God of the gaps—still with us

March 16, 2013 • 6:31 am

In an article on intelligent design I once wrote for The New Republic, I quoted a statement by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a brave preacher and theologian who was executed by the Nazis for plotting against Hitler. He was decrying the tendency of religious people to impute mysterious natural phenomena to God, and made one of the earliest theological cases against “God-of-the-gaps” arguments:

“If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed farther and farther back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat.” (Letters and papers from Prison, 1997, p. 311)

Bonhoeffer, it seems, was smarter than a lot of modern theologians and religious scientists, who, while paying lip service to his idea, nevertheless are still trying to plug the holes in our scientific knowledge with God. That is, the old idea of Natural Theology—that evidence for God abounds in nature—is still alive and well.  Though a bit spavined by Darwin’s work, which killed a major part of natural theology (the presumed “design” of plants and animals), the faithful still find God in other places. Here’s a short list of natural phenomena still attributed directly to God’s action.

  • The “inevitability” of humans (some, like Conway Morris and Kenneth Miller, argue that creatures with high intelligence, able to apprehend and worship God, would inevitably have evolved, and that this was in some sense not only predicted by God, but directed by him).
  • Consciousness
  • “Free will” (which, as I’ve argued, we don’t have—at least in the dualistic sense posited by religion).
  • The origin of the universe out of “nothing”
  • The laws of physics
  • The supposed “fine tuning” of physical laws, which allows for humans to exist on Earth
  • The “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in helping us understand the universe
  • Morality, i.e., our innate feelings of what is good and bad
  • The fact that our senses are sufficiently reliable for us to do science and apprehend truth (e.g., Plantinga’s argument that evolution could not have given us that ability, and ergo it comes from the sensus divinitatus vouchsafed us by God).
Now some of these are on their way to being explained by science (e.g., where the universe came from, why we’re moral), some have already been explained by science (e.g., why we’re able to perceive external phenomena accurately), and others I am confident will eventually be explained by science (e.g., consciousness).  Still others, like the “effectiveness of mathematics”, I find a red herring, for if the universe weren’t regular, we couldn’t exist.  But the main argument against natural theology is always the same: by what right can anyone impute scientific mysteries to God, much less the Abrahamic God?
I was impelled to write this post by reading a draft copy of a very nice new book by two former Christians, Robert M. Price and Edwin A. Suominen, called Evolving out of Eden: Christian Responses to Evolution. No longer believers, but deeply acquainted with theology and apologetics, Price and Suominen simultaneously dismantle creationism, theistic evolution, and other apologetics. And they don’t pull any punches by making nice with faith. They also make the point that “God of the gaps” arguments are still with us, despite the insistence of the faithful that they no longer use that strategy. In fact, the very same people who say we shouldn’t find God in the gaps in our knowledge then proceed to do so! Two of these are scientists: Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian, and Kenneth Miller, biologist, textbook author, and devout Catholic.

1.  Francis Collins:

A. Decries God of the Gaps arguments:

“If God has any meaning at all, God is outside of the natural world.  It is a complete misuse of the tools of science to apply them to this discussion.”

“When God is inserted in a place where science can’t currently provide enough information, then sooner or later it does. My God is bigger than that. He’s not threatened by our puny minds trying to understand how the universe works.”

(Collins quotes above from pp. 34-36 in Steve Paulson’s collection of interviews, Atoms & Eden: Conversations on Religion and Science).

“A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or that or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, this ‘God of the gaps’ approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that’s possible). Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps.” (Collins, 2006, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, pp. 92-93).

B. Uses God of the Gaps arguments:

“That is part of my faith—to believe that God has an interest in the appearance, somewhere in the universe, of creatures with intelligence, with free will, and with the moral law, with the desire to seek Him.” (in Paulson, p. 37)

“When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming. There are 15 constants—the gravitational constant, various constants about the strong and weak nuclear force, et cetera—that have precise values. If any one of those constants was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million, the universe could not have actually come to the point where we see it. Matter would not have been able to coalesce, there would have been no galay, stars, planets, or people. That’s a phenomenally surprising observation. It seems almost impossible that we’re here. And that does make you wonder—gosh, who was setting those constants anyway? Scientists have not been able to figure that out.” (ibid, p. 39).

“But humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.” (Collins 2006, p. 200).

