We can’t cure the disease by praising the symptoms

Karl Giberson, who I’ve bashed once or twice, has a fresh new pile of nonsense on the Huffington Post. Jerry Coyne has already tackled it, but it pushes a few of my buttons, so I’ve got to say my piece, too.

To summarize the Giberson nonsense briefly, he claims that Intelligent Design creationism is not dead, but is thriving, and in order to defeat it, we need to shut the atheists up who are making people choose between gods and science. I disagree with every bit of it.

ID is not only dead, it was stillborn. No one believes in it; it is a sterile abstraction with no evidence that was cobbled up entirely to pass the church/state separation tests in the courts. Phil Johnson, the fellow who invented it, has plainly stated that he is a born-again Christian lawyer, and his goal with the development of ID was to create a legal construct that could not be excluded from the schools, because it left out any mention of gods. Yet all the major players on the ID side are devout: Dembski is a crazy evangelical, Behe is a Catholic, and if you go through the roster at the Discovery Institute, you’ll find similar religious/ideological leanings throughout (except, maybe, Berlinski — but he’s his own unique brand of supercilious lunacy).

The Dover trial laid it bare. ID was simply the façade a troop of fervent Christian creationists used to conceal their true motivations. ID isn’t the problem. The problem is wide-spread sectarian Christian beliefs that want to masquerade as science — they finally realized after three quarters of a century of courtroom failure that going about with bare-faced Jesus freakiness was going to get them nowhere, so they’ve pulled down ID as a handy mask. It doesn’t work. Everyone can see right through it, and the cdesign proponentsists rely on a lot of wink-wink you-know-I-love-god-even-in-my-labcoat games to get support.

ID is dead, except as a political tool, which is all it ever was anyway. The only people who use it are plain old creationists; strip away ID, and they’ll just grope for a new guise.

Giberson drags out 4 bad arguments for why Intelligent Design is still vital.

1) The complex designs of many natural structures that have not yet been explained by science. As long as there are ingenious devices and intricate phenomena in nature (origin of life, anyone?) that we cannot understand, there will be ID arguments.

2) The remarkable, finely-tuned structure of the cosmos in which the laws of physics collaborate to make life possible. Many agnostics have had their faith in unguided materialism shaken by this, most recently Anthony Flew.

3) The widespread belief that God — an intelligent agent — created the universe. The claim that an intelligent God created an unintelligent universe seems peculiar, to say the least.

4) The enthusiastic insistence by the New Atheists that evolution is incompatible with belief in God. Most people think more highly of their religion than their science. Imagine trying to get 100 million Americans to dress up for a science lecture every Sunday morning — and then voluntarily pay for the privilege.

Hang on, wait a minute. I’ve heard all of that from the Intelligent Design creationists, but I’ve also heard it somewhere else…where could that be…hmmm. Hey, I know! Those are the same arguments that the theistic evolutionists use on the Biologos website!

As long as we don’t understand every detail of how life originated, the theistic evolutionists will be claiming a role for gods in it. As long as they’re preaching about souls, they’re rooting beliefs in ignorance about how minds work.

The theistic evolutionists make a big deal of fine-tuning arguments. I fail every time to be surprised that life like ours exists in a universe where the physical constants allow the formation of stars. Oh, and please, Antony Flew’s late-life fame seems to derive entirely from the fact that he tepidly embraced ID when he was fading into senility and was being coached by a sympathetic advocate for creationism.

Theistic evolutionists believe a god or gods created the universe!

Theistic evolutionists get really peevish at all those atheists pointing out that their belief in magical beings is very, very silly. They now use that as a recruiting tool, trying to convince people that they can have their science and still believe in ghosts and spirits and demons and angels. You know, Ken Ham tries the same thing, coupling dinosaurs to biblical literalism. It’s awfully hard to distinguish the principles and tactics of Biologos from those of the Creation “Museum”.

Weird, isn’t it? It’s as if Giberson doesn’t realize that demolishing the foundations of Intelligent Design creationism would also undermine theistic evolution…and that maybe the atheists he is complaining about are aware of this, realizing that creationism, intelligent design, and theism all share precisely the same faulty construction — we can’t get rid of one without shattering all the others.

