I knew this was going to happen, but I’m no prophet — it’s just what the creationists always do. Frank Pastore follows the lead of our national news media and declares evolution debunked because of recent discoveries in paleontology. You can probably guess which ones.
He gets to live to enjoy his Darwin award!
John Allen Paulos, in an interesting essay on the co-option of mathematics into religious apologia, makes a useful explanation. To counter the idea that the elegance of mathematics is a reflection of the divine, he suggests otherwise — it is a reflection of the natural world.
The universe acts on us, we adapt to it, and the notions that we develop as a result, including the mathematical ones, are in a sense taught us by the universe. That great bugbear of creationists, evolution has selected those of our ancestors (both human and not) whose behavior and thought are consistent with the workings of the universe. The usefulness of mathematics is thus not so unreasonable.
Sad to say, the comments to the article are a bit depressing: the creationists descend and start yammering about transitional fossils and mangling Gould and that sort of thing, the usual foolishness we expect from them. It deserves better.
A new poll seems to be showing that the efforts of those ferocious agitating atheists are working — either that, or the corruption of the theocratic right is driving more people into our arms. Daylight Atheism reports that atheists are at 25% of the American population, which isn’t quite right: the numbers include atheists and agnostics at 18%, with another 6% preferring not to say. It would be more accurate to say that about one in four Americans is a freethinker of some sort…and I suspect that that is an underestimate. There are many who affiliate themselves with a church for reasons of tradition and the lack of other social outlets, but don’t really believe in this weird personal god others favor.
The article in The Nation on this subject is interesting and positive, although I also see a little timidity in its efforts to find much to criticize in the “New Atheists” (I also object to the title…this “New” nonsense is inaccurate and tends to minimize the fact that atheism has a long and worthy intellectual history). This part is right on, though.
The great success of the New Atheists is to have reached them [unbelieving citizens], both speaking to and for them. These writers are devoted, with sledgehammer force and angry urgency, to “breaking the spell” cast by the religious ascendancy, to overcoming a situation in which every other area of life can be critically analyzed while admittedly irrational religious faith is made central to American life but exempted from serious discussion.
Here you go, a few links with promises of interesting reading. Much more so than you’ll find here, where I’m buried beneath efforts to finish up my Seed column, prepare for a lecture tomorrow, get a lab organized for Wednesday, write an entry for an encyclopedia, and shovel through piles of administrative paperwork of various sorts…
Some good news for the upcoming Darwin Year of 2009 — Steve Jones will be publishing a new book, Darwin’s Garden, on time for the celebration. I have to say, though, that PR from publishers is a little disturbing: “Jones, who moved to Little, Brown from Transworld with c.e.o. Ursula Mackenzie” makes it sound like he’s had some very peculiar addresses and opens completely inappropriate speculation about his relationship with Ms. Mackenzie. It should be good anyway.
Other good fun can be had on the blog, Prehistoric Pulp. If you want to keep up with the latest books and games that involve primeval creatures, paleontology, and evolution, it’s a great source.
I was sent a link to Asimov’s The Last Question. I swear, I’ve got to have read a few dozen science fiction stories that have pretty much the same plot, and I suspect sf editors must get this one over and over. So now I’m wondering…was Asimov the first to unleash this cliche on us all (in which case, it wasn’t a cliche when he wrote it), or has it got antecedents?
Oh, no! Now Tiny Frog is giving ammunition to the producers of Expelled by revealing The Stifling Dominance of Secular Academia! At least biologists aren’t being picked on in this case — it’s those biased secular theories of physics that are being blamed.
Check out the pulp edition of the Carnival of the Godless — it’s got pulp superheroes narrating the action. I never quite imagined Occam as a ham-fisted bruiser, but OK…
If you prefer a softer approach than those scary godless atheists, there’s also a Humanist Symposium available today.
As usual, Revere has a short, clear sermonette. He does make one mistake, though: he compares theology to a chess game in which there are many intricacies, but that the details don’t mean anything about how you should govern your life. “Chess” is the wrong answer. It’s more like Calvinball. That’s right, Calvinball. Calvinball is the correct answer. Otherwise, it seems to have garnered a lot of comments from the usual tiresome suspects who emerge to bitch and moan about bad, bad atheists who dare to say what they think without softening the blow.
Wilkins despairs. He’s discovered an archive of anti-creationist literature from the ’20s and 30s, and notes that nothing has changed, and his expectation that the religious would abandon creationism to strengthen their own agendas has failed. Buck up, John! No one expects rapid social change on something so deep-rooted, and even though I aspire to see religion reduced to nothing but a sad punchline to a bad old joke, I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, or my children’s lifetime, or even my grandchildren’s (if any). Don’t moan about the distance to the destination, savor the journey! Or in this case, Oy! Enjoy the brawl!
Reed seems to think the good guys won in a battle over the dishonest phrasing of a description of the Creation “Museum” published in a Kentucky visitor’s bureau pamphlet. They’ve backed down and changed the wording…but I’m in agreement with Greg. What did Ken Ham get out of this? A little controversy, a little free advertising, and he still has the state of Kentucky promoting his lies for him. This is a victory?
Greg made me laugh.
(Note addendum to this post: the infamous Uncommon Descent memory hole is in operation.)
A while back, Bill Dembski was bragging about how he was going to be snuffling about Baylor University, affiliating himself with an ID research lab there. It was a strange situation: a serious lab working on ID problems? OK, we’ve been asking them to do this for a long time. But then to associate itself with a weirdo like Dembski? One step forward, ten steps back.
Here’s a fun interview with my friend and colleague Robert Marks. I hope you catch from the interview the ambitiousness of the lab and how it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of business (compare www.evolutionaryinformatics.org with devolab.cse.msu.edu).
Yes, do compare. The MSU link takes you to the Avida group doing research on digital evolution; the other link…well, it’s defunct. It makes Dembski’s arrogant claim rather amusing, don’t you think? I don’t think his reputation as a prophet is holding up well.