2. Kenneth Miller:

A. Decries God of the Gaps arguments:

“As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, originally the gods themselves were a kind of scientific theory, invented to explain the workings of nature. As humans began to find material explanations for ordinary events, the gods broke into retreat. And as they lost one battle after another, a pattern was set up. The gods fell backwards into ever more distant phenomena until finally, when all of nature seemed to yield, conventional wisdom might have said that the gods were finished. All of them.” (Miller, 1999, Finding Darwin’s God, p. 193).

“This sad spectre of God, weakened and marginalized, drives the continuing opposition to evolution. This is why the God of the creationists requires, above all else, that evolution be shown not to have functioned in the past and not to be working now. To free religion from the tyranny of Darwinism, their only hope is to require that science show nature to be incomplete, and that key events in the history of life can only be explained as the result of supernatural processes. Put bluntly, the creationists are committed to finding permanent, intractable mystery in nature.” (ibid, p. 288).

(Part of those quotes appear in Price and Suominen’s book).

B. Uses God of the Gaps arguments

“It almost seems, not to put too fine an edge on it, that the details of the physical universe have been chosen in such a way as to make life possible.” (ibid, p. 228).

“If we once thought we had been dealt nothing more than a typical cosmic hand, a selection of cards with arbitrary values, determined at random in the dust and chaos of the big bang, then we have some serious explaining to do.” (ibid, p. p. 232)

“Remarkably, what the critics of evolution consistently fail to see is that the very indeterminacy they misconstrue as randomness has to be, by any definition, a key feature of the mind of God.” (ibid, p. 213)

“Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with.  To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us.  Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay.” (ibid, p. 241).

“Having decided to base life on the substance of matter and its fine-tuned properties, a Creator who had already figured out how to fashion the beauty of order without the hobble of determinism could easily have saved His greatest miracle for last. Having chosen to base the lives of His creatures on the properties of matter why not draw the origins of His creatures from exactly the same source? God’s wish for consistency in His relations with the natural world would have made this a perfect choice. As His greatest creation burst forth from the singularity of its origin, His laws would have set within it the seeds of galaxies, stars, and planets, the potential for life, the inevitability of change, and the confidence of emerging intelligence.” (ibid, p. 252).

This revival of natural theology, often promulgated by the very people who decry God-of-the-gaps arguments, shows a fundamental weakness of theology and accommodationism. When such people want to show that science and faith are not competitors, but friends, they argue that religion can’t contradict science because they are independent ways of “knowing” about the universe.

They further argue that one shouldn’t use scientific evidence to find God—that, for instance, the Bible “is not a textbook of science.”  Evolution-friendly theologians say that it was a mistake to impute design in nature to God, and that evolution is, in fact, precisely how God would have created His creatures.  Many such apologists decry intelligent design (ID) because it is simply trying to find God in the gaps of our knowledge—in the complexity of the cell, the unknowns about biochemical evolution, and so on.

Yet they do precisely that when dealing with human consciousness, rationality, and morality, as well as cosmology, mathematics, and the laws of physics. It’s natural theology, pure and simple. And hypocrisy as well.

In the end, then, the faithful want empirical evidence for their faith, and so continue—even the Sophisticated Theologians™—to claim that the mysteries of the universe provide evidence for God.  This is, as always, a losing strategy, but shows without question that believers need tangible evidence for their faith beyond the mere whisperings of revelation. Part of that comes from their jealousy of the successes of science, and part from the doubts that plague many believers.

Caturday felids: A very old moggy and some record-holding cats

March 16, 2013 • 4:44 am

A cat who lives two decades is a rarity, but this week I came across a BBC News item about Wadsworth, a cat in Bedford who, despite having been the runt of his litter, just turned 27:

Former landlady Ann Munday, from Wentworth Drive, acquired a “very poorly” cat she called Wadsworth, from a vet in De Parys Avenue in 1986.

With the vets’ help she said she nursed him back to health and “he has gone from strength to strength”.

The surgery, which moved to Acorn House in Brickhill, and still treats the cat, has verified his age.

Mrs Munday said her cat, known as Waddy, “is not as active as he was”.

Since he was taken on by Mrs Munday, the cat, who was named after the beer of a similar name, has lived at the Horse and Jockey public house before moving to The Blacksmith’s Arms, both in Ravensden.

Now in a house he leads a quieter life and “doesn’t really play any more”.

Mrs Munday said: “He’s like a little old man really, he gets up, goes out, comes in, has his food and then goes back to sleep.”

