1. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206802 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm

You can catch more creationists with flies than with vinegar.

2. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206756 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Too much copypasta gives you the diabeetus.

3. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205670 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Funny how that weather channel guy turns up in a lot of global warming discussions. Makes me wonder if he's a primary or secondary source of crank climate research data.

4. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #205631 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2008 at 2:40 pm

clearmind,

Imagine laying a natural rock wall without mortar. Good rock walls minimize the empty space between the rocks. Bad rock walls leave a lot of empty space and tend to fall apart.

To lay a rock wall, you start by setting some rock. Then you appreciate the empty space beside it. Then you look to your rock pile for something that will best fit that empty space. If you're slow and careful you will probably build a pretty good wall.

But imagine building not just a good wall but the best wall possible given the stones available. Could you accomplish this? I don't believe I could.

If you've ever constructed a rock wall, you've likely had the experience of discovering a spot that would be perfect for a rock you've already set. Ugh! Sometimes you'll unpack a little of the wall to get the rock for that space. But the unpacking sometimes creates new spaces that are hard to fill.

It's just too difficult predicting at the outset where each rock should ideally be placed.

Now, imagine you've got a large steel box in the shape of the wall you're building. The box sits on top of a platform that can be made to vibrate. Put all the rocks in your pile into the box and let the thing vibrate a while.

Q: Which wall will have less empty space in it, the human designed wall or the wall that results from vibration?

A: The vibration method will have a better outcome. Here's why:

1. Rocks that share large surface areas will vibrate less than other rocks, thanks to friction.

2. The variation in movement among the rocks allows for a kind of natural selection: rocks that don't move will "pass on" their stability to future rock arrangements while mobile rocks will continue to bounce until they find a snug spot.

Evolution is like an adding machine that can add together all sorts of interacting forces all at once. We find this process hard to understand. As humans, we can only add two numbers together at a time. So we look at evolution and we call it "random" because we can't see all the interacting links. But it isn't random. It's complex.

Human intelligence often cannot equal the problem solving ability of some evolutionary process.

http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com

5. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #204807 by Dr Benway on July 5, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Hey Chris - off topic, but wondered if you'd seen this: Hot Cuz I'm Deployed

It's an Iraq video, but it does get warm in Afghanistan also, no?

6. Psychiatrists: Least Religious But Most Interested In Patients' Religion

Comment #200555 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me...

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196324 by Dr Benway on June 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Steve: What matters is what can be selected - what is the raw material of evolution.

Yes. And just to riff on your point:

"Fitness" is no Olympic medal. Sometimes fitness means flying under the radar of some predator. Or having better resistance to germs, thanks to generations of horrible hygeine and promiscuity.

Ignorance can be selected for. Slowness also. And weakness. Any general unpleasantness can sometimes be a plus. It's not terribly difficult imagining how this happens.

Predicting what will be most "fit" tomorrow is as beyond our powers as predicting the weather on March 4th 2012.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196310 by Dr Benway on June 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm

tl;dr

Jethro: Humans are a little crazy. All of 'em. All humans hallucinate a little. All project. All suffer from in-group/out-group passions and emotional swings. All idealize and devalue others.

The scientific method is a means to double-check our experiences and so sift apart reality from imagination.

Any religious claim that can be corroborated can be examined like any other claim about the world. No need to name it a "religious claim."

Any religious claim that cannot be corroborated deserves minimal, if any, confidence.

Typically, proponents of religious belief want to bend the rules of evidence in order to admit wishful fantasy as proven fact. This is anti-science. This is madness.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196007 by Dr Benway on June 19, 2008 at 7:25 am

Jethro: All I'm proposing is that important as evidence is in science, it isn't the whole thing even in science.

Science is a method for assigning confidence to claims about the world. Per that method, no evidence; no confidence.

However individual scientists may express personal feelings of confidence, opinions, speculation, conjecture, poetry, wishful thinking, etc. Not every word spoken by a scientist is "scientific."

