Sunday, 28 February 2010

Premier's screening of Expelled — 27 February 2010

I was initially reluctant to take up Premier's offer of attending a screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed followed by a debate about the issues it raised. I'd already seen the film (thanks to the wonder of the internet) and I knew what a pile of (ahem) misrepresentation it was. But I'd never been to Imperial College, despite passing it scores of times over the years on my way to the Royal Albert Hall. Then I hit on the idea of going to the Darwin Centre at the Natural History Museum in the morning, which I felt would be an appropriate precursor to (and inoculation against) the horrors to come. (I'll post later about the Darwin Centre and the Cocoon.)

Just in case anyone doesn't know what the film is about, the theme of Expelled is that scientists in America who espouse intelligent design are being systematically expelled and excluded from universities, and journalists who write articles sympathetic to ID — or its proponents — are losing their jobs, and that this whole thing is a Darwinist conspiracy. I won't go into the merits or otherwise(!) of the film here as I've made my views on it clear enough elsewhere.

The debate panel comprised, on the pro-ID side: Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University, who appears in Expelled, and who also testified in the Dover trial in favour of ID; Alastair Noble, an ex-schools-inspector, who not so long ago wrote a disturbing piece for the Guardian exposing his ID credentials. On the panel against ID were: Susan Blackmore, Visiting Professor in the School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, and whom I've seen debate before (this time she was without her signature multicoloured locks); Keith Fox, Professor of Biochemistry, Southampton University, a theistic evolutionist — he's a Christian who doesn't believe ID is a valid proposition for explaining the presence of complexity in DNA. Justin Brierley, host of Premier's Unbelievable? radio programme, moderated. At the end of the debate Mark Haville, responsible for bringing Expelled to the UK, read a statement (see below).

I'd met up with MSP and a friend of his in the foyer, and as the three of us sat down in the third row of the Alexander Fleming lecture hall at Imperial College (I wanted to be sure of being able to hear) I joked that we ought to have a label in front of us reading "Atheist Contingent". I actually had no idea of the audience make-up and it remained unclear even during the screening, when there was a good deal of laughter at certain points in the film.

Once the debate began, however, it became clear that we were much in the minority. Sue Blackmore was interrupted in her opening remarks (though Justin Brierley is to be commended for his instant quelling of any potential for heckling). Alastair Noble began by congratulating Premier Radio for bringing Expelled to the UK (not an entirely accurate portrayal of events as I understand them) and hoped that every student in the country would see it. This brought a round of applause.

He said, "I have found it to be the most interesting, the most thought-provoking, in many ways the funniest film I have seen in a long time, but also a film with a deeply serious message." He stated his opposition to the materialistic "bias" of science as follows: "In the area of origins, you cannot limit yourself only to material and physical explanations. You must consider intelligent causation, and that's what lies at the heart of intelligent design, and that is what is ruled out by an arbitrary definition of science." (In his opening remarks he didn't suggest — given what the endeavour of science actually is — exactly how scientists might be expected to investigate anything that wasn't material or physical. If we wanted to know how science might investigate the nature of the soul, for instance, I guess we'd have to wait.) He did give us his definition of ID: "a minimal commitment to the possibility of intelligent causation." But just how minimal is minimal? Goddidit? I-don't-know-who-or-what-didit? Calling this "science" is a bastardisation of the term.

Keith Fox's opening remarks answered Alastair Noble directly, making the obvious point that the physical and material is all that can be addressed by science, and ID is therefore not science. He went on to criticise the film for its distortion of the idea of freedom of speech, and for its offensive muddling of the relationship between belief in God and evolutionary theory. He also condemned its erroneous linking of evolutionary theory with eugenics, and other misappropriations.

Steve Fuller began by excusing the tone and style of the film as comparable to anything produced by Michael Moore (as if that was somehow a recommendation), and went on to maintain that what happened to Michael Reiss (when he was ousted from the Royal Society for his soft approach to creationism in the classroom) is comparable to what was portrayed in the film with regard to scientists losing their jobs if they so much as mentioned ID.

