Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Creationism's lack of Wonders

When I watched the first episode of Brian Cox's new TV series Wonders of Life I was struck by the uncompromisingly naturalistic assumptions behind his explanation of how life began on Earth. Never before have I heard such a godless approach on prime-time mainstream TV in Britain. Maybe, I thought, the tide is turning and the BBC is forsaking — albeit temporarily — its habit of "balancing" anything remotely atheistic with something necessarily faith-based. Well, maybe. But nevertheless I expected protests, especially from creationists, and I was relishing the prospect.

So I was more than a little disappointed with this lack-lustre response from my local creationist organisation, the Creation Science Movement.
On Sunday 27th January, the BBC TV aired the first of a new series called Wonders of Life, presented by Professor Brian Cox. In this first episode he wondered what life was and how it began. Like all science writers for the Beeb, Cox is a fully paid up atheist, and he set out to establish a sequence from inanimate matter to simple living cells, and so on to ourselves. He informed us that at the beginning there was energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, though it can change from one form to another. He demonstrated this with a waterfall where potential energy at the top of the fall is changed into kinetic energy of movement, heat and noise as the water descends. But the total amount of energy remains unchanged. All correct! He then argued that if energy cannot be added to or lost, then energy is eternal! He does not conclude that if energy has always existed, so too must matter be everlasting. Thus he dodges the problem of how matter and energy could have been created from nothing in the first place.
But Einstein showed that matter and energy are equivalent (E=mc2). And of course we have the old chestnut about creating something from nothing. Who says there was nothing in the first place? If the current spacetime continuum came into existence at the Big Bang, so too did cause and effect — because cause and effect have no meaning in any atemporal or aspacial sense. We can have no concept of existence in the absence of time and space, so to talk about "something" and "nothing" in a realm that lacks a coherent concept of existence is mere speculation.
He continued by saying that all processes involve a change whereby the energy becomes less able to do work, this being the Second Law. He doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion that if the universe has always existed, all the energy would have lost its potential to do work long ago and would have degenerated into heat at a very low temperature. Our universe is brimming over with energy at a high potential, so it isn’t eternal at all, but had a beginning. How could it have started at a high potential, that is, a highly ordered state? Well, not on its own!
Despite this unidentified blogger's exclamation mark, the idea that the universe came into existence spontaneously as a necessary result of a random event seems to me entirely plausible. Also I don't think many cosmologists believe that the universe as we know it has existed eternally, so I'm not sure what point is being made here.
Dr Cox told us that all living things that have ever been derive their energy from a flow of hydrogen ions in their mitochondria. Quite true! He demonstrated a simple battery made from two bottles of water with different acidities. He then wired them up to a miniature fan, which sprang into life, while gases bubbled from the electrodes. So, he argued, a flow of hydrogen ions creates life – QED. He didn’t take into account the glaring fact that the current needed a motor to make use of this energy as a fan. In the same way, in every living thing, the hydrogen ion potential in the mitochondrion requires a miniature protein motor called ATP Synthase to produce usable energy for the living cell. Someone must have designed and manufactured the fan. How much more is a Creator required for the ATP Synthase with its 31 precise components?
The reason why someone had to design and manufacture the electric fan is that electric fans don't reproduce by themselves. Why creationists appear to overlook this obvious distinction baffles me.
From then on, the professor told us, living things progressed from simple to more complex living things by mistakes in copying genes that are then selected by the environment – Darwinian evolution. Yet we know that mutations scramble the information in those genes. Moreover, how can precise genetic information come about by chance?
Anyone who seriously asks this question obviously hasn't grasped the implications of natural selection.
Now that he has told us how life began, the series should become more credible as he celebrates the wonders of life. It could hardly get less believable! 
An odd, muted conclusion — exclamation mark notwithstanding. We get the first thorough explication of current thinking on abiogenesis on mainstream TV — something of a landmark, in my opinion — but of course creationists are going to dismiss it, as this one has. That it's such a half-hearted dismissal may indicate (let's hope so) the creationist bandwagon is running out of steam.


Shame. I had hoped for something more meaty to celebrate my 700th blogpost!

Saturday, 2 February 2013

Burnee links for Saturday

Busy, busy, busy. So here are some links to be going on with.

In a Crisis, Humanists Seem Absent - NYTimes.com
A thoughtful article, pinpointing some of the issues relating to the establishment of distinct humanist groups within society.
(Via James Croft on Facebook)

Daft complaint to the BBC by anti-vax activists
Illustrating the skewed world inhabited by anti-vaxxers.
(Via Crispian Jago on Facebook.) 

The Skeptical Probe: Dr Hugh Ross - Lying for God
Assert something sufficiently often and with enough confidence and it simply becomes true, doesn't it? I was surprised and alarmed that Premier Radio associated itself with Reasons to Believe — to the extent of using that organisation's name as the subtitle of last year's Unbelievable?: The Conference. (See also the Facebook discussion.)

Sunday’s Caller and Public Response: Confirmation is not a Rebuttal » The Atheist Experience
The incomparable Tracie Harris offers some clarification of sin.

Cruella-blog: Mehdi Hasan makes me really angry.
Kate Smurthwaite gets cross. Again.

The Royal Institution: Can we just give it to the National Trust? Or the Science Museum Group? « The Thought Stash
Kash Farooq on a lamentable failure of communication.

Monday, 7 January 2013

Axp decry the Christian crib-sheet

The Atheist Experience — a weekly live TV phone-in show from Austin, Texas — this week dealt highly effectively with a version of the Moral Argument for the Existence of God (even though the caller didn't frame it in exactly those terms).

This:

http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-795-argument-from-making-sense-6494842


Matt and Tracie set out in no uncertain terms why biblical morality is such a crock.

Saturday, 5 January 2013

Who needs truth when you have apologetics?

Last week's Unbelievable? aired a talk given by Premier Radio's favourite Christian apologist William Lane Craig, at the 2011 Bethinking conference as part of the Reasonable Faith Tour of the UK.

I understand that this talk was given to Christians, so I was concerned to hear Craig begin by misrepresenting the meaning of secularism. In fact he seemed to base his whole talk on an incorrect premise: that the "secularisation" of Britain was a bad thing because it was based in a naturalistic philosophy that denies God. But secularism is merely the idea that matters of religious belief should be independent of government (and vice versa) — and as such is as beneficial to those who hold religious beliefs as it is to those who don't.

Later on — in what might be classed as an appeal to non-authority — Craig quoted Satan, further damning any credibility he might have otherwise retained in my view. Perhaps he just doesn't see how risible his arguments sound when he plumbs such depths; he seems happy enough blowing his own trumpet about how easily he can fill a hall with an audience. Sure, he's preaching to the converted and trying to inspire them, and I appreciate that a little hyperbole can go a long way.

But Craig shouldn't be let off the hook for playing fast and loose with facts. He describes the Crucifixion as the one historical fact about Jesus of Nazareth that is universally acknowledged among historical critical scholars. This is of course true, so long as your definition of "historical critical scholars" includes only those who acknowledge the Crucifixion as a historical fact.

Craig also seems very fond of referring to "The Church" as if it were a single homogenous entity, when we all know that this couldn't be further from the truth. During the Q & A he was asked about evangelising to Darwinists and postmodernists, and he advised skirting around such issues:
My evangelistic strategy is to set the bar as low as you can; make it as easy as possible to become a Christian. There are very few things you need to believe to be a Christian: you've got to believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is divine, that he died for your sins and rose from the dead, and that you will be saved by grace, through placing your faith in his atoning death — and really that's about it, you know?
Huh? Is that all?

The final question was about Christ being the "second Adam", and how this could be true if Adam didn't actually exist as a real person. Craig said he affirmed the historical Adam, but for those who don't, the phrase "second Adam" would be purely symbolic. For me, this lackadaisical attitude to facts exemplifies so much of Christian apologetics, and is why I find it utterly unconvincing.

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

At last Skepticule Extra — but wait, there's more

Starting the new year with a bit of catch-up, Skepticule Extra number 37 is available for your nostalgic reminiscence (OK, I promise to do better this year).

Can women be bishops? Can secularists be religious? Can celebrity evangelists make money?


Stand by for another dose of Skepticule Extra imminently.

Wednesday, 26 December 2012

Burnee links for Boxing Day

Some old ones, some new ones...

It’s time to abort the Catholic Church | Pharyngula
PZ Myers tells us what he thinks.

On Shunning Fellow Atheists and Skeptics | Center for Inquiry
A measure of calm rationality at CFI.

‘How do atheists find meaning in life?’ - - The Washington Post
Paula Kirby gives the obvious but eloquent answer to one of the dumbest theistic questions.

The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Easier to be good without god
You cannot out-source your moral decisions.

Is the Geek Movement bad for science? | Martin Robbins
The Lay Scientist expands a comment.
(Via Kash Farooq)

The Goodacre Debate » Richard Carrier Blogs
Richard Carrier blogs about his debate with Mark Goodacre on Unbelievable? 

Four lessons I learnt in 2012 | Hayley Stevens
Hayley is an inspiration.

How to become a charlatan | Edzard Ernst
So very tempting...

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

What's this? A blogpost? Surely not!

Not much of one, I admit. But as a means of easing my way back to blogging after a hiatus of several weeks I thought you might like to know that there's a new episode of Skepticule Extra available for your downloadable listening pleasure (or frustration, depending on whether or not you agree with any of the four Pauls).

Anyway, give it a listen:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/11/skepextra-035-20121007.html

And then give us some feedback (iTunes review, blog comment, email). In this episode we talk about a secular parachuting prison chaplain who promotes alternative medicine in space. Or something like that.