The depressing news

August 10, 2013 • 11:55 am

Here are the nine Amazon best-sellers in organic evolution.  Three of them are creationist books:

Picture 3No doubt the Discovery Institute is delighted that their creationist “God caused the Cambrian Explosion” book is at the top, but that just speaks to the immensely larger number of evolution-deniers than evolution believers among the American public. Still, the book should not be classified under “evolution” but under religion. Perhaps some energetic reader could point that out to the Amazon folks.

And, of course, a book can be a fabric of lies and sell enormously, so long as it panders to what people want to hear.  Here’s an example:

Picture 5Proof of Heaven is #15 among all books at Amazon. It’s also #1 on the New York Times bestseller list—for nonfiction!:

Picture 3

 

 

Go have yourself a NDE in which you see Jesus.  If you write about it, you’re set for life!

Request for reader help

August 10, 2013 • 10:30 am

As I work on my book, I’ll be asking from time to time for readers to track stuff down for me—to be, as it were, my online assistants. (I’ll of course acknowledge the readership as a whole in the book, as it’s been very important in my thinking.)

So here’s an easy request: can you give me the page number for the following famous quotation from Hitchens’s God is Not Great (and check if the quote is accurate)? I’ll verify the citation later.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Would that the faithful absorb that statement!

kthxbai!

A comment from a friend

August 10, 2013 • 7:37 am

Another post that made it above the fold, but not to the comments. I love the closing:

I think you are an evolution FANATIC or TERRORIST. Why is that you can never see anything good in the Creationists. Though,the Evolutionaryts(scientists?) Can learn a lot from the religionists,vice versa. You should continue with your evolution theories to prove that the Intelligent Being does not exist to convince humanities,rather than pouring venoms and abuses on creationists. After all the Gorillas,monkeys and whales or your cats have not EVOLUTIONED to HUMAN BEINGS since their existence ’3 billion’ years ago? We are all ‘scientists’ and our job is to prove empirically all hypothesis before they become FACTS. You and your groups have not done that;so no need for your ‘Taliban’ behaviour. You need to learn a lot more,instead of you arrogating all knowledge to yourself.
From your friend,
ELEGBA, K.

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by Airtel Nigeria.

I’m totally going to reject evolution because I haven’t seen cats evolution into humans being since those cats existed three billion years ago.  Where are these transitional forms?

human cat

 

Good news: acceptance of evolution up over last decade, Kentucky saves teaching of evolution

August 10, 2013 • 5:51 am

The fight to keep creationism out of public schools is a long one, with many reverses, and won’t be over until America becomes a secular land. Nevertheless, I see the arc of rationality bending upward, and there’s two pieces of evidence this week.

First, from WFPL in Louisville, Kentucky, we learn that public opposition in Kentucky to the eminently sensible Next Generation Science Standards—which, as I noted on July 26, mandate learning the truth about evolution and the facts about global warming—has failed.

The Kentucky Board of Education on Thursday rejected that public opposition and approved a final report from the education department on the new science standards.

Some people were concerned about teaching students evolution. But state officials says evolution is already included in the current set of standards. Further, in the statement of consideration approved Thursday, officials say there’s enough scientific research supporting evolution.

Officials also rejected claims that creationism should be included and that climate change should be removed.

Again, they cite the research. (Click here to read the SOC report).

Great weeping Jebus; there was enough scientific research supporting evolution by 1900.  But be grateful for small favors; Kentucky has been a benighted state, science-wise, and kudos to the Board of Education for rejecting the yahoos who lobbied them.  Here’s the board’s official response on three issues:

Evolution

Citing support from dozens of scientific organizations, Kentucky education department officials rejected comments opposing evolution in the new standards, saying it’s “the fundamental, unifying theory that underlies all the life sciences.” It goes on to say, “there is no significant ongoing debate within the scientific community regarding the legitimacy of evolution as a scientific idea.”

KDE also notes that the concept of evolution already exists in the current version of the Kentucky Core Academic Standards for Science and has been assessed since 2006.

