Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Anybody who has ever been on a cat’s staff knows that the animal’s scheduled breakfast time is at least two hours before yours. And they’re not shy about telling you, either. Who hasn’t tried a variety of wiles to outwit cats who jump on your chest at 5 a.m., knock things off your nightstand, or bang at the door, caterwauling?
One devious cat staffer even built a moat outside the bedroom door, thinking that the watery trough would deter his moggie. That’s a laugh!
After the moat was defeated, the staff did some research. As the YouTube notes say:
I wanted to know how Mulder was defeating the “moat” this time, so I set up a camera and returned to bed.
Cat FTW! The same cat, Mulder, is even more devious here:
Earlier today we learned about the American propensity to see one’s survival of a disease or an accident as a “miracle” produced by God, while ignoring what that means for those who didn’t survive. Logically, you’d see that as a sign of God’s disapprobation.
And, in fact, it once was. In prescientific times, diseases and accidents were often seen as signs of God’s wrath. Smallpox and plague were attributed to God’s displeasure, and some 18th-century American churches even opposed the use of lightning rods since they turned away God’s righteous electrical punishment.
Science dispelled most of this nonsense (although the “thank-God-I-survived” trope is still with us), with a few remaining exceptions that are based on religion. Christian Scientists and some Pentecostal Christians see disease as a sign of faulty thinking, not as an organic ailment, and even today epilepsy and mental illness are viewed by some believers as signs of demonic possession. The Vatican has its own head exorcist, and exorcisms are on the rise in both Catholic and evangelical Christian churches. Who knows how many of those exorcisms damaged directly or by neglect people who should have been treated by mental-health specialists?
At any rate, the imputation of disease, mental or otherwise, to spirits and gods is one sign of the conflict between science and religion. In a world of reason, such views would be far less prominent.
And, sadly, they’re now being now been applied to Ebola, at least in Africa. In a piece in Slate, “Ebola is not God’s wrath,” Joel Baden, a professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School, and Candida Moss, professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame, discuss the claims of African Christian pastors that Ebola disease isn’t due to viral infection, but to the anger of God:
As the deadly Ebola virus continues to spread in Liberia, religious leaders there are claiming that “immoral acts” are responsible for the catastrophic outbreak. Christian leaders meeting at the Liberian Council of Churches unanimously agreed: “God is angry with Liberia.” The statement released by the council declared, “Ebola is a plague. Liberians have to pray and seek God’s forgiveness over the corruption and immoral acts (such as homosexualism, etc.) that continue to penetrate our society.” Their recommended solution to the disease ravaging the nation is that everyone should stay indoors for a three-day period of fasting and prayer.
The belief that Ebola is a sign of judgment is shared by some in the evangelical community. “Bring on the Ebola virus,” one website proclaims. “God does not exist to give us what we want, and if killing off our loved ones is going to help us realize this, then this is what He will do.” The Christian radio host Rick Wiles warned that “if Ebola becomes a global plague, you better make sure the blood of Jesus is upon you, you better make sure you have been marked by the angels so that you are protected by God.”
Yeah, it’s all due to “homosexualism.” While a three-day confinement is medically salubrious, this attitude is deadly, and in fact many Africans themselves are beginning to doubt that Ebola has anything to do with microorganisms. Note that the attitude that Ebola comes from God weakens the resolve to cure it, for let no man save whom God has chosen to kill.
Baden and Moss go on to put these events in the context of what they call “the religious model of disability,” and add as well at least one new examples: some Christians blame infertility on impiety. The history is enlightening (if that’s the correct word), but it’s importance is the message to avoid magical thinking. The “religious model” will persist so long as religion does, and Baden and Moss’s real lesson is the danger s of irrationality:
The dehumanizing idea that illness is connected to sin is a common feature of religious thinking about disease and sickness in general. Periods of crisis, like this one, may empower religious leaders to speak openly about the way that their traditions understand disease, but these explanations are not the product only of such exceptional moments of crisis. They are, rather, deep, long-lived, and fundamental aspects of how religious communities think about the sick among them. Both the leaders who present Ebola and other crises as divine punishment and the commentators who attribute this perspective to human nature under stress—and thereby excuse it—are participating in the perpetuation of a dangerous and destructive mode of thinking.
The Albatross is preventing me from digging deeper into this story, but a report at i09describes a pendingbill in the Ohio legislature that mandates teaching science in a way that favors creationism. It’s the “teach-both-sides” issue, but is couched in careful and weaselly language. Here’s the relevant part of Bill 597:
(iii) The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.
