51. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216578 by 82abhilash on July 23, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #213969 by Richard Dawkins on July 19, 2008 at 9:59 am

I have heard Dawkins make the point several times that a universe designed by a god would be completely different from one that happened by accident.

Does he ever list some examples of how it would be different? I never seem to catch them.

A universe with a god would be a different kind of universe from one without, even if we can never point to an observable difference between a universe with a god and one without.

Richard

I pay attention to what Richard Dawkins comments because I find it interesting. Although in this instance I feel he may have contradicted himself. When a scientist makes a claim it is because evidence indicates to him that the claim he is making is correct. But maybe it is not a scientific claim he is making, maybe it is just an informed opinion of his that 'a universe designed by a god would be completely different from one that happened by accident.' But that begs the question what kind of information lead him to that opinion?

It cannot be the information about the nature of the event horizon. That example can only lead one to the conclusion that 'We can never point to an observable difference between a universe with a god and one without.' And rightly so. That can only lead to agnosticism, and I guess we are all technically agnostic about the concept of god even though we might be atheistic with respect to the god of any almost all religions.

There is a fundamental way in which a universe designed by a god would be completely different from one that happened by accident. In the sense that if natural laws are the creations of a supernatural entity then that entity must exist outside of those natural laws and either he or people he favor (prophets) thereby must be able to transcend them at a time and place of their choosing. It is in that sense that a universe designed by a god would be completely different from one that happened by accident.

It is not the fact that people died that was taken as proof of divinity, but the fact that people rose from the dead. It is not the fact that water tastes sweet that was a miracle, but water turned to wine. In a universe in which god exists the following are possible and in fact has already happened, of which of course we have no evidence for:

1. There was burning bush that never extinguished.
2. An arc that carried all the animals of the world in pairs, plus the global flood which required it.
3. Jews and Christians who where turned into monkeys and pigs
4. A man who bodily rose three days after he died.
5. A bridge made of floating stones by monkeys connecting mainland India to modern day Sri Lanka - this one is a Hindu myth.

And how are some Christians hoping to be vindicated about their beliefs? By a rapture in which they will bodily ascend into heaven sometime in this century.

A universe designed by a god would be completely different from one that happened by accident because a universe with a god will be a universe saturated with miracles. But the reality is; only our myths are saturated by such miracles. Other things that seem miraculous have naturalistic explanations. The miracles turn out to be a neat bag of tricks.

52. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216534 by 82abhilash on July 23, 2008 at 9:19 am

20. Comment #216307 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 12:53 am

Comment #216055 by 82abhilash


Also the 'Descending mount probable' gives the idea that complexity is an inevitable outcome of evolution.

The problem I have with "mount improbable" is that it suggests to me that certain aspects of life are intrinsically unlikely, and that some sort of extra energy must be put in to "get up the mountain". It turns out that certain supposedly "hard-to-evolve" features like eyes and wings turn up often - they may even be universal features of complex life.

It might as well be true that some sort of extra energy must be put to climb up the mountain. Certain ideas like eyes and wings turn up often because they are easier to evolve and extremely useful given convergence and constraints. But even then there it takes time and effort spanning tens of thousands of years (and generations).

Evolutionary biologists may call it 'easy' compared to other complex features that take millions of years to evolve and does not happen too often, like the exploding type defence of the bombardier beetle. Or intelligence in humans.

53. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216055 by 82abhilash on July 22, 2008 at 5:36 pm

5. Comment #215999 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Comment #215990 by mordacious1

I have never really liked the "mount improbable" metaphor. I have tried to re-cast the idea in a different way:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/124211.html

"Descending mount probable"

I guess the metaphor of 'Climbing Mt. Improbable' has its limitations. Well all metaphors have their limitations and must not be over-extended.

For example, the metaphor of a pump is useful to understand the working of a heart, but if you keep comparing part by part anatomically, then the metaphor begins to collapse.

In the case of the 'Climbing Mt. Improbable' it is the notion of a fixed peak that all organisms must strive for. Well it may not be too far off. There is a notion of local fitness, local peaks if you may, which are sort of evolutionary dead ends. Mutations may temporarily decrease fitness unless you move away from that locale.