The ensuing debate was hopelessly muddled — confusing creationism, intelligent design and abiogenesis, and included disagreements as to whether IDers actually were being expelled from academia. The panel represented a mix of overlapping views and beliefs, with Steve Fuller (who appeared in the film) seeming especially hard to pin down, despite being extremely vocal on the side of the film's producers. In contrast, ex-schools-inspector Alastair Noble was responsible for the most egregious and forthright comments of the afternoon. He's an unabashed IDer, plainly parroting the buzzwords of William Dembski and other ID ilk ("functional specified information", "front-loaded with information" etc) but did not follow his argument through to its next stage. He claimed that DNA code is evidence for a designer, stating that all examples of coded information that we know about come from an intelligent mind, so why should that be different for DNA?

It could well be different, and here's why. It's because his characterisation of "all examples of coded information that we know about" as originating from an intelligent mind leaves out a vital corollary of that intelligent mind, which is this: it's a human mind. All examples of coded information that we know about originate from intelligent human minds. Does Alastair Noble believe, therefore, that the coded information in DNA comes from human minds? Apparently not, and neither do I. But the only intelligence we know about, that's capable of producing coded information, is human intelligence. The commonality here is not "intelligence", but "human intelligence". How many different types of intelligence do we know about, that are capable of producing coded information? One: human intelligence. (I'm sorry to belabour this point, but the IDers really need to get it.) It's invidious to attempt to extrapolate from the capabilities of the single example we have of an intelligence that is capable of producing coded information, to claim that all coded information of any kind must therefore be produced by intelligence.

To put it another way — there are too many variables in this equation; coded-information-produced-by-non-human-intelligence is one. Non-human-intelligence is the other. Since one of these variables is contained within the other we will get nowhere in speculating about cause and effect. It's a bit like trying to solve simultaneous equations in algebra — you need at least as many independent equations as you have variables to solve. With intelligent design you have at least one more variable than you have equations. The scientifically correct, current answer to the question of where the coded information in DNA comes from, is "As of now, we don't know".

The IDers claim they have an answer ... wait ... no they don't, they claim they have a question — the same question that legitimate science has: where does DNA code come from? The difference is that while legitimate science says "we don't know but we're working on it", the IDers say "we don't know but we're not working on it".

And they expect this stuff to be taught in schools.

There was a significant exchange towards the end of the Q&A, when Alastair Noble invited Keith Fox to read Department of Education & Science guidance of a few years ago, about how intelligent design was to be handled within science. He said it stated that ID was "not to be regarded as science." He then went on to say, "And that's the problem — we do not have freedom of enquiry in this matter." Keith Fox effectively rebutted this saying that in schools, when teaching at a basic level, only accepted science should be taught.

If the IDers want intelligent design taught in schools, they need to provide evidence that it's a viable theory. So far they've not done so. For a movement that talks so much about science, it has remarkably little actual scientific research of any kind to show for itself. Alastair Noble stated that Alexander Fleming (for whom the hall we were in was named) noticed something that no-one else had noticed. He maintains that likewise IDers have noticed something. Very well then, show us the evidence. Evidence is what the scientific community needs in order to consider a theory viable; until that scientific evidence is presented ID will continue to be treated, rightly, as unscientific, and no amount of bleating about unfairness and ostracism will change that fact.

As the Q&A session came to a close the make-up of the audience had become a little clearer. Several of Alastair Noble's emotive but puerile comments were applauded instantaneously, as were some smart-alec interjections from Steve Fuller, including an entirely gratuitous, unjustified denigration of David Attenborough. Some of the questioners were obviously creationists who denied evolution outright, and at least one questioner self-proclaimed as a fundamentalist. Given that the event was put on by a Christian organisation, with the assistance of a pro-ID DVD company, to promote a pro-ID DVD, it's not surprising that the majority of the audience would favour the faith-based viewpoint.