Notice two things: the concentration on science as “knowledge” rather than a “process” (teaching the latter is in fact critically important), and the prohibition of “political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.” What on earth does that mean? Well, you can guess. It means that you can teach all interpretations. If you teach a naturalistic explanation of evolution (which these yahoos probably see as “political” or “religious”), you must also teach the Biblical interpretation. That’s not just a guess. As i09 reports:
One of the bill’s sponsors, State Rep. Andy Thompson (R-District 95) told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that this clause [above] prevents teachers and schools from only presenting one side of a political and scientific debate without also presenting the other side. In practice, he says, that means school districts and teachers would have the freedom to introduce religious interpretations of scientific issues into classrooms — with creationism taught alongside evolution, as well as varying views on the actual age of the Earth and whether humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Likewise, the arguments put forth by climate-change deniers could be included in science lesson plans.
Thompson also shows why he wants science taught as a body of facts rather than a process:
“It gives some flexibility to districts to pursue what they think is most appropriate to their students,” Thompson said. “We want to have the ability to share perspectives that differ. Teaching one thing to the exclusion of anything else limits the discussion.”
Thompson said faith involves belief even when evidence cannot prove something…and that all scientific beliefs are open to challenge. He pointed to ancient beliefs that the sun orbited the earth – a belief widely accepted, but which was eventually challenged and disproven.
“In science, the debate is ongoing,” he said.
By requiring multiple sides to be presented, he said the bill will take the “pure politicization” of any issue out of classrooms.
Here he floats the old canard that science, like religion, is based on faith. And the facts of science are—OMG—changeable! Somehow that’s seen as a vice, while unchangeable religious dictums are considered virtues. I won’t get into that, and I’ve explained previously why “faith” in the religious sense simply plays no role in science (scientists have “confidence” in results in proportion to their supporting evidence, not “faith,” which in religion is belief without evidence sufficient to convince all rational people.)
And which debate is ongoing, by the way? Not the debate between evolution and creationism, for that was settled over a century ago. And we knew about the heliocentric solar system in the 16th century.
While I’m most exercised about this attempt to lie about science to kids, or misrepresent the field (Ohio readers: write your legislators!), there was one other part of the bill that has now been excised. Its presence, however, gives a clue to the political sentiments of the bill’s creators:
The legislation also created a stir because its changes to Ohio education standards required that “at least 80% of literary works taught in grades eight through twelve be complete works of classic British and American authors published prior to 1970.” That would nearly eliminate all modern authors and most foreign ones, which, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, would include:
“Greek works by authors like Aristotle, Sophocles and Plato or tales like The Iliad and The Odyssey; Crime and Punishment or anything else by Fyodor Dostoevsky or fellow Russian Leo Tolstoy; Dante’s Divine Comedy; Machiavelli’s The Prince; and anything from French authors like Victor Hugo or Albert Camus.”
Following the news report, Thompson said that the requirement would be removed from the bill. He attributed its inclusion to a “drafting error.”
Yep, for, as we know, all good literature is by Anglophones. Really, no Dostoevsky, Tolstoy or Dante? At least these Ohio mushbrain legislators had the sense to deep-six that stuff, which would have made them a laughingstock. Now let’s hope that the revised bill gets defeated, for it’s simply a variation of the “teach-the-controversy” bills that have repeatedly either failed to pass in other states or which have been declared unconstitutional by courts.
As the New York Times reports, Dr. Kent Brantly, one of the two American aid workers who were infected with the Ebola virus in Africa, and then flown to Emory University Hospital, will be discharged today. That’s good news, and much credit to the doctors, both in Africa and the U.S., who took care of him. And I’ve gotten a bulletin, that the second patient,Nancy Writebol, has just been released.
The group for which Brantly worked was Samaritan’s Purse, an evangelical aid group whose motto is “Helping in Jesus’ name.” One of their spokespeople commented:
Meanwhile, Franklin Graham, president of Samaritan’s Purse, said in a statement that Brantly has recovered.
“Today I join all of our Samaritan’s Purse team around the world in giving thanks to God as we celebrate Dr. Kent Brantly’s recovery from Ebola and release from the hospital,” Graham’s statement said.
But NO thanks to the God who now has killed over 1000 Ebola patients in Africa. As the reader who sent me this link commented:
If they really think goddidit, why bother to fly them to Atlanta? An omnipresent being could have worked in West Africa.
When will people realize the fatuity of giving God credit for those who survive illnesses or airplane crashes, but remaining silent about those who died? And isn’t anybody going to thank the doctors, the nurses, and the pilots?
“Today is a miraculous day,” Brantly said at a news conference in Atlanta with staff of Emory University Hospital. “I am thrilled to be alive, to be well and to be reunited with my family.”
Brantly thanked all those who treated him and hugged hospital staff members attending the briefing.
“Miraculous”? Really, what was the miracle? Did it involve God? At least the man had the decency to thank those who really helped him survive.
Now is the time to read Dan Dennett’s wonderful essay, “Thank goodness!” his response to those who attributed his survival after an arterial tear to God.