Senior cat Wadsworth, chillin'
Senior cat Wadsworth, chillin’

I don’t know where Ravensden is in Britain, but any reader who goes to the Blacksmith’s Arms and is photographed with Waddy and a pint will get an autographed book. (The pub-dwelling cat was clearly named after Wadsworth ale.) Now to what do they attribute his long life? Noms, of course!

Mrs Munday said he is “a bit of a fussy eater” but will eat cat food, although he is partial to a bit of fresh chicken or fish.

“If I get fish and chips I always get him a bit of fish – he doesn’t like the chips,” she said.

Wondering if this was near the record for cat longevity, I did a bit of research and found that in fact the world’s oldest cat, one “Creme Puff” from Austin, Texas, lived an astounding 38 years and 3 days. As Wikipedia notes, Jake Perry, his owner, had a hand with cats, and again their longevity seems attributable to noms! They even drink coffee, as you’ll see in the video below.

Creme Puff (August 3, 1967 – August 6, 2005), was a female cat who died at age 38 years and 3 days. She was the oldest cat ever recorded, according to the 2010 edition of Guinness World Records. . . ..

Perry also owned Granpa Rexs Allen, who was claimed to have been born in Paris, in 1964 and died 1998, aged 34 years and 2 months. Granpa was posthumously awarded 1999 Cat of the Year by Cats & Kittens magazine. Granpa was featured in an earlier edition of Guinness World Records. The co-authors of at least one book have pondered whether the longevity of Perry’s cats may have had something to do with an unusual diet of, among other things, bacon and eggs, asparagus, and broccoli, concluding that Perry “must be doing something right.”

Here’s a 9.5-minute video of Jake Perry and some of his many his cats. It’s lovely—watch it! You can see Perry cooking breakfast for the cats; Granpa, a Sphynx, makes an appearance; and record-holder Creme Puff finally shows up at 7:23, looking very good for 35!

You can find other amazing cat records here. Two for your delectation:

  • By 1952, Dusty, a Tabby moggy from Texas had given  birth to a total number of 420 kittens in her lifetime.
  • Eighteen toes is the normal number for cats. A five year old moggy from Ontario, Canada is in the Guinness Book of Records for having the most toes. Jake has a total of 27 toes.Unofficially Mooch who lives with his owners Bob & Becky Duval in Maine, USA  is the winner having  28 toes. Mooch’s owners have submitted evidence to the Guinness Book of Records, watch out Jake!!! In July 2010 I was contacted by Rory who had written an article on Bandit, a cat with 29 toes.

Here, from TheBoken.com, is Bandit with his 29 toes.

HobokenCat1

HobokenCat3

A big new comet, visible with the naked eye

March 15, 2013 • 12:23 pm

Most of you know that there’s a big comet called Pan-STARRS that is now visible in many places. According to Wired Science, which has three videos, the comet was discovered in 2011:

Pan-STARRS first peeked over the horizon in the Northern Hemisphere on Mar. 7 but shortly thereafter it disappeared when it went too close to the sun. Since Mar. 11, though, it has reappeared each night in the west a bit after sunset for a short time. Particularly stunning views came on the evening of Mar. 12, when the comet flew near the thin crescent moon. The object will continue to shine, getting fainter and fainter, through the end of the month.

I’ve embedded a lovely time-lapse video of the comet, given by Wired with this commentary:

The top time-lapse comes from photographer Dan Finnerty of California and shows the soaring comet and crescent moon setting over the Verdugo Hills near Los Angeles.

Reader Ben Goren also sent a photograph of Pan-STARRS and the crescent moon that he took the other day near the Grand Canyon in Arizona (he promises more pictures to come):

Ben's photo

If you missed Pan-STARRS, no worries! Wired adds:

Because it is Spring, many viewers were blocked by clouds but there may be an even better chance to see a great comet in November when comet ISON appears. ISON will potentially be bright enough to see during the day.

h/t: Matthew Cobb

Amazing ant mimics photographed by Alex Wild

March 15, 2013 • 10:24 am

I love mimicry, for it shows very graphically the power of natural selection, and is one of the few cases in which we can judge how close natural selection can take an animal or plant toward its “optimum”—which is presumably to resemble as closely as possible the creature it’s mimicking. These examples of ant-mimicking arthropods were taken by the inimitable myrmecologist and photographer Alex Wild; they’re part of a collection of 24 ant-mimics you can see here.  You can also buy prints of these, and do keep an eye on Alex’s great website Myrmecos.

