(via Chris)
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Several months ago, we witnessed a tragic spectacle in the news: a nine-year old Brazilian girl was raped, became pregnant, and got an abortion…and the Brazilian Catholic church responded by excommunicating all the participants. One cleric in Rome, Monsignor Rino Fisichella, said the church had been insensitive, but no one in the hierarchy stepped forward to outright condemn the heartlessness of the church’s stance and the unfairness of the policy.
We now have an official document from the Catholic church clearly stating their position. Anyone involved in an abortion for any reason is to be automatically excommunicated, no exceptions. They’ve actually hardened their position.
That includes nine-year old children raped by their stepfather. It includes any doctors who act on sympathy for a maltreated child. Of course, all the rapist has to do is demand that his victim bear his child, and he will be welcomed in the bosom of the holy church. The church is standing firm on principle.
…there is a more important principle at stake. “We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith,” the official says. “This is not just theory. And you can’t start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight.” Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned.
I see. Dogma is more important than reality, and most surprisingly for representatives of a religion that claims the moral high ground, it is more important than human needs.
Everyone should simply leave that evil institution — tell them they can keep their bricks and their real estate, their gold chalices and their gilt robes, their layered assemblage of celibate perverts, meddling old men, and fearful brides of Christ, and let that human element walk away, free of their superstitions. The church doesn’t want that human weight, anyway.
An Oxford research fellow, Andrew Parker, has written a bizarre little book claiming that the book of Genesis is entirely compatible with science and evolution…by simply redefining most of the terms in the Bible after the fact to fit. You know the sort of thing I’m talking about: “Let there be light” is a perfect description of the big bang, by “grass” god really meant “cyanobacteria”, the appearance of lights in the sky refers to the evolution of animal vision, etc., etc., etc., yadda yadda yadda. It’s ridiculous, of course, mere post hoc retrofitting of valid interpretations to a pile of bronze age bogosity. This is what happens when scientists try to combine old superstitions with real science.
I know of Parker from another connection, too: he’s the author of the Light-Switch Hypothesis, described in his book, In the Blink of an Eye. That was the idea that the trigger for the Cambrian explosion was the evolution of vision, which I’d thought might have been an interesting component, but was burdened with far too heavy a load of speculation and a suspicious reliance on single causes. This does explain some of the pseudo-biblical rhapsodies in that book, though.
Oh, I believe! What else could this be?
It’s the one on the left. The medium: bird poop on a pickup truck.
This is even better than Piss Christ!
It’s sad to see that we’ve lost Brian Goodwin, one of the genuinely original (but not always right!) thinkers of our time. There aren’t many left of the old structuralist tradition in biology, the kind of non-genetic purists who tried to analyze development in terms of the fundamental physical and chemical properties of the organism—they’ve been swallowed up and lost in a triumphal molecular biology research program.
Edge has a nice interview with and essay by Goodwin — they’re good places to start. If that whets your appetite, you should also read his book, How the Leopard Changed Its Spots : The Evolution of Complexity(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which is aimed at general audiences and is a good overview of why we should look at more than just genes to explain form.
He was an advocate for one view of nature, and I think he missed the mark by neglecting genes as much as he did; we know now that a lot of details of morphology are directly affected in subtle and not-so-subtle ways by the genetics of the organism. But I think we can also make a case that the modern molecular biological approach is also missing a significant element. Every biologist ought to read a little Goodwin, just to leaven their picture of how biology works with his special perspective.
I laughed. I laughed loudly.
All right, I’ve got a Horde: a vicious mob of savages slavering over the prospect of conquest and booty. I’ve got to start using you more. Here are some people who have been asking for it:
Fly, my pretties, fly! Invade their blogs and leave comments and jack up their traffic and…and…stuff. That will teach them! Yarrrr!
I have another army arising, too. Remember, the SSA and I are going to the Creation “Museum” on 7 August. It’s going to be huge: last I heard, we’ve got 70 people signed up to descend on the place. I hope we have enough horses and lances to go around.
It’s got me thinking, though. With that many people, we want to stand out a little bit, and be able to recognize each other, so I have a request: all you godless heathens at the “museum” should wear an armband. Any color will do, and in fact a diversity of colors would be best to represent the diversity of our views, anyway — just tie a handkerchief or something around one arm when you go. Let everyone know what side you are on and what you represent: maybe a few of the other attendees will ask you who all those people with the armbands are, and you can politely explain to them what’s going on, and encourage them to ask us questions.
You should also tell them that all the people with armbands are laughing at them.
Two things about my daughter: she’s always been a finicky eater, particularly hating seafood, and she is currently living far from home, in Arizona. I just about fell off my chair, therefore, when I read that Skatje is actually trying sushi. And she likes it! Well, sort of, and only some of it, but it’s a step forward.
Darn kids. They keep growing up and changing on me.
I feel obligated to reply to Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s latest complaint, but I can’t really get motivated. Their argument has become so absurd and so petty that it seems a waste of time anymore.
All they’ve done is confessed that they are on a personal vendetta: they are very upset with me, they admit that my existence is a central reason that they left the scienceblogs network, and you can just feel the roiling resentment that people dare to criticize them, persistently and at length…and it’s all my fault.
I did not address their scapegoating of PZ Myers and Pharyngula in my reviews of the book because it was a palpably strange bit of personal antagonism on their part, and I confined my disagreement to the poverty of their other arguments. It is interesting to see my assessment of the anti-me sentiment now confirmed. It’s unfortunate, too. Their book is very thin on ideas and evidence, and it detracts from it further that they spend two chapters whining about people who have annoyed them. It’s unprofessional, and it reveals their own poor comprehension of how the web works. This petulant bravado, for example, is simply unreal.
For too long, people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers. After all, he can send a lot of angry commenters your way. And he, and they, are unrelenting in their criticisms, their attacks, and so on. Just read our threads over the last week—it’s all there, the vast majority from people who have not read our book and do not seem inclined to do so.
But we’re not afraid of Myers or his commenters. They can leave hundreds of posts on our blog-we readily allow it—but our book will be read by a different and far more open-minded audience. It’s already happening. And that audience will largely agree that Myers’ communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive, and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.
I have not noticed any tip-toeing around me at all — it is simply bizarre to argue that people are afraid to criticize me because something horrible might happen: they might get criticized back. That’s all I’ve got, after all: I do not have clout in government or science funding agencies, I do not have an army of ninjas, people can howl all they want about me — and they do! — and all that will happen at worst is they’ll get a brief flood of traffic and a bunch of comments on their blog. This is something most bloggers want. To claim bravery because they aren’t intimidated by the possibility that I might link to their articles is damned silly. And I have read over the last week’s worth of comments on their blog: it’s a bunch of people on the internet arguing over both sides, and many of the angriest (and dumbest) are Mooney’s own defenders.
They really don’t get it. I have no power except as a focus for a lot of like-minded people; if I were to vanish, those people would still exist, and would still be hammering at the foolishness that Mooney and Kirshenbaum emit. There is a growing minority in this country, this Unscientific America that Mooney and Kirshenbaum write about, which is fed up with the false privilege granted to religion, that wants science to have a more prominent role, that is willing to be outspoken and critical, and that is more than a little exasperated with the tepid apologists for the status quo who believe that making nice with the Unscientific part of America is the solution. That minority wants a voice, and they will have it whether I’m part of it or not. They are also our only hope for changing Unscientific America. Ultimately, the only way we can get a Scientific America is by challenging and criticizing the proponents of anti-science and un-science…and all the Colgate twins can do is protest in horror at anyone who wants to rock the boat.
This isn’t a problem with the communication of science on the internet, it is a strength. We have a platform from which we, with many voices, can roar. Use it, don’t muffle it.
Ultimately, though, the problem with their book, the one they’ve avoided despite the fact that I brought it up in my review, reiterated it in my response to their ‘rebuttal’, which Jerry Coyne discussed briefly, and that Ophelia Benson skewered with some pointed questions, is that they are thin on substance. Bellyaching about me personally is entertaining and has brought them some short-lived blog traffic, but all that is is a distraction from what ought to be the topic of conversation: how do we get the public to think scientifically and become better informed about real world matters, and make decisions rationally? I push one obvious strategy: the erosion of a major source of delusional, sloppy thinking, religion. I do not pretend that this is the only useful strategy, however. What Mooney and Kirshenbaum could have done was provide a practical alternative, with details and specific suggestions that we could then productively wrangle over. They have not. That’s the most obvious deficiency of their responses so far (other than their frequent distortions of what others and they themselves say), a strange reluctance to actually discuss what is in their book. I’ve already spilled the beans about their Grand Solution, so they might as well try to talk about it.
I predict that they won’t.
The new word is faitheists.