What I did find surprising was the low-key wrap-up provided by Mark Haville, responsible for the promotion of Expelled in the UK. He announced some generous discount offers on his company's range of ID and creationist DVDs, then went on to read a prepared and somewhat long-winded statement. I've transcribed it from my recording — I omitted to ask for a printed copy — so there may be transcription errors in what follows. He said it was aimed at the press, so I assume it's OK to post here:
Once again, welcome to the debate. I hope, and dare I say pray, that this event will bring much-needed change, and promote truth in science where it is lacking. Science can mean knowledge, and many people rightly expect truth to go hand-in-hand with that knowledge. Winston Churchill once said truth is incontrovertible, panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. Knowledge and truth are important for a stable society, and whilst it is beyond the remit of empirical science to speak to every kind of knowledge, especially metaphysical things, it is therefore an undeniable hypocrisy when atheism, materialism and scientism are being promoted by so many today under the guise of authentic science. Atheistic philosophies and world-views, which have no foundation in empirical science, are routinely forced upon students, professors and the general public alike without the logical, ethical and moral implications of those ideas being explored or explained. Magical and mythological hypotheses like inanimate molecules producing life, and eventually consciousness, while time, space and matter coming into existence from nothing, or the eternal existence of matter, are only a few of the invisible fabrics woven together to form the atheists' new clothes. Such theories are not testable science, based on observation and experiment, and people who have this religious faith in such notions have no right to continually force their world-view or agendas on everyone else, while simultaneously denying free scientific enquiry from those who doubt Darwin's dubious deductions, or to castigate those with opposing world-views. As you heard in the film, evolutionists are free to believe there is no evidence for morality, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no free will, and that for some it may be better to shoot yourself in the head than to endure prolonged suffering from a brain tumour. Or to believe a person who doubts macro-evolution means that he is insane, stupid or ignorant. But these are implications evolutionists believe science reveals and are not scientific facts in and of themselves. And so the question that must be allowed, without boilerplating, additional distortion, misrepresentations or even lies, is where does the evidence lead. There must now, more than ever, be the freedom to challenge unsound theories, examine new evidence, and most importantly there must be the liberty to follow that evidence wherever it may lead, or conversely the individual freedom to ignore the moral and ethical implications if one so chooses. But not to fear investigation or worse still to silence, ridicule or vilify those who question materialistic concepts dressed up as science. Those scientists who hold such radical views should not dictate what is scientific fact, as this is the clearest case of the foxes guarding the scientific hen-house. This must change, as negative effects of scientific atheism on our society are now far reaching. So today I would like to announce the beginning of a national campaign to expose this bias to the public and to hopefully legislate necessary changes, so that science can have the freedom to advance and serve mankind to its fullest extent, whether in our schools, our laws or our lives. And again, thank you for attending, and for listening.
I have to say that it was a bit sneaky, putting this in at the end without the chance of a reply, chock-full as it is with fallacies, straw men and most of all projection. But hey, that's ID for you.

Sunday, 14 February 2010

Burnee links for Sunday

On Faith Panelists Blog: Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology - Richard Dawkins
Dawkins (uncharacteristically but justifiably) lets rip.


Butterflies and Wheels Notes Archive: "The mystery of the providence of God"
The appalling suffering in Haiti continues to tax theodicy's advocates — to no avail. "God moves in a mysterious way." — substitute "unbelievable" for "mysterious" and you have a far more accurate description of the way things are.


'Jesus wouldn't want bishops in House of Lords,' says critic — Ecumenical News International
First report of the informal debate I attended at the Houses of Parliament a couple of weeks ago.


Famous philosopher and Templeton-Prize winner: science = faith « Why Evolution Is True
Science is faith. Wait ... no, it isn't. Jerry Coyne deconstructs.


The Atheist Blogger » Open Letter to the Student’s Union
Freedom of speech is under threat at Royal Holloway, University of London. If you censor speech you forfeit the opportunity to disagree with it in public.