Also climbing up Mt. Improbable seems to make better sense because it implies a heavy bottom populated with simple organisms and indeed most life on earth are microscopic.

Besides you have not solved the problem that you set out to solve, because going up a mountain implies that a highest peak exists. However easy it is to think of a mountain peak, it is much easier to think of mountain base. So saying ' It is a largely inevitable drift down mount probable, but to who knows where?' poses at least as much problem as we initially hoped to solve.

Also the 'Descending mount probable' gives the idea that complexity is an inevitable outcome of evolution. I am not sure how true that is, given that most life is still microscopic (in a sense simple). I could be though. Does that make evolution directed? Perhaps in the sense that a directionless process can create beings with a sense of direction. But that in itself does not give the process any direction, direction (or more precisely directed behavior) becomes just one outcome of the directionless process.

Now if we say that the highest peak on Mt. Improbable is not visible, because of fog or something that may help reinforce the idea that evolution is a process without goals. Metaphors are good places to start, but eventually we must outgrow them. As for Creationists, they are willfully ignorant.

This is the episode he speaks about 'Climbing Mt. Improbable'

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800

54. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216025 by 82abhilash on July 22, 2008 at 5:08 pm

9. Comment #216016 by mordacious1

82abhilash

Are you saying that if the planet started today, everything being the same, we'd still end up with something similar to a platypus? I'd be shocked. Not that there would be a we.

Not at all. I cannot see how anyone could imply that from my comment. Quote me where I appear to imply that please.

55. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216003 by 82abhilash on July 22, 2008 at 4:40 pm

4. Comment #215996 by thewhitepearl on July 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Ok who started this first post competition? It's getting rather annoying. If you have this itching desire to point out the obvious to everyone, please include something relative to the article. Or at least state something worth reading.

I wonder what metaphors and incorrect views of evolution the author is refering to.

I think I understand the 'Climbing Mt. Improbable' metaphor gives the impression that the process of evolution is so contingent that if the tape of evolution is replayed we won't reach the same place. While the notion of convergence and constraint posits that very similar outcomes will repeat.

Now I am going to try reading Richard Dawkin's mind. He may say something to this effect - there is convergence and there are constraints, but their impact is not significant enough to remove contingency from the process of evolution. So evolution remains largely contingent, though perhaps not the extent that Gould claimed.

56. The brain in love

Comment #215464 by 82abhilash on July 22, 2008 at 1:21 am

Helen Fisher seemed too passionately involved. When emotions are this strong people can fool themselves. Frankly speaking I am a bit disappointed with this lecture. There was little interesting or insightful information in it. Seemed to me like an appeal to our sense of aesthetics more than anything else.

One thing I would like to know is how much effort Helen Fisher took to protect the experiment from her own biases. For instance, where the couple being scanned on the MRI told that they where being researched for love?

What about the person tabulating the observed readings? Where they told how the results would be used before hand? Or did they just faithfully record the readings?

Also the word 'love' is an abstract term. Whatever makes Helen Fisher think that people are under obligation to conform to her idea of love as defined by her favorite poetry? People use it in different ways, so what exactly is the brain scans showings? That the brain patterns harmonize when people are in a committed relationship? Or has it got something to do with the fact that they said they where in love before having the brain scan?

How different is it from the sense of harmony felt among long time friends? Is there a pattern associated with that? Is it separate from this pattern?

What was the control group? People who said they where not in love? Would that be enough? Perhaps she sent people who said they where in love and said they where not, in random order to a lab technician who faithfully performed her duty (without knowing why) and then they noticed some co-relation in brain activity between those that said they where in love early on. Then why not just say it? No mention of a double blind test, or how they established a base line.

We can easily feel a sense of empathy with human beings that share a similar life-style and world-view to ours? Could that be what she is measuring? How is that different from 'love'? Is that a proto-emotion that eventually helps people bind into committed relationships?

I do not know. But if Helen Fisher had something interesting to show, she would not be wasting time talking about Inca temples.

I think I can appreciate Helen Fisher's taste for poetry and her enthusiasum for her subject. But that is about it. The rest seems to be an advertisement for chemistry.com

57. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #215303 by 82abhilash on July 21, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I see lot of people comment here recalling sad incidents in their life when a loved one passed into the state of senility, in a sense dying before dying.

