1. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177002 by oriole on May 8, 2008 at 12:54 pm

This story reminds me of those idiots, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, who are constantly challenging biologists to find a "crocoduck" in order to prove evolution. Check out the platypus, Ray and Kirk; there's your crocoduck!

2. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156013 by oriole on April 6, 2008 at 1:39 pm

For the luvva - Dawkins carefully explained how to avoid the sort of confusion this article unwittingly spreads decades ago; here's a weblink to an article he wrote on the topic in 1982:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/dawkins_replicators.html

Dawkins invented the terms replicator and vehicle to make it clear that, although it may be fascinating to observe what happens with eg honeybee colonies, they cannot properly be thought of as the unit of selection. Here's the money quote from Dawkins's piece:


"An organism is not a replicator, not even a very inefficient replicator with a high probability of endogenous change. An organism's genome can be regarded as a replicator (a very poor one if reproduction is sexual), but to treat an organism as a replicator in the same sense as a gene is tantamount to Lamarckism. If you change a replicator, the change will be passed on to its descendants. This is clearly true of genes and genomes. It is not true of organisms, since acquired characteristics are not inherited.

"The reason we like to think in terms of vehicle selection is that replicators are not directly visible to natural selection. Gould (1977, p. 24) put it well, albeit he mistakenly thought he was scoring a point against the whole replicator concept: "I find a fatal flaw in Dawkins's attack from below. No matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing he cannot give them-direct visibility to natural selection. Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly. It must use bodies as an intermediary." The valid point being made is that replicators do not expose themselves naked to the world; they work via their phenotypic effects, and it is often convenient to see those phenotypic effects as bundled together in vehicles such as bodies."


"such as bodies": or such as cells, bee colonies, groups of bacteria, etc. They're vehicles, not replicators. There's nothing new in this wired article.

3. Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation

Comment #155519 by oriole on April 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Basically, Divineosaur, I'd go along with what you said, although of course there wouldn't necessarily be a "down-time"; environmental influences could well drive significant natural selection in one or both of the sub-groups, so natural selection might well play a role in the speciation; it just wouldn't be essential for it to occur. Also, I'd quibble about the use of "limited" in your second paragraph; I'd prefer "affected."

4. Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation

Comment #154613 by oriole on April 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Actually, divineosaur, if two subgroups of a species become separated, in the classic case by some geographical barrier, then random genetic mutations will, given sufficient time, almost certainly generate sufficient differences in fertilisation mechanisms to make cross-breeding impossible or at least extremely rare. Such speciation would not properly be attributed to natural selection if it truly arose from purely random changes as opposed to those selected by environmental pressures. However, one of the examples cited in the text above (see my comment #5) does indeed seem to be a case of natural selection generating speciation.

5. Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation

Comment #154497 by oriole on April 3, 2008 at 11:15 am

Marcus Hill and BaldySlaphead; you're right, of course, that the fundie spokespeople are never going to be satisfied with any evidence you give them; you could reproduce the transformation from bacteria into primates in the lab and they'd start yammering about where the bacteria came from - or make up some other absurd argument designed to soothe the faithful.

But I do want to hold out hope that we can pick off an occasional waverer from the fundie camp, and the more evidence we pile up, the more waverers we can pick off (again, I hope).

6. Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation

Comment #154218 by oriole on April 2, 2008 at 10:53 pm

I found the story fascinating, but the headline and the opening sentence weakened the import of the findings.

Actually, the data showed more than an "acceleration" due to natural selection. It showed that natural selection was a key element of speciation in some cases, and in other cases even initiated the speciation. The case cited where a change of color in order to match a new environment initiated speciation is clearly a case of natural selection, therefore natural selection triggered the speciation; it wasn't just an accelerator.

This would be important to point out to any ID blowhard who might try to weasel out of accepting the import of these findings by relying on the old micro-evolution versus macro-evolution dodge. ID'ers will (at least officially) accept micro, but not macro, despite the obvious logical connection.

