and commitment to the design argument."

"You must be able to demonstrate an interest in and commitment to the design argument. Required application materials include (1) a résumé or C.V. (2) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your area of work and life and (3) a letter of recommendation from a person of standing who knows your work and is friendly towards ID."

Then there's the application process itself:

"Application to join the Summer School is a two-part process: 1: a preliminary application involving no cost; 2: final application with full agreed payment being made at the time of application."

As if to emphasise the organisers' apparent paranoia there's also a bit of cloak-and-dagger:

"Because of professional sensitivities, participation in the conference will be handled in strict confidence and with anonymity."

Naturally the C4ID are maintaining their charade that intelligent design isn't a religious idea, though the founders are religious believers (and, incidentally, the conference is being held in a centre operated by Pentecostalists).

How much of a threat to science education is this "summer school"? With only 50 (anonymous) people attending I wonder about the possible extent of its influence. It depends, of course, on precisely who those anonymous people are.