1. Why Evolution is True

Comment #264093 by capacitor76 on October 13, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Alas, here in the good ol' UK it's not a great deal better. A poll by the reputable Ipsos-MORI group in January 2006 (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/bbc-survey-on-the-origins-of-life.ashx) showed that only 25% of respondents are against teaching creationism or ID in science classes. When respondents were asked to choose only one theory, a mere 48% went for evolution. When they were allowed to list their preferences, only 69% were in favour of teaching evolution in school science, from which you have to deduct the 44% also in favour of teaching creationism.

This statistics has been brought up before, and even Richard himself rather carelessly cited it in his response to Libby Purves. However there are quite a few other surveys which suggest much less support for creationism in the UK, including some which suggest over 40 per cent of adult Britons to be agnostics or atheists. In combination with a state church which explicitly advocates evolution, this would hardly be compatible with the above. It's notable that Ipsos-MORI tied advocacy of evolution to atheism or at least non-theism ("God had no part in the process"). This probably pushed many advocates of theistic evolution into the 'ID' or 'Unsure' categories.

2. Why Evolution is True

Comment #264087 by capacitor76 on October 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm

One may rightly think the title to be inappropriate. It isn't even good grammar to start with; it should be something like "Why The Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection Over Billions Of Years Is Plausible", or "Why The Claim That Evolution By Natural Selection Leads To Speciation Is True". However these are sort of awkward phrases, not very handy for a book title supposed to appeal to the layperson, so I don't think pedantry is in order here.

As for evolution of some sort ("micro-evolution") not being disputed even by creationists, I think that's beside the point. No staunch Bible Belt creationist would ever subscribe to the statement, "evolution is true". "Evolution", to them, means "that heretical bullshit spouted by those God-hating liberal communist Nazi elitists who dwell in those demon-infested coastal Sodoms". It's a term which makes them see red, and anyone who mentions it affirmatively is immediately viewed as the worst of enemies.

However, not all Bible Belt creationists are staunch adherents to the dogma. There are quite a few who don't have the neurological disposition to be strongly religious and merely adhere to the dogma because their peers do, not usually giving it much thought. Books like the above can in fact sway some of them.

3. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #262022 by capacitor76 on October 7, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Okay, after reading the whole story, it seems I was shooting a bit fast with my above ramblings about demographics; a bit of a myopic perspective restricted to the industrial age on my side.

My point 3 still stands, though; he can't determine the actual significance of paternal age for the evolutionary changes which took place over the past few million years merely by looking at recorded human history. He's surely right about older age of fathers accelerating change in theory, but I just don't see too many older fathers in the African savannah of the Pliocene.

4. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261926 by capacitor76 on October 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm

A shortage of older fathers in the West slows down human evolution.

1. In the West? The majority of humans wasn't living in the West the last time I checked, let alone at whatever point in the future.

2. Even if we buy the above (for instance by arguing that most of the world will eventually adopt a Western lifestyle), the West of all regions has the least of a shortage of fathers over 35. In former times, at least in the lower classes which made up the majority of the population, it was quite normal to become a father at 20. Fathers over 50 were rare because a significant portion of men didn't live to that age. That's also still the case in most developing countries. In developed countries, however, people push everything ever further to the future: finishing education, starting work, having families. This goes for men and women alike, and life expectancy and fecundity span are steadily increasing. In fact, the mean age of first fatherhood, as well as the percentage of older fathers, was never as high as nowadays. Any demographer could tell Mr Jones that.

3. Not much has happened in the way of human evolution since historical records started, and in fact can't be expected to occur in such a short time frame. What use, in this context, is citing the biography of someone who lived in the 18th century? Is Mr Jones trying to say that people evolved faster then? One would have to take a look at our forefathers from around 4 million to 40,000 years ago to determine to what degree evolution was driven by putative advanced age of fathers. I would hazard the guess that most of them were pretty young, given their lifespan wasn't particularly long, and would conclude that genetic mutations took a distant second position to sexual or even social selection in bringing about evolutionary changes. But maybe Mr Jones has comprehensive data to prove the opposite.

Overall conclusion: rubbish. The case for a slowdown of human evolution can well be made, but certainly not with above argument. Actually I would suspect that the advent of genetic engineering, which some have proposed as a possible accelerator of evolution, might have the opposite effect. Of course it will be used to stamp out genetic diseases, but it's also likely to cement the current human phenotype by compliance with current ideals of what a human being should look like, and preserving them for the future by establishing 'industry standards'. Had homo erectus mastered genetic engineering already, he would certainly not have made himself naked, long-nosed and ridiculously weak. Chances are we would still look like semi-apes today (well, more so than we actually do, at least) with a standardised DNA to ensure it.