Others have expressed hope that they themselves not pass through the same ordeal.

I see the beginning of a discussion about the morality of euthanasia on the horizon. Something that I am sure even atheists may have differing views on. Even without religion it is not an easy decision.

Anyway, our good friend Daniel Dennett as proposed alternative, apparently he started thinking about it after his own brush with death. Of all the things to come up with, a normal person might ponder about the soul or god, but no he is ordinary plus something extra (extra-ordinary I guess). Anyway he came up with Whole-Body Apoptosis. If you are interested you can check the links below:

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/apoptosis.pdf

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2907571831981860810

58. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212047 by 82abhilash on July 16, 2008 at 2:08 pm

385. Comment #211925 by Steve Zara on July 16, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #211904 by 82abhilash


That you consider something sacred (a cracker) in no sense obligates me to treat it with respect. It was the same message the Muhhamed cartoons sent.

No, it was quite a different message, and the difference was significant.

The message of the cartoons was that what anyone does anywhere, even in isolation (drawing a cartoon) was offensive.

The message of "the cracker" was fundamentally different. It was that something we gave to you, in a situation of trust, in a ceremony you willingly participated in, with full knowledge of what it meant to us, has meaning for us.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was referring to a cracker that belonged to me, in the sense I bought it with my own money, probably from the same place the faithful bought it.

I would agree with you, getting it from a ceremony I willingly attended specifically to commit this breach of trust (with real people) is immoral.

Same holds for a Koran that I purchased myself. And even to religious relics that where shoved on me without my permission.

59. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211904 by 82abhilash on July 16, 2008 at 11:38 am

I am sorry I can't resist answering these questions. Especially when I have good answers.

202. Comment #211464 by Steve Zara on July 16, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #211462 by Laurie Fraser


it is an overtly political action

I'd honestly like to how why you say this - what political message does it send?

That you consider something sacred (a cracker) in no sense obligates me to treat it with respect. It was the same message the Muhhamed cartoons sent.

I am assuming here that the cracker belongs to me of course.

265. Comment #211566 by hawt4dawk on July 16, 2008 at 7:06 am

I agree with Steve Zara's stated uneasiness over PZ's plan now.

I thought PZ's initial reaction and intention was to draw the fire away from the university student who, because he did not actually put the communion wafer in his mouth, was physically roughed up and then later accused of "holding the cracker hostage" when he left the church with it and further threatened with murder. He said all he wanted to do was show it to his friend (who was not taking communion). The kid eventually returned it, BECAUSE HE WAS TERRORIZED BY CERTAIN CATHOLICS.

I thought that was the point of PZ's "desecration of the host" and not "I'm going to prove it's a cracker". If this is just about taking somebody's religious symbol to destroy it for kicks, I don't see how that isn't different than pissing on a Koran.

The same logic applies here as well. If the Koran belongs to you, it is up to you to decide whether to read it, sit on it, piss on it, etc.,

60. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211339 by 82abhilash on July 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

150. Comment #211322 by PsyPro on July 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm

There has been a plethora of commentary apparently in virtually universal agreement that Professor Myers' intention to desecrate a priest-blessed cracker (in some as yet unspecified way) would be disrespectful of the Catholic faithful

Wrong. We are discussing the morality of desecrating a cracker obtained under false pretenses (which has not happened yet). There is also the issue of religious freedom. Believing that a cracker or a jelly doughnut is someone's flesh is not wrong as long as you don't impose that belief and harass people for it.

Having said that, there remains a point to be made. I hope PZ can work it out properly.

Just because catholics believe that a cracker is the body of christ does not mean we cannot do anything with our cracker that we bought with our money.

61. Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Comment #211272 by 82abhilash on July 15, 2008 at 5:21 pm

26. Comment #211258 by abilard on July 15, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Thanks for the information, 82abhilash. I suppose the genes don't care whether they are organized into a group of cells called an organism, or a group of organisms called a colony, so long as they survive and replicate.

Actually I would go one step further. Genes do not care if they survive and replicate either. In fact genes do not 'care' at all. It is just that certain genes behaved in a way that gene vehicles called humans in retrospect interpret as 'caring for their survival and replication.' Other genes ceased to exist in the gene pool.

