201. The Challenge of the New Creationism

Comment #187353 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 3:08 am

mordacious1 said: So why would Eugenie Scott be opposed to getting rid of religion, or "the war is between religion and rationalism"? She is an atheist, is she not? Or does she feel we have to appease the religionists?

righton said: I think Eugenie Scott prefers the NOMA type strategy? Correct me if I am wrong.

mordacious1 said: I checked the Wiki about Dr. Scott. She's a secular humanist and a "nontheist". Her organization though, the NCSE, is religious neutral and has many religious members. So I guess she has to walk the fence a little. That's OK, she does great work and is a nice person from what I've seen.

I've watched everything I can find with Eugenie Scott, (I think she is super!), I have received an information-pack from NCSE, and I can see her point here.

NCSE often has to help religious parents get a good scientific eductation for their children, and if necessary support those parents in a court with a religious judge. The Dover trial was a classic. She (and NCSE) has to present this "battle" as Creationism/ID non-science versus a scientific view of the universe, the latter being one that neither those parents nor the judge would feel threatened or insulted by.

Meanwhile the Creationism/ID proponents try to link science, especially evolution, with atheism, to suggest to the parents and the judge that evolution will undermine their religious beliefs. NCSE would not want Richard Dawkins to give evidence in such a trial, and he probably accepts that. Ken Miller is a better witness, someone those parents and the judge will feel comfortable with.

Whatever her private views, NCSE's clear mission is to secure good science education, especially about evolution. It isn't to fight the god/no-god battle, and it would be totally improper to spend resources on that, and dangerous even to be thought to be doing so.

202. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187123 by Barry Pearson on June 1, 2008 at 10:15 am

Did anyone else see this? Is it a joke that only I have fallen for?

"Church to offer prayers for recovery" (3/4 down page):
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article4039969.ece

With the economy moving in a mysterious way, the Church of England has abandoned faith in the earthly powers of Downing Street. It is instead urging vicars to ask God to ease the effects of the credit crunch, writes Marie Woolf.

Priests have been asked to offer special prayers of support for parishioners struggling to pay rising food, energy and transport costs while having to cope with their mortgages.

A church committee will meet this week to draw up an official set of prayers calling for divine assistance for those worried by debt, as well as plans to offer more practical help at parish level....

The Church of England has traditionally offered special prayers in its regular services to remember the suffering of others. It is even offering prayers at the moment for people who are taking exams.

As a stop-gap measure while the credit crunch prayers are being written, an adapted version of an earlier offering is recommended to congregations: "We ask your guidance as we work out a household budget. Help us to learn to let no debt remain outstanding, except the debt to love one another."

This week, a meeting of the church's National Worship Development office will discuss the writing of new prayers addressing rising fuel and petrol bills and mortgage payments.

203. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187007 by Barry Pearson on June 1, 2008 at 4:24 am

Second-year dental student Emily Mackie said the university's decision to call its inaugural Dundee Christmas Lecture "Why Evolution is Right ... and Creationism is Wrong" is badly timed and insensitive to Christians.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2007/11/24/newsstory10599041t0.asp

This is an example of the trick that creationists are playing systematically.

Creationists are at the lunatic fringe of religious people - often not mainstream and certainly not representative. There are plenty of religious people, religious organisations, and religious scientists, who will stand up and be counted as accepting evolution.

It suits creationists to have this seen as a battle between religion and evolution, because it makes them appear to be mainstream and may generate extra support. It suits them to be able to claim necessary links between atheism and evolution. Some atheists aid and abet them.

I have spent a lot of my life analysing problems and requirements so that they can be tackled in achievable steps. It is important to separate out the different the conflicts: "gods or not"; "for or against religion"; "evolution, right or wrong". Then each of these can be handled separately, probably at different tmes, and probably by different people. It may irritate athiests to admit it, but sometimes the best people to tackle the last of these conflicts may be religious people.

The university's decision was NOT insensitive to Christians as a whole. It MAY have been insensitive to the lunatic fringe of Christians, but so what? And was that difference made apparent?

204. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #186961 by Barry Pearson on June 1, 2008 at 1:10 am

somersetsimon said: I can accept that 40% of british people believe in god and feel that god had some role in how life turned out on this planet.
It wouldn't be hard to phrase a question that indicates that these people support ID/creationism rather than purely scientific evolution with no supernatural involvement.

We DO need to see the questions asked, don't we? (And I would like to know the breakdown by religion - I have seen a UK TV programme where half the muslims in the audience denied Evolution).

Cartomancer said: But if Steve Jones is experiencing problems with his students then clearly there must be something wrong. Where are all these massed hordes of drooling creationist morons?