'A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair' by AC Grayling - Specially written for RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net
The judge may not have been lenient because the defendant was "a religious man" but rather because she equates being religious with high moral standards. This, we know, is false. See also Jack of Kent's comment on the New Humanist post.


Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says - Telegraph
Peter Capon, a lay member of Synod from Manchester diocese who tabled the Private Member’s Motion on the compatibility of science and religious belief, said that Christians believe the world exists because of the will of God whereas atheists consider this to be a “complete delusion”.
He went on: “We wish to refute the idea promoted by atheist scientists that science is on the side of the atheist in answering these sorts of questions.
"We wish to refute the perception that you have to choose between science and faith
"We wish to refute the crude caricature of faith, as being blind and irrational, propagated by some atheist scientists."
Go on then. Refute this idea, this perception, this caricature. But remember that mere denial is not refutation. To refute something, you need evidence.

I note that Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark, is persisting in his erroneous definition of faith:
He said that belief in the invisible subatomic particles of quantum physics requires just as great a leap of faith as belief in God.
“If believing that isn’t faith I don’t know what is and I don’t think that we need to be defensive about ours,” the bishop said.
It's clear to me that Tom Butler is correct: he doesn't know what faith is.


Rationally Speaking: How to Want to Change Your Mind
Julia Galef gives advice on not being too attached to our beliefs.


Clerics’ ‘dark age’ comments about women causes outrage among their flock
Enlightenment and civilisation correlate well with the emancipation of women. Of course, correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation, and even if causation is indeed present, it isn't necessarily specified in which direction. But if both of these things are desirable, does it matter whether or not one of them causes the other? Let's strive for them both.

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Shaking Hands with Death — Sir Terry Pratchett's Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Assisted death has always been a touchy subject for religionists — who are generally against it for no other reason than they believe it is against holy writ. They make noises about the danger of coercion, of a "slippery slope", but these objections appear to be so much smoke, intended to conceal their real (and arbitrary) reasons for opposing it.

Those who show true compassion in this matter tend to be the godless ones, unfettered by irrational scripture, and I can cite no better example than fantasy novelist Sir Terry Pratchett, a notable humanist, in his BBC Richard Dimbleby Lecture, broadcast on Monday 1 February 2010:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUE3pBIuAGk
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xZqArQL790


Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27sxmL2vo80
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkUYWzYfFw
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do3ZYt70tg4
Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6NMm__EVg

With heartfelt sincerity, plus his characteristic wit, Sir Terry tells it like it is, superbly mediated by his "stunt Pratchett" and friend, Tony Robinson. Watch, listen, and know the truth.

( BitTorrent-enabled users can get a high-definition version here:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5330757/BBC_The_Richard_Dimbleby_Lecture_2010_HDTV_x264_AC3_MVGroup )

Knowledge and faith are not remotely the same thing

On this morning's Thought for the Day the Rev Tom Butler, who claims to be trained in both science and theology, said this:
One physicist has written: "Our measurements point to a universe filled with a kind of matter which we've never seen, propelled by a force which we don't understand." If believing that isn't faith, I don't know what is.
It might help if Tom Butler had been trained in logical thinking as well. The unnamed physicist is clearly making a statement about a lack of knowledge, and it is revealing that the cleric interprets this as faith. Cosmologists speculate about about the nature of the universe, and see that their knowledge about it is far from complete. Clerics may speculate about the nature of God, and with even less knowledge go on to claim that they know in detail what this deity wants you to do with your genitalia.

Sorry to labour the point, but I find it frustrating that this has to be pointed out yet again. Cosmologists may indeed suggest that the universe is largely composed of quantities of matter and energy that they know next to nothing about. But they then go on to suggest how this stuff might be accounted for. They hypothesise. They speculate. They calculate. They test.

Theologians, on the other hand, faced with something about which they have a comparable lack of knowledge, do not do this. They just make stuff up.