Group strategies are certainly present in nature and have a genetic basis (Wilson's ants). As such they can be selected for or against. Perhaps reproductive entities are the best unit of analysis, with queens and drones representing one unit as part of a hive strategy, and individual humans representing another.

John Mynard Smith may call hiving or grouping as a strategy adapted by individual organisms that continue to exist because they are effective Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS).

The point I am trying to make is that grouping tendencies does not undermine the gene-centric view and in fact depends on it for a proper explanation.

62. Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Comment #211218 by 82abhilash on July 15, 2008 at 3:45 pm

22. Comment #211028 by abilard on July 15, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I must be missing something, because this dispute between Dawkins and Wilson seems a bit like a tempest in a teapot. If I understand them correctly, both agree that 1) genes are the unit of natural selection and that 2) natural selection can favor genes that in turn favor the group. To speak of "group selection" then would just be to shift the level of analysis exclusively to those pressures that favor such genes and their social effects. Is Dawkins' point that speaking at this level is unproductive, confusing, or invalid? What am I missing?

abilard, group selection is more than just a shift in analysis. It claims that organisms living in groups can consider the interests of the 'group' separate from the interests of any particular member of the group and take actions to preserve the group even at the sacrifice of the groups members and even itself.

So now the group is like a super-organism and the animal is like components in it. So now groups get selected. Animals come and go.

What Dawkins and co. says that grouping is just an effective Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) that some organisms eventually engage in, which increases the survivability of the genes that go into building these organisms.

I would call 'group selection' a meme that humans are susceptible to because it we are descendants of humans who lived in close cohesive groups (and they where naturally selected in their environment to procreate).

I hope that explains things. Or maybe someone who knows more about group selection will claim I build a group selection straw man?

63. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211194 by 82abhilash on July 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Getting a cracker under false pretences is not the worst thing in the world to do. It will be not too different from getting an interview under false pretences, like the 'Expelled' people did with PZ. Well OK, the interview was a bit too low down even compared to the beloved cracker.

If PZ want to abuse a cracker he got without any breach of trust, I am OK with that.

Oh and by the way, let me thank everyone here for engaging in critical thinking and dialogue without dogmatically supporting PZ, the way theists dogmatically support their prophet. I really like this place.

64. Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Comment #210989 by 82abhilash on July 15, 2008 at 11:05 am

When I heard the word 'The Superorganism' my bullshit detector went into overdrive. It reminded me of the people who call the earth a superorganism 'Gaia'. I am not implying E.O Wilson takes to the 'Gaia' concept though.

Also I am not questioning the integrity of E.O Wilson as a scientist, although I think he is mistaken, but I am not a scientist. I must add, I have little respect for David Sloan Wilson, he seems to be bitten by the publicity bug.

In any case 'group selection' is an idea that emerged out of certain erroneous understanding about evolution, including but not limited to the obvious - evolution is a concept that acts on self-replicating entities. Genes self-replicate, groups do not.

Group selection is emotionally appealing to our collectivist tendencies. Perhaps it has something to do with our origins - living in small groups, where people depended and bonded with each other.

I once had this debate with a guy who was absolutely taken in by group selection. And most of the time I was busy pointing him elementary mistakes he was making in his explanation. That pissed him out and at one point he said something to the effect of, 'I use words to explain how things appear, while he uses it to explain a good idea.'

After reading

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2121,The-Group-Delusion,Richard-Dawkins

As well as some other literature on group selection, I cannot help but feel this idea is loosing out with mainstream science and trying to establish itself among popular culture. I could be wrong.

65. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209482 by 82abhilash on July 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, said it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship. "

No, the reason for not granting citizenship is the lack of knowledge about the secular values of the country you want to be a citizen of.

66. Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom

Comment #208840 by 82abhilash on July 11, 2008 at 9:44 am

Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight

Humans too apparently cannot be classified easily by sexual orientation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

Could it be the state of current society that forces us to belong perfectly to one box and not another?

67. New legal threat to school science in the US

Comment #207423 by 82abhilash on July 9, 2008 at 6:56 pm

35. Comment #207407 by Radesq on July 9, 2008 at 5:20 pm
While this is an unfortunate development I am guardedly optimistic..

Guardedly optimistic, that is where I am at right now.