We are compelled to accept the results of the scientific method as our best understanding of what is true. We are not compelled to accept personal opinion as anything more than evidence concerning the emotional state of the speaker.

Agreed. No need, no obligation, but not ridiculous to go look at other insights. We're not gods ourselves.

Intuitions must be proven true before we can call them "insights."

I want there to be more than natural selection seems able to support - like the notion of good. (At least you guys are telling me that natural selection doesn't support such notions.)

No mechanism in nature establishes "good" or "bad" for humans; humans decide individually and via negotiation with others what is good.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195769 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2008 at 7:11 pm

tl;dr

Back to "mechanized" for cells and watches:

"Mechanized" means, essentially, "this thing reminds me of certain objects humans create called "machines."

A human who had never encountered any machines would not recognize "mechanized."

"Design" is recognized when we have appropriate prior experience with designed things.

"Design" is a family resemblence concept. We recognize design as we recognize someone who shares facial features characteristic of some family. That is, our recognition rests upon prior experience with members of some set.

"Looks designed" means "looks designed to me, a human familiar with things designed by humans."

I don't think you can define "design" in an experience free manner.

I believe God is offended by the anthrocentrism and egocentrism of humans when they say, "Oh look! This cell is like a machine! Therefore it was designed in some manner similar to how we design stuff."

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195387 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2008 at 6:38 am

Frankus: We assume evolution when the reality, in this particular instance, is somewhat different.

Your dog question assumes that we don't know about human dog breeders before we encounter the Jack Russell terrier.

If we're ignorant of Bach and we encounter a piece of music by Bach, we might erroneously attribute the piece to Vivaldi or some other Baroque artist.

Before we can judge whether a thing was designed or not, we must not be ignorant regarding the designer, set of designers, or school of designers who might be responsible for the thing. We need to know something about methods and materials used by the designer. We need a few examples of the designer's work handy for comparison.

Without any prior experience with the designer's handiwork, the design inference becomes an exercise in circular reasoning.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195380 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2008 at 6:21 am

Steve Zara: Can anyone think of a better word for what both watches and life-forms possess - a combination of complexity and the ability to be active in some way, having parts that have functions. Or is "function" too loaded a word?

Open systems? That is, some external energy source impacts the configuration of the bits in question.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195150 by Dr Benway on June 17, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Yes Quine.

An arch is irreducibly complex. Yet we see natural arch formations. Irreducible complexity does not rule out some natural process at work.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195145 by Dr Benway on June 17, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Crop circles are made using rope, pivot points, and boards to stand upon.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195141 by Dr Benway on June 17, 2008 at 7:35 pm

To recognize design, one must first have some experience with the designer's creations, craftsmanship, materials, and methods.

16. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #194648 by Dr Benway on June 17, 2008 at 6:09 am

Oh Canada. Comparing yourself to the US and trying to be "different" is neurotic. Just be yourself and don't worry so much.

When US politicians are debating a proposed law, does someone say, "how do they do things in Canada?" No, no one says that.*

If you forget about comparisons to the US and simply think through the potential abuses of hate speech laws, the fuzziness of "hate" as a legal concept, and the complexities of language which can imply antipathies through words unspoken as much as words said aloud, I think you'll come to appreciate why hate speech laws are a bad idea.

Let's review the maths:

Acceptable speech:
- "X is good"
- "X is plus good"
- "X is doubleplus good"
- "X is ungood"
- "X is plus ungood"

Unacceptable speech:
- "X is doubleplus ungood"

I have to wonder if those in favor of laws against doubleplus ungood speech have considered the figure-ground problem. Love implies hate just as good implies ungood, north implies south, and near implies far. This is how emotional words work.

Consider the following famous expression of love:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The same meaning can be re-phrased to reveal the implied unlove:

"For God so hated the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever did not believe in him should not live, but have everlasting death."

In short: you can't rid the world of hate without also ridding the world of love. Humans are haters because they are lovers. There are no emotional monopoles.

_______
*One exception: "Well, they have socialized medicine up there and they're not all dead yet, so maybe it's not such a crazy idea."

