I get email

There was a bit of unwarranted controversy in Richard Dawkins’ talk here at the Global Atheist Convention. In the Q&A at the end, one woman got the microphone, declared that she was a believer, announced that she was grateful to a god, and asked the question, “What is DNA? Where did DNA come from?” (and she did not ask in the tone of someone who sincerely wanted an answer to a basic question in biology.) She was loudly but briefly jeered, before Dawkins and the organizers quieted the audience, and then Richard went on to answer the question politely and at length.

Some people felt badly about the audience reaction, and at least one person apologized to her. I don’t and wouldn’t. I think the response was perfect.

The woman seemed to want to trap Dawkins in what she presumably thought was a very clever question, but was actually naive and a waste of the audience’s time. It is good that the audience was not passive, but expressed their opinion of the stupidity of her attempt to sidetrack the conversation, and it is good that the speaker gave her a fair hearing and an honest answer (although, apparently, she did not accept the answer, anyway, not that she would have accepted anything but that “God did it”.) There were a few other instances — I’m thinking particularly of the fellow who pontificated at ridiculous and incoherent length in AC Grayling’s Q&A—where people inappropriately tried to turn their moment in the spotlight into a chance to speechify.

A little incivility is a good thing. That woman was an idiot, and I’m pleased that that was briefly expressed to her by the audience before an honest attempt was made to address her point.

A similar sort of intrusion occurs just about every day in my email, and here’s a recent example. Apparently, this buffoon just stumbled across an article I wrote in 2006 which describes a remarkable human chromosome rearrangement that was still viable, and didn’t understand it…except that he could tell that it was supposed to correct a common creationist misconception which he’d rather not see falsified. So he writes a letter in the standard creationist style, beginning with a dismissal, following with a question that he doesn’t care to see answered anyway, and then rambling off into a completely different point that he copy&pasted from somewhere. Seriously, this is pretty much the typical noise I get from these loons; I don’t bother to reply, because, like the woman at the conference, they won’t listen anyway.

I think it needs more jeering from the audience, though.

Oh, and the weird font size changes and inconsistent paragraph breaks (at least this one used paragraphs!)? Yeah, that’s what he sent me. Please, please, please, creationists, when you write to me, if you must, go into your mail software and make sure it’s sent as plain text, rather than formatted text, which will strip out all your quirky games with fonts. Typographical incompetence seems to be one of the most common symptoms of the brain damage associated with the creationist mind.

Hello just thought with all your confident
propaganda you could demonstrate (not cite) an example of
species change from Chromosome rearrangements
which of cause would be necessary for any theory explaining us being here
by chance.

“Creationists sometimes try to argue that what we consider straightforward,
well-demonstrated cytological and genetic events don’t and can’t occur: that you
can’t
get chromosome rearrangements, or that variations in chromosome number and
organization are obstacles to evolution, making discussions
of synteny, or the rearrangement of chromosomal material in evolution, an
impossibility. These are absurd conclusions, of course—we see evidence of
chromosomal variation in people all the time.”

“variation in people” what ! they are becoming another life
form?

Question – if the human brain has far more capacity than
is necessary for a lifetime and yet evolutionists say a life form develops
according to need “adaptation” or “Natural selection” should we not be at point
of having a brain with just the capacity we need ?

Robert Birge (Syracuse University) who studies the storage of
data in proteins estimated in 1996 that the memory capacity of the brain was
between one and ten terabytes, with a most likely value of 3 terabytes. Such
estimates are generally based on counting neurons and assuming each neuron holds
1 bit. Bear in mind that the brain has far better algorithms for compressing
certain types of information than computers do. Source
The human brain
contains about 50 billion to 200 billion neurons (nobody knows how many for
sure), each of which interfaces with 1,000 to 100,000 other neurons through 100
trillion (10 14) to 10 quadrillion (10 16) synaptic junctions. Each synapse
possesses a variable firing threshold which is reduced as the neuron is
repeatedly activated. If we assume that the firing threshold at each synapse can
assume 256 distinguishable levels, and if we suppose that there are 20,000
shared synapses per neuron (10,000 per neuron), then the total information
storage capacity of the synapses in the cortex would be of the order of 500 to
1,000 terabytes. (Of course, if the brain’s storage of information takes place
at a molecular level, then I would be afraid to hazard a guess regarding how
many bytes can be stored in the brain. One estimate has placed it at about 3.6 X
10 19 bytes.) Source
The brain has about 100 billion nerve cells, so at least
that many bits (about 10 gigabytes) could be stored, assuming the brain uses
binary logic. But it probably doesn’t do so. Instead, information is believed to
be stored in the many connections that form between the cells. This is a much
larger number: Current estimates of brain capacity range from 1 to 1000
terabytes! It would take 1,000 to 10,000 typical disk drives to store that much
information.

The above about covers current info regarding brain’s capacity
as compared to comp equivalent. Nevertheless, this only scratches the surface of
the brain issue, which seems to be as huge as a nano universe.

I’m not a “creationist” I believe in a creator not “absurd conclusions”

David Staples ( my10 quadrillion (10 16)
synaptic junctions can be my qualifications for having the Gall to reply to a
‘lettered intellectual’)

I will attempt to answer these questions as well as I can, given their inanity.

First, David Staples, you are an ass.

Second, I am in a hotel in Australia, and you are communicating with me via the internet. Yet you will not be satisfied with a citation of some evidence, but want a demonstration of speciation right here? What do you expect me to do, scoop up a couple of populations of marsupial mice, set them to mating, and squeeze the fucking mice through the intertubes to pop out in front of you? Well, all you are going to get from me is a link: here’s a list of observed instances of speciation that includes some examples of variations in chromosome organization that were part of the mechanism of reproductive isolation.

Third, evolution includes a significant and necessary chance component to produce the variation that we see in the world around us. You are here by chance; the oocyte that erupted in your mother’s ovary at the time your father’s sperm was present for conception contained a random half of her genome, while the particular sperm that managed to penetrate that egg was one of billions in the neighborhood, and also contained a random half of your father’s genome. You are a child of chance. And, unfortunately, it looks like you crapped out.

I will also add that evolution is not merely about chance, but also includes a non-random component, selection, which can cull out failures and impose a progressive element of better adaptedness to the environment on the process. Selection is not infallible, however, as we can see by the fact that you are still around, tapping in your semi-illiterate fashion at a computer.

Fourth, you apparently were incapable of comprehending the article that I wrote, which does make me wonder why you are bothering to pester me further. I thought it would be obvious that there is “variation in people” — after all, I am clearly a normal human being, while you are a cretin — and even a cretin ought to be able to notice that Angelina Jolie looks slightly different from Wesley Snipes. The point of my article was that there are also hidden chromosomal variations in people that do not make them members of a different species. So no, they are not turning into another life form.

Fifth, what does your question about the brain have to do with the article you are citing? Are you even capable of sustaining a single coherent thought in your head in the time it takes you to compose a short email message?

Sixth, the human brain does not have far more capacity than is necessary for a lifetime. Case in point: you. You seem to be a bit deficient. I also know that I happen to use my brain as much as I can, and if anything, wish I had a lot more capacity.

Seventh, evolution does not produce individuals with some kind of optimized ideal capacity for a specific condition and situation; it produces viable individuals who are good enough, and chance variation means that some will be less capable in particular situations and others will be more capable. We are also dealing with competing solutions: you, for instance, are a bit of a twit with very little brain, but you might be quite capable of stumbling into an opportunity to reproduce (alas), and that is all that matters to evolution.

Eighth, the brain is big and complicated. Very big and very complicated. So? It evolved. We can find a whole range of brain sizes in the animal kingdom, so we can see the steps that led up to the large organ we have; there is no reason to suppose that we need supernatural explanations to account for its origin, any more than the fact that our brains develop from a single cell to their massive size during development without the assistance of magic or angels.

Ninth, the article you quoted is garbage. It makes the fundamental error of comparing a brain to a lump of binary computer memory; the comparison does not work. Brains are analog, not digital; they compute more than they store; assigning a bit value to whole neurons is nonsensical.

Tenth, I don’t know what you are, but a creator is an absurd conclusion.

Eleventh, you have approximately the same number of synapses as anyone else. The quantity of meat in your head entitles you to no special privileges; we care more about what you can do with it. And all indications are that your three pounds of cranial stuffing have been sadly abused and neglected.

Jerry Coyne gets email

Coyne was quoted in this article on homeschooling, which brought in an unexpected surge of email, including some rather nasty words from the Christians. This doesn’t surprise me at all; criticizing religion, especially the more far-out beliefs that are clearly unsupportable and in contradiction to all of the evidence, is always a reliable trigger to start some kooks spewing.

Homeschooling is another trigger. People care very much about their kids, and so telling them that they’re wrecking their children’s future by giving them a substandard education poisoned with a falsified ideology is not the kind of thing that will get you pleasant nods of approval…even if it is true. I’m one of those people who thinks we ought to be consistent and require everyone to attend an accredited school, public or private, and that private schools ought also to be required to meet certain secular standards, such as that their science education ought to address the evidence reasonably. You want to send your kids to a school that teaches them all about Jesus? Fine. But it doesn’t count as a legitimate education unless it also teaches the basics of science, math, history, English, etc. in a way that meets state education standards.

It’s the same principle that warrants requiring vaccinations for all children: for the defense of our society.

I would not want to be a judge for that award

The NCSE has announced a new award, the Upchuckies, for the most nauseating creationist of the year. Their first slate of competitors was about as disgusting as an old cat box, more revolting than a snot bath with fecal chunks, and included Al Jazeera (bleh), Ray Comfort (gag), Casey Luskin (I think I’m gonna…), and Don McLeroy (huuuuuurl). Jeez, just reviewing their records would be an unpleasant experience in sleaze, slime, and stupidity.

The “winner” is McLeroy. I don’t have a clue how they made the decision. Maybe they just weighed the puke buckets placed in front of their CVs.

Jerry Coyne weighs in on the Miller puff piece

That recent atheists-hate-ken-miller piece had more words from Jerry Coyne than from me — and his situation was just like mine, saying mostly laudatory things about Miller, only to have our criticisms used to paint a false picture of the beleaguered Dr Miller.

The story did Miller no favors, either. His ludicrous argument about amputees is going to get wide circulation every time we feel in the mood to deflate theistic evolutionists.

Which is all the freakin’ time.

Sins of omission

The other day, I got a request for an interview: a reporter was writing a story about Ken Miller. I was happy to do so — this was clearly going to be a friendly piece about Miller, and I thought it was good that he get some more press. I talked on the phone with this fellow for 20 minutes or so, and I told him what I thought: Miller is a smart guy, a great speaker, a hardworking asset to the people opposing creationism, and I also said that his efforts to squeeze religion into science were ill-founded and badly argued. I said, “It’s an effort to reconcile a legitimate discipline with foolishness.”

Guess what the only quote to make it into the article was?

Yeah, it turned out to be a crappy atheist-bashing article. It wasn’t enough to talk about Miller’s good work and the respect he gets from others — no, it had to be turned into a fight, with poor Miller unable to win because he’s being “attacked by Darwin-hating fundies and leftie atheists alike,” and the New Atheists are the primary villains of the piece. The more complex story I tried to tell got discarded, and only one short sentence made it to the final result. I must have been a major disappointment to the reporter, since I didn’t give him much in the way of vicious attack-dog quotes.

He also got a little bit from Jerry Coyne. Again, it’s clear but temperate stuff. The story really does not have anything to justify the claim that we’re out to get Miller, or that the New Atheists are somehow in symbiosis with fundagelical loons.

“By discussing science and religion together and asserting that science more or less points you to evidence for God, he blurs the boundaries between science and faith,” says Coyne, “boundaries which I think have to be absolutely maintained if we’re going to have a rational country and we’re going to judge things based on evidence rather than superstition.”

I agree completely with that — Miller does blur the lines in very silly ways. The article even reiterates Miller’s notorious explanation from his book, Finding Darwin’s God, and obliviously confirms Coyne’s point by approvingly citing the way Miller mingles nonsense with science.

But the cell biologist also makes explicitly scientific arguments: maintaining, for instance, that quantum indeterminacy — the ultimately unpredictable outcome of physical events — could allow God to intervene in subtle, undetectable ways.

This sort of sly intervention, he argues, is vital to the Creator’s project: if God were to re-grow limbs for amputees, for instance — if God were to perform the sort of miracles demanded by atheists as proof of his existence — the consequences would be disastrous.

“Suppose that it was common knowledge that if you were a righteous person and of great faith and prayed deeply, all of a sudden, your limb would grow back,” he says. “That would reduce God to a kind of supranatural force . . . and by pushing the button labeled ‘prayer,’ you could accomplish anything you wanted. What would that do to moral independence?”

That is not a scientific argument in any way—I guess the reporter was fooled by the flinging about of “quantum”. All that is is tired old post hoc theological apologetics without a hint of evidence to back it up.

Nowhere anywhere in the article is any reasonable support for the notion of a god, nor especially of any peculiarly Catholic deity. Of course there isn’t, because he doesn’t have any.

What he does do, again, is try to throw atheists under the bus. It’s more bullshit about how science has to compromise with the public’s version of spiritual superstition, rather than remaining true to the evidence.

But Miller rejects any suggestion that the science in his work suffers when he brings in the spiritual. And he argues that the New Atheists, in their forceful rejection of God, are doing damage, in their own right, to a scientific brand already under assault.

…

Indeed, Miller argues that the creationists and New Atheists are in an odd sort of symbiosis — reinforcing each others’ extreme views of the incompatibility of science and religion.

Well, fuck that noise.

The New Atheists are as much a force in opposition to creationism as is Ken Miller; more so, I would argue, because we don’t make fuzzy, muddled compromises with absurd medieval humbug. Even if he disagrees on that last point, his constant efforts to belittle the atheists on his side in this struggle, to repeatedly argue that they are a detriment to science education, is getting tiresome. Miller wants to turn the pro-evolution movement into a stalking horse for Catholicism, while his godless colleagues have repeatedly stated that we want no endorsement of religion or atheism in science education. The only one doing damage to the “brand of science” is the guy with pitiful idea that god is noodling about at the quantum level in ways that are completely undetectable — he wants to claim that he has an invisible dragon in his garage, and what’s more, that that claim is scientific.

Remind me, next time I’m asked about Ken Miller, that I shouldn’t bother to say anything appreciative. It will be ignored and won’t be reciprocated. And I’m not going to endorse his crusade to taint science with supernaturalism.

Reality rejection syndrome

This is old news. The NY Times has an article on the expanding agenda of creationists to include denial of lots of other phenomena that make them uncomfortable. We’ve known this for years! It isn’t just creationism; those beliefs have a surprisingly high correlation with denial of climate change, denial of HIV’s role in AIDS, anti-vax nonsense, rejection of the Big Bang, dualism, etc., etc., etc. At the root of these problems is discomfort with modernity and change, resentment of authority, anti-intellectualism, and of course, goddamned religion, which is little more than a rationalization for maintaining barbarous medieval values. So, yeah, face the facts: creationism isn’t just a weird reaction to bad science instruction and those annoying godless liberal college professors — it’s just one symptom of a deep-seated mental derangement.

One example from the story:

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

They often do this, taking the opportunity to try and get a whole slate of dogma incorporated into law. This one, from State Reprehensible Tim Moore of Kentucky, is just particularly stupid, but characteristic of the genre. I’m just impressed that now human cloning is a theory — I thought it was a technique.

They also mention the recent South Dakota resolution.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

Change the wording a little bit, and substitute “shit” for “carbon dioxide”, and it’s still just as true.

I have been repeatedly told that going to the root of the problem, the unwarranted deference given to religious views, is a tactical error if what we want is to improve the citizenry’s understanding of biology. What these kinds of absurdities reveal, though, is that creationism is just one wretched excrescence of a whole body of pathological thought…and that focusing on one symptom while avoiding the cause is pointless.