68. New legal threat to school science in the US

Comment #207404 by 82abhilash on July 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm

It is not all that bad. All it means that people at the local level will be able to decide for themselves whether to teach creationism or not. It is not like someone from the top is telling everybody else what to teach in schools. Let the crazy teachers expose themselves with their useless 'add-ons'; let them make the rope to hang themselves with.

More local power means more local responsibility, which means in Louisiana the fight for science will be fought by responsible parents school district by school district.

Now if parents do want to keep their own children ignorant, only in those particular school districts will creationism be taught. Which means people in the region has consented to what is happening in their schools. Those type of people are not going to teach science to their kids regardless of the law. So now they get to send them to public schools...

Imposing ignorance on ones own children is immoral, but it is not illegal. Plus they will do it anyway. So this law may not be the shot in the arm for creationism that it is being played out to be. It could leave Louisana the way it always was, perhaps even make things better there. Ask me why and I will tell.

Bottom line. Wait and watch.

69. New legal threat to school science in the US

Comment #207269 by 82abhilash on July 9, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Perhaps it is time to shift from the more familiar process of legal and structural reform, to the less familiar and more time-consuming process of social reform. That way when it is time to bring in the 'add-ons' they will most probably be books authored by Richard Dawkins.

70. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202400 by 82abhilash on July 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm

if only many believers were more sophisticated and atheists less dogmatic.

Calling passionate people dogmatic for calling foul on those who hold an untested assumption and impose their will on others. That could confuse a lot of the undecided.

I suspect someone is shooting for a linguistic coup.

71. Texas Supreme Court rules church can't be sued in exorcism

Comment #201191 by 82abhilash on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 am

How about prosecuting individuals instead of prosecuting institutions. Institutions do not commit crimes people do. Some Institutions may be more agreeable to people with criminal tendencies but those too are created by people.

So the people who actively took part in the exorcism can be prosecuted as accomplices taking part in an act of torture. People who actually are responsible for inflicting the physical harm can be prosecuted for more severe charges.

The leadership of the church can be prosecuted for failing to exercise their authority to prevent a criminal act from taking place in the institution that they claim to run responsibly.

I do not know what laws are there in Texas that allows for this kind of legal strategy but it would have been a better way to go.

The beauty here is that the court need not officially express any opinion on the ideology of the institution in question. Only the criminality of the action of its individuals. So the first amendment is not an issue.

72. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands

Comment #200303 by 82abhilash on June 27, 2008 at 9:25 am

9. Comment #200294 by foolish sea otter on June 27, 2008 at 9:07 am

RE: Comment #200281 by eh-theist.
"Vote or Die" by basically saying "If you aren't educated on the issues, don't vote."

It was more like if the choices are between a giant douche and a turd sandwich what's the point of voting?

EDIT: But then how does this fit in?

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2746,Pastors-Challenge-Law-Endorse-Candidates-From-Pulpit,ABC-News

/edit

Looks to me like the religious vote when the representatives of their benevolent dictator (the pastors who talk for god), tells them to and they vote to those they are told to vote for (whom they 'endorse'). In other words the pastors think for them. That kind of people are a prized vote bank for politicians. People who think for themselves, makes politicians to earn their vote by actually doing good work.

73. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199867 by 82abhilash on June 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm

There is now a better way. Petabytes allow us to say: "Correlation is enough."

Because for Google to make lots of money all they have to do is co-relate popular data on the net with monetizing instruments like ads, banners and product placement. The process is mechanistic and efficient. Correlation is enough for this particular business model, for now, business models too tends to get outdated over time. Wait did I say model? A system visualized in the mind of an entrepreneur? A model he tests in the real world, where the success is defined by profit? Which means google has to have an idea of why some people buy their ad space and why some people click on them? After all they are still in business are they not? And they are consistently making good decisions. Which means it is not just luck.

But in any case, it is a stretch of the imagination to say 'and therefore that is how science should work from now on.' That is plain stupid.

What else is plain stupid? This article. Even in business you need more than co-relation if you plan to last. I think the people at google know that.

74. Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

Comment #199375 by 82abhilash on June 25, 2008 at 3:54 pm

14. Comment #199368 by Double Bass Atheist on June 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Don't be telling Christians there are patterns in nature other wise they'll be asking, 'Who designed those patterns.'