Creationism and Intelligent Design

KDE rejected comments related to including intelligent design in the new standards because they lack scientific support. “The overwhelming majority of scientists do not consider creationism intelligent design,” the report says.

Officials also point to court decisions that have repeatedly declared teaching creationism and intelligent design as unconstitutional. The new standards no not attempt to explain the origin of life, while creationism and intelligent design do, the report reads.

I’m glad that the board gave two reasons for opposing creationism and ID: its unconstitutionality as a religiously based theory, but also (my preference for attack, but one harder to implement legally) the fact that creationism and ID are not only religiously motivated science, but simply failed science.  I’ve always said that scientists can’t rule out supernatural intervention in the world a priori, but that there’s simply no evidence for it.  Any theory saying there is, like creationism is unevidenced and not worthy of presentation as a viable alternative to purely naturalistic evolution.

Climate Change

KDE officials say the standards do not advocate any particular public response, policy change, or civic action related to climate change, but it does ask that schools include climate research and studies within the standards framework.

The standards, “ask students to consider the evidence for the factors influencing climate change.”

Is that so onerous? I’m not quite sure why the religious mindset rejects anthropogenic global warming (after all, they presumably accept the effects of overfishing in the world’s oceans), but it may be a case of simple wish-thinking that spills over from a belief in gods.

****

Second, as reported by YouGov, an Omnibus poll taken in July, asking Americans the standard question about how they think humans evolved, shows a slight but heartening uptick in those who adhere to naturalistic evolution rather than theistic evolution or creationism.

Picture 1

Note, though, that 62% of Americans believe in God’s intervention in the appearance of humans, with more than half of these adhering to straight Biblical creationism. However, the 21% who are naturalistic evolutionists is an increase from 2004.  I’ve always seen the theistic evolutionists as neither allies nor diehard foes of pure science, but tending to the “foe” side since they are enabling superstition as well as seeing humans as being the recipients of divine intervention. These are the people, by the way, whose rumps are osculated by organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Center for Science Education.

The number, however, who believe in evolution without help from God has increased by 8 percentage points since 2004, when CBS conducted a poll using the same questions. In 2004, 13% of Americans said that human beings evolved without guidance from God. This number may continue to increase in the coming years, as the belief in evolution without the influence of God is most common among those 18-29 years old, with 31% of those in that age group believing it.

I don’t know if the 8% increase is statistically significant, nor whether the two polls use the same methodology, but Gallup polls repeated over thirty years show the same increase in acceptance of naturalistic evolution. Here are the data since 2004:

Picture 2


And, finally, the bad news: only 32% of Americans oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools, while 40% are in favor of it. As courts have ruled repeatedly, that kind of teaching is illegal, so either these Americans are ignorant of the First Amendment or opposed to its enforcement.  I suspect many of them are simply ignorant, and have the typically American “let’s-be-fair and teach all sides” attitude.  I’d be curious to see how some of the 40% justify their answers, and what proportion of them actually accept evolution vs. Biblical creationism and ID creationism.

Picture 1

 

x

h/t: Felicia

Carturday Felid trifecta: A cat in a million, Ricky Gervais’s Siamese, and how to pet your moggie

August 10, 2013 • 4:42 am

Aren’t I nice to treat you to three cat items today?

#1 Okay, this cat riding on an automated vacuum cleaner while wearing a shark suit is either extremely docile or stoned on ‘nip. And it looks puzzled to be moving without having to walk. It just goes to show that no matter what bizarre act you think of, someone’s done it and put it on YouTube.

#2: As Catsparella notes, atheist entertainer and writer  Ricky Gervais (see his WSJ piece, “Why I am an atheist”) is a diehard ailurophile.  Like guest writer Matthew Cobb, he has a cat named Ollie, which was presented to him in 2003 on the “Friday Night with Jonathan Ross” show, as a replacement for a pet that had recently died.  Here’s the show, with Gervais getting his surprise kitten. Note that he doesn’t hesitate a second before saying he’d keep it.