7. CEAI Action Alert for Science Teachers

Comment #154214 by oriole on April 2, 2008 at 10:18 pm

My question is, why does BIG RELIGION keep out the theory of the UNINTELLIGIBLE DIVINE? We UD'ers are not saying that Jesusism is WRONG, we're only saying it's clearly not a fact, it's JUST A THEORY, and there are other good theories out there as well. Let the Church set a good example to BIG SCIENCE by TEACHING THE CONTROVERSY.

So I'm saying to the Church, give equal time in your Sunday schools to your Jesusism (how many of you knew that Jesusism was EVEN OLDER than stodgy old Darwinism?) and the MODERN theory of the UNINTELLIGIBLE DIVINE, based on the concept of IRREDUCIBLE INCOMPREHENSIBILITY.

Unintelligible Divine theorists tell us that concepts such as the Trinity, which are clearly irreducibly incomprehensible, force us to conclude that divinity is unintelligible. Sure, MICRODIVINITY, i.e. the existence of very small gods which are only marginally different from humans, might be possible, but MACRODIVINITY, i.e. the existence of really God-like Gods which are a whole different species, is clearly an entirely different thing.

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY, that's all we're asking. Don't expel unintelligibility from your Sunday schools, and you'll teach big science that they should also welcome unintelligible theories in the science classroom.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148816 by oriole on March 24, 2008 at 2:06 am

Thanks, Stevencarrwork, for two terrific pieces of evidence that Hitler was in fact a creationist, at least with regard to the human species. Atheists have focused their attention on evidence that Hitler was a Catholic, which is relevant, but you have shown us that there are even more profitable avenues to attack this "Hitler was an atheist Darwinian" canard.

By the way, here's a translation of your second dead-on quote from Hitler, which you didn't get around to translating: "That which puts Mankind ahead of Animal-kind, and is possibly the most wonderful evidence for the superiority of Man, is that he has understood that there must be a Creator."

Great work, stevencarrwork. Let's try to make this info go viral, everybody.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148729 by oriole on March 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Thanks, Richard, that needed to be said. While it was clearly written in something of a white heat, with the result that the prose is somewhat less mannerly and polished than your normal high standard, I think the contempt and revulsion for these disgusting lying slimebags (now THAT'S mannerly and polished writing!) which you did not bother to try to disguise was absolutely appropriate and called for.

You can't fight using Marquis of Queensbury rules when your opponent is operating according to no-rules ultimate fighting. Give 'em Hell, Professor!

10. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148535 by oriole on March 23, 2008 at 9:09 am

Let's hope Richard will come out with a really strong public statement exposing these contemptable ID liars for what they are. I'm aware of the argument that we should ignore them; that they're just trying to provoke us to generate free publicity, but I think these cowards (the discovery site with the lies about Dawkins and Myers doesn't allow comments, of course) are in dire need of a figurative bloody nose.

11. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148450 by oriole on March 23, 2008 at 5:32 am

I posted this comment at the Timesonline website:

Hume is another of these tiresome "I'm an atheist but" critics skewered masterfully by Dawkins in the introduction to the new paperbook edition of "The God Delusion". You can hear Dawkins's reply to better arguments along these lines at youtube.com/watch?v=NBaAJcv7Vxg.

It's a mystery to me why a content-free rant such as this would be published in this forum. He fails to supply a single example or even argument to support any of his flailing wild punches, such as "they know not what they believe in", "the masses whom they fear as an ignorant mob", "Must we give up the ghost of humanism?", and my personal favorite triumph of incoherency, "Their arguments tend to diminish the scope of human achievement, emphasising our smallness in the Universe, that we are prisoners of our biology, and that WE ARE ALL GOING TO HELL in a plastic carrier bag with no prospect of salvation." (my caps).

Have you even bothered to read any of the books you critique, Mr. Hume?

12. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145291 by oriole on March 17, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Hot on the heels of John Gray, we now have Tony Snow and Dinesh D'Souza, two more incoherent ranters against atheism. I keep on forcing myself to read these attacks on Dawkins & Co., hoping that someone will say something original and intelligent, but the only original statements they ever manage to muster are fresh lies and more bald, unsupported assertions.

Dawkins is "shrill", his book is full of "bitter biography", "every chapter describes unpleasant encounters with believing dolts". What a load of crap. They haven't read the book. Could you faithheads give us please one religous-apologist reviewer who's actually cracked one of the atheist books he's supposed to be reviewing?

Then they treat us to ridiculuous flat statements like "science has insurmountable limits" or "Atheism fails as a creed because it lacks humanity". Where's your evidence or argument, people? Just saying it doesn't make it true.

And to once again add to the ill treatment of poor old Tony Flew, whose declining years are being cold-bloodedly robbed of their dignity by religous leeches, just confirms their moral depravity.

What a sorry pack of lying wretches.

13. The atheist delusion

Comment #144213 by oriole on March 15, 2008 at 11:18 am

I've posted a response to Gray's article at the Guardian website under my user name there, BaltimoreOriole. Here's the link:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_gray/2008/03/godless_evangelicals.html

Let's all remember not just to vent our annoyance at such silly articles here among friends, which of course does have value, but also to go to the newspaper, magazine, or whatever and put forth the atheist position in that larger forum where we might have a chance to sway public opinion, or at least let people know that Dawkins, Dennett, etc. are not quite the lonely voices that faithheads make them out to be.

14. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142631 by oriole on March 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm

There are two issues with an atheist accepting the prize. One is corruption of the atheist and the other is exploitation by religious apologists. Many of the commenters are acting as if Templeton simply mails you a check with no publicity and no questions asked. So sure, if Templeton or the Catholic Church or Scientology just sent me some money on some whim and left me free to say, "hey, these guys are nuts, but if they want to give me money, fine by me", then there's no problem.

But in fact Templeton only gives the money to people who support, intentionally or unintentionally, their agenda, and the foundation is not stupid, so in any real-life situation, if they offer anyone money, then that individual will with certainty be a prominent person who is helping Templeton do their work, even if that was not his intention.

So if you're an atheist and Templeton offers you money, the only proper thing to do is find out what you're doing that they're so happy about and instantly stop and renounce that activity. If you take the money, you'll inexorably find yourself on a path leading to you standing in front of a faith-head audience and giving a speech in support of religion, so you'll have accepted a $1.6 million bribe to sacrifice your intellectual integrity. (Unless of course, God forbid, you've really decided to go over to the other side.)

And of course you should also remember that any prominent sceptic who were to accept such a prize would be a propaganda gold mine for the religious demagogues.

15. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #127234 by oriole on February 15, 2008 at 4:46 am

To Richard Morgen: If, as Steve Zara seems to be suggesting, you were being ironic when you described the "stupidity" comment as stupid and childish, I'll confess that went over my head. If that was your intention, fair enough.

I also think that you may be right about the most effective way of trying to win over religious people.

However, I don't think your attempted distinction of calling only acts, not people, stupid (it reminds me of the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" line) will take you very far. Note that I didn't say that YOU were hypocritical, only your COMMENT. Is this distinction important to you?

In general, I find it irritating when people attempt to pose as apostles of civil discourse and then lace into their opponents - I note you also lectured one person to "have the intelligence to listen to [PZ's lecture] before deciding for yourself what he meant". Is this an example of the civil tone you are trying to promote?

Anyway, I don't want to beat this to death. I'll go along with your basic point of trying to be diplomatic in our dealings with the faithful. Perhaps you would agree that you came off as just a little bit holier-than-thou.

16. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #125740 by oriole on February 12, 2008 at 1:06 am

Remarks on comments 124806 and 125004:

Dear Richard Morgan,

Are you really unable to appreciate the hypocrisy of criticising people for the inappropriateness of their tone when they use words like "stupid" by calling them "stupid" and "childish"?