Correct Animavore.
Articles like this simply become another source for the creotards to misunderstand and quote mine.

Well, snowflakes have patterns yet the natural unintelligent phenomena that resulted in it is well understood. That would not matter to them. They are trying to protect their dogma.

75. Science is not philosophy

Comment #198600 by 82abhilash on June 24, 2008 at 9:36 am

Science is not philosophy - agree. And philosophy is not science.

I have a useful definition of philosophy here:
Philosophy is an attempt in the part of man's unaided reason to give a fundamental explanation to the nature of things.

In which case:
Science is an attempt in the part of man's reason aided by experimentation, to give a fundamental explanation to the nature of things.

Which means at it best, philosophers and scientists can help each other, (especially if the philosopher is Daniel Dennett). At its worst philosophers can mislead scientists by promoting a false institutive sense about the world we live in.

But if philosophy is informed by science, then philosophers can help scientists ask the right questions, thus greatly catalyzing the process by which scientific advancements are achieved.

76. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #198356 by 82abhilash on June 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm

5. Comment #197077 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 3:38 am

I am a bit cautious about blogging in general being that effective. It reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song "The folk song army":

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.

But unless there is visibility, blogging alone is not a step forward, I think.

I agree blogging is a good idea. But to have a lasting impact one must move from cyberspace to the real world. I was at the Amazing Meeting which was arranged by the James Randi educational foundation and PZ Meyers was there to speak.

An environment rich with intellectually honest, realistic and level-headed people has a powerful impact. There where about 980 people this time. they do not want it to grow too big because then the event will become more impersonal.

Which means what is required are personalised interactions between level-headed people at the local grass root level. That will make for interesting situations.

77. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198290 by 82abhilash on June 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm

George Carlin will live on in the memory of those that admire him. George Carlin will live on in the memory of every new generation that can appreciate his work. BUT WHY NOT BEN STEIN!!!

78. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #197641 by 82abhilash on June 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

If Bobby Jindal signs this bill he will never ever be able to enter national politics. Ever. I guess he does not want to. It is for the better.

79. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195539 by 82abhilash on June 18, 2008 at 12:32 pm

4. Comment #195532 by jonnymac27 on June 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm

at this point, let them be stupid

Agreed. This issue is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning. No government in this universe can turn its back on reality and hope to last. Nature cannot be fooled.

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

Comment #192088 by 82abhilash on June 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Lot of people have got it wrong here, especially the non-US people here. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people of the US. It protects them by abridging the government's capacity to infringe on the people's rights. The rights itself are inherent (self-evident and inalienable). The document protects those inherent rights by directing the functioning of the government. I would invite everyone to read the document.

Also note the ninth amendment (The US Bill of rights are the first ten amendments to the US constitution) states.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which means one must recognize that people may have other rights not mentioned in the US constitution and thereby not protected. But people have it all the same and if they feel it is of supreme importance that those rights be protected, they can spell it out and have the constitution amended to incorporate it.

81. Analysis of SB 733: 'LA Science Education Act'

Comment #191666 by 82abhilash on June 11, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Piyush "Bobby" Jindal comes from a Punjabi Hindu converted to Caholicism in high school and practices his faith devoutly. He is also on the ultra-conservative send of the political spectrum. He is extremly intelligent and can pose a formidable challenge to any worthy opponent. And yes, he thinks there is validity in the 'teach the controversy' stand.


These are his words:

"[L]et's talk about intelligent design. I'm a biology major. That's my degree. The reality is there are a lot of things that we don't understand. There's no theory in science that could explain how, contrary to the laws of entropy, you could create order out of chaos. There's no scientific theory that explains how you can create organic life out of inorganic matter. I think we owe it to our children to teach them the best possible modern scientific facts and theories. Teach them what different theories are out there for the things that aren't answerable by science, that aren't answered by science. Let them decide for themselves. I don't think we should be scared to do that. Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a creator. Let's not be afraid to teach our kids the very best science."

How many logical fallacies can you count from that quote?

82. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191621 by 82abhilash on June 11, 2008 at 10:24 am

Truth is not democracy. I do not see any co-relation between the number of signatures on this petition and the validity of what is claimed in it.

