I’m about to do a live podcast with Matt Dillahuntey — tune in if you’d like, or catch it later.
I’m about to do a live podcast with Matt Dillahuntey — tune in if you’d like, or catch it later.
How wonderful to have a high-res version of this image available.
Josh Timonen has put up a video of my talk at AAI. Tear into it!
One of the things I neglected to say more clearly, but should have, is that what I’m complaining about is the creationists’ blithe conflation of complexity with order. We can build up immense amounts of complexity from nothing but noise, so just babbling about how complicated something is says nothing about the impossibility of its origin from chance events. Order, functionality, and, as Joe Felsenstein defined it, adaptedness are more relevant properties, and we have a natural mechanism for generating those, too. It’s called selection.
Someone over at the RDF also mentioned that he thought the Q&A was really good, too. I agree — I need to learn to shut up more and just get the interactivity going. Maybe my ideal talk would be 5 minutes of raillery and inflammatory incitement, followed by 55 minutes of questions and comments.
That little blonde kid needs a lesson in gratitude. What if she’d been sucking on that wafer and it had turned into a toenail? She should be thankful she got a bite of something as nutritious as Jesus’ holy liver.
Richard Dawkins was ‘interviewed’ by that awful little peabrain, Bill O’Reilly. It was a horrible spectacle, but Dawkins kept his cool. Look at O’Reilly’s arguments:
Hmm, let’s see. O’Reilly claims we don’t know everything, which is entirely true, so somehow this justifies his belief in Jesus. Dawkins had a great answer to that: “It’s a most of extraordinary piece of warped logic to say because science can’t fill in a particular gap you’re going throw in your lot with Christianity.” Another point I like to toss in against that line of nonsense is that science at least has the integrity to say that we don’t know yet what happened in a particular gap (but we may be working on it, and have a more useful strategy than waiting for a holy man to have a vision), while the religious wackaloons will instead fill that gap with pious certainty…a kind of clot of myth that we’re eventually going to have to rip out in the face of great resistance.
Then we got the usual arguments: science provides no moral framework, but Jesus does. If that’s the case, why have Christians always been such a warring, nasty, oppressive lot? They’ve got this ideal of a self-sacrificing man of peace at their center, but Christianity itself seems to drive in the opposite direction. Please explain to me the opulence of the Vatican, the Thirty Years War, and the Prosperity Gospel, just as a preliminary exercise.
O’Reilly is committing a stupid logical fallacy when he trots out the old “there are more Christians than atheists” argument.
And finally, we get the usual O’Reilly tactic of shouting at his guest that he’s a fascist.
It wasn’t a very enlightening interview, except in that it confirms that O’Reilly is a blustering moron while Dawkins is an intelligent gentleman.
This could be ominous — we’re getting our first snowfall right now. It’s coming down wet and heavy, too.
I knew this was going to happen. I’d made arrangements for a contractor to come by and do some fairly substantial improvements to the insulation of the house — we’re having a couple of doors and a big picture window completely replaced — and I told them it would be highly desirable to have this done before the snow arrived…and they told me yeah, yeah, they’d be out within a couple of weeks. They said that two weeks ago. So I knew they’d never get here in time and that we’d have an early snowfall.
Sorry, Minnesotans, you can blame me.
Perhaps I was too quick to declare that previous article the worst one yet on Ardipithecus…now the Family Research Council has weighed in. Would you believe that Ardi supports their anti-gay stance?
the article describes what C. Owen Lovejoy, an anthropologist at Kent State University, says about the social organization of this species:
The males, he argues, pair-bonded with females. Lovejoy sees male parental investment in the survival of offspring as a hallmark of the human lineage.
So, how long has marriage (i.e., “pair-bonding”) been a male-female union? About four million, four hundred thousand years, if this secular scientist is to be believed. And what was its purpose? To insure “male parental investment in the survival of offspring”–something which the advocates of same-sex “marriage” contend is now no longer necessary.
And what will we be discarding, if we change the definition of marriage from being a union of a man and a woman? Only “a hallmark of the human lineage.”
Marriage is not merely a religious institution, nor merely a civil institution. It is, rather, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of male and female is rooted in the order of nature itself. And it doesn’t take a Bible to prove it. In this case, evolutionary theory points to the exact same conclusion.
Wow. So much is wrong there.
Another characteristic of the human lineage is increased social behavior: Lovejoy could also talk about general male investment, or community investment. There’s this concept called inclusive fitness that means non-parental relatives can also benefit from providing care…and it doesn’t matter whether they are gay or not.
If you have same-sex marriage, you could have two males contributing to the success of their offspring. Male parental investment can occur in the absence of the females altogether! Another way to interpret this is that gay male parental investment is a further elaboration of this “hallmark of the human lineage.”
The naturalistic fallacy is still a fallacy. Even if this narrow (and inaccurate! Human sexual behavior has always been complicated, and there were almost certainly all kinds of homosexual behaviors going on) interpretation of what our ancestors were doing was correct, it says nothing about human behavior now. We have evidence of cannibalism in some fossils, this does not imply that we ought to start eating each other’s brains.
Most annoying of all to me is that the twit who wrote this piece, Peter Sprigg, also leads some of the FRC’s anti-evolution initiatives. This is the guy who promotes the creationist “strengths and weakness” approach to education. He doesn’t believe in evolution anyway!
Since when does the religious right use the sexual behavior of a couple of apes as a model for good Christian sexual relations?
So, basically, Sprigg is another liar for Jesus who hypocritically uses a mangled version of evolutionary theory to support results he likes, and wants it removed from our curricula when it leads to answers he doesn’t like.
The Molly Award for August 2009 goes to Carlie and strange gods before me. To quote another recipient of some random award out of the blue, “accept this award as a call to action“.
Congratulations to both, and now that that’s out of the way, you know the drill — leave comments here with your nominations for best commenter of September 2009.
The dishonor goes to ABC News, which put together an appalling mess of an article that gives credibility to creationist denialists. Right from the beginning, you know this article is bunk.
But despite the excitement from the paleontology community, another group of researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science, are unimpressed by Ardi, who they believe is just another ape — an ape of indeterminate age, they add, and an ape who cannot be an ancestor of modern man for a range of reasons, including one of singular importance: God created man in one day, and evolution is a fallacy.
The whole article is like that: they cite Creation Ministries International, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis, puffing up the credentials of these loons and credulously reporting their dissent. None of these fellows is any kind of researcher, all are looked upon as utterly crazy, and there is no reason to consult any of them on a science story, let alone dedicating a long article solely to their batty position (they quote one of the real researchers just once, saying that the discovery was an important find — but it is more to lend weight to the parade of nutcases declaring it trivial.)
They give a lot of space to Answers in Genesis, especially to one of their pet frauds-with-a-degree, David Menton.
“What creationists believe about human origins we get from the Bible,” said David Menton an acclaimed anatomist and also a creationist. “The creation of the world takes place on page one of the Bible. If you throw out the first page of the Bible you might as well throw out the whole thing. If you can’t live with the first page then pitch out the remaining thousand pages.”
Menton is not an acclaimed anatomist. His sole claim to fame is his weird belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. Although, I must say, I agree with his sentiment here: the first page is metaphorical, poetical nonsense and should be thrown out, and the rest should be tossed right after it. But what really annoys me is the patent disrespect for knowledge in these people. Ardipithecus is a genus that lived over 4 million years ago. Shouldn’t there be a little bit of awe at that? Not from the ICR.
“This is a meaningless discovery of another ape. As far as the creationist community is concerned, this is a big yawn. There is nothing about Ardi that has anything to do with the evolution of man,” said John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas.
Menton just keeps on bringing the dementia.
Menton believes scientists sat on the Ardi discovery for over a decade just to roll it out during the Darwin anniversary. He questions the ability to accurately date any fossils more than a few thousand years old, let alone millions, and he said the condition of the skeleton was so incomplete and fragile that serious research was almost impossible.
Menton said Ardi’s skull and feet are exactly the kind of skull and feet you would expect an ape to have and have none of the features of modern humans.
“Evolutionists want to call Ardi ‘ape-like.’ This creature is ape-like, because she is an ape. Just call it an ape,” he said.
The biggest problem Menton has with Ardi is her estimated age. The Earth, he says, is no more around 5,000 years old, a number creationists have estimated by counting the generations of man named in the Bible from Adam to Jesus.
“Evolution is supposedly based on science, but the science does not prove what they want it to. Creationism is not based on scientific observation but on God’s word. God created everything in six days, and that’s it.”
Errm, the scientists all agree: Ardi was an ape. They say it right out. They’ll also tell ‘acclaimed’ anatomist Menton that, based on the anatomy, we humans are also apes. We also regard the even older last common ancestor of chimps (which are apes) and humans (also apes) to have been an ape. Therefore, any transitional form between an ancient ape and a modern ape is expected to be an ape.
What did Menton expect? A frickin’ giraffe?
As for the rest…anyone in the 21st century who rants about the earth being 6000 years old and unthinkingly accepts the scientific authority of an ancient book cobbled together by tribes of sheepherders really needs to be shuffled off to a rubber room.
So what is ABC News doing getting a story on a serious scientific issue from a series of lunatic asylums? I don’t know. Who is this ‘journalist,’ Russel Goldman, who scribbled up this gullible slop? I don’t know and I don’t care, except that I’ll know to throw anything else he writes in the rubbish.
Here are the lyrics:
Don’t need no god.
Don’t need no eternal paternal god.
Don’t need no reassuringly protective
good and evil in perspective god.
Don’t need no imported distorted,
inflated updated,
holy roller, save your soul, or
anaesthetisingly opiate gods.
Don’t need no “all creatures that on Earth do dwell”
be good or you go to Hell god.
Don’t need no Hare Krishna Hare Krishna,
Hail Mary, Hail Mary god.
Got no yen for zen, Baghavad-Gita or Gurdjieff.
No Mormon, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist god,
no absolutes beyond refute,
no reverential preferential Judaic Messianic god.
No Bibles, no Mahayanas, Delai Lhama
instant dharma gods.
Don’t need no spiritual suicide or
prefrontal lobotomising god.
Don’t need no stoic sexless
anticeptic god.
Don’t need no neon crucifix,
no jade Buddhas, no Vedas or Upanishads,
no camels or needles or Papal decrees,
no mail-order ikons, Koran’s or Mandala’s,
no Sri Chimnoys, Meha Baba’s, or Ayatollah’s,
no Guatama’s, no Manitou, Ouspensky or Marx,
no yin/yang, no tao, no tarot or incense,
no sacred mushrooms
no dianetics,
no Tibetan prayer mats
no “Immortal invisible gods only wise”.
Don’t need no televised circumcised
incessant incandescent god.
Don’t need no god.
I need human beings.
I need some kind
of love.
I need
you.