Non-ant arthropods mimic ants for a variety of reasons, including hiding from predators by looking like part of an ant swarm, deterring predators by resembling toxic ants that predators have learned to avoid, and preying on ants by sneaking up on them by resembling a member of their species. Alex has examples of all three forms.

The captions below each photo are also Alex’s.

First, a spider mimicking a toxic ant (note that it has 7 and not six legs; the eighth was apparently lost) to avoid predation. Remember, this is a spider, for crying out loud!

The delicate build and sabre-like pedipalps of this Brazilian corinnid spider help it to mimic the painfully-stinging trap-jaw ants of the genus Odontomachus. Morretes, Paraná, Brazil
The delicate build and sabre-like pedipalps of this Brazilian corinnid spider help it to mimic the painfully-stinging trap-jaw ants of the genus Odontomachus. Morretes, Paraná, Brazil

This is one of the more amazing mimics I’ve seen:

Heteronotus tree hoppers have a fake "ant" on their backs, presumably to foil predators.Maquipucuna Cloud Forest Reserve, Pichincha, Ecuador
Heteronotus tree hoppers have a fake “ant” on their backs, presumably to foil predators.
Maquipucuna Cloud Forest Reserve, Pichincha, Ecuador

A spider (left) mimicking an ant on which it preys. Note the fake “eyespot” on the spider’s abdomen, presumably so it looks like an ant from either end:

The tropical Australian crab spider Amyciaea albomaculata mimics its prey, the green tree ant Oecophylla smaragdina.Cape Tribulation, Queensland, Australia
The tropical Australian crab spider Amyciaea albomaculata mimics its prey, the green tree ant Oecophylla smaragdina.
Cape Tribulation, Queensland, Australia

Another case of “Batesian mimicry,” in which an edible prey item (the spider) evolves to mimic a toxic “model” (the stinging ant) because birds learn to avoid anything that looks like an ant.  Note that this looks nothing like what you think of as a spider. Note, too, the forward placement of the first pair of legs to resemble antennae.

The spider Sphecotypus niger is an astonishingly accurate mimic of Pachycondyla villosa, both in form and in movement. The resemblance presumably protects the spider from predators, as its ant model has an extraordinarily painful sting. Jatun Sacha reserve, Napo, Ecuador
The spider Sphecotypus niger is an astonishingly accurate mimic of Pachycondyla villosa, both in form and in movement. The resemblance presumably protects the spider from predators, as its ant model has an extraordinarily painful sting. Jatun Sacha reserve, Napo, Ecuador

Jumping spiders often mimic ants on which (I think) they prey. Here’s a remarkable resemblance showing how far an animal can be modified by natural selection.

A jumping spider (top) mimics the common twig ant Tetraponera mocquerysi. Uganda
A jumping spider (top) mimics the common twig ant Tetraponera mocquerysi. Uganda

Finally, a crab spider (on the left) mimicking the ant on which it is nomming.  This shows that ants can clearly see other insects, and discriminate against those that look “wrong.”

An ant-mimic spider (Aphantochilus rogersi) has caught a Cephalotes atratus turtle ant. Archidona, Napo, Ecuador
An ant-mimic spider (Aphantochilus rogersi) has caught a Cephalotes atratus turtle ant. Archidona, Napo, Ecuador

Evolution and Christianity: 2. Mike Aus on their incompatibility

March 15, 2013 • 6:23 am

I wanted to post this the other day as a response to the appearance of new homeschool textbooks on evolution that, while conveying modern evolutionary theory, also try to harmonize it with religion. (Many American children are homeschooled by religious parents who don’t want them exposed to godless science). My first post on this issue was here.

But those who claim that Christianity and evolution are compatible will have a hard time meeting the challenge of Mike Aus, a former pastor who stunned his Texas congregation by announcing, suddenly and publicly, that he was an atheist (see the video, from NBC’s Chris Hayes show, here). Aus was, as far as I know, one of the first public “successes” of Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola’s “Clergy Project,” a sort of electronic halfway house to help nonbelieving clerics leave their faith behind.

Aus, while never a creationist, has seen evangelical Christianity from the inside, and realizes that comporting evolution with that kind of faith is a losing proposition.  That is why, by the way, accommodationist organizations like BioLogos and the Templeton Foundation are ultimately doomed to failure. Christian opponents of evolution aren’t dumb, and are in fact forcing those organizations to move more and more toward fundamentalist Christianity while the creationists themselves never waver in their views.  That’s why, for example, BioLogos—and now Templeton—are tying themselves in knots trying to show how Adam and Eve, while not the literal progenitors of all modern humans, could nevertheless be seen as some kind of metaphor. BioLogos, in fact, refuses to take any stand on the historical existence of Adam and Eve.

It’s all very amusing to see how creationists manipulate the accommodationists—except for those at BioLogos who lost their jobs for taking a hard line on the nonexistence of Adam and Eve.

At any rate, Aus has a nice essay at the Richard Dawkins site on why accommodationism won’t work: “Conversion on Mount Improbable: How evolution challenges Christian dogma.” It’s a bit old (from last June), but not dated at all. And it shows the farce of textbooks that try to comport evolution with faith.

Here are the points of incompatibility as Aus sees them.

  • Adam and Eve  This is the big one, and all attempts to see it as a metaphor (since we know that the human population never bottlenecked at two individuals) are ludicrous on their face. If Adam and Eve didn’t exist, what sense does Jesus make. I quote from Aus:

“Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.”

. . . The role of Christ as the Second Adam who came to save and perfect our fallen species is at the heart of the New Testament’s argument for Christ’s salvific significance. St. Paul wrote, “Therefore, just as one man’s trespass led to the condemnation of all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to salvation and life for all.” (Romans 5:18) Over the centuries this typology of Christ as the Second Adam has been a central theme of Christian homiletics, hymnody and art. More liberal Christians might counter that, of course there was no Adam or Eve; when Paul described Christ as another Adam he was speaking metaphorically. But metaphorically of what? And Jesus died to become a metaphor? If so, how can a metaphor save humanity?”

I don’t see any way around this. BioLogos has had a gazillion posts trying to make metaphorical sense of Adam and Eve, but responses like the “federal headship model,” in which God simply designated two of the many early humans as “Official Original Sinners”, are simply laughable.  And remember that the Catholic Church’s official policy is one of “monogenism”: all human literally descended from Adam and Eve.  s Catholic Answers notes:

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

I wonder how Catholic scientists like Kenneth Miller reconcile this dogma with their acceptance of human evolution. Do they simply deny the teachings of their church? If so, they are heretics.

  • Original Sin.  This add-on to scripture by early Church fathers is an ineluctable part of Catholicism and many Protestant churches.  It has always struck me as vile and ridiculous to think that all babies are born sinners because of something inherited from a nonexistent Adam and Eve. Insofar as we “sin” (i.e., behave badly), Aus sees that as simply part of our evolved human nature (and I see it as cultural as well):

“Really, without a doctrine of original sin there is not much left for the Christian program. If there is no original ancestor who transmitted hereditary sin to the whole species, then there is no Fall, no need for redemption, and Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless. The whole raison d’etre for the Christian plan of salvation disappears. . . Actually, what Christianity traditionally describes as “sin” appears to be a theological attempt to explain the tension all humans feel between selfish and altruistic proclivities. St. Paul memorably wrote about his own sense of inner turmoil: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me.” (Romans 7:19-20) Science has now shown us that both selfish behavior and altruistic impulses are at least partially heritable traits.”

  • The soul.  Although with some effort I can find the concept of God coherent (unlike some of my readers), I can never make sense of the soul.  What is it? In what sense does it survive our body? Does it re-enter our body when we go to heaven or hell? How is it transmitted into a zygote? When did it enter the hominin lineage? Aus sees this as another area of incompatibility:

“Christianity and many other religions claim that human beings have a soul, comprised of neither matter nor energy, which survives the body’s death. This belief is vividly expressed in the popular Roman Catholic prayer to Our Lady of Fatima: “Save us from the fires of hell and lead all souls to heaven.” Religionists will often say that the possession of a soul is what distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. Never mind, for a moment, the fact that nobody has ever actually identified the location of the soul; just looking at the concept through Darwinian lenses raises numerous problematic questions for the doctrine. If all humans have souls, does that include all members of the genus homo? What about homo erectus, homo habilis and other hominid species that are no longer with us? Did they have souls that needed saving as well. In 1996 Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical affirming the reality of evolution. But he also insisted that evolution does not explain everything about humanity and at some point in the process of human development God had infused humans with a soul. The Pope, however, did not share when, exactly, the soul insertion event happened.”