Personally I think threatening children with hell fire is child abuse. But that is my ethical intuition speaking. And it has been wrong at times.

So I pose questions, are there studies documenting the long term ill effects of threatening children with hell fires? And what do those studies show?

83. 'In Our Time': Trofim Lysenko

Comment #190078 by 82abhilash on June 8, 2008 at 10:42 am

Lysenko is to Communism what Kent Hovind is to Christianity, except Kent Hovind is in Jail. To the world of science they are both very similar, except Lysenko more power.

Imagine where we would be if Kent Hovind and his 'Creation Scientists' where in the White House and his team was the science advisory board for the President and the President was George W. Bush! What a nightmare that would have been.

84. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #182984 by 82abhilash on May 21, 2008 at 7:21 am

This shroud must be examined by someone who is totally indifferent to the outcome of the tests. In fact I will go one step further, tests should be conducted double blind so that researcher's biases do not impact the outcome.

None of that seems to be happening here. Instead we have an article on a supposed test about to be conducted, written in a language that pretends to be neutral. Why is it written? To sell more papers. At least that is what I think.

They keep the mystery alive because it helps the cause for the mystery to remain alive. Someone should bring this case to an obvious conclusion once and for all.

85. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #182703 by 82abhilash on May 20, 2008 at 10:08 pm

While it is true that private schools in USA can teach anything they want, I am pretty sure that if the US schooling system was fully privatized, there would be very less creationism taught in schools. Why? Because schools that try to pass it off as real science will not get enough students to stay in business. Kids that go to those schools will not get a career as scientists. They will be left behind the same way illiterates are left behind in a civilized society.

It is impossible to force religion onto anyone without assistance from the government. That is why all religions seek protection and endorsement from government run institutions either directly or indirectly.

On a positive note, given the fact that people tend to vote out creationists in from school boards in the US there is room for cautious optimism.

86. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179875 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 11:08 pm

FYI to people out here.

Daniel Dennett believes in a human soul that is made up of millions of tiny mindless activities (tiny robots) in the cellular level of the human body. Obviously this is a material soul that does not survive death.

He said so in the atheism tapes with Jonathan Miller and some other places too I think.

87. A natural selection

Comment #179869 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm

A Darwin exhibit sponsored by a church. I would call this is a miracle had I believed in miracles. More events like these would help Christians contain the toxic versions of their faith themselves. But one must be careful, lest they not try to distort Darwin's message to suit their theological agenda.

88. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179868 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Seems to me like some sort of advertisement because their product (Catholicism) is losing popularity.

89. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178437 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

DalaiDrivel

Intelligence does NOT result from non-intelligence, at least not immediately. To find non-intelligence I'm not sure if you would have to rewind back to our origins in bacteria or not. The non-inteligent, abstract idea of evolution is the means, the cause, but not a precursor. Human intelligence evolved, result from, less sophisticated ape intelligence. All animals possess a degree of intelligence, so to say we resulted from non-intelligence in strictly true, but only in a specific, limited and distant sense. :)

I agree. Intelligence does not result from non-intelligence immediately. Evolution is an extremely slow process. Which is why it is so difficult to see within the time scales we are accustomed to. A fact that the creationists try to take advantage of. 'All animals possess a degree of intelligence' and we evolved from them. Although I would call animal intelligence as proto-intelligence.

What I understand from Dennett is that we can track the evolution of the phenomenon called intelligence beginning with species that are non-intelligent all the way up to us, the most intelligent species on the planet. Which is where things stand now. Perhaps in the distant (or not so distant future) if we go extinct and another intelligent specie may emerge or it may not. Evolution has no foresight. Besides even in evolutionary terms intelligent life seems complicated enough so as not to emerge too often compared to say single cellular life.

90. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178432 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm

DalaiDrivel

The world, filled with wonder, does indeed not need any real magic- nor conjuring tricks.

There are conjuring tricks all over the place and a really good magician can invoke a sense of wonder. But when I used the word 'trick' here it had multiple meanings. And in any case my statement stands.

Trick can be a good deception, but not necessarily. For people of say the fifteenth century lot of technology today will seem magical. They are all good tricks, instruments that tap in to the knowledge of how the world is. They testify to our developed sense of understanding of our world, in the same fashion a magician has a developed understanding of the human mind. Neat tricks but not real magic. Even if we can appreciate how the trick is done we may still be able to enjoy it, if it is a neat trick.

