Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I

If one were asked who the very worst advocate for Intelligent Design creationism was, it would be a difficult decision—there are so many choices! Should we go back to first principles and pick PJ Johnson, the cunning lawyer who has the goal of undermining all of science? Smarmy and obtuse Sal Cordova? Pompous and vacuous William Dembski? I’m afraid my personal most loathed ID creationist has got to be Jonathan Wells.

[Read more…]

Do-it-yourself biotech

When I was a wee young lad, I remember making crystal radios and small-scale explosives for fun. The new generation can do something even cooler now, though: how about isolating your very own stem cells, using relatively simple equipment. It’s fun, easy, and educational!

Step 3, “get a placenta”, does rather gloss over some of the practical difficulties, though, and does require planning about 9 months ahead.

Save the Doushantuo embryos!

I reported a while back that there was a possibility that the phosphatized pre-Cambrian Doushantuo specimens might not be embryos—they might be a particular class of bacteria—but there may be evidence against that hypothesis. John Lynch finds a description of more advanced embryos, intermediate stages that would link at least some of the blastulae described so far to unambiguous multicellular organisms.

More education is always a wonderful idea

Some might be surprised to hear that I’m actually in favor of this change in the British school standards:

Teenagers will be asked to debate intelligent design (ID) in their religious education classes and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines.

In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.

The all-important qualifying phrase is “in their religious education classes“. It’s not science, so I’ll always oppose the inclusion of ID in the science curriculum, but I think that exposure to religious beliefs in a critical and secular context is a very good idea. That they’ll also discuss atheism is a significant bonus.

I also wouldn’t mind if the US schools included a comparative religion requirement — as long as a comparative perspective were actually enforced, and they weren’t used to indoctrinate kids into specific faiths.

Here’s a short summary of the new standards:

Pupils will be expected to understand terms such as creation, God as creator of the universe, intelligent design, the Big Bang theory, the sacred story and purposeful design, as well as words that are specific to a religion, such as Bible, Rig Veda, and Qur’an.

The new guidelines for key stage 3 (11 to 14-year-olds), published yesterday, say: “This unit focuses on creation and origins of the universe and human life and the relationship between religion and science. It aims to deepen pupils’ awareness of ultimate questions through argument, discussion, debate and reflection and enable them to learn from a variety of ideas of religious traditions and other world views.

“It explores Christianity, Hinduism and Islam and also considers the perspective of those who do not believe there is a god (atheists). It considers beliefs and concepts related to authority, religion and science as well as expressions of spirituality.”

There would be an epidemic of Head-Asplodey Syndrome if such a course were taught in US schools, I fear.

Girls without gods

The most positive, optimistic development I know of is the way many young people are coming out in defense of atheism—and the ones who do are often wonderfully eloquent. I’ve mentioned my daughter’s testimonial before; now Brent Rasmussen finds another young lady’s essay that will make you feel good about the future.

Unfortunately, in the comments to that post you’ll also discover why many of us find evangelical Christianity contemptible. There are more discussions of the subject where the loathsome Christians are out in force — something that also happened with Skatje’s post — and I really don’t know how the less verminous Christians can stand to share a label with these creatures.

The unfortunate prerequisites and consequences of partitioning your mind

Somebody gets it.

Now what are we to think of a scientist who seems competent inside the laboratory, but who, outside the laboratory, believes in a spirit world?  We ask why, and the scientist says something along the lines of:  "Well, no one really knows, and I admit that I don’t have any evidence – it’s a religious belief, it can’t be disproven one way or another by observation."  I cannot but conclude that this person literally doesn’t know why you have to look at things.  They may have been taught a certain ritual of experimentation, but they don’t understand the reason for it – that to map a territory, you have to look at it – that to gain information about the environment, you have to undergo a causal process whereby you interact with the environment and end up correlated to it.  This applies just as much to a double-blind experimental design that gathers information about the efficacy of a new medical device, as it does to your eyes gathering information about your shoelaces.

Maybe our spiritual scientist says:  "But it’s not a matter for experiment.  The spirits spoke to me in my heart."  Well, if we really suppose that spirits are speaking in any fashion whatsoever, that is a causal interaction and it counts as an observation.  Probability theory still applies.  If you propose that some personal experience of "spirit voices" is evidence for actual spirits, you must propose that there is a favorable likelihood ratio for spirits causing "spirit voices", as compared to other explanations for "spirit voices", which is sufficient to overcome the prior improbability of a complex belief with many parts.  Failing to realize that "the spirits spoke to me in my heart" is an instance of "causal interaction", is analogous to a physics student not realizing that a "medium with an index" means a material such as water.

It’s like asking someone if they understand science, and they can recite a string of facts at you … but they haven’t absorbed the concept.

Keep that away from me!

Uh-oh…now there’s a magic spray to turn you into a believer.

…don’t you wish there was a God who could just make it all right for you? Wouldn’t it be nice if God could clean up the vomit, instantly heat the water, wash your shirts daily, and always keep your car full of gas? But what darn luck…you don’t believe in God!

Well have we got the solution for you! The scientists at Jesus Had A Sister Productions have been hard at work, and are ready to help you get that much desired faith lift you’ve been saving up for.

That’s right. Surrender yourself to that higher power with a pepper-minty faith-enhancing breath spray! You’ve seen this product on TV, and now it’s time to try it for yourself!

I hope someone comes out with a handy-dandy industrial-sized bottle of God-B-Gone to counter this.

What Orac said

Scienceblogs are being reviewed by Some Guy, and Orac criticizes the critic. My disagreement with the clueless critic comes from a fundamental flaw in his approach: he’s basically coming along and announcing that Blog X should be about Y, and if it isn’t Y-ish enough for his taste, he pans it. He, apparently, is the Content Dictator of the Blogosphere.

One thing everybody needs to understand about blogs is that they aren’t about what you think they’re about. Good blogs are about the author, not your perception of what the subject should be.