If you want to pose as a champion of civil debate, then you should practise what you preach.

For my part, I think a little bluntness is okay. The "softly, softly" expectation when dealing with religious people gets on my nerves. I can have discussions about politics, economics or science with good friends in which we're very upfront about our opinions on the lack of merit of each other's ideas without anyone being mortally offended; I don't see where religious people get off on expecting an exception to be made in their case.

So by all means, Richard Morgen, go on describing people as stupid when you think the adjective fits, but then don't start wailing and rending your garment when they do the same.

17. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113528 by oriole on January 20, 2008 at 12:01 am

In "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins talks about mutationists, a strange school of evolutionists who accept not just micro-evolution but also macro-evolution (they are not ID'ers), but think random DNA mutations alone do the trick; they reject natural selection, or at least think it plays a relatively trivial role. Dawkins points out that they do not have an alternative explanation of why evolution proceeds so rapidly and obviously leads to favourable outcomes, and it's pretty clear that he regards the theory as at best incomplete and perhaps even incoherent. The research mentioned in this article would seem to be intended to refute the mutationists.

18. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111379 by oriole on January 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Dear Mr. Scales,

People like you, who have the physical and moral courage to fight fanaticism and unreason with all the combined might of their bodies and minds, at the risk of their lives and at the risk of public reproach, in youth and in old age, are what keep our civilization advancing and give all of us who care about reason and rationality hope.

Get well soon; you are sorely needed.

19. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #108200 by oriole on January 6, 2008 at 8:40 am

Here's my best shot:

I would say that 1. I am quite certain that Christianity, Islam, etc. are false and 2. I am fairly certain that they on balance do more harm than good. However, I do not claim that they are the only harmful systems of belief that exist, or even that they are necessarily the most harmful.

It may well be that other belief systems, eg the myth of Aryan racial superiority or the Stalinist version of communism, cause even more harm than eg Islam. A fanatical Muslim might well say to a Christian "infidel" that the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition are all equally valid examples of the evil that must inevitably arise when "the one true faith of Islam" is rejected, and therefore that the Christian, by rejecting Islam, is putting himself in the same camp as a Stalinist.

Of course the Christian would, in my opinion, sensibly retort, "Wait a minute, just because I reject Islam, that doesn't mean I have to embrace Stalinism." And I would tell that Christian, "you're exactly right, and by the same logic, just because I reject Christianity, that doesn't mean I have to embrace Stalinism either. And therefore it logically follows that by rejecting the other religions as well, I remain under no such compulsion to embrace Stalinism."

This approach, I think, works best if we make it clear, as Sam Harris argues, that not all religions are equally harmful, even if they are (essentially) equally false. I certainly have a lot of criticism to offer of the Vatican, but it would be foolish to suggest that it was on the same ethical level as Afghanistan under the Taliban just because both are theocratic states. Similarly, Sweden and North Korea are both atheistic societies, but if we atheists are prepared to concede the Taliban/Vatican distinction, I think any audience would see that it was only fair for the theist to concede that Sweden and North Korea are also not ethically equivalent, and therefore it is simply false to assert that atheism must inevitably lead to an evil society.

20. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105018 by oriole on December 30, 2007 at 10:48 am

While I generally share the criticisms made of the Bishop's arguments by my fellow atheists, I think it's important to point out that Bishop Harries is, to my knowledge, the first member of his "team" to construct an honest criticism of Dawkins's book. When you look at the sorry hodgepode of lies, misrepresentations, ad hominem attacks, irrelevant arguments, etc,. launched against Dawkins in the name of Christ, I think you have to regard the Bishop's mannerly, fair critique as a breath of fresh air.

