My kind of meeting

The NY Times is reporting on a wonderful meeting, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival”. I wish I could have been there, but at least there’s the promise that recordings will be available. A meeting that is denounced by a spokesman from the Templeton Foundation is my kind of place.

It sounds like there was a great deal of vigorous argument, which also makes for my favorite kind of meeting. And then there were all the scientists plainly making these kinds of statements:

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome—and even comforting—than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

Dang it. That’s the theme of the book I’m working on. I need to get cracking.

These two statements really sum up my feelings.

With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we—all of us, including the secular among us—are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”

I’m sure there will be another volley of comments here that bandy about the terms “proof” and “disproof”, but that isn’t what this is about: it’s about a consistent pattern of unearned respect offered the failed paradigm of religion, and the need for scientists and citizens to honestly face up to the fact that there are no grounds for accepting the myths of your culture’s favorite myths, other than the constant dunning bombardment of religious propaganda on developing minds.

There’s another meeting in November 2007. I’m glad to hear the discussion isn’t going to stop, and that the godless are getting more and more active.

In which I am a prophet

Five days ago, I wrote about a creationist letter that was published in Nature. At that time, there was a discussion going on in email with the gang at the Panda’s Thumb, and someone said we ought to get a pool going on how long it would take before the Intelligent Design creationists would use this to argue that their case was being seriously discussed in the pages of a major scientific journal. Four months was suggested; I said one week.

I should have put some money down on that.

It turns out one of the PhD alumni in biology from Moran’s school (University of Toronto), a respected scientist and pro-ID creationist recently had his letter published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. This is news in itself that creationists and ID proponents are getting airtime now in scientific journals…

That was the unctuous clown, Sal Cordova, of course. It was four days before they were trumpeting this crank letter as a triumph for Intelligent Design creationism.

Have you ever considered atheism?

This is hilarious: a couple of atheists get some bicycles, white shirts and ties, and travel around Salt Lake City knocking on doors and bringing the good word of godlessness to the Mormons. One old guy is an LDS bishop, and thinks that’s a good enough reason for them to stop bothering him (although, of course, if someone is Catholic or atheist or Baptist, that’s not enough reason to stop proselytizing to them…besides, LDS bishops are thick on the ground out there); another feebly swings a broom at them; there is some door slamming going on. Although it’s funny, I think the Mormons would be oblivious to the irony—missionary work is a painfully intense part of the culture out there.

One other problem is that it isn’t quite fair to pull this stunt in Salt Lake. Salt Lake City is about half gentile, and especially if they were hitting up neighborhoods around the university they may have been pestering a fair number of unbelievers. They should have tried it in Price or Ogden or Provo. I suspect, though, that they probably didn’t want to risk getting shot, and more than a few people would have called the police on them…who would then have escorted them right out of town.

MADS boxes, flower development, and evolution

i-ccbc028bf567ec6e49f3b515a2c4c149-old_pharyngula.gif

I’ve been writing a fair amount about early pattern formation in animals lately, so to do penance for my zoocentric bias, I thought I’d say a little bit about homeotic genes in plants. Homeotic genes are genes that, when mutated, can transform one body part into another—probably the best known example is antennapedia in Drosophila, which turns the fly’s antenna into a leg.

Plants also have homeotic genes, and here is a little review of flower anatomy to remind everyone of what ‘body parts’ we’re going to be talking about. The problem I’ll be pursuing is how four different, broadly defined regions of the flower develop, and what that tells us about their evolution.

[Read more…]

Attack mouse of the DI crashes, bursts into flames, and explodes!

Casey Luskin has been posting a series of articles to argue with Carl Zimmer, and has finally posted his last attempt, which Zimmer has dealt with. We have a new catch phrase, thanks to Luskin, in reference to the shortcomings of the vertebrate eye:

Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?

You see, we’re not allowed to infer anything about the Designer from its handiwork in the natural world (that would be theology, after all), except perhaps when it’s necessary to speculate that life was designed by Ford to counter those annoying facts.

Is this part of the official Cephalopodmas celebration?

Oh! Respectful Insolence uncovers more woo-woo nonsense, a scheme called Global Orgasm that urges everyone to get it on on one particular day.

The intent is that the participants concentrate any thoughts during and after orgasm on peace. The combination of high-energy orgasmic energy combined with mindful intention may have a much greater effect than previous mass meditations and prayers.

The goal is to add so much concentrated and high-energy positive input into the energy field of the Earth that it will reduce the current dangerous levels of aggression and violence throughout the world.

Exactly what is this “high-energy orgasmic energy” that will be injected into the earth’s “energy field”? How does it compare to, for instance, UV from the sun? I think that if you actually measured it, at best what you’d get is a negligible amount of extra heat. It will have exactly the same effect as mass meditations and prayers, i.e., none. Or perhaps we’ll now be told that science can have nothing to say about this business?

Haven’t these people ever heard of mass spawning? I think the prayers of a few copulating people are going to be totally swamped out by the pleas of corals, algae, echinoderms, etc., and if this stuff actually worked, the earth would be 99% ocean and humans would be extinct…and who wants to encourage a practice that urges you to have sex only once a year?

Worst of all, though, these people are usurping my holiday, Cephalopodmas. That’s right, all this woo-woo New Age nonsense is scheduled for 22 December. I say we need to steal it back: go ahead and have sex on Cephalopodmas, but out of appreciation for biodiversity, do something effective and use birth control.

The octopus as a pet

Thinking about getting a pet? You should read Animal Reviews first, to see if it will fulfill your needs. For example, the review of the octopus suggests that I need one, right now.

Next, Octopi are what are known as Cephalopods, a science word meaning that they are constructed entirely out of squish, with no bones whatsoever. Sensational! Yet, unlike their clearly unmotivated cousins the clam and the spinach, they have managed to get themselves hold of tentacles. And not just two or three ‘bitty’ tentacles either, but eight great big ones sticking out of their drippy bodies, whipping out to grab fish and diver’s air tanks. The only deterrent at first sight is the octopus’ overwhelmingly cold demeanour, which is at once both silent and calculating, and radiates an aura of eerie menace.

Scientific accuracy isn’t exactly their strong point.