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194410 by Dr Benway on June 16, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Perhaps Richard Morgan has grown weary of the FCOS.

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190872 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2008 at 7:23 pm

txpiper: No, I am stating that if scientists are ever able to mimic things like that in a laboratory, it would be violating the belief that design can occur without intelligence being involved.

Your error here is significant and worth a few minutes of reflection on your part.

Laws of thermodynamics? Human invention.
Ohm's law? Human invention.
Newton's law of gravity? Human invention.
Computer models of climate change? Human invention.
Theory of evolution? Human invention.

Every equation, theory, hypothesis, or model in science is a human invention, just as a map is a human invention.

AND THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

The fact that a species of great ape uses its intelligence to draw maps does not imply or suggest that there must be a great big papa ape in the sky using its intelligence to create territories.

Further, if all things are "designed" by God, if there is no basis for saying that one thing is designed and another is not, the very concept of design becomes superfluous and we can ignore it.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190333 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2008 at 10:14 pm

txpiper, so you read about DNA repair in the Bible. Oh wait, that was stuff scientists figured out.

Well why not trust the scientists to continue figuring stuff out? Why shit all over the scientific method with "goddidit"?

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190317 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2008 at 8:29 pm

txpiper: If it seems reasonable to you that unfossilized bone and reconstitutable vascular tissue can be preserved for 68,000,000 years then by all means, enjoy your credulous expectations.

txpiper, you are repeating yourself and adding insult. Furthermore, you ignored my enormous hint about oxidation requiring oxygen.

You've acted like a twelve-year-old telling a physician how to do his job. And now you're insulting the good doctor who has been ever so patient with you.

If you're going to spit on the scientific method, be self-consistent. Give up your computer. Give up modern medicine. Give up radio and TV. Go play with your Bible and allow the non-delusional, hard working scientists to get on with curing AIDS and cancer and such.

kthxbai!

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190101 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2008 at 11:29 am

Diacanu: 2. Keep in mind, this would only prove the existence of a Deist God, now you have a mountain of work cut out for you to attach this presence in the universe to any of the revealed religions.

A nitpick:

You can have the deist God without experiment as the deist God should leave no evidence of himself. The parsimony police may frown at you for accepting deism, but you won't be arrested. There's an element of personal taste in parsimony judgments that, in my opinion, allows for deism.

It might be possible to demonstrate evidence of a particular God, such as Yahweh. Example: Yahweh says he'll bless those who believe in him and curse those who don't.

So we operationally define blessing as living to 70 years without major disability. Then we compare two randomly selected groups of believers and non-believers. If there's a highly significant difference between the two groups, with nearly all believers meeting our standard of blessing and nonbelievers failing our standard, that may indicate that Yahweh knows what he's talking about.

But this particular study wouldn't necessarily mean the Bible is wholly correct about Yahweh. Each assertion about Yahweh would have to be supported by evidence apart from scripture.

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190089 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2008 at 11:08 am

txpiper: As I've noted, they prefer not to dwell on the philosophical implications of how enzymes can identify, remove and repair erroneous nucleotide placements.

DNA is double-stranded. Errors cause base pair mis-matches between the two strands. The mis-match creates a binding site for the repair enzymes.

I disagree. If soma cells are appealing to germ line DNA to provide adjustments so that the next generation is better adapted, this means that the information has to already be available.

Oh dear. Where to start...

We know there are extra-genetic factors influencing gene expression. The existence of these factors is consonant with the notion that genes generally are the units of heritability. No one maintains that genes alone control phenotypic expression. If that were true, identical twins would be identical, which they aren't.

Chromosomes are complexes of various protiens and DNA. It's not so strange imagining some event, like a famine, causing changes to chromosomes in both somatic and germ line cells in areas related to, say, carbohydrate metabolism. Those chromosomes are then passed to the next generation. If the changes provide advantages in environments where periodic famine happens, those changes (and the regulatory genes associated with them) likely will persist.