I wonder if what we are seeing is greater polarisation; fewer "don't knows" and fewer "don't cares"?

I think it is getting easier to import such views into the UK then propogate them, from the USA in the case of Christian variants, and from Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Turkey, in the Islamic case. It is the opposite side of the coin from so-called "new atheism" - the message isn't new, but the audience and the media are.

205. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184736 by Barry Pearson on May 26, 2008 at 4:53 am

I just searched "Darwin Online" for "Malthus", and found the following:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A313&keywords=malthus&pageseq=9

"... and in 1838, after reading the "Essay on the Principles of Population," by Thomas Malthus, in which the struggle for existence among human beings is clearly set forth, he conceived the idea that a similar struggle among animals and plants had led to the extinction of those individuals which were least fitted to their environment, and that by differentiation, resulting from the action of different environmental conditions on organisms at first similar, new species had come into existence. In June, 1842, he first committed his ideas on the subject to paper, and this first draft, of thirty-five pages, he rewrote and expanded to 230 pages in 1844."

206. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184733 by Barry Pearson on May 26, 2008 at 4:32 am

Obviously, here is one of the places to look for answers:

"The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online"
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

This is interesting: "Darwin's first recorded doubt in 'the stability of species', from his Galapagos bird notes from the voyage of the Beagle, 1836"; "First sketch of the theory of evolution, 1842".
http://darwin-online.org.uk/manuscripts_announcement.html

(I haven't read enough to know whether the online material resolves the topic of this thread).

207. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184678 by Barry Pearson on May 26, 2008 at 12:52 am

This topic was covered, apparently more comprehensively, in the latest New Scientist:

So you think humans are unique?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826571.700-so-you-think-humans-are-unique.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_So you think humans are unique?

Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals-.html

208. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #183422 by Barry Pearson on May 22, 2008 at 5:13 am

hungarianelephant said: For those of you who think that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights will come to his aid, think again.

It may be useful to make a distinction between powers of arrest in the street, and powers of arrest in other cases.

Away from the street, it must surely be harder to claim "... within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

There is now a new section 29 to the Public Order Act 1986, ("Hatred against persons on religious grounds"), but that is tempered by 29J: Protection of freedom of expression: "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

I'm not excusing the actions of the police in this case. (The idea that people are likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the word "cult" is ridiculous). But as far as I can tell, the same restrictions about using the word "cult" don't apply outside immediate hearing or seeing range, for example in this forum.

209. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181453 by Barry Pearson on May 17, 2008 at 8:46 am

Gosh! And again ... gosh!

Is this the George Pitcher described in Wikipedia as:

... a journalist, author, public relations pioneer and an Anglican priest.... Pitcher had undertaken training for ordained ministry in the Church of England and was ordained curate of St Bride's, Fleet Street, London - known as The Media Church

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

210. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181406 by Barry Pearson on May 17, 2008 at 6:45 am

black wolf said: A common statement to rebut critics is that the only thing that really counts is Jesus' word and that the rules and laws of the OT weren't binding to Christians.

Haven't they studied the Sermon on the Mount?

Mathew 5 verses 17 & 18 (KJV):

17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mathew 5 verses 17 & 18 (TNIV):

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

211. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181328 by Barry Pearson on May 17, 2008 at 12:32 am

Are atheists in general to be smeared with shared guilt for mass murder and genocide?

We sometimes ourselves up for this when we criticise "religion" for its atrocities.

What we should do is criticise "unenlightenment" and "unenlightened organisations and regimes" as being the primary cause of problems. Then we can give "religions", "Nazism", "Maoism", and "Stalinism" as examples of "unenlightened organisations and regimes".

We can't claim moral merit for being atheists - there can be bad atheists, just as there can be good religious people. And it is pointless to irritate the latter. We should instead link "enlightenment" to the moral high-ground, including "freethinking", "opposition to dogma and doctrine", "tolerance towards people with different beliefs", "advocacy of human rights, including freedom of/from religion", etc.

I suggest that most of here are moral beings (assuming we are!) because we are enlightened, not because we are atheists.

212. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181323 by Barry Pearson on May 17, 2008 at 12:05 am

Caudimordax asked: ... WHICH ten commandments are they referring to?

Good question, and not just about "baby goat cooked in its mothers own milk"!

We know that there isn't simply a list of 10 commandments in the Bible. Probably many people don't know that there isn't a standard list of 10 commandments outside the bible. Jews, Protestants, and Catholics has slightly different lists. (The list at #181246 is the Protestant list).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_commandments

I wouldn't like to live in a society where the typical list provides the ONLY commandments. Apart from getting rid of most of them, I would like a few extra commandments: "do not rape"; "do not own slaves"; "do not abuse children"; "do not discriminate [on various grounds]"; etc. But ... you wouldn't get those out of the Old Testament, because God was in favour of those acts!

213. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180893 by Barry Pearson on May 16, 2008 at 3:23 am

BW022 said: Why is it sciences job to sugar coat the truth such that folks can accept it? If American's want to reject science and go live like Quakers while the rest of the world continues into the 21st century so?

Different science-oriented people/organisations have different objectives. Sometimes those objectives require care with the way they cover the topic. That is common sense.

For example, NCSE in the US wants evolution taught in science classes, and religion, especially Creationism/ID, kept out. To achieve that, they work with the local people, including parents, many (perhaps most) of whom are religious. If those parents thought that evolution was actually incompatible with their religious beliefs, would they be as determined to take action against schools that tried to corrupt the teaching of evolution?

I guess NCSE see a choice between the following, with NO 3rd option:

1. Encourage and assist (often religious) local people to take action against schools, (perhaps by taking them court), if necessary pointing out that many religious people do not see a conflict betwen their religion and evolution.

2. State an opinion that science contradicts belief in God/gods, and that many people have the opinion that evolution logically leads to atheism, thence discouraging those (often religious) people from taking such action.

The following are FACTS: some scientists working in the field of evolution are openly religious; some religious organisations openly accept evolution; many clergy openly accept evolution. It isn't lying to exploit those facts. It is a sensible tactic to help achieve their worthy aims.

AmericanGodless said: While it is important that the accommodationists do their distasteful job of dumbing down evolution enough to get some of it taught in public schools....

IS it true that the level of evolution that is taught in schools HAS to be dumbed down for this purpose?

I'm currently reading an undergraduate textbook on Evolution (by Mark Ridley). While he refutes Creationsism/ID, I see no evidence that he has to refute God/gods and religious beliefs in general. I believe that even at undergraduate level the conflicts that many see between science and belief in God/gods don't have to be covered.

I believe that trying to inject atheism into the teaching of evolution is worse than useless. Just as religion belongs outside the science classroom, so does atheism. Teach the Theory of Evolution, and let people come to their own informed decisions on other matters.

I am an atheist, see below. I have a life-long interest in science. But I avoid head-banging.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/

214. Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence

Comment #180846 by Barry Pearson on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 am

Part 2:

Creationism (An anticreationism website with an emphasis on the situation in the UK):
"Misrepresentation Of Science Curriculum"
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/MisrepresentationOfScienceCurriculum
"Some Examples Of KS 4 Misrepresentation"
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/SomeExamplesOfKS4Misrepresentation

"The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology" (UK position half way down)
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/pucon.htm

New Humanist: ""While secularists sleep well-funded creationists are on the march in Europe"
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1783

"HARUN YAHYA CONFERENCES IN UK AND SCOTLAND" 2007, I think. (Er ... Scotland was still in the UK when I last checked!)
http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/0711_conference_uk.php

215. Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence

Comment #180845 by Barry Pearson on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 am

This article prompted me to have another look at the situation in the UK. I do wonder whether the UK is drifting into a situation where we will be forced to fight rear-guard actions in the way that is common in the US.

Part 1:

Council of Europe report: "The dangers of creationism in education" 17 September 2007
(Note: the Council of Europe is NOT the same as the European Union).
http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11375.htm

British Centre for Science Education:
"Influencing the National Curriculum"
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/NationalCurriculum
"Summary of the key current issues"
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/SummaryOfTheKeyCurrentIssues

216. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #180619 by Barry Pearson on May 15, 2008 at 11:24 am

King of NH said: Instead of beating my brains against a wall every time I see one of these books, I'll write my own. Not a book encouraging Atheism; Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Smith, etc. all do very well there. No need. I will write books about how dumb science is! I'll make millions and become a hero to theists around the world! And then laugh at them all, "It was all a lie to get your money!" I wouldn't be doing anything different than the Pope, except I would be honest in the end.

Learn from Alan Sokal who did something similar:

Alan Sokal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_sokal
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html

Sokal affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

Good luck!

217. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180313 by Barry Pearson on May 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I like the analysis in that article.

One thing missing: I believe one of the most important strategic effects of TGD and similar books is the effect on the next generation. I believe it will cause many young people to make up their minds at an earlier age.

Instead of leaving school/college as undecided or agnostic (like me), many of them will leave as atheists. Their children will then be brought up in atheist households.

Remember Monique D. Davis, (Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives), who recently said "It's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists" (to atheist activist Rob Sherman)? Well, they WILL know it exists!