5. Have-a-go deaths are never a waste

Comment #258438 by capacitor76 on October 2, 2008 at 3:07 am

Off-topic, but two clicks on the Torygraph's website led me to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3116598/Composer-James-MacMillan-warns-of-liberal-elites-ignorance-fuelled-hostility-to-religion.html

The title, 'Fucktard of the month October' is secure to him I think, and half the commenters as well.

6. 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

Comment #252635 by capacitor76 on September 23, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I never thought I would say this, but he actually makes Ann Coulter and Ben Stein look comparatively sane.

Agreed, but only because they're attention whores and money-grabbing frauds, and probably not at all convinced of what they preach. The content of their verbal secretions, though, is no less weird than Oktar's. I bet if you asked them about whether bin Laden is a 'Darwinist', they would agree first and think later.

7. Origin of the specious

Comment #245416 by capacitor76 on September 10, 2008 at 5:00 pm

1. He may be testing our faith.

Why?

Because He so pleaseth.

2. God cannot be judged by standards of human morality.

We are made in his image and we have eaten the fruit of knowwledge - so why?

'Made in His image' only means that we supercede every other earthly creature in greatness and intellect. It means we shall rule Earth as God rules Heaven. It does not mean that we are equal to God, the Almighty, the Infallible, the Creator, the Saviour in any respect. Eating the fruit of knowledge only gave us wisdom of what's good or bad FOR HUMANS. God's understanding of Good and Evil reaches infinitely further and takes into account an infinite number of things we do not, and cannot, understand.

3. God's logic is beyond human understanding.

Why? See above

See above. Also, God is the very creator of logic, His logic is infinitely complex, thus human logic is only an infinitely minor aspect of divine logic.

4. Satan may be the cause of these things. God created the angel Lucifer, and he feel from grace because of the free will God gave him. As for why an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would create such a being and allow it to wreak havoc upon the world freely, see points 1, 2 and 3.

If there is only one god, why is there suddenly another? God made another god? Or is this just part of the polytheism alluded to in Genesis?

There is only one God, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Satan is not God, but merely an angel fallen from grace. God will oblitrify him on Judgement Day. Genesis does not allude to polytheism. The Lord moves in mysterious ways. Blah blah blah.

-------------------------------------

Obviously, this fun little game could be carried on ad infinitum (well, ad nauseam at least). I do, however, resent the chore of playing idiocy's advocate for that long. ;)

8. Origin of the specious

Comment #245382 by capacitor76 on September 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Oh, and capacitor76 missed the fave argument of the church. The greatest thought terminating cliche of all time - The lord moves in mysterious ways!

I thought I had that covered with 'God's logic is beyond human understanding'. ;-)

9. Origin of the specious

Comment #244917 by capacitor76 on September 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I still don't know how IDers/young Earthers respond to tough questions like:
-- How long do you think it takes to petrify an entire tree?

So long as God the Almighty wishes.

-- Did the dinosaurs die in the Biblical flood? If so, why didn't Noah take some of them 2 by 2?

Noah took them aboard the Ark, and they died out after the deluge. Some of them live on as reptiles.

-- Do volcanoes make islands in the ocean? They are made of lava you know. How long does that take?

So long as God the Almighty wishes.

-- Is God still actively perfecting His design with: birth defects, cancer, viruses, and droughts?

1. He may be testing our faith.
2. God cannot be judged by standards of human morality.
3. God's logic is beyond human understanding.
4. Satan may be the cause of these things. God created the angel Lucifer, and he feel from grace because of the free will God gave him. As for why an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would create such a being and allow it to wreak havoc upon the world freely, see points 1, 2 and 3.

-- When did the meteor crater in Arizona happen? Was that the same time as all of the ones on the moon? Did they all happen at once? Why aren't they still happening?

- Less than 6,000 years ago.
- Only the Lord knows.
- Only the Lord knows.
- Because the Lord wishes not so.

The unnerving thing about people who argue based on some fantasy is that they can always come up with an ad-hoc, non-falsifiable reply to anything. There are no tough questions to them.

10. More Americans Question Religion's Role in Politics

Comment #236261 by capacitor76 on August 24, 2008 at 12:14 pm

I've seen no evidence to suggest that a poll of 2,905 can accurately characterize the actual positions of tens of millions of registered American voters. Nobody ever talks about this. I'm not a statistician, but the overblown assumptions we draw from such polls seems obvious.