And here’s Ollie ten years later, in one of Gervais’s Twitter photos called “Twonks”:

Ah891bwCEAAJNf4
Another photo (with caption) from Catsparella:

While on New Year’s Eve, [Gervais] posted this lovely close-up, along with the heartfelt tweet, “Believe in yourself. Be kind. Have fun. Do your best. And respect the unconditional beauty of nature. Happy new year.”
ricky-ollie-2

Anybody here own a Siamese?

#3.  Finally, reader Amy sent in this helpful diagram:

main

Although I don’t have a cat, I pet plenty of them, and I favor the Bread Kneader, the Butt-Muncher, the Turtle Neck, and the Kali Ma, but the last one carries the danger of scratches. I’d be interested in knowing which petting regimes are favored by readers.

For another view of the Kali Ma, The Oatmeal has a great strip on “How to pet a kitty“. It’s too long to reproduce in its entirety (go read the whole thing), but here’s one funny protip:

4-1

h/t: Doug, Ginger K., Sarah

“Oh Shenandoah”

August 9, 2013 • 12:58 pm

“Oh Shenandoah” is an old American folk song; Wikipedia puts it to at least the early 1800s.  It can be interpreted as a man longing to see the Shenandoah River or Valley in western Virginia,  or to amorously pursue the daughter of a Native American chief (I favor the first interpretation). Regardless, it’s a beautiful song that’s been recorded many times, but—to my mind—never better than here by Van Morrison.  I also think it’s his best song, though others will undoubtedly bring up “Brown-Eyed Girl” or “Moondance”.

The haunting music is by the magnificent Chieftains.

p.s. You can hear Paul Robeson’s version here.

Muncie paper produces waffling editorial on mixing science and religion

August 9, 2013 • 9:12 am

If you’re the local paper in Muncie, Indiana, home of Ball State University (BSU) and “Hedingate”, what do you do when you finally have to give your opinion on how the matter was resolved? (That resolution occurred, of course, with President Jo Ann M. Gora’s statement that teaching of intelligent design was not kosher in science classes, and proselytizing for ID or any religion in a public university like BSU was a potential First Amendment problem.) Hedin can no longer teach C. S. Lewis in his science class.

What would a cowardly paper do?  Waffle, of course, giving something to everyone, and avoid expressing any strong opinions.

That’s precisely what the Muncie Star Press does in what I presume is its final and official take on the Hedingate outcome, the lamely titled, “Ball State adds clarity to science-religion debate.” An excerpt:

Gora’s statements should settle the issue. “Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory,” she wrote. “Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses.”

Consider it case closed to the murky mingling of science and religion.

Yet the debate over where we come from and how we got here will continue. If one seeks the scientific view, that will be found in science classes. Intelligent design or pure creationism and other religion-based theories are limited to humanities or social science courses. We see no conflict here so long as courses are clearly defined in the course catalogs, and students are fully aware of what they are signing up to study.

Of course there is conflict there—for the many BSU students, faculty, and Indiana citizens who think that intelligent design is science! The paper is simply regurgitating what Gora did and avoiding taking a strong stand against creationism.

And, to top it of, the paper winds up with a ringing endorsement of—accommodationism:

Gora clearly drew the line between science and religion at Ball State. Does that mean science and religion are incompatible? Hardly. We think many churchgoers (certainly not all) have discarded a literal interpretation of the creation account found in the Bible’s book of Genesis.

Here’s a good way of thinking about science and religion according to the National Academy of Sciences. Both “should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other.”

Well, 40% of Americans have not discarded a literal interpretation of creationism, and only 15% adhere to the scientific view of a purely naturalistic process of evolution. For those 80% or so who either reject evolution or think God guided it, science and religion remain incompatible.  As for the “different ways of understanding the world,” the paper of course neglects to say what religion helps us understand about the world.

I didn’t expect more from this paper, which has pirouetted on the fence during this whole debate. They’ll surely not win a Pulitzer Prize for their pusillanimity.

