Burnee links for Sunday

If you don't Adam and Eve it, say so - comment - TES
James Williams calls on the moderates to restrain the extremists. (I visit a number of Catholic faith schools as part of my job. I've never seen any evidence of creationism being taught at these schools. They are part of the moderate majority of faith schools, and should be speaking out against those who would corrupt education.)

---

Gould’s NOMA – a thorough analysis (part 1)
I referred to Stephen Jay Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" in a recent post. Here's Andreas Schueler, in the first of two articles at the newly inaugurated Skeptic Blogs, explaining why the notion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm in broad agreement.

---

The campaign against Amy Davis Roth | Lousy Canuck
And so it goes. Eventually, one hopes, people will come to their senses. Hatred, it appears, spreads like an infection. Some of the infected recover, others die.

---

Andy Ostroy: Soledad O'Brien's Amazing John Sununu Interview Should Be Taught in Journalism School
Shades of Paxman:

---

How I Unwittingly Infiltrated the Boy’s Club & Why It’s Time for a New Wave of Atheism | Blag Hag
Signs that things will improve. Let's hope so. And let us all, individually, do something to make it so.

---

Words have meanings

I'm all for simile and metaphor; they make language colourful and engaging. Sometimes they can even highlight aspects of a particular discourse that wouldn't otherwise be apparent.

Hyperbole, however, needs careful handling if its use is not to be counter-productive. Comparing people to terrorists, for example, in such a way as to suggest that they are equivalent to terrorists, is not helpful. Unless they really are threatening innocent people's lives with bombs or other weapons — in which case we're not talking about a mere comparison, but a classification. If you're doing those things you're not just like a terrorist, you are a terrorist (and I don't mean that metaphorically).

Words have meanings, and if you're trying to make a point — to be understood as clearly and precisely as possible — you should think carefully about how you do it. Throwing around reckless and invalid comparisons will only make you appear as a crazed ranter.

The above is but one aspect brought up by this article on the website Network for Church Monitoring: "American Women are Under Assault from Christian Republicans"
(Via Lola Heavey on Facebook, originally from PoliticsUSA.)

More on Mars (and elsewhere), from half a century ago

This is a bit weird, but it's from Adam Curtis's blog so one might expect a certain degree of weirdness. He posts a half-hour archived BBC documentary, introducing it thus:

To celebrate today's successful landing on Mars I thought I would show a film of a man who claimed to have got to Mars a long time ago. He did this back in the late 1950s by communicating telepathically with the beings who inhabited the Red Planet. He also claimed that his mother went there on a UFO. And what's more the BBC took him very seriously.

The clipped British accents are as interesting as the subject matter, which naturally includes bog-standard flying saucers, but also multi-faith religious messages. Check it out here:

Adam Curtis has more information and comment.

"You're a plagiarist!" "Well you're a liar!"

Catching up with Unbelievable? this evening (which means I'm only a week behind) I listened to a debate between Robert Spencer and Adnan Rashid on the subject "Did Muhammad Exist?" I'm not particularly bothered whether he existed or not — I'm more interested in what Muslims believe and why, and what effect those beliefs have on the personal autonomy of individuals.

But as an advert for calm, rational discourse between people of different faiths, this radio programme was, to say the least, unedifying. Outright accusations of plagiarism and lying have no place in such discussions if they are to be at all productive.

The impression I came away with was that the evidence (or lack of it) on either side of the argument is flimsy, with neither participant able or willing to substantiate his claims, and so the discussion descended into name-calling.

Not Unbelievable?'s finest hour.

Download the mp3 audio of the show here (if you must):
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/8d42bd9a-f9ff-4bf5-b7bb-d96d5c19f526.mp3

Panoramars!

OK, I couldn't resist this:

http://www.360cities.net/image/curiosity-rover-martian-solar-day-2

Mars Panorama - Curiosity rover: Martian solar day 2 in New Mexico

(Via Dave at Hampshire Skeptics Society.)

Choosing Hats or choosing facts?

It's time for the Choosing Hats blog to change its name. In a post by Matthias McMahon (a mad hatter I've not encountered before¹) titled "But They're All The Same" an attempt is made to show that Christianity, amongst all religions, is exclusively the correct one.

What McMahon does not address here is why it's necessary for any of them to be correct. He begins with a statement that might, however, be true:

"It is often alleged by many atheists that all religions are the same, and all religions are false, and since Christianity is a religion, therefore Christianity must also be false."