If my memory serves, a random sample of 3,000 out of 200 million is around 95 per cent likely to be representative of the total, and when you ask yes/no questions, there's nothing ambiguous about the replies, either. Election prognoses in the U.S. are usually based on polls of 30,000 or so individuals, giving 99 per cent probability of accuracy. The polls done using this method on the election day itself have always proven to be very close to the actual result, so that would be empirical evidence (not needed, though, since it can be proven mathematically anyway).

The question has to asked, however, whether Pew's criteria for sample selection actually produce a random sample. In one of their recent surveys (the one with 1.6 per cent atheists, part of whom strongly believed in God) things seemed to be pretty messed up.

11. Embracing goodness, without God

Comment #223837 by capacitor76 on August 3, 2008 at 1:46 pm

I don't get the 'humanism' reference either. When I hear that term, I think of early modern opponents of scholastics such as Erasmus and Luther's confidant, Melanchthon, as well as the proponents of 18th century enlightenment. The former were devout theists, some of the latter may have been deists, but none of them were outspoken atheists. You can also very well be an atheist without being, or at least acting like, a humanist (e.g. Stalin).

I think the habit of equating humanism with atheism stems from the tendency of some modern religious types, particularly in North America, to wrongly define humanism as 'putting man in the place of God' and at the same time, again wrongly, portraying that idea as an inevitable consequence of atheism. Atheistic organisations may prefer the term 'humanist' in their name because it doesn't alienate the general public as much, but in fact the two have nothing to do with each other.

12. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #220539 by capacitor76 on July 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm

#118: Well, I didn't fall for anything - couldn't have as I wasn't around. Contemporaries of my grandparents did (not even my grandparents themselves, though that wouldn't really make a difference). If today's Germans were particularly susceptible to Nazi propaganda, the NPD would garner a lot more than their usual 0.6 per cent of the vote in national elections, and they wouldn't be as terribly despised by the general public, either. As for ruling elites, our political system these days is rigidly cemented around two major parties which are more or less modelled after the left and the right wing of the U.S. Democrats, respectively. Maybe a supernova could overthrow that system; the NPD, or Irving for that matter, surely can't.

When it comes to advocating restrictions on free speech in the name of anti-facism, we're apparently Nazis if we do, and Nazis if we don't, depending on who you ask. I for one don't think restricting free speech helps. It certainly didn't help the Weimar Republic which, contrary to common understanding, did have hate speech legislation. The Nazi Party faced over 200 lawsuits over racist agitation throughout the 1920s, and Hitler was forbidden from speaking in public in Bavaria after the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. The only thing that achieved was that the Nazis could portray themselves as victims, and the democratic government as oppressors.

13. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #219164 by capacitor76 on July 26, 2008 at 11:54 am

I agree with the above comment - here in Germany it's being taken to extremes, with the Federal Constitutional Court having re-defined Holocaust denial as a 'non-opinion', so that it's not covered by the right to freedom of speech. I consider this an insult to my and my countrymen's intellect, assuming we would automatically fall for Nazi propaganda if the nanny state didn't keep the bad stuff away from us. It's not that the positions of Irving and his ilk weren't well-known anyway.

Having said that, I'm a bit disturbed by Hitchens' apparent stance on Irving. Defending Irving's right to utter his opinion, no matter how despicable it may be, is one thing, but calling him 'a great historian' is quite another. I hope Hitchens' stance is misrepresented in the article.

In any case, it's sadly more ammunition for the 'Atheism -> Hitler' brigade.

14. Historian predicts the end of 'science superpowers'

Comment #217643 by capacitor76 on July 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Re comment 7 (Nova): As far as I know, the U.S. currently leads in output of scientific publications, citations, new patents and science awards not only in absolute figures, but also per capita, outstripping the 'next best' countries (e.g. UK, Canada, Germany, Japan) at least by a 2:1 ratio.

It has to be noted, though, that influx of foreign brainpower has been a major factor in this throughout the past decades. U.S. universities are, on average, much better financially endowed than their European and Asian counterparts and, and least traditionally, face fewer legal and bureaucratic restrictions. Therefore they can offer a better research infrastructure, pay higher salaries and effectively buy off the best scientists from other countries. You'll very often read about new scientific developments conceived by European or Asian expatriates working at American universities.

I'm not sure where university and research institute funding in the U.S. is heading, but given the comparatively large proportion of corporate funding and private donations, I don't see the above changing anytime soon. Of course, as countries like China or India prosper economically, they may develop similar systems of funding. I don't expect this to happen in (continental) Europe, where education expenditures tend to be cut in favour of maintenance of expensive welfare systems, and corporate funding of research is frowned upon as an attempt by Big Business to instrumentalise science.