Carrier finally responds to Ehrman on the historicity of Jesus

April 20, 2012 • 6:47 am

We’ve all been waiting for Richard Carrier, an expert on history and a Biblical scholar, to respond to Bart Ehrman’s new book.  Well, Carrier has—in an article called “Ehrman on Jesus: a failure of facts and logic” published on his website.  And he doesn’t pull any punches from the outset:

Having completed and fully annotated Ehrman’s new book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Harper 2012), I can officially say it is filled with factual errors, logical fallacies, and badly worded arguments. Moreover, it completely fails at its one explicit task: to effectively critique the arguments for Jesus being a mythical person. Lousy with errors and failing even at the one useful thing it could have done, this is not a book I can recommend.

As you may know from the publicity and from Ehrman’s HuffPo precis, his book claims that there was indeed one historical person around whom the Jesus myth coalesced, though Ehrman rejects claims that this Jesus was the son of God, a miracle worker, or in any way divine.  But he vigorously attacks “mythicists”—those who think that there was no one historical person on which Christianity is based—and goes after new atheists as well, whom he compares to fundamentalists in their dogmatism. (Carrier is a mythicist.)  In general, Carrier faults the book not just for poor and selective scholarship, but for poor writing:

Carrier criticizes Ehrman’s book on several grounds:

  • The book is filled with factual errors.   Here’s one of several cited by Carrier:
The “No Records” Debacle: Ehrman declares (again with that same suicidally hyperbolic certitude) that “we simply don’t have birth notices, trial records, death certificates—or other kinds of records that one has today” (p. 29). Although his conclusion is correct (we should not expect to have any such records for Jesus or early Christianity), his premise is false. In fact, I cannot believe he said this. How can he not know that we have thousands of these kinds of records? Yes, predominately from the sands of Egypt, but even in some cases beyond. I have literally held some of these documents in my very hands. More importantly, we also have such documents quoted or cited in books whose texts have survived. For instance, Suetonius references birth records for Caligula, and in fact his discussion of the sources on this subject is an example I have used of precisely the kind of historical research that is conspicuously lacking in any Christian literature before the third century (see Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 182-87) . . . That Ehrman would not know this is shocking and suggests he has very little experience in ancient history as a field and virtually none in papyrology (beyond its application to biblical manuscripts). Worse, he didn’t even think to check whether we had any of these kinds of documents, before confidently declaring we didn’t.
It’s a long piece, with many accusations of sloppy scholarship, including accusations that Erhman errs about the letters of Pliny the younger, the position of Pontius Pilate, about whether the Egyptian god Osiris was said to be resurrected, whether religions earlier than Christianity had baptism, and so on.
The factual errors apparently extend to Carrier’s own qualifications: Ehrman says Carrier’s doctorate was in classics, while it was actually in ancient history
Ehrman can’t have learned my degree is in classics from any reliable source. He can only have invented this detail. I am left to wonder if this was a deliberate attempt to diminish my qualifications by misrepresentation. Or if he is really so massively incompetent it never even occurred to him to check my CV, which is on my very public website (he also has my email address, and we have corresponded, so he could even have just asked).
Well, this may seem trivial, but to Carrier it bespeaks a sloppiness of scholarship on Ehrman’s part, documented by all the assertions that precede it.
  • Carrier claims that his own level of scholarship is superior to Ehrman’s:
 And on that score I would ask that Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? be compared with my latest on the same subject, Proving History. Just compare the extent and content of our endnotes alone, much less the way we argue, the difference in our attention to method and its logical soundness, the diverse range of scholarship we cite. Even my book Not the Impossible Faith is superior on all these measures, and it was a deliberately colloquial book designed to be entertaining. Both undoubtedly have occasional errors (as all scholarly work does)–but I doubt anything even remotely like what I have documented above (in degree, quantity, and cruciality).
I haven’t made this comparison, nor read all the books, so I can’t adjudicate this, but I’d submit that this is a minor criticism, and seems more like wounded ego.  The matter should, as Carrier did earlier in the piece, be adjudicated on the facts alone, and their reliability as “facts.”
  • Ehrman’s historical methodology is flawed. Carrier dismisses Ehrman’s reliance on the “methodology of criteria” (whatever that is), which Carrier claims he refuted in his book Proving History.  He concentrates instead on two others:
I could call out many examples of his use of ordinary fallacies and self-contradictions, too, but I will have to leave those for perhaps a later blog (if I even care to bother).[JAC he gives one example.] . . .
And this one seems to be the crux of the matter: Ehrman’s constant assertion that there are dozens of sources earlier than the Gospels that independently attest to the historicity of Jesus:
As bad as those kinds of self contradictions and fallacies are (and there are more than just that one), far worse is how Ehrman moves from the possibility of hypothetical sources to the conclusion of having proved historicity. He argues that because Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Thomas (yes, Thomas) and various other documents all have material the others don’t, that therefore we “have” a zillion earlier sources, which he sometimes calls by their traditionally assigned letters like M, L, and Q (he is irrationally dismissive of Mark Goodacre’s refutation of Q, and claims no one is convinced by it but cites not a single rebuttal; I myself find Goodacre’s case persuasive, well enough at least to leave us in complete doubt of the matter). We don’t in fact have those sources, we aren’t even sure they exist, and even if we were, we have no way of knowing what they said.

I’m not an expert here, but if Ehrman doesn’t have those sources in hand, then he’ll have trouble convincing us not only that they exist, but that they say what Ehrman says they do. You’ll want to read Carrier’s take on these sources, as to me that bears heavily on Ehrman’s credibility. I am not equipped to judge matters like this, but I have to say that if Ehrman invokes independent evidence for Jesus that isn’t convincing, then I’d find his conclusions questionable.

  • Ehrman cites ancient stories and biographies as if they were true, though many have proved to be outright fiction.
Ehrman appears to be blithely unaware of the routinely fabricatory nature of ancient biography, as documented throughout the literature on the subject (which is cataloged under his despised category of “classics,” a section of the library Ehrman seems never to visit), which demonstrates that things an author said or wrote (even fictionally) were often converted into stories about them . . . [Carrier then gives some examples]. . .
. . . The significance of this is that it demonstrates Ehrman’s naivity when it comes to interpreting ancient literature and source materials and tradition formation. He is evidently not a competent classicist. And yet understanding how the Gospels likely came together requires being a competent classicist. . .
If things a person said were routinely transformed into stories about them (for example, Euripides occasionally made remarks about women in his plays that were transformed into a story about his troubled marriage–a completely fabricated story, that nevertheless became a standard element of his biography), doesn’t this change substantially how we view the possible tradition history behind the stories in the “biographies” of Jesus?
Carrier’s conclusion is strong:
It is for all the reasons documented in this article (which are again just a sample of many other errors of like kind, from false claims, to illogical arguments, to self-contradictions, to misrepresentations of his opponents, to errors of omission), especially this book’s complete failure to interact with even a single complete theory of mythicism (which alone renders the book useless, even were it free of error), that I have no choice but to condemn this thing as being nothing more than a sad murder of electrons and trees.
I have been a bit baffled about why this matter evokes such strong feelings, especially among atheists. Since we all admit that there’s no evidence that Jesus was the son of God, did miracles, was resurrected or born of a virgin, and died for our sins, does it really matter so much if he’s based on a historical person? Why does this evoke such strong feelings, and such acrimonious arguments, from atheists?

Perhaps some of our concern comes from this:  if we can show that there’s no historical Jesus, then the myth of Christianity tumbles down. That is, it’s no so much about convincing ourselves about the non-historicity of Jesus as convincing Christians.  And it is the Christians who have the hard work ahead of them, for even if Jesus was demonstrated to be a historical person, they still must adduce independent evidence for all his divinity attested in scripture.  And that’s why Ehrman is so important to the faithful—and perhaps why he seems to have gone soft on them)