Thought for the Day is available as a podcast feed here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/rss.xml

or from iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=261779755

(BBC podcasts, like the iPlayer streams, usually expire after seven days, but all the Thoughts are available for audio download as mp3s on the TftD archive website.)

Saturday, 23 January 2010

Burnee links for Saturday

Don't get too close!Creation Science Movement — Genesis Expo Closes - for Expansion !
In that case I'll be making another visit. Last February (my previous visit) the exhibition space looked to be on its last legs, and my impression was if that was the best they could do then perhaps we didn't have much to worry about. I was not aware that even then the expansion plans were under way — which is depressing. But we'll see what they come up with. (I could check out the planning permission, as that will be a matter of public record.)

Raymond Tallis: Why I changed my mind on assisted dying | HumanistLife
It is significant that it's humanists who are lobbying for compassion in the matter of assisted dying, while those who cling to religious dogma are the ones in support of prolonging suffering.

Karen Armstrong versus Sam Harris: Playing the Socrates card
"Fluency in theology--the exhaustive study of that which is wholly imaginary--is not required to deny the veracity of invented supernatural claims."
Says it all really.

In defence of Mr Justice Eady « Two Cultures
Fascinating analysis of why the press are standing behind Simon Singh
(Via Jack of Kent

Creation Science Movement: "Darwinism, Social Engineering and Lark Rise to Candleford"
Is creationist Stephen Hayes paranoid — or is the BBC really intent on vilifying creationists? If creationists are being targeted by the BBC Drama Department, maybe it's a sign that the media are at last waking up to the educational threat posed by creationist nonsense.

Times Online - Eureka Zone - WBLG: Homeopathy by the (mind-boggling) numbers
On Boots' selection of homeopathic remedies:
"They are an insult to the herbal remedies on the shelf next to them at Boots; at least snake-oil has the decency to contain some snake."
On Faith Panelists Blog: Suffering and the vain quest for significance - Paula Kirby
What can I say? Paula unerringly hits it spot on, yet again. (I need a script to place Paula Kirby's "Washington Post On Faith" posts automatically into Burnee Links....)

The Truth Still Matters | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
I agree with Sean Carroll that science and religion are not compatible. Anyone who claims otherwise has not, in my opinion, thought seriously enough about the issue (Kenneth R. Miller and other science/religion compatibilists notwithstanding).

February 2010: A. A. Gill on Kentucky's Creation Museum | vanityfair.com
A. A. Gill paid a visit to Ken Ham's Genesis theme park. He didn't like it.

Friday, 15 January 2010

The theodicy of Haiti doesn't bear thinking about (so let's not)

I get my first news of the day from BBC Radio 4, specifically the Today Programme. Yesterday regular host John Humphrys asked1 the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, why God allowed such terrible suffering to be inflicted on the innocent people of Haiti. The Archbishop didn't have a coherent answer, though he did at least condemn Pat Robertson's ugly accusation (that the Haitians had it coming because their ancestors made a pact with the devil):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAbwM



The Today Programme  audio stream for Thursday, January 14th is available here (scroll down to 0831):
http://news.bbc.co.uk//today/hi/today/newsid_8458000/8458361.stm

Or download an mp3 of the relevant clip from RapidShare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/335314721/Today_JohnSentamu_Haiti_BBCR4i-20100114.mp3
"Stories of survival are emerging from the rubble in Haiti. Troy Livesay, of the Christian charity World Wide Village, lives with his family in Port au Prince and has written a moving account in the Guardian about his family's survival. He begs people to prey for Haitians. Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, comments on how people turn to God during times of disaster."
( Troy Livesay's Guardian account is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/13/survivors-tale-haiti-blog-extract )