Creationists used to point out that the beauty of nature testifies to the greatness of god. Understanding evolution helps us to appreciate the beauty of nature without invoking a great god. Evolution is one of those neat tricks - complicated phenomena that tap into the fixed laws of nature. Something what magicians do all the time. Understanding it does not take away from the beauty of nature, in fact it enhances it.

Now there is another way the word 'trick' is used. As a synonym for deception. Which is what you have mentioned. Although I submit creationism was not deception for the longest time in human history. It was reduced to one only when better ideas (neater tricks, may I say) came along. So their propaganda piece is a trick intended to deceive (as opposed to a trick for survival (evolution) or a trick for entertainment (a magic show)). Well even in that case I would still say knowing the trick is still important. I think you will agree.

91. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178413 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 11:22 am

Dawkins seemed to be a bit lost. If a non-intelligent purposeless process, without foresight called evolution can create an intelligent purposeful creature with foresight (humans). Then you needed not compartmentalize your mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. The natural world driven by darwinian evolution in itself can provide explanation for the uniqueness of human beings. Which is what Daniel Dennett claims by the way.

Intelligence can result from non-intelligence. A process without foresight can create a creature with foresight (all be it rarely). Pretty much any human endeavor can be understood as an outcome of micro processes that by them selves have no capacity to appreciate these endeavors or understand their significance.

The world filled with wonder would not need any real magic. Conjuring tricks are enough. If the trick is good enough we will appreciate it even after we find out how the trick is done.

92. Justice In The Brain: Equity And Efficiency Are Encoded Differently

Comment #178051 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

This research study seems to have as its basis an assumption that one person makes a decision impacting the basic necessities for a whole other number of persons.

We do not do that these days. We try not to let one person monopolize essential resources for the rest of us. We will be too depend on the whims and fancies and dilemmas of that one particular individual. We try to spread the risk so as to speak.

One person does not decide what every body else needs. Which begs the question - why was this research even attempted? To show central planning doesn't work? We already have one natural experiment to prove that. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union.

93. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178047 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 10:53 am

This article is poorly written, by someone who thinks a bit too highly about himself and is perhaps a bit jealous of Richard Dawkins. As many here have recognized already.

94. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178042 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 10:38 am

I suspect the real reason is is the price rise in beef from £2,500 a tonne to more than £4,000 a tonne. The religiosity is just a convenient excuse.

95. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177664 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Since RD brought it up, I feel I can comfortably claim that there is one atheistic regime that is currently ruled by reason - "The People's Republic of China". It shed its Maoist dogmas when Deng Xiaoping came to power. He kept the Maoist image though (like secular England having a state religion). Here are some of his quotes that I find extremely interesting:

Seek truth from facts.
Deng Xiaoping

It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.
Deng Xiaoping

96. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177551 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 9:31 am

Carl Sagan best understood the nature of the Catholic church, and its obsession with worldly power. I found this video on You Tube and posted it on my channel. It seemed appropriate. This meme, I like to spread.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1BSzr43Edk

97. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177546 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 9:24 am

I live in California and am mighty damn proud it, for now.

98. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175353 by 82abhilash on May 5, 2008 at 9:46 am

Sam may have trouble getting Christians to respond. They would most probably feel that by doing so they are fraternizing with the enemy.

The fundamentalists for sure. Even the moderates would be less willing, I would think.

99. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172633 by 82abhilash on April 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm

I bet the people in the Anti-defamation League never expected to see the day when one of their own would stab them on the back.

100. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171527 by 82abhilash on April 28, 2008 at 2:34 pm

4. Comment #171460 by Mitchell Gilks on April 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I think that zoologists would fervently disagree that we are the only animals with imaginations, ethical codes, or a sense of fairness.

So you think it is written language that makes the difference. It could be. It might be that all animals have a sense of proto-morality from which our sense of morality emerged. Shaped by natural selection of course.

It is even possible that we share common brain structures with our primate relatives. It might be only a small difference in our brain structure that makes us able to develop civilizations and them incapable.

Knowing how animals are different from us is as important as knowing how they are similar to us. I hope they can zero in on where exactly the differences began.