NCSE is tactical. They put out fires, and they know better than to invite Richard Dawkins into the courtroom. But we also need strategic changes as well, with effects measured in decades and generations.

218. A natural selection

Comment #179951 by Barry Pearson on May 14, 2008 at 3:04 am

LaTomate said: I remember seeing a book issued by the Vatican explaining how evolution works. I think the Vatican had only recently accepted evolution as a valid scientific theory at that point.

I doubt there is a real conflict between Islam and evolution either, if you twist and squish everything hard enough to fit.

I thought the Vatican still believed that humans are a special case? (Eg. specially created with a soul?)

My reading is that vast numbers of muslims believe there is a conflict. Harun Yahya appears to have had a big impact on school policy in Turkey (Old-World Creationism). In a Channel 4 TV programme in the UK, a question was asked of the muslim audience and perhaps half indicated that they didn't believe in evolution. It is hard to tell from the Koran what the official line should be, but there are plenty who go along with the Creationist line, especially given the general belief that Allah created the universe.

219. A natural selection

Comment #179946 by Barry Pearson on May 14, 2008 at 2:55 am

gcdavis said: Unlike the US, in the UK most Anglican and Jewish leaders and quite a few Catholics too, accept Evolution as fact, perhaps not to the extent of sponsoring a Darwin exhibition

There are several religious organisations in the US that are prepared to stand up and be counted.

National Center for Science Education - Statements from Religious Organizations:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3992_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp

This is actually important, whatever the motives of the organisations concerned. Parents trying to avoid Creationism & ID encroaching on science classes are often religious, as are school officials and presumably local politicians (and judges!) One of the methods recommended by NCSE is to ensure that the battle is seen not as "evolution versus religion" (or "evolution = atheism"), but instead "science & sensible religious people versus Creationism & ID".

It is also why Ken Miller is a better witness than Richard Dawkins in such trials!

EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project

220. God seekers go public

Comment #179932 by Barry Pearson on May 14, 2008 at 2:28 am

Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but I haven't spotted it here:

In "Expelled", there are 6 scientists who claim to have been expelled:

Richard Sternberg
Guillermo Gonzalez
Robert Marks

(plus: Caroline Crocker, Pamela Winnick, Michael Egnor)

The Biologic Institute "people" page lists:

Richard von Sternberg
Guillermo Gonzalez
Robert J. Marks II

(plus: Douglas Axe, Lisanne D'Andrea-Winslow, Brendan Dixon, Ann Gauger, David Keller, Philip Lu)

They are not listed in the above order:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
http://biologicinstitute.org/people/

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

Comment #179740 by Barry Pearson on May 13, 2008 at 3:41 pm

When thinking about aliens, it would be more interesting for the Vatican to ponder Jesus rather than God.

After all, even aliens might believe in a deist god. But concepts like "virgin birth", "crucifixion", "resurection", "loaves & fishes", might be completely meaningless (even alien!) to those aliens with their different biology.

222. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179736 by Barry Pearson on May 13, 2008 at 3:32 pm

If this article were talking about what the public believes, rather than what is true, it might mirror what is happening in Europe.

For example, in 2005 the European Union surveyed all its states with questions about God, etc.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

Here is the UK result (page 9):
"I believe there is a God": 38%
"I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force": 40%
"I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force": 20%
Don't know: 2%

What is that 40% about? Is it what the article here is talking about?

223. God seekers go public

Comment #179493 by Barry Pearson on May 13, 2008 at 10:30 am

Frankus1122 said: This is what I can't understand. There seems to be no realistic self-reflection or critical analysis. All critical evaluation seems to be done through a 'design-coloured lens'. Looking at the world in this way leads to the conclusions that they come to. Or is it the case that the conclusions preceed the investigations? That is, of course, the problem. I don't understand why it is that they can't see this about themselves.

You appear to assume they are seeking the truth.

I believe that, for them, "evolution" (and some other aspects of science) is a roadblock on the way to a society without what they call a "materialistic worldview", which they believe has bad consequences. They want children to grow up believing in God/Jesus, not so much because they think they exist, (although I assume they DO think that), but because they want a society populated by such people and run accordingly.

Their argument never appears to be "you believe what you want, and we and our children will believe what we want". It is always more like "all children should believe what we want".

224. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179270 by Barry Pearson on May 13, 2008 at 2:23 am

It might be useful to contrast the US approach with the UK approach, using the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as an example. (It has started its process in Parliament). This Bill has considerable "yeuk!" factor, (eg. "certain types of embryo which contain both human and animal DNA"), but also massive potential medical advances.