A Catholic hospital claims that a restrictive abortion law still violates its ethics

August 9, 2013 • 5:44 am

Yes, it’s the Mater Hospital in Dublin, Ireland, a Catholic hospital that I wrote about two days ago for trying to prevent the dissemination of birth-control information to women undergoing chemotherapy trials. Now they’re screwing up again, but this time over abortion.

A piece by Mark Coen in the Irish Times notes that the Mater is poised to contest Ireland’s already restrictive abortion law, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013. That act allows abortion in Ireland only under dire circumstances, when the mother’s life is proven to be at risk. Now some board members of the Mater don’t even want to abide by this, for it offends their religious (i.e., Catholic) sensibilities:

Wikipedia summarizes the provisions of the Act

The Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary to prevent a risk of death. These criteria differ in three scenarios:

Risk of loss of life from physical illness. Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur.For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman’s general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.
Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency. In a medical emergency, a single physician must both provide the diagnosis and perform the termination.
Risk of loss of life from suicide. Three physicians must concur; an obstetrician, a psychiatrist with experience treating women during or after pregnancy, and another psychiatrist. At least one of them should consult the woman’s GP with her consent. The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

The physicians’ diagnosis must be “an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable”. Normal informed consent is required. Medical personnel with conscience objections to abortion will not be required to participate in terminations, but must transfer care of a patient in such cases.All terminations must be notified to the Minister for Health within 28 days.[16] The Minister will make an annual report of such notifications.[1

This law was passed in deference to Irish courts, who said that, in response to women being refused abortions when their lives were in danger, that something had to be done to protect the right to life of the mother, a right specified in the Irish constitution.

Unless their situation conforms to the new stipulations, a woman in Ireland still can’t obtain an abortion.  Those who want one have historically flown to England, where abortion is legal; but the law also creates a new offense of “destruction of unborn human life”, with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Abortion was illegal before, but no penalty was specified.

Finally, polls repeatedly show that 60% of the Irish public favor abortion legislation far more liberal than the 2013 law, but the legislature, heavily lobbied by the church, won’t bend.

But even despite the draconian regulations given above, the Mater hospital is objecting to these provisions. They want the right to refuse an abortion to a woman whose life is in danger because it violates their “freedom of religion”. (Note that the Mater formally “belongs” to the Catholic church, it is funded by the Irish government and taxpayers.) From the Times:

In recent days it has been reported that the board of governors of the Mater hospital plans to meet to formulate its position on the hospital’s inclusion in the Act as a centre for the performance of terminations. Two members of the board have indicated publicly that they feel that the legislation conflicts with the religious ethos of the institution.

This could herald a constitutional challenge to the Act on the basis that it violates the freedom of religion of the owners of the hospital, the Sisters of Mercy. The Act also designates St Vincent’s hospital, which is owned by the Sisters of Charity, as an institution at which abortions are to be performed.

And it looks as if religion could win, particularly in the case of suicide, when there’s time to move the mother to another, non-Catholic hospital.

The constitutional case law of the Irish courts emphasises that religious institutions, even if publicly funded, may not be forced to act in a manner which conflicts with their ethos. The fact that the pregnant woman has a constitutional right to a termination in certain circumstances does not necessarily mean that that right would trump the very strong constitutional right of an institution to freedom of religion.

Read that last sentence again.

If this legislation is deemed to be unconstitutional, it will give Irish hospitals the legal right to allow a pregnant woman to die—against her wishes and those of her doctors—rather than have a life-saving abortion.  How the Irish government manages to flout the wish of its own citizens, pregnant women, and the policy of its fellow EU countries (the EU allows this draconian law on the grounds that it protects Ireland’s “public morals”) is beyond me.

Actually, it isn’t, for it demonstrates the power and the warped “morality” of the Catholic Church.  Can you imagine letting both a mother and her fetus die when you could have saved the mother’s life, because of some warped interpretation of an ancient book? I guess they think things will be made right in Heaven.

h/t: Grania Spingies