There is no foresight or planning. There is only a variability among a given population sufficient to allow a differential survival of progeny.

A royal flush in spades is considered the highest possible hand. The chances of achieving it are only 1 in the 2,598,960 possible hands. But what is the probability of getting at least one royal flush in spades if a billion hands are dealt?

Nature deals a billion billion hands.

Question: How many eggs does a human female produce? How many sperm does a human male produce?

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190005 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2008 at 6:15 am

txpiper, science has rules. You don't seem to grasp them.

Anyone's emotional reaction to some observation or hypothesis may be important to that person, but it is not important to science. Your repeated expressions of disbelief about some phenomenon being the result of natural processes are not appropriate to a scientific discussion.

The default explanation for any phenomenon is "we don't know." There's nothing special about not having a good explanation for something. We don't go to conferences to hear what people can't explain.

Ideas in science have merit when they are supported by physical evidence and when they generate predictive hypotheses we can check.

The strongest evidence for evolution arises from what we find in the genome. Watch the video Quine recommended.

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189398 by Dr Benway on June 6, 2008 at 7:32 am

txpiper: But another serious consideration, which goes back to the fossil issue, would be about how a T-Rex bone could still have detectable soft tissue in it after 68 million years supposedly elapsed.

Oxidation requires oxygen.

They also know that there are nevertheless enough helpful ones to bring about tiny changes which add up to significant changes over time, such that the whole of the diversity of life is explained.

This is just what some biologists, and you, believe. They do not know any such thing.

What mechanism stops small change A plus small change B plus small change C from then combining with small change D, which results in a species separation between pre-A and post-D critters?

25. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #187657 by Dr Benway on June 2, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Free speech has nothing to do with science. Ideas are granted merit in science when they

1. are supported by physical evidence
2. generate predictive, falsifiable hypotheses.

ID is a conjecture without evidence or predictive hypotheses.

I've heard people say, "Yes but there might be some structure found that will stump the evolutionist to explain by natural selection."

Being stumped is a given. We start at "stumped." Nothing special about "stumped."

26. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #187647 by Dr Benway on June 2, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I'm dialing the emergency Steve Zara phone now...

27. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186646 by Dr Benway on May 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm

txpiper: But its your theory Doc. If you can't propose a reasonable developmental sequence...

In your mother's womb there was a time when your liver was a single cell. It gradually developed into something more complex.

If it can develop, it can evolve.

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186468 by Dr Benway on May 30, 2008 at 10:18 am

txpiper: I believe things are in descent having begun in perfection. Evolution is trying to say that organisms have ascended to where they are now from a single cell by way of mutations. I believe living organisms are in a downward spiral.

Biologists may speak of the ascent of man or other species. But this is poetry. There is no ascent or descent per se. There is simply a sea of replicators replicating.

To get the hang of biology you must lose your anthrocentrism. Have a look at the world from the vantage of a bird, a fish, a spider, a bacterium, a mitochondrian, or a gene. Would T Rex feel that this era of mammalianism is an improvement compared to the age of reptiles? In terms of the menu, perhaps.

Approximately 90 percent of the cells within your body belong to various non-human species. They call your body "ours" just as you call it "mine." Your arms, legs, and brain work for these others as much as for yourself.

Of those cells within you which are human you'll note no loyalty oaths. They generally cooperate with the rest of you, clearly. But they do murder their brothers with some frequency. These fratricides are often to your benefit but not always.

Even within that which is most you --your own genome-- you are overrun with foreigners. Your chromosomes are chock-a-block with endogenous retroviruses and fragments of genes once useful to other species but of no use to you.

Now that you have shrugged off your speciesism you can answer this question: Who conquered the New World, the European or his parasites?

29. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186302 by Dr Benway on May 30, 2008 at 5:25 am

tl;dr

WiFi is radio. Good luck finding a square inch of space in Sante Fe that isn't constantly buzzing with radio waves.

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186297 by Dr Benway on May 30, 2008 at 5:07 am

If it can develop it can evolve.

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186262 by Dr Benway on May 30, 2008 at 3:04 am

I would ask you, for instance, which of the things you list would be involved in the development of liver function and what was their role in that development?

The fact that you or anyone else cannot imagine some sequence of events is no argument at all.

You must provide the sequence of events for your rival theistic hypothesis before anyone will take you seriously.

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186172 by Dr Benway on May 29, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Why would genes that deliberately cause aging and death be selected?

Because on the whole, when all their effects are added together, they are good replicators.

Replicators are not human. Replicators are not our friends. Replicators just are.

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186169 by Dr Benway on May 29, 2008 at 7:42 pm

txpiper,

All that's needed for natural selection is diversity. Mutation is one source of diversity. Sex is another. Viruses are another. Gene duplication is another.

Natural selection is best understood at the level of the replicator, which is the gene. Genes which replicate more frequently replicate more frequently.

And there it is.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #185835 by Dr Benway on May 28, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Welcome to science, txpiper, where all hypotheses not yet disproven remain contingent upon future discoveries.

This is normal.

There is always a margin of error or uncertainty in any model. This does not mean all models are equally valid.

Evolution by natural selection is currently our most powerful explanatory model for what we observe of life's diversity over time. Do you disagree?

35. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185772 by Dr Benway on May 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm

I BELIEVE IN GOD. Now buy my junk bonds plz.

Oh al rawandi, I prefer my chaps avec asses, plz.

36. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185770 by Dr Benway on May 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm

So this scheme works?

I BELIEVE IN GOD.


Now buy my Florida swamp plz, kthxbai!

37. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185766 by Dr Benway on May 28, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Someone should Poe these people. Maybe run a similar ad, but in support of the local gay bar, adult video store, bail bond business, repo man, etc. Example:

"Here at the White Swallow we recognize America as a Christian Nation united under Jesus Christ our Lord. And remember: this Thursday is Trannie Thursday. Wear your fishnets and you can drink like a fish on the house!"

38. We happy hooligans

Comment #185763 by Dr Benway on May 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Scientists obey rules of evidence. Theologians do not.

Scientists are ruly. Theologians are unruly.

And there it is.

39. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184286 by Dr Benway on May 24, 2008 at 10:09 am

Mark Pinsky is on crack. Flanders isn't sympathetic. He's creepy damaged goods, and here's proof: imagine being stranded on a desert isle with the guy.

*shivers*

40. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183499 by Dr Benway on May 22, 2008 at 7:25 am

tl;dr

clearmind aka wooter is a discordian here for the lulz.

41. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #183473 by Dr Benway on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 am

BaldySlaphead quotes: "It began with tea and biscuits for constables at the police cordon after the July 7 terrorist attacks, progressed to lunches with senior officers and continues with regular invitations to gala nights and jive concerts.

The Church of Scientology appears to be involved in an effort to woo officers from the City of London police - an unlikely partnership perhaps, but one that seems to be blossoming. Details of how more than 20 officers, from constables to chief superintendents, have been invited to a series of engagements by the scientologists over the last 15 months have been revealed by a freedom of information inquiry by the Guardian."

IIRC, The Co$ actively befriended the Clearwater PD in a similar manner. Also, off duty cops have worked security at Co$ during Anonymous protests.

Something to know about US cops: low ranking officers have low salaries. They supplement their income serving detail for various events. For example, if a phone tech needs to work at a pole on a busy street, he may call for a police detail to park near the pole and watch traffic. The cop will get paid an overtime rate for four hours minimum even if he's only present for 30 minutes.

The cops have strong feelings about these extra souces of income. A farmer in my town was doing traffic work as a side job, and the cops harassed him terribly. They do not like competition for that sweet, sweet overtime.

If the cops are playing nice with the Co$, follow the $ to understand why.

He who has a number of friends on the local police force shall enjoy a happy life.

42. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182604 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Oh, and cue Dr. Benway...:)

Ooo. Me ears is burnin'.