BBC: "Embryology Bill: the key points":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7391975.stm

BBC: "Embryology laws pass first hurdle":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7394591.stm

Consultation was about the science and its potential, and public concerns including "slippery slope" arguments. Purely religious arguments were not accepted - appeals to scripture and/or doctrine were not treated as relevant. (But Catholic Members of Parliament are under pressure from the unelected Catholic Church to obey their doctrine rather than the people who elected them).

225. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #179111 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm

phil rimmer said: Wash your mouth out, Barry Pearson! And go straight to bed. As penance you can say ten Heil Darwins. The religites must not know our secret plans or they will tease us mercilessly about our True Faith.

Our plans are no longer secret:

Richard Dawkins: The Movie (Part One)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ECh1EnHBTos

What Richard Dawkins doesn't want you to know ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TqcNraF3vP8

Memes of Solace: The Rise of Unreason
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiAS741M-g

226. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178986 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 10:51 am

keith said: I would call the old 'religions' that you mentioned 'mythologies' and the danger of any of these being resurrected is probably smaller than that of someone founding a brand new religion.

The latter is quite high!

World Christian Database: "... every day some two or three new religions are formed, and ... in the contemporary world some ten thousand religions are currently practiced".

Links to lots of stuff about lots of gods and lots of religions:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/#plural

Most new religions fail within 10 years. (I can't find where I read this). But every century there are some that get lucky: "Mormonism" in the 19th Century; "Scientology" in the 20th; "New Dawkins Church of Unbelief" in the 21st.

227. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178896 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 7:55 am

esuther said: When the discussion is of "Islamic countries" I always reach for my (metaphorical) gun. The term is as meaningless as "Christian countries."

Hardly! Many states define themselves as Islamic states.

"Organisation of the Islamic Conference"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OIC
http://www.oic-oci.org/

The primary goals of the OIC are, according to its Status:

"to promote solidarity among all Islamic member states."

They have all (as far as I know) signed up the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

Yes, it is true that Islamic states differ widely, with Turkey attempting (with trouble) to be more enlightened, while Saudi Arabia remains unenlightened. But they do self-identify as a group in a way that "Christian nations" (?) don't.

And, of course, muslims differ from one-another even more than these states do. I tried to consider why at the following:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm#natureofislam

228. I Am Evolution

Comment #178883 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 7:34 am

RobDinsmore said: Yes most of the population is grossly ignorant about fundamental science. It would be nice if they could be taught to trust the scientific community as a whole.... People should be made aware of the shear magnitude of work that goes into science, and that is where society is failing.

It may be that this occurs best when a topic becomes the subject of legislation.

For example, in the UK debate in Parliament has just started on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It has a considerable "yeuk!" factor, (eg. "certain types of embryo which contain both human and animal DNA"), but I don't detect a public uproar against it. In fact, I think many people are more enlightened than (especially) the Catholic Church. It has been extensively covered in the press, with top scientists explaining what the advantages are. Perhaps the general public can only handle a few such topics per year.

I don't think the population of the UK is ready automatically to trust what the scientific community says without such information. It IS a fact that failures of science hit the headlines periodically. ALSO, on various topics, the public gets contradictory advice. (Wine - good or bad. Eggs - good or bad. Beef - good or bad. Organic food - good or bad. Hygiene in the home - good or bad. Mobile phones - good or bad. MMR - good or bad. Badger culls - good or bad).

229. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178753 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 2:11 am

Just for interest, I looked up two of the people being interviewed:

Maryam Namazie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Namazie

Bahram Soroush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahram_Soroush

230. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178747 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 2:03 am

DalaiDrivel said: Barry Pearson, I'm not attacking IDiots' strategy. I'm attacking their ideology. To say that the biological roots of our existence prescribe the manner in which we construct society is a logical fallacy, given the ability of humans to counteract their evolutionary impulses.

I think we agree here.

They are illogical to claim that acceptance of evolution automatically results in a materialistic worldview that is detrimental to society. However, I don't think they claim this because of "evolutionary impulses", but because of lack of strict Christianity-guided morality. (They are welcome to submit properly researched papers on that topic to relevant journals!)

But once they believe that, it is logical to demolish the opposition. If you think you are fighting for the future quality of society, you don't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way!

231. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178739 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 1:38 am

cafeeine said: What the speakers were claiming was that immigrants from Muslim countries, who come from muslim backgrounds are not necessarily part of the 'political Islam movement'. Ayan Hirsi Ali would be an example of what the speaker meant of an atheist muslim.

I don't think Ayan Hirsi Ali would like to see that!

"A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

"She renounced Islam and became an atheist in 2002":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Political_career

Ayan Hirsi Ali is an infidel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel

An atheist can't be a muslim according to usual definitions, although they may in some sense still be cuturally muslim. (Just as Richard Dawkins is still culturally Christian). Muslims who are "not part of the 'political Islam movement'" are not atheists; for example, they will typically pray.

enew said: .... but by saying they are muslim,it seems to me, means they believe in the prophet of islam. maybe i am mistaken but i am afraid the only reason for a person from malaysia to call himself " a muslim" would seem to be that they have a common religious belief in islam.

Precisely! That is the normal meaning of the word.

232. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178733 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 1:23 am

Szkeptik asked: ["you even have the UN Human Rights Council agreeing that freedom of expression needs to be limited if someone 'abuses' religion"] This actually happened? What the holy f*ck is goibg on here. It is damn frightening if a shitty death cult like Islam could achieve this.

See:

"Islamic Perspectives on the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights"
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/universal_islam.html

"Islamic Demands Have Fatally Wounded UN Human Rights Council"
http://www.secularism.org.uk/islamicdemandshavefatallywounded.html

Koreman said: Muslim countries now form a majority in the UN.

No, they form a majority of The UN Human Rights Council, which is just one part (although a significant one):

"UN Slams Islam Defamation in Media"
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=1203758480544

233. I Am Evolution

Comment #178724 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 am

aussieatheist_111 said: Given the countless examples of scientists being correct when they say something is a fact (I'm thinking engineering, medical advances, etc.), I think it is rather reasonable to expect the masses to trust the word of scientists. By all means, check it out independently, but trsuting scientists, especially when there is no tentative semantics or throngs of critics and doubters involved, is surely not irrational?

But what proportion of the population is aware of "no ... throngs of critics and doubters involved"?

And the general population is kept aware of science that goes (temporarily) wrong, causing engineering or medical disasters, because it makes headlines.

After a degree in Mathematical Physics, a career as an engineer, and decades of pleasure from reading about science (many books each year, New Scientist each week, etc), I am still cautious about what scientists say!

mordacious1 said: Barry Evolution, fact. Natural Selection, theory. If you want to say that you believe in Natural Seletion that's fine with me.

WE know evolution is a fact, (and I have no doubt that "evolution by natural selection" is a universal process/algorithm, almost like a law of Information Theory). But we don't represent the vast majority of the population who don't know (or perhaps care) about this science.

And we know what we mean by "evolution is a fact". But most of the population, if they think about it at all, probably link "evolution" to "Darwin", and THAT special version of evolution ("evolution by natural selection") isn't a fact in the same way.

heafnerj said: Yes, I certainly do distinguish between between *belief* and *acceptance* because the former doesn't require evidence whereas the latter does.... And remember that Webster doesn't always get it right.

It is normally the word "faith" that is used for "... without evidence". Or sometimes "hope".

I use "believe" for something I have a degree of confidence in but no proof. "I believe that the next time I use the brake pedal it will slow the car". "I believe the meeting is next Tuesday, but I'll have to check". (Others may disagree with this usage).

I wonder if people are being over-cautious here? Remember that Creationists will quote-mine and distort WHATEVER is said, so I doubt if ANY form of words be safe from them. What is surely important is to convey the pleasure of science and confidence in its explanatory power (sooner or later) to an audience that isn't as pedantic as we may be.

234. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178701 by Barry Pearson on May 12, 2008 at 12:11 am

jo5ef said: I'm not a big fan of Islam but the revolting practice of honour killing appears to be associated with tribalism more than a specific religion.

Largely true, along with other obnoxious practices such as FGM and forced marriages, which can also happen in non-Islamic cultures. But ....

Islam provides a doctrinal basis for treating women badly. For example, the infamous wife-beating verse (4:34) begins "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women)". Various other parts of the Koran and haddith support other treatments of women that most of us here would consider violations of human rights. (There is even a view that "stoning of adultresses" was in early versions of the Koran but got lost).

In the article, he explicitly linked the honour killing to Islam. It isn't clear whether he thought Islam required it or merely tolerated it. But it is surely important that he didn't think that Islam opposed it.

Christopher Davis said: Unfortunately, their tribal code comes from their religion.

I suspect it is two-way.

I read somewhere that their strong attitude towards the need to know and preserve the paternal line existed pre-Islam, and influenced Islam. Now they reinforce one-another. Nothing must risk misattributed paternity or women conceiving with non-muslims.

235. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178475 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Heretic said: I'm all for getting our troops out of their f*cking country when I read this stuff. Sod the lot of them. When they grow up as a society and learn some reason, then maybe be can help out around the place, but until then, f*ck 'em.

Who is "they"?

I believe that most of the people in the world who are harmed by Islam are muslims. In fact, I believe most muslims are harmed by Islam. Women are in both categories.

I'm not trying to argue for or against war. I accept that if we can't realistically help the disadvantaged muslims, we may have to abandon them. But we should do so consciously.

236. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178469 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 1:20 pm

DalaiDrivel said: This is what I see lying, illogical IDiots as attacking the most, in order to portray Dawkins as a hypocrite.

They are not illogical. They are fighting a political (not scientific) battle, and destroying the credibility of their opponents is a logical, rational, tactic.

Have a look at the "The Wedge" (document). They don't oppose evolution because they think it is factually inaccurate. They oppose it because they object to what they consider to be the consequential "materialistic Worldview". I think the truth or otherwise of evolution is largely irrelevant to their motivation, except for their need to be able to convince others that it is untrue. (So if it is true, that is an inconvenience to be covered up).

237. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178442 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 12:31 pm

HourglassMemory asked: Was this a debate? A discussion with more scientists and experts?

I think this is it (April 19, 2002):

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/new-scientist-greenpeace-science-debates

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/new-scientist-and-greenpeace-debate-the-big-questions

238. I Am Evolution

Comment #178436 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

"Believe" is a perfectly good word here!

I have published my positions on certain words ("Belief", "knowledge", and "proof") here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/me.htm#words

Also, see:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/believe

What fraction of the population has enough information to accept evolution as a fact? 1%? So what should the other 99% say? That they too accept it as a fact even without that information? Do we want people to be so easily convinced? Why? "Mere authority"? (Evolution today - creationism tomorrow).

It requires a lot of information to accept "evolution" as a fact. It requires vastly more information to accept "evolution by natural selection" (a different topic, of course) as a scientifically validated theory.

Those of us responding here are probably within the 1% of the population who know enough to credibly have confidence in "evolution by natural selection". But we shouldn't demand or even expect this from others. And I don't think we should speak as though we expect it.

What we should want is that they admit their ignorance, and a desire to learn. We have a right to criticise those who refute "evolution by natural selection" without doing their homework first.

239. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178412 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 11:21 am

I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion.

By his standards, this was a MORAL act, because he acted as Allah wanted.

Atheists are used to religious people claiming the moral high-ground. We are then on the defensive, claiming that we too can be moral, and that atheism does not inevitably result in Maoism, Stalinism, or Nazism.

But why shouldn't WE claim the moral high-ground? After all, we never justify what we do with "I thought I was doing God's will". We never excuse our errors with "Satan [or the devil] made me do it".

240. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178320 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 7:44 am

Corylus asked: I wonder if these mediators are working for free? Doubt it.

It says "will hire mediators" and "calls for professional mediators". Not free!

I wonder if I could offer my skills? According to my online CV (so it must be true!) I am "A trained & experienced facilitator of workshops for senior client staff" and "Trained and experienced in various Change Management approaches".

I would take a neutral approach, because I would not believe in either side. I have a project/workshop method that I could adapt for this purpose:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/

I'm sure I could resolve such problems and make these church thrive again. Er ..... (Stop me, someone!)

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

Comment #178220 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 12:04 am

Podaar said: Here is a link to an op/ed piece by a religious person who agrees.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9213639

Thanks for that - spot on.

Creationists use their own form of "logic" to imply that atheism plays a role in evolution. Here is a page that lists Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, and Eugenie Scott as "Evolution's Evangelists":
http://www.icr.org/article/3860/

In the section on Dawkins, it says:

Among his frank assessments is the role atheism plays in evolutionary tenets.
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism."

Their argument is backwards. Atheism isn't driving the science of evolution. Acceptance of evolution doesn't force people to become atheists.

Instead, acceptance of evolution removes one of the forces that was pushing people towards belief in God/gods. In effect, it provides people with extra information to enable them to re-evaluate their beliefs, if they choose to. It doesn't dictate what the result of the re-evaluation will be.

242. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177961 by Barry Pearson on May 10, 2008 at 4:25 am

b0ltzm0n said: Now that Prof Dawkins has taken care of this generation of British Christians I expect to see his next book, "The Allah Delusion" hit book stores soon!!!

For interest, there is a downloadable free arabic translation of TGD (chapters 1 to 6).

I suspect this is pirated? Therefore I won't give a link here.

243. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177944 by Barry Pearson on May 10, 2008 at 3:04 am

A bit off-topic:

The Bill that repeals the blasphemy laws has received the Royal Assent, and so has become an Act:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html

That doesn't necessarily mean it has immediate effect. Sometimes legislation needs a Commencement Order. I don't know if this section is one of those. But that will happen in time.

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

Comment #177915 by Barry Pearson on May 10, 2008 at 12:36 am

Are evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins fanning the flames in the way that they engage creationists?

Probably they are. It is inevitable that they will anger the creationists, but they probably also worry or anger some religious people too.

Here is an 88 minute video of Dr Eugenie Scott, who has been engaged in the battle with creationists for over 20 years. As usual, she speaks with intelligence and clarity. She makes the point that some scientists appear to be saying that scientific positions are incompatible with religion. She stresses the importance of getting religious people vocally on the side of Evolution so that religious parents need not fear science, especially Evolution.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0

Here are two excellent videos about Evolution by a Christian who believes that creationism damages Christianity. His aim is to convince Christians that they need to accept Evolution because it has been overwhelmingly validated, and that there isn't the dichotomy claimed by creationists.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBoqKF52FU8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vBaOFKoLlZk

The "problem" with Richard Dawkins is that he has become relatively-independently well known for 2 topics, evolution and atheism, which causes them to be linked too strongly in the minds of many religious people.

Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle.

This in largely a non sequitur. It may take a lot of knowledge of religion to make significant advances in religion. But it doesn't take a lot of knowledge to realise that religious beliefs are nonsense! (And too many theologians appear to fail to address the issue of "many gods / many religions", which was of major importance to me when I was wondering whether God existed 20 years ago. I think they are too close to the subject).

In fact, of course, what Richard Dawkins mainly (not entirely) discusses in TGD is the (non-)existence of God/gods, not religion. I think a lot of religious people get confused about this. Many atheists, perhaps most, are not atheists because we are reacting against problems with religion, but simply because we see no evidence for God/gods and/or think the idea is pretty silly.

245. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177553 by Barry Pearson on May 9, 2008 at 9:41 am

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor said: As always, the interesting question about atheism is 'what is the theism that is being denied?'

Speaking for myself, I deny that anyone/anything is reading anyone's thoughts and listening to anyone's prayers (other than the prayer!) I deny that anyone/anything is performing miracles to reward or punish people. I deny that anyone/anything is providing an after-life, whether as heaven & hell or as reincarnation.

Do I need to understand theism more than that?

Yet those denials are sufficient to deny the basis for all religions on the planet. (Or at least the important ones). There appears to be no point in having a religion unless at least one of those is believed.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor appears to be unable to grasp, (or more likely unwilling to admit), the simplicity of atheism. And he switches casually between "religion" and "Christianity", hiding from his audience, and perhaps from himself, the fact that he too is an atheist towards all the other gods.

It isn't that atheists have created a strawman version of God to deny. He instead has created a strawman version of atheism to criticise.

246. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177535 by Barry Pearson on May 9, 2008 at 8:58 am

lozzer said: We should all create our own society based on rationality, reason and science

This video suggests that Richard Dawkins intends to make this happen soon:

The following video was retrieved from the Richard Dawkins foundation after a government raid....

What Richard Dawkins doesn't want you to know ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TqcNraF3vP8

(I recommend all the videos of "Our God Is Everywhere"!)

247. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177529 by Barry Pearson on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 am

Angels On a Pin Head said: I find it ironic that, for me, the most convincing arguments for atheism come not from people like Richard Dawkins, but in the form of apologetics from apparently respected members of the faithful whose arguments are so risibly poor that I would be embarrassed to associated with them.

20 years ago I got fed up with claiming to be an Agnostic, and pursued 2 "lines of enquiry" to see if I could come to a conclusion one way or the other.

One line was to investigate religion. That line won - it relatively quickly led me to conclude "I don't believe in gods". (The other line concerned some key topics in science, and that took longer to arrive at a similar conclusion).

I agree with those who are in favour of teaching objectively about the main religions - as education, not indoctrination. We could call it "Teach the controversy"!

248. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177460 by Barry Pearson on May 9, 2008 at 6:10 am

jeggers asked: Barry, have you had a reply?

Yes, from both of them. I've just typed them in at:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/replies1.htm

249. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177382 by Barry Pearson on May 9, 2008 at 2:02 am

Brian English said: True, but the planet can't handle much more people. This is sad to say, but the many poor muslims in poor countries will be doing all they can to survive in the not too distant future.....

It is likely that in future it will be judged that the 2 biggest obstacles to getting the world's population under control to relieve climate change were Islam and Catholicism.

250. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177378 by Barry Pearson on May 9, 2008 at 1:56 am

PJG said: All faiths/religious institutions should receive equal.... In all cases, the amount should be ZERO.

In case it is useful, here is the letter I sent to my MP, and also to his party leader (atheist Nick Clegg).
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm