Ray Comfort challenges evolution, Jesus and Mo reply

July 3, 2013 • 9:45 am

Several readers sent me both this item about Ray Comfort and the response over at Jesus and Mo.

You may know already that Ray Comfort has made a new film about evolutionary biology and its advocates, called “Evolution vs. God.” (So much for those who claim that science and faith are compatible!)  Of course it’s negative, and the trailer below gives a taste of what’s to come. Featuring P.Z. Myers and other evolutionary biologists who were unwise enough to be interviewed, the trailer implies that evolution isn’t real because we haven’t been able to see macroevolution in real time. (Well, we see it all the time in fossils.) Bacteria are still bacteria after selection!  We haven’t changed cats into dogs! Comfort is gloating because unlike the standard films, which use creationists to go after evolution, this one features only evolutionists, whose words are undoubtedly taken out of context.

Anyway, Christian News reports more:

A major evangelistic ministry is preparing to launch a 30-minute documentary that Christian leaders say will offer a “devastating,” “lights out” challenge to the evolutionary worldview.

Living Waters, a California-based ministry founded by influential evangelist Ray Comfort, has produced several groundbreaking resources over the years, including The Evidence Bible and “The Way of the Master” evangelism course. In late 2011, the ministry released the phenomenally successful abortion documentary “180,” which has since generated over four million YouTube views and nearly one million DVD sales.

Last week, Living Waters unveiled the trailer for their latest project, a video titled “Evolution vs. God.” Already the promotional clip has generated approximately 50,000 views, and that play count continues to rapidly escalate with each passing day. Not only are many Christians eager to see the film, but Comfort told Christian News Network that it has also created “a buzz in the atheist community.”

The main premise behind “Evolution vs. God” is that top evolutionary scientists cannot convincingly support their theory, and instead rely heavily on unfounded assumptions. Even when Comfort personally interviews influential evolutionists from major universities in the film (such as well-known atheist PZ Myers), they are unable to satisfyingly answer Comfort’s prodding questions.

Comfort is hoping “Evolution vs. God” will prove to be an influential weapon in the battle against current moral deterioration, much like “180” was a powerful voice against the horrors of abortion.

Comfort raises what I see as one of the main reason people reject evolution: the false notion that if we accept it, morality goes out the window:
“Today, atheists are pushing Darwin’s little theory and it has opened the floodgates to abortion, fornication, pornography, homosexuality and adultery. If there is no God and we are just primates, then there’s no ultimate right and wrong. Anything goes as long as it gets society’s smile. 180 looked at one symptom. ‘Evolution vs. God’ looks at the cause.”

“As you will see on “Evolution vs. God,”” Comfort stated, “not one of the experts could give me a whisper of evidence for Darwinian evolution. The movie is going to shatter the faith of the average believer in evolution, and strengthen the faith of every Christian.”

Yeah, those atheistic Danes and Swedes, with their high acceptance of evolution, have nearly destroyed Scandinavia through their acts of rape, murder, theft and pillage.

What a moron.

Here’s what you can expect:

This travesty opens July 11.

Jesus and Mo didn’t lose any time commenting on the film:

2013-07-03(I wish the artist had made me the barmaid this time!)

And if you wonder where Jesus’s “Kaboom! Pow! Lights out! Party’s over!” came from, it’s straight out of the Christian News report:

Though “Evolution vs. God” will not be available for public viewing until July 11th, several notable Christian leaders who have seen previews of the film say that it is outstanding. Bruce Garner described it as “absolutely devastating” to the evolutionary worldview. Randy Alcorn noted that “every student and ever parent should watch it!” And Todd Friel enthusiastically proclaimed, “Kaboom! Pow! Lights out! Party’s over!”

 

The value of debates on religion

July 3, 2013 • 4:45 am

Later today, Ceiling Cat willing, I’ll put up a post on William Lane Craig, who was just given a long profile in, of all places, The Chronicle of Higher Education.  It’s worth reading, though it carefully stays away from criticizing him or asking the opinion of his opponents.

Craig, as you know, has made his reputation debating atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. For the nonce, I’ll just collect opinions on this question: Is there any value to the cause in debating someone like Craig? That is, is the debate format a way to change minds and wean people away from faith. (Of course, Craig is a formidable debater, but I’m asking the question in general.)

The physics of a rising chain

July 3, 2013 • 3:56 am

Posting will be light this morning as Professor Ceiling Cat has cat stuff to do. In the meantime, entertain yourself with two videos of a remarkable phenomenon of physics: the slinking chain. The first shows the phenomenon, and the second goes into greater detail.

A longer video:

If you want a more detailed explanation for this weird phenomenon, a long one (which also accurately predicts the chain’s speed) is given at Empirical Zeal. It may be more than you want to read, but at lest read the first and last parts. The answer involves changing momentum.

h/t: Michael

Battlesnakes!

July 2, 2013 • 12:40 pm

Here’s the front cover of latest issue of Ethology, a well known journal of animal behavior. It shows two snakes (presumably male) in competition (presumably for females). The caption is cool (my emphasis):

Male western diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox) coming off vertical combat display in Sonoran Desert, Arizona. One is cheating by using the ironwood stump as a crutch and will win the endurance contest.

Photo reproduced by permission of Alex Badyaev (www.tenbestphotos.com)

I didn’t know this species did this, nor that they could cheat!

Picture 1

h/t: Ed Yong via Matthew Cobb

A bizarre and possibly aposematic bird

July 2, 2013 • 10:18 am

In most bird species, even those whose adults are gaudy and colorful, the juveniles are inconspicuous and dull. That seems reasonable, for much bird coloration is sexually selected (males are colorful, females less so), and although being colorful might attract predators, it attracts even more females of your species. But chicks aren’t at the stage of choosing mates and so avoiding predators trumps sexual selection.

But there are a few exceptions, and two remarkable ones are described in a new paper in the Wilson Journal of Ornithology by Fernando Mendonça D’Horta et al. (full text behind paywall).  These are two species of birds in the family Laniisominae that are found in Amazonia.  In this case, the adults are far less conspicuous than the juveniles, which are bright orange-red with dappling and, in one case, long crests.  The two species appear to be each other’s closest relatives (“sister species”), and so the bright juvenile coloration probably did not evolve independently in each.

Here’s the juvenile of one species, Laniocera hypopyrra. This single specimen was collected in 2002.

Picture 1The authors note the striking crest, which apparently isn’t present in the adult:

A remarkable feature of the crest is the feathers in which there are distal extensions, composed by up to six orange filaments 15 to 22 mm long, possessing white distal and proximal portions (Frontispiece, Fig. 1). The crest, including these filaments, reaches 40 to 48 mm. The same structure is exhibited by some of the dorsal feathers.

Here’s the second species, Laniisoma elegans, for which the authors collected the first juvenile known of the subspecies L. elegans elegans.

Picture 2

Apparently the dichromatism of adult and juveniles in L. elegans was known before, as it’s depicted in this plate from 1880.

Picture 3
FIG. 3. Image of pullus and adult Laniisoma elegans, originally published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1880 (plate 18). Courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library, Zoological Society of London. http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/

Of course, one wonders immediately what the difference in color means, especially since it reverses the common pattern of cryptic chick/showy adult. Earlier workers had suggested that the chicks “had evolved to appear like moss covered by fruits,” but it doesn’t look that mossy and fruity to me.

The authors suggest instead that the chick is warningly colored (i.e., “aposematic”) because it is somehow toxic or distasteful to predators, or, alternatively, that the chick mimics some toxic and unpalatable species that predators have learned to avoid (i.e., the chick is a “Batesian mimic”).  Of these two, the latter possibility seems more likely to me, for if the chick is distasteful and avoided by predators, why shouldn’t the adult also keep that pattern? Also, if the chick gets its distastefulness from its diet, well, the parents feed it, and could also have that diet.  (Of course, the chick could endogenously manufacture a toxin, but why wouldn’t the adult do that, too, and keep the color?)

It is possible, of course, that the chick’s smaller size plays a role in its resemblance to some other toxic model.  In truth, we simply have no idea what’s going on here.

Lest you think that birds can’t be toxic and aposematically colored, there’s at least one example, and it was discovered by Jack Dumbacher, a graduate student in our department. Jack found that the hooded pitohui of New Guinea (Pitohui dichrous), which is black and orange, has a neurotoxin in its skin and feathers. (Jack discovered this when his hands became numb and tingly when handling the bird.) The pitohui may acquire its toxin from eating beetles that contain the poison.

Here’s a hooded pitohui (photo from the NIF blog):

pitohui-1

 

 

___________________

D’Horta, F. M., G. M. Kirwan, and D. Buzzetti. 2012. Gaudy juvenile plumages of Cinereous Mourner (Laniocera hypopyrra) and Brazilian Laniisoma (Laniisoma elegans). Wilson J. Ornithology 123:429-435. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1676/11-213.1

Ingersoll on science vs. religion

July 2, 2013 • 8:23 am

We all should read more Ingersoll, and a good place to start is Susan Jacoby’s new book on the man, Robert Ingersoll: The Great Agnostic and American Freethought. Jacoby will be giving the keynote address at TAM, and I look forward to meeting her.

Here’s a nice quote from Ingersoll’s God in the Constitution (1890) 

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins — they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars — neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience — and for them all, man is indebted to man.

The man was eloquent.

More on HedinGate: Discovery Institute claims that Hedin panel is stacked (with real scientists), and readers write in

July 2, 2013 • 5:50 am

The saga of HedinGate continues as Ball State University (BSU) continues to investigate whether physics and astronomy professor Eric Hedin transgressed either academic freedom or the First Amendment by teaching Christian doctrine and intelligent design (ID) in a science class for Honors Student. The Discovery Institute has been collecting signatures on a petition to allow Hedin to continue, the local newspaper continues to report on the case and readers keep writing in letters (mostly pro-ID) to Indiana newspapers.

The latest articles include today’s piece by Seth Slabaugh in the Muncie, Indiana newspaper (the town that’s home of BSU), “Group claims prof panel review bias.” After the Freedom from Religion Foundation complained to BSU about Hedin’s religious content and proselytizing in his class, the Ball State provost appointed a panel of academics to investigate Hedin’s class. Reporter Seth Slabaugh notes that Discovery Institute vice president John West is beefing about the composition of that panel:

In response, Provost Terry King named a faculty review panel, whose members are Catherine (Caty) Pilachowski, a professor of astronomy at Indiana University and past president of the American Astronomical Society (AAS); and three BSU faculty: Gary Dodson, professor of biology; Juli Thorson Eflin, professor of philosophy; and Richard Fluegeman Jr., professor of geological sciences.

West is complaining that:

• Pilachowski was on the governing council of AAS when it issued a declaration denouncing intelligent design in 2005 and stating it shouldn’t be taught in science classes.

• Dodson signed an anti-creationism petition circulated by the pro-Darwin lobbying group the National Center for Science Education. Dodson is currently listed as an official scientific consultant for The Clergy Letter Project, another staunchly anti-intelligent design and pro-Darwin group. In 2009, Dodson was a presenter and discussion leader for the Darwin Day conference organized by the Ball State Freethought Alliance, an avowedly anti-religious group.

• Fluegeman delivered the opening lecture at the same Darwin Day conference in 2009.

Note the use of the word “railroaded” in the DI’s reaction:

The Discovery Institute seeks to demonstrate that life and the universe are the products of intelligent design and to challenge the conception of a “self-existent, self-organizing universe and the Darwinian view that life developed through a blind and purposeless process.”

“In fairness to the panel, people are sometimes able to go against their ideology and prejudices,” West said in an interview. “Maybe the panel is willing to do that.”

But it raises “huge red flags” when it appears that a professor like Hedin is “being railroaded by the university through a process not applied before.”

Well, it has to be applied for the first time some time, right? The fact is that Hedin’s case is unique, involving the teaching of a religiously based theory of “science” in a public university science class. A previous case, involving BSU music professor George Wolfe, who in 2004 was accused by students (and conservative flak David Horowitz) of “indoctrinating students in a peace studies class with an anti-American, anti-military, pro-terrorist agenda.” The BSU provost dismissed that case without investigation as being groundless. But Hedin’s case is not groundless, for his syllabus, his textbooks, and the objections made by some of his students are a matter of public record.

[West] also complained that King appointed no physicists to the panel.

“In this case, they shut out his (Hedin’s) department (in naming the review panel),” West said.

West described Eflin as a feminist scholar whose views on intelligent design are not readily clear.

My reaction?

Violin complaining cat copy

It would be hard to find a reputable scientist who hadn’t at some point criticized intelligent design, or at least was opposed to it. If a professor was accused of teaching flat earth-ism, or Holocaust denial, would the panel have to comprise those who had no opinion on the sphericity of Earth, or whether the Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis? And since the Discovery Institute has said that they don’t want intelligent design taught in the schools, why are they sending petitions to BSU saying that Hedin should be allowed to teach it?

****

In the meantime, there are two letters to the editors, both by academics, worth reading. Well, only one is worth reading for content, and the other for how misguided and obscurantist an academic can be.

The Indianapolis Star, published a letter that stands out from the spate of  other reader commentary that is ignorant of both the First Amendment and the real meaning of academic freedom. It’s by Craig Gosling, Professor emeritus of Indiana University’s School of Medicine, and is called “Ball State professor’s class should not be taught as science“. An excerpt:

 [A previous letter writer who argued that Hedin was being “bullied”] has conveniently ignored the real issue, which is a constitutional one. The U.S. Constitution was not written to protect the majority, it was written to protect the rights of the minority, even one student or taxpayer who has been treated unfairly. I agree with Professor Jerry Coyne and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who simply want Hedin’s course renamed more accurately to describe its contents and moved to another area of study such as philosophy or religion. Hedin’s course is pure religion and no science. His critics do not want Hedin punished or BSU’s good name tarnished; they want to protect the rights of minority students and taxpayers.

The situation is not as dire as the Ball State alumnus fears. Hedin needs to be advised that he can’t teach his course in a science department. He should be invited to teach his course elsewhere and to change the name and description of the course. As it is now, his course has nothing to do with “boundaries of science” and it blatantly promotes Intelligent Design and creationism, both of which have been debunked in court and found to have nothing to do with science.

. . . Fair-minded people, including faculty and alumni, need to remind the BSU administration that Hedin is making Ball State and Muncie into a national laughingstock, similar to the Scopes Monkey trial in Dayton, Tenn. As an Indiana taxpayer, I strongly object to BSU allowing one of its faculty to promote religion in a science classroom.

A breath of fresh air!  And indeed, if BSU allows Hedin to continue teaching Christian apologetics in the guise of science, and allows new hire Guillermo Gonzalez (another intelligent-design advocate) to do the same, they’ll look pretty dumb to the rest of the country.  While most Americans are either creationists or theistic evolutionists, they seem to want their kids taught real science in the science class.

Given Gonzalez’s hire, I suspect that someone in the Ball State Physics and Astronomy Department is sympathetic to Intelligent Design. and I also suspect the higher administration didn’t know this. They’re now getting a rude shock.

****

For a taste of ignorance, as well as dreadful writing, have a look at the Op-Ed by Paul Chandler in the Muncie Star-Press: “Professor Hedin’s Big Bang theory.” It’s too long to reproduce here, but it’s a defense of Hedin couched in labored language, and is written by Paul Chandler, described as a “soon-to-be-retired Ball State associate professor of natural resources. In other words, he’s a biologist. (One wonders why he’s retiring without having attained the rank of full professor.)

Here’s how it starts:

Apparently, Ball State University President Jo Ann Gora has heard the trumpet’s call announcing the latest displeasure among her peer group of minor league academicians.

It is hard to know for certain because, as is usual for Gora in the face of controversy, she is “unavailable for comment” until an intonation of how the music will likely end reaches her ear.

This same unavailability to stand up to peer pressure and defend Professor Eric Hedin from the Freedom from Religion Foundation as he boldly explores “The Boundaries of Science” with his students might just as easily be ascribed to any review panel however chosen from among America’s overwhelming majority of fashionably “spiritual” when not aggressively atheistic academics.

These have made a blatantly outspoken Christophobia all the rage throughout academia today as so many colleges and universities, especially those third-tier examples like Ball State, find themselves in a desperate competition for the tuition dollars that follow along with international students recruited from far beyond the boundaries of what at one time was widely known as Christendom.

Somebody give professor Chandler a copy of Strunk & White!  The last two sentences are labyrinthine! And really, “Christophobia”? Are public schools supposed to show Christophilia? Chandler then goes on to argue that the Big Bang points to God, since it violates the Law of the Conservation of Matter and the Law of Conservation of Energy, and therefore required a miracle and that “such a creator could well be God.” He concludes with an admonition to the panel investigating Hedin:

In this case, the question is not if we “believe in the Bible.” (A trip to almost any bookstore will demonstrate that it clearly exists.) The better question is this: Do we believe the Bible? If not, we have no business sitting in judgment of Professor Hedin.

So, to the review panel, feel free to use this argument as you call out your peers for their presumptuousness as well as their ignorance of some basic science.

Just think how smug you can feel then.

In other words, the investigating panel should comprise only Bible-believing Christians. The DI would love that!

This “letter” is very long, and wouldn’t be published in most newspapers.  I suspect, and I’m just guessing here, that someone at the Muncie Star-Press is sympathetic to Hedin and intelligent design.  After all, they have their creationist readers to satisfy. The paper has a “he-said/he said” approach to the story, pitting the Discovery Institute against scientists like myself and the investigating panel.  What is missing is some evaluation of what exacctly Hedin taught in his class,  what the contents of his textbooks were, and what his disaffected students said. Let’s hope we see more about that in the near future.

h/t: Diana, Amy

Mandarin ducklings take flight

July 2, 2013 • 4:00 am

Well, they have to get to the water somehow. . .

Wikipedia notes what is going on here:

In the wild, Mandarin Ducks breed in densely wooded areas near shallow lakes, marshes or ponds. They nest in cavities in trees close to water and during the spring, the females lay their eggs in the tree’s cavity after mating. A single clutch of nine to twelve eggs is laid in April or May. Although the male may defend the female during incubation, he himself does not incubate the eggs and leaves before they hatch. Shortly after the ducklings hatch, their mother flies to the ground and coaxes the ducklings to leap from the nest. After all of the ducklings are out of the tree, they will follow their mother to a nearby body of water.

i4VSHNXsIv5nb

These fuzzy guys (Aix galericulata) grow up into beautiful animals, especially the males. They live in East Asia.

Aix_galericulata_-_Zürich_-_Hafen_Riesbach_2011-01-14_15-58-32

 

 

h/t: John R. Hutchinson via Matthew Cobb