As an example of what I am saying, consider the reprehensible manner in which John Cornwell deliberately misrepresents the careful distinction Dawkins draws between the views of Ivan Karamazov and Dostoevsky in his book, even though Dawkins takes such pains to make the distinction that no person of normal intelligence who is at least semi-literate could fail to appreciate it.

Contrast Cornwell with the Bishop, who, in this and other matters, is careful to paraphrase Dawkins's arguments with scrupulous accuracy before disagreeing with them. So I say, "Well done, Bishop! I disagree with you, but I am glad to finally find someone on your side of the debate who is capable of arguing honestly and fairly."

21. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104921 by oriole on December 30, 2007 at 2:46 am

I've just started reading the article, and I can already see it's going to be another consciousness-raising experience courtesy of Dan Dennett.

But one early question: in the paragraph near the beginning of the essay that teasingly begins "Besides, wouldn't a Darwinian theory of human creativity be covertly self-contradictory", shouldn't the next-to-last sentence, intended to express the typical thinking of people who suffer from Darwin-aversion, have ended with the words "so, then, they are [not] Darwinian processes"? (My insertion). I think the original text unintentionally omitted the word "not".

Or am I missing something?

22. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86436 by oriole on November 9, 2007 at 8:14 am

Dear Tibor,

I agree that it's sometimes not easy to work out whether an act is moral or not. You seem now to agree that in practice we consult our intuitions and (perhaps) also our logic when we attempt to make such determinations, and I also agree that there are a number of unresolved questions with respect to the origins and trustworthiness of such intuitions and logic. But the point you still haven't answered is what on earth metaphysics should have to do with it? Even if I believed in "God", why should I trust his opinions? You agree that the fact that he created the universe, if that is a fact, is irrelevant, but then where is the moral relevance? It can't simply be the fact that he's supernatural, because you wouldn't accept the authority of other supernatural beings, eg Satan. So why do you trust him? Because you're sure he's moral? But how do you know that? Because your intuition tells you so? Can't you see that you're going round in circles?

As for Russell's teapot analogy, I admire your chutzpah in attempting to use it to support religion, but a little reflection will show that it's less well-suited to judging logical propositions than to claims of existence. If you're looking for evidence that the grounding of morality in rationality is at least conceivable, I suggest looking to those philosophers I mentioned; there are others as well. I think you'll find that their efforts, while not necessarily entirely satisfactory, are at least not ridiculous, and therefore there is some reason to think that morality could be so grounded. Naturally, from a scientific perspective, Richard Dawkins, Robert Wright and others also have a lot of relevant insights to add. I don't think there's any point in my rehashing all of their arguments here; the well-read rationalist readers here are mostly as familiar with them (or more so) than I am; the few exceptions will read them for themselves. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you do the same.

23. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #86212 by oriole on November 8, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I enjoy a good argument, especially on topics I have strong feelings about; it's invigorating to be challenged. That's why it's so disappointing to read all those inevitably pathetic faith-head responses: repetitious, dishonest, circular.

Maybe we atheists should get up a collection to present some sort of award to any faith-head who manages to come up with any sort of original, valid argument in favour of Abrahamic religion. I'm sorry to say I've gotten so I don't even bother to read what the faith-heads write anymore, since it's invariably another long-winded, time-wasting, circular piece of tripe.

If we could encourage someone to come up with something worth reading with some sort of award, maybe we could finally generate an interesting debate. But to be honest, I can't figure out anything sensible which the faith-heads might say myself.

24. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86159 by oriole on November 8, 2007 at 1:00 pm

To Tibor:

A number of moral philosophers (Kant, Locke, Rawls, etc.) have taken pretty good cracks at constructing rational bases for morality. I'm not claiming that they have entirely succeeded, nor am I sure that it's even ultimately possible, but I don't see how anyone can simply assert without evidence that it can't be done. I consider this an open question.

One thing I am certain of: if I were presented with a proposed moral code, I would consider it carefully to see if it conformed with my moral intuitions and seemed logically consistent, and evaluate it on the basis of that analysis. It would make no difference whatsoever whether that moral code was written by Immanuel Kant, a space alien, Yahweh or Mohammed.