Regarding public speech in a public place, I'd draw the line at:

- threats to harm
- inciting a riot
- fraud
- loud talk disruptive of usual business

Expression of unpopular personal opinion should be protected, because we might need the right ourselves one day.

43. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182567 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Freethinker79, I agree that name calling is a distraction.

You likely are not aware that "Darwinist" is term invented by creationists. Biologists don't call themselves "Darwinists," anymore than physicists call themselves "Newtonists."

I don't accept your "shame on you." The movie "Expelled" exhibits a conscious effort to mislead people. For the sake of good science education in this country, it's important to be upset about this.

You can read more here: www.expelledexposed.com

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182098 by Dr Benway on May 19, 2008 at 8:10 am

Oh I will MaxD.

We live by a lake. I was lifting the end of a large log from the water's edge onto a rock when I lost my balance. The base of my right hand came down on the rock.

Example of unintelligent design: the scaphoid bone gets its blood supply at one end. When fractured, there's a significant risk of cutting off the blood supply on the side farthest from the artery. Part of the bone then dies and your wrist is fucked for the rest of your life. Happens about 15-30% of all scaphoid fractures.

My husband asked me if I'd let him buy a motorcycle yesterday. I said no. As I've gotten older, I've become much more impressed with the fragility of the body.

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181998 by Dr Benway on May 19, 2008 at 4:58 am

txpiper, you lack expertise in molecular biology. You need to recognize that there's a vast sea of information you know nothing about.

I would enthusiastically agree with both of these points. That does not make me shy away from asking questions. It should not inhibit anyone from doing so.

But you're not asking questions in the manner of a student. You're trying to argue and debate.

A teacher can't teach a student who keeps saying, "No you're wrong."

Transcription error is not the only cause of mutation BTW.

An aside: I fell and broke the scaphoid bone in my right wrist. I'm right handed. Typing and mousing is a bitch. So I won't be as active on teh web tubes for a while. I might pick up one of those voice recognition programs. Any suggestions?

46. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181764 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2008 at 7:32 am

clearmind, here is a cookie I baked just for you:

o

It has chocolate chips.

Now run along and play. The grown-ups have to get back to curing AIDS and cancer and such.

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181758 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2008 at 7:08 am

txpiper: Devices have to be devised.

Either you can't reason by analogy or you're intentionally missing the point.

Q: In a courtroom, who may express an opinion?
A: Only a qualified expert.

txpiper, you lack expertise in molecular biology. You need to recognize that there's a vast sea of information you know nothing about.

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181055 by Dr Benway on May 16, 2008 at 11:11 am

txpiper: But what is important is how small the percentage is. We are not talking about 7%. It is literally exponentially small.

You mean in one generation. But multiply that small probability by many organisms having many offspring over many years, and it becomes a large probability.

BTW, I'm not sure about "exponentially small." There are four nucleic acids. In the case of a substitution mutation at a given site, if one of the three possible alternatives happens to be beneficial, you can see that the odds of getting that beneficial change equals 33%.

49. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #181046 by Dr Benway on May 16, 2008 at 10:57 am

Quine: As Sally Luxmoore says, 'original sin' is the key point that cannot be undermined...

Isn't original sin a Catholic doctrine? I know Protestants believe in man's fallen nature which predisposes everyone toward sin. But protestant babies are innocent until they actually do sin, if I recall correctly.

Catholics accept both original sin and evolution. For them, the talking snake story is allegorical.

50. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #181036 by Dr Benway on May 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

Berkeley's position is a problem:

1. State entanglement. There's a different standard for what citizens can say and what the state is allowed to say.

2. Approval of certain religious groups over others is implied.

Bending over backwards to say something nice about religion is strategically dangerous, particularly for the state. If someone states a claim about the world that we can test, that's a scientific claim and it's fair to attack it as such. The fact that it might also be a religious claim for some people is irrelevant.

The legal argument in a similar case decided recently might apply to the Berkeley situation. If so, too bad for Berkeley.

More here: Judge sai STFU to teh gheys