You surely know of the brutal murder of captive American journalist James Foley by the Muslim extremist group ISIS (I’ll call them that, though it’s also known as IS as well as ISIL, as Obama calls it below). Foley was kidnapped in November of 2012 and was held hostage until his murder a few days ago. Apparently his family received a message from ISIS that if the U.S. did not stop its recent bombing attacks on the group, they would kill Foley. And that they did, through a brutal beheading. He was 40 years old.
Although Foley’s death got special attention, as he was an American, a reporter, and because ISIS murdered him in a particularly public way, we mustn’t forget that he’s only one of thousands of people murdered by this gang of faithful but soulless religious thugs. It’s easy to find photos of people in Iraq and Syria being led away in groups for execution: shooting or beheading.
The solution to this problem eludes me. Bombing is not a long term solution. Sending American troops to Iraq won’t work, as new militants will simply spring up to replace the ones we eliminate, and Americans will no longer tolerate a futile Middle East intervention.
Obama, after calling Foley’s family with a message of condolence, made some eloquent remarks about him that are reported in the Washington Post. The video is below. I applaud his resolve, but am concerned about how he uses this speech to avoid laying any blame on Islam.
If you parse this statement carefully, you’ll find two ways that Obama tries to exculpate religion for the brutal deeds of ISIS. And this despite ISIS’s repeated and explicit claims that they are completely motivated by Islam—by the desire to extablish the Caliphate, impose sharia law on the lands they conquer, and to extirpate “apostates” (non-Muslims). They often offer their captives the choice to convert to Islam or die, with many choosing the latter. Despite that, Obama says both implicitly and explicitly that Islam is not to blame. This, of course, is a political statement designed to avoid offending Muslims, especially those who don’t share ISIS’s “values.”
First, Obama calls the group “nihilists”:
There has to be a clear rejection of this kind of nihilistic ideologies.
But if you know what nihilism is, you’ll know clearly that ISIS is not nihilistic, for nihilism rejects religion. Here’s the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:
Nihlism: Total rejection of prevailing religious beliefs, moral principles, laws, etc., often from a sense of despair and the belief that life is devoid of meaning. Also more generally (merging with extended use of sense 3) [“the doctrines or principles of the Russian nihilists”]: negativity, destructivenes, hostility to accepted beliefs or established institutions.”
Now most Americans don’t know that definition, but surely the speechwriter did. And surely if ISIS is anything, it is not nihilistic, for they kill in the name of a religious ideology—an Islamist ideology.
More important, Obama takes a bit of time to argue that ISIS “speaks for no religion”:
Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.
They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.
But surely ISIS speaks for a religion: its own interpretation of Islam. That interpretation isn’t, of course, shared by many other Muslims, but the group is still speaking and acting on the basis of religious beliefs, and is killing and conquering in the name of Islam. What Obama is doing here is arguing that ISIS’s form of faith is not “proper” or “real” faith. It is “not Islam.” But of course it is, just as Pentecostals are Christians. And just because ISIS kills Shiite Muslims and those of other faiths doesn’t mean that they are not motivated by Islam. They’re simply members of an extremist Sunni group. In fact, when Obama says they kill Christians and others because “they practice a different religion,” he’s tacitly admitting this.
Finally, when Obama asserts that “no just god would stand for what [ISIL] did,” I’m confused. One interpretation is that there is no God, just or otherwise. But that’s clearly not what Obama, who professes faith, means. If Obama believes in God, as do over 90% of Americans, then he’s implying one of two things. Either God is not just (after all, ISIS is pretty successful), or the American people must exact God’s revenge for Him. Since Obama must maintain that God is just, we’re left with the message that America must go after ISIS on God’s behalf. And, in fact, the President’s message clearly states that we will hold the group, and Foley’s murderers, to account.
We know why Obama says these things. He’s trying to avoid blaming religion for any of the world’s malfeasance. In fact, I doubt that, as President, he’s ever blamed religion for anything bad. It’s political suicide to go after religion even when, as in the case of ISIS, religious belief is clearly behind acts of violence. But did he have to make the claims that “ISIS stands for no religion” and is “nihilistic”? Why couldn’t he have at least remained silent about their motivations?
In effect, Obama has given religion a pass here, even in its most brutal and deadly form. Just once in my life I’d like to hear an American President tell it like it is. Ideology can be based on many things, and religion is one of them.
If we deny the true motivations of our enemies, can we really fight them effectively—even in the war of ideas?
Stephen Barnard in Idaho continues his quest for the perfect photo of the rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). He explains:
I realize that I’m being repetitive, but I’m looking for a definitive Rufous BIF — one that could be used in a field guide or a monograph. This is as close as I’ve come.
I’m not sure what a BIF is, but that looks pretty good to me.
And another:
The light was poor, but the drop of nectar hanging from the beak is of interest.
And two more photos from Steve Pinker’s trip to Tasmania. First, a sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps):
. . . a “tree filigree”, Hogarth Park Strahan:
and a “limpet valentine”:
The whole gallery of Steve’s Tasmania photos (7 pages) is here.
And that’s the way it should be.