Perhaps some — even many — atheists allege this, but it's not a line I would take. My problem with Christianity is not that it's a religion amongst many, it's that the truth-claims of Christianity are insufficiently substantiated. McMahon then offers a decidedly odd proof:

"Legend has it there was a tree dedicated to Thor many years ago. It was said that cutting this tree down would incur the wrath of Thor. A Christian missionary proceeded to cut the tree down, and to the surprise of everyone but the Christian, Thor did not appear in his thunderous array and strike down the missionary. If cutting down that tree should have incurred the wrath of Thor, and it ultimately did not, then it’s reasonable to conclude Thor does not exist."

"Legend has it…"? Did the missionary establish the veracity of the dedication before using it to disprove the existence of Thor? If I was a follower of Thor I might claim that the legend was misinterpreted, or that Thor's wrath would be manifest in other ways than a rather crass strike of thunder. This smells of a straw man.

Then we get our regular dose of PABS²:

"“Facts” of reality are interpreted underneath the umbrella of “Nature of Facts.” Facts are secondary to the meaning or nature of Fact. This explains much more fully the out-of-hand rejection of religion and gods by certain atheists. It’s not, “I’m not convinced that this religion is true,” but more like, “No religion is true. Therefore any fact supporting any religion isn’t valid.” But he seldom articulates this, because he is often unaware that he possess his own take on the Nature of Facts. His feigned neutrality is in reality a plain bias rooted in sinful suppression of his knowledge of the truth of God."

This straw man is rotting so much it will spontaneously combust. But McMahon gallops on regardless, head down, PA blinkers on:

"The Christian religion is so robust as to include claims regarding the very reasoning abilities of the atheist in his denial of Christianity’s truth. Indeed, there is nothing the atheist can do or say that *can’t* be explained by Christianity. The the scheme of Evolution, the most popular  fallback reason for the non-Christian, depends upon ideas and preconditions for which the atheist cannot account. The moment an atheist (or any other non-Christian) opens his mouth to utter a syllable in denial of Christianity, he has begged the question in favor of Christianity’s truth."

And then this:

"But, just so that I’m being perfectly clear: I’m not alleging that Christianity is just the best explanation for reality. I’m asserting that it is the *only consistent* explanation for reality, and therefore the best. And since the doctrine of Christianity is the formulation of reality given to us by the very God who created reality, it’s only appropriate to affirm such, unashamed. As such, it has never been refuted. Particular historical facts surrounding events in the Bible have been questioned, but only by men who on better days would admit their reasoning isn’t perfect all the time, and their hyper-skepticism regarding biblical history consequently destroys all knowledge they could possibly hope for, resulting in special pleading on their own part. Grand “scientific” schemes have been constructed as an allegedly viable alternative to the Biblical account, but these constructs fail to be either consistent with themselves or comprehensive enough to stand on the same ground of Christianity in competition."

Yeah, we know; Goddidit. There's more of course, but frankly I can't be arsed. I'm done with this crap.

---

¹Turns out this is McFormtist without the wacko username.
²Presuppositional apologetic bullshit.

As foretold: Genesis Expo to resurrect

Well, this is a surprise (and not, generally, a pleasant one). It seems that Genesis Expo — Portsmouth's very own creation museum, and incidentally the headquarters of the Creation Science Movement — has not died a permanent death after all. I was aware of the planning permission for increasing exhibition space using a mezzanine floor, and additional office space by building a rear extension, but it's over two years since the Expo closed for improvements. As the website continued to say the Expo was closed I assumed they'd run out of money. I heard a rumour that they'd found the whole place needed rewiring, but such unforeseen contingency seemed unlikely to have scuppered the entire project.

Nevertheless it was comforting to know it was out of action, and that opportunist schoolkids were no longer being lured in and fed unsubstantiated nonsense. Alas, it seems the hiatus was merely an all too brief respite. According to the latest bulletin from CSM, Genesis Expo will be re-opening in its refurbished and dual-floored glory. Within the invitation to celebrate CSM's 80th anniversary at a Day Conference on 3^rd November comes this throwaway line:

There will be an opportunity to view the newly refurbished Expo and exhibits as well.

Personally I'll not be spending £10 on three creationist lectures and coffee (and I wouldn't do so even if I didn't have to bring my own sandwiches). I'll wait until Genesis Expo is properly open, and see how it actually turns out. (And of course I'll post an update to my original review.)

---

It appears that only advance booking is available for the "Day Conference" — no tickets on the door.