I do agree with Giberson on one thing. Most Americans do think more highly of their religion than science. But there’s a significant difference: I think that having a citizenry that worships irrational, fact-free thinking and zombie gods and believes in a coming apocalypse — which they consider an event to be greatly desired — is a bad thing. Giberson regards it as a virtue. That difference dictates that we’ll have different strategies: I want to break people’s habits of gullibility and supernatural delusions; Giberson wants to prop them up. If you really want to defeat ID, the way to do it is to defeat religious thinking.

Giberson wants to claim that a godless scientific approach is a failure, and as an example, he uses the persistence of astrology.

Consider astrology. A 2009 Pew Poll showed that some 25 percent of Americans “believe” in astrology. President Reagan “believed” in astrology. Twenty million astrology books are sold each year. What is going on here? Didn’t science thoroughly discredit astrology at roughly the same time it was establishing the motion of the earth? How can an idea so thoroughly refuted be so popular?

If the scientific community cannot successfully convince Americans to abandon belief in astrology — which is not tied to any powerful religious tradition or even to belief in God — what hope is there to refute an idea like Intelligent Design, which is so much more complex than astrology?

What an odd argument. The Bible condemns astrology; Jehovah wants his chosen people to have no truck with divination, sorcery, omens, witchcrafte, necromancy, or any attempt to contact the dead. Yet still 25% of Americans, many of whom must be Christians, still persist in it! What hope is there of refuting bogus ideas like astrology or ID with an Abrahamic religion, which has a 3,000 year record of failure?

I’ve looked into both ID and astrology, and again, Giberson is completely wrong. Astrology is much more complicated. It has accreted many centuries of rationalizations and anecdotes and weird thefts of bits and pieces of mathematics and astronomy. There’s virtually nothing to ID but hot air in comparison.

Of course, I don’t accept one bit of astrology. However, it does have widespread appeal because it can provide a long history of tradition and dogma, scholarly works that go back to the Middle Ages, an endearing habit of claiming that the entire universe is all about you, and thousands of sects and variants that one can fall back on if a prediction in one schema fails. It has all the properties of religion!

I would argue that one reason that astrology (and religion) haven’t gone away is that people like the answers they provide, even if they’re wrong, and that celebration of wishful thinking is an epidemic in the populace. And one reason it persists is that we have a significant number of our citizens dutifully trotting into churches every Sunday, where they are told by solemn authorities that the universe loves them personally, and look, here’s an old book reassuring us that it is so. Religion is a cultural parasite that weakens our intellectual immune system, and opens the door to lots of other opportunistic infections. Jesus cults and astrology and scientology and snake oil and the Secret and quantum woo are the Kaposi’s sarcoma of a deeper disease—faith.

We’re just now beginning the process of rooting out the causal agents of that disease, and what we need to do is promote more intellectual hygiene, like skepticism, which is the rational equivalent of washing your hands. The wishy-washy, ridiculous theism that Giberson promotes echoes the medieval scholars who tried to argue that bathing was a nasty habit.

Giberson doesn’t want that. We’re supposed to endorse one version of humbuggery, religion, while deploring another, ID, all in the name of keeping everyone comfortable in their prejudices, no matter how erroneous.

If the scientific community wants to dislodge ID, they need to start by admitting that their efforts have been an abysmal failure so far. And then they need to turn their considerable analytical skills on the problem of explaining that failure. If they do this, they might discover that enthusiastic pronouncements like “ID is dead” or “science has proven God does not exist” or “religion is stupid” or “creationists are insane” are not effective. They might discover that affirming that the universe is wonderful, despite our bad backs and the nonsense in our genomes, makes it easier for people to accept the bad design in nature.

And above all, they need to decide that it is OK for people to believe in God. For millions of Americans belief in ID is tied to belief in God. Unless people can find a way to separate them — and not be told by agnostic bloggers this is impossible — ID’s coffin will remain empty.

Yes, we godless scientists are often affirming the wonderful qualities of the universe. But, and this is an important distinction, we do so by discussing what is real, not the awesomeness of some imaginary phantasm that the theists want us to worship. We are not going to succeed at getting people to embrace reality if some dufus in a clerical collar keeps trying to insert some ridiculous proxy he calls a god into our understanding, and further, insists that we can really only appreciate physics and chemistry and biology if we deeply adore a particular dead prophet.

ID and a belief in gods are all tangled together, and they are inseparable. Killing one requires killing the other, and it seems to me that only the atheists are recommending the practical approach of tossing out the whole religious package with its attendant absurdities, and rebuilding an ethical, rational vision of the world that does not require any supernatural bullshit at all.

Ken Ham snubbed again

Poor Ken. He so wants to be respectable.

He’s complaining now that the Creation “Museum” tried to get in on some marketing deal with an outfit called Groupon, that advertises discount coupons or something, and he got turned down. They thought his “museum” was too controversial. So Ken Ham must whine.

Some of the businesses they feature for our area are attractions such as laser tag, spas, lawn care, etc. However, in other markets (such as Atlanta) they have featured the local natural history museum–which of course is totally evolutionary and teaches children that man is an evolved animal–but I guess that is not controversial!

That is correct. Evolution is not controversial at all in the real world. It is only controversial in the wacky fantasy land of fundamentalist superstition.

Apparently, because the Creation Museum is a Christian facility with a walk through the Bible, that is “controversial!”

No, I only wish the Bible and Christianity were regarded as controversial, but they aren’t — they’re pretty much widely accepted here in Idiot America. The problem with the Creation “Museum” is that it is brain-dead soul-sucking stupid, and while Americans love wallowing in piety, they hate being associated with obvious inanity.

Argonauts float!

Argonauts are odd animals. They rather resemble a nautilus, but they aren’t particularly closely related to them; their closest cephalopod relatives are the octopuses. Females have a thin shell and scoot about in the water column, but the poor males are all dwarfs, rarely seen, with no shell.

What is the shell for? It seems to be a chamber for holding a bubble of air that the animals use to maintain neutral buoyancy. I’m a little surprised that this was a surprise, though — the analogy to the chambered nautilus is obvious, and all the photos and videos I’ve seen of them suspended in midwater suggested that they were maintaining neutral buoyancy somehow.

Creepiest Christian comment yet

I don’t know what to say. This is a Christian’s idea of an argument against abortion — not just exaggerating abortion into murder, but also by trivializing rape.

Atheists always use rape as an argument for justifying killing because they want to justify abortion. But is rape really that bad? It’s a horrible experience but you get over it with time. If you use it to justify murder you’re never going to get over it. Imagine you have a painful divorce. Would you murder your children after because they remind you of your ex husband? Of course not. I think any woman would easily tell you that a painful divorce is worse than rape but it’s not an excuse to kill your baby, so why is rape?

Christian women can also take a lot more than atheist women. Maybe this is part of the reason that atheists get so hung up about this. Christian women can turn to Christ or worship God in their hearts and endure great suffering. I’m not belittling it but think about it, no amount of suffering from rape is as great as the suffering our Lord suffered on the cross for our sins. You are the one who has to ask more true Christian women about this. You’re out of touch and trying to make a big deal out of something just for shock value.

This is the kind of person you don’t argue with…just walk away.

Where were you, 30 years ago today?

May 18, 1980 is when Mount St Helens blew its top.

i-2f76a824e3eb84a2fc12c42e2b37e9fb-mtsthelens.jpeg

I was newly married, in my first year in graduate school in Eugene, Oregon — far enough south that we saw little of the ash, typically only seeing cars filmed with gray every day. My in-laws, though, all lived right in the shadow of the mountain, in Longview and Castle Rock, Washington, so we got regular reports on days dark as night and shoveling paths through the mess.

National Geographic has a fine article on the recovery of the region. Biology is bouncing back in the few decades since the disaster.

As a natural lab to study the rebirth of ecosystems, the blast zone has no equal. “It’s the most thoroughly studied large-forest disturbance in the world,” says Crisafulli, examined from nearly every angle, at nearly every scale, from molecules to ecosystems, bacteria to mammals, steaming geothermal vents to waterlogged meadows. Almost daily, callers inquire about the lessons of St. Helens. One woman is interested in salamanders, another in toads. Officials in Alaska and Chile want to know what to expect after eruptions of their own.

There’s also the dramatic story of Spirit Lake:

Before the eruption Spirit Lake was, like many subalpine lakes, unproductive and nutrient-poor, with clear water and few shallow spots. When the volcano top slid into it at 150 miles an hour, it became choked with what Crisafulli terms “pyrolyzed forest constituents”–organic material burned in the blast. The water was warmed to body temperature, filled with dissolved carbon, manganese, iron, and lead. Visibility went from 30 feet to six inches. Bacteria flourished. The first scientists to take water samples came down with unexplained ailments. There was a rapid succession of microbes: aerobes, which quickly used up all the oxygen; anaerobes, which require none; then nitrogen-consuming bacteria; and then forms that fed on methane and heavy metals. For 18 months Spirit Lake was ruled by chemistry, home to “hundreds of millions of bacteria per milliliter,” Crisafulli says. Finally, the microbes had consumed so much that they began to die off, and streams and snowmelt came in, and the water cleared.

Once light penetrated Spirit Lake, algae and other phytoplankton colonized, followed by zooplankton, which fed on the phytoplankton, followed by aquatic insects and amphibians. By the early 1990s, macrophytes grew in shallow shoals–ideal trout habitat that didn’t exist before the eruption. Gorging on tiny midges and freshwater snails, the rainbows were reaching a record four or five pounds in two or three years. The post-eruption lake followed a pattern Crisafulli would see many times in the blast zone. New organisms colonize the virgin environment with dramatic success, only to burn themselves out or be checked by predators, parasites, or competitors. This was the second revelation of St. Helens: When there’s a blank slate, ecological succession is a cycle of boom and bust.

If you’d just like to see some dramatic photos of the eruption and aftermath, here you go.

If you squint real hard it almost looks like an experiment, at least

i-2807cbbd2e743be114b2b5d87476e986-evolution_disproved.jpeg

I am really surprised at all the people who are saying the original letter had to have been an intentional joke. Haven’t you looked at Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron/Kent Hovind on YouTube? They say essentially the same things! For another example, I was sent this link (scroll down to where it says “What Are The Scientists Saying?”) to a 50 page document full of nonsense, garbled science and creationism, and random invalid arguments against evolution, all just as silly as this.

Some simply don’t understand Poe’s Law. It states that parodies of fundamentalism will be indistinguishable from the real thing. This letter is indistinguishable by any measure from any of the routine creationist lunacy you can find just about anywhere you look.

Bill Donohue always acts like a spoiled little child

It’s hard to believe, but Mother Teresa is getting her own US postage stamp. She was a horrible woman who practiced the Christian ideal of poverty as a virtue by doing her very best to keep as many people poor and miserable as possible — and I hate to see the post office promoting her delusional cult. I sure won’t be buying any of them, but I just know that much of my incoming hate mail will be plastered with them after September.

Having a stamp is not enough for Bill Donohue, however. He is stamping his little foot and demanding that the Empire State Building be lit up in blue and white in honor of the poisonous little promoter of pain and pauperdom on the day of the stamp’s release. Gosh. And next year, when my wife gets me an iPad, a full body massage, and a submarine cruise to visit the squid in their natural habitat for my birthday, I’m going to rage and scream and pound my fists if she doesn’t also get me a fireworks show. She must not really love me enough if she won’t launch skyrockets for me.

Donohue has to spice up his tantrum by making a totally inappropriate comparison, too. He’s not happy that a spokesman for the Empire State Building is stonewalling his demands.

Imagine a spokesman for the Vatican responding to a reporter about an indefensible decision made by a cardinal, and all he offers is, “there is no issue here.” Better yet, imagine him saying, “I’m only telling you what I’ve been directed to say,” and expecting the reporters to simply walk away disappointed.

Right. Like the Vatican would never make excuses and cover up bad decisions by Catholic priests. Did Donohue really want to go there? The first thing that came to my mind was that he seems to be making a comparison between priests raping children and refusing to acknowledge responsibility with a building refusing to switch on its lights according to a color scheme dictated by the Catholic League.

Good work, Bill! Keep reminding us of the sense of entitlement and privilege the Catholic Church has, with nice little fillips that bring up their penchant for child abuse. It’s almost as if he’s an atheist working from inside the establishment to bring it down.