And why should it? If Yahweh (let's pretend for a moment that he exists) commands me to do something, say stone adulterers, that I find immoral, I will reject that command; I don't care if it came from the guy who created Adam and Eve; that's a crashing irrelevancy.

If something is immoral, it doesn't become moral because Yahweh said it. If it's moral, it doesn't become immoral because Yahweh rejects it. His moral opinions do not acquire more weight because of his supernatural status, any more than the moral opinions of Satan (who btw doesn't exist either) acquire more weight due to his supernatural status.

25. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #85919 by oriole on November 7, 2007 at 1:29 pm

To Tibor:

Why must the moral standard be a metaphysical thing or entity? Because you said so? I think it's conceivable that there are absolute moral standards, just as, in my opinion, there are absolute mathematical principles, but such absolute standards or principles can be derived from logic.

Euler's constant would be derived at some point by mathematicians on any planet, with or without a metaphysical being, because it is logically necessary. It is at least conceivable that morality could also be thoroughly logically grounded, though I'll concede that this is less clear than is the case with maths. But it's certainly not a logical necessity that the source for morality be metaphysical. Why should that even be a relevant question?

26. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #85914 by oriole on November 7, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Right on, drbreakfast!

Actually, it seems to me that true believers in Christianity or Islam would be the ones who would find our world cold and meaningless compared to the infinite eternal happiness to be found in heaven. A true believer can shrug off earthly pain and suffering, or even find it to be a good thing because it qualifies the sufferer to enjoy eternal bliss in the afterlife.

Continuing on from drbreakfast's point, if you don't believe in the afterlife, you should logically look to make this life as fulfilling as possible, and not just a dreary preparation for the much better life to come.

27. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #85910 by oriole on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 pm

I think Dan Dennett is really good on this topic. Dennett makes a lot of terrific arguments, but for me one of the simplest yet most powerful ones is his observation that many faith-head arguments amount to nothing more than bad puns.

When the atheist explains that he is opposed to blind faith, the faith-head retorts that the atheist has faith in the scientific method, faith that the laws of physics will not suddenly change, faith that his wife is not cheating on him, etc. They might as well go on to say that atheists have pictures of "Old Faithful" in their encyclopaedias and CDs from Faith Hill in their music collection. And atheists claim to have no faith in their lives!

I'm reminded of the old chestnut - the argument that a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness. This is so because clearly NOTHING is better than eternal happiness but, after all, a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing.

Word games based on multiple meanings of terms like "nothing" and "faith" do not prove anything.

28. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #85888 by oriole on November 7, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Even if one were to accept that Christianity to some extent and at some times functioned as a vehicle to promote science, we should remember Buckminster Fuller's piano analogy: If you were on a cruise ship that sank and, while floundering in the water, noticed the grand piano from the ship's lounge floating by and, grabbing hold of it, managed to float to safety, it would not follow that the ideal way to stock the lifeboat bay would be to fill it full of grand pianos. We use what we have, but what we have may not be the ideal choice.

29. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #85879 by oriole on November 7, 2007 at 11:44 am

A common way faithheads phrase this talking point is to say that only religion supplies an absolute moral standard; any non-religious moral standard must be "subjective". But this argument is based on a false premise, viz. the conditional claim that if we accept that the universe was created by a powerful god-like entity, it necessarily follows that any moral code promulgated by that entity must be THE absolute moral standard.

Clearly, however, even if we accept for the sake of argument that the universe has a creator, it does not logically follow that that creator is the source of absolute morality. We don't normally accept the principle that the more powerful someone is, the more moral he must be. And there have been a number of very interesting religious traditions, including some gnostic offshoots of Christianity, which have held that the universe has a creator, even a creator more-or-less as described in Genesis, who is however not a force for good but rather an evil God.