When disaster strikes the innocent, theodicy is revealed as the empty wailing of those who know they have no excuses for their supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, but this morning on Thought for the Day theodicy's guilty vacuity was brought to a new low by Giles Fraser:
"...at a moment like this, I prefer to leave the arguments to others. For me this is a time quietly to light a candle for the people of Haiti, and to offer them up to God in my prayers. May the souls of the departed rest in peace."
Well thanks a bunch Giles! I'm sure your candle and prayers will be so effective in helping the Haitians in their dire plight, and might even convince them that — despite appearances — God loves them after all! (I'm sorry, but when I heard this execrable peroration this morning I uttered an extremely audible profanity.) This isn't the first time the Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser has used Thought for the Day to hide behind verbal obfuscation, and it illustrates precisely why the slot should be opened up to secular humanist viewpoints.

RealMedia audio stream:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/thought/t20100115.ram

Podcast audio:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20100115-1008a.mp3

Download mp3 from RapidShare:
http://rapidshare.com/files/335825978/Thought__15_JAN_10.mp3


The script for Giles Fraser's thought should be is now available soon; meanwhile you can read an alternative interpretation at Platitude of the Day.


UPDATE 2010-01-19: On Saturday's Today Programme, atheist philosopher A. C. Grayling was asked to respond to both John Sentamu and Giles Fraser. He was calmly rational (as always), but scheduled at the very end of the programme he had insufficient time to deal in full with the idiocy that is theodicy. The vacuous blatherings of Messrs Sentamu and Fraser last week have been rightly castigated across the blogosphere — Manic Street Preacher's recent post contrasts similarly reprehensible, knee-jerk statements in response to tragedy with those displaying a more compassionate outlook.

The audio stream of A. C. Grayling's valiant but time-constrained effort is available here (scroll down to 0854):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8462000/8462906.stm

Or you can download the clip from RapidShare as an mp3:
http://rapidshare.com/files/337961781/Today_ACGrayling_Haiti_BBCR4i-20100116.mp3

1UPDATE 2010-01-22: A transcript of John Humphrys' conversation with Archbishop John Sentamu is available at the JREF Swift blog.

Sunday, 10 January 2010

D. J. Grothe on The Pod Delusion

When I launched my occasional sceptical podcast Skepticule in September last year I lamented the apparent dearth of British sceptical podcasts. Little did I know that at the very same time a weekly UK-based sceptical podcast, The Pod Delusion, was also in the process of being launched. Though I had reservations about the variable audio quality of the first few episodes of The Pod Delusion, which perhaps is inevitable when a variety of independent contributors are involved, this now seems to have settled down.

Audio quality, though important, is secondary to content, and the latest edition of The Pod Delusion has scooped the global sceptical podcast community by releasing an interview by Jon Treadway with the new president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, D. J. Grothe. (And by the way, the audio quality is fine.)

D. J. comes to the JREF from the Center for Inquiry and the well-respected podcast Point of Inquiry. I've related elsewhere on this blog how I discovered sceptical podcasting — Skepticality was the first, but Point of Inquiry runs it a close second, and D. J. has some exciting revelations about the future of Point of Inquiry as well as sceptical podcasting from the JREF.

He also announced that there will be a second TAM London in 2010. This is great news. TAM London was a defining event for me last year and I'm delighted to hear that there will be another this year. I only hope the venue will be big enough, and that the registration will be less of a lottery.

The relevant Pod Delusion episode is available here:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2010/01/08/episode-16-8th-january-2010/

or you can subscribe in iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=332231975

or with any podcatcher using this feed:
http://www.ipadio.com/phlog_rss.asp?phlogid=9216

You can listen to an extended version of the D. J. Grothe interview here:
http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/PodDelusionExtra/2010/01/08/The-Pod-Delusion-DJ-Grothe-Interview


and this is also downloadable from RapidShare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/333329812/PodDelusionExtra_DJGrothe_20100108.mp3

It seems that UK scepticism is at last taking off; we've already had the relaunch of the UK Skeptic magazine, and later this month I shall be pleased to attend the inaugural Winchester Skeptics in the Pub. Things are looking up.