Souls are an essential aspect of theistic evolution—the one area in which God must have inserted miracles into the evolutionary process.  It is the soul that makes humans distinct from all other species—an official doctrine of Catholicism and a tenet of many Islamic “scientists”. Do we really think that Catholics are on “our side” with evolution if they insist that we differ in this respect from every other species? What is that but simply re-inserting teleology into evolution—a view that was expunged from the field after many years of argument and data? No, theistic evolutionists do not hold views compatible with science. They are not our allies.

I want to quote Aus’s last two paragraphs in full, because they are moving and full of win. One of his finest statements I’ve put in bold:

When I was working as a pastor I would often gloss over the clash between the scientific world view and the perspective of religion. I would say that the insights of science were no threat to faith because science and religion are “different ways of knowing” and are not in conflict because they are trying to answer different questions. Science focuses on “how” the world came to be, and religion addresses the question of “why” we are here. I was dead wrong. There are not different ways of knowing. There is knowing and not knowing, and those are the only two options in this world. Religion, even “enlightened” liberal religion, is generally not interested in the facts on the ground. Religion is really not about “knowing” anything; it is about speculation not based on reality.

It took me a long time but when I finally came to appreciate the explanatory power of Darwin’s theory, I could no longer claim that it was irrelevant to religion. Evolution impacts everything. I have traded Mount Calvary for Mount Improbable, and life is now a far more interesting journey. And I also now understand why so many evangelical Christians are hostile to evolution. They too, know that evolution impacts everything, and as more and more people come to see the beauty and power of Darwin’s insights, they know that humanity will inevitably leave religion behind.

Those Christians who see evolution as a problem also are wedded to doctrines like the unique human soul and the existence of Adam and Eve. For them, no reconciliation is possible.

Mike Aus: he once was lost, but now he's found.
Mike Aus: he once was lost, but now he’s found.

TEDx’s guidelines for science and pseudoscience, and how to participate

March 15, 2013 • 4:41 am

Don’t say that I’m not responsive to reader questions! Several people, while happy about TEDx’s  sequestering pseudoscience talks like that of Rupert “Can-dogs-find-their-way-home” Sheldrake, also wanted to know what TEDx will do from now on to prevent the flogging of pseudoscience. I posed that question to Emily McManus, editor of TED.com, and here is her reply, quoted with permission.

TED and TEDx can’t be a place for pseudoscience rhetoric. We’ve made that pretty clear in our guidelines. TEDx is an independently licensed entity, and because of the way TEDx has grown, something like 300 new TEDx talks are posted on YouTube every week. Our staff reviews every video, but we are also grateful for the kindness of strangers in letting us know when something crosses the line. It’s been incredibly interesting and rewarding to have these conversations in public, and it helps us refine our guidelines for organizers, to help them know bad science when they see it.
What I’d love to ask your readers is this: If you know of a TEDx event being organized near you, AND you have the time and inclination, perhaps get in touch with the organizers and offer to help them look for and vet science speakers.
I then asked Emily how readers could find out when and where TEDx events were being organized, and she referred my question to another TEDx official, David Webber, who sent this answer:

First, your readers can look for upcoming events in their respective areas here. On that page they can find links to each TEDx event’s TED.com profile (like this one, for example), where they have the option to email the organizers. If for some reason that doesn’t work or if the organizers have disabled the “Send e-mail »” option, a quick search of the event’s name should bring up the event’s website — which most events create in addition to their profiles—where I bet your readers will find direct contact info.

I hope that helps! Let me know if I can answer any other questions.

Thanks to Emily and David for their responses.
In the meantime, I’ve been inundated with a lot of email accusing me of censorship, inability to recognize the weaknesses of materialism, and so on—much of it including invective or profanity.  I’ve let some of the more civil comments through, but do remember that I tend to block comments that call me names. Here, for example, is one comment that didn’t make it through moderation. It’s from someone who’s clearly one neuron short of a synapse:
Picture 1
Frankly, I was surprised at the level of invective in both unpublished comments and in the comments on the TEDx discussion page. I conclude that there’s a lot of sympathy out there for woo, which goes along with a dislike or distrust of real science. Comments like the following depress me immensely, and show how far we have to go in promoting rationality:
Picture 1
There was no “censorship”: the videos are up and have been put on another site because they violated TEDx’s guidelines for good science.  Those who object should go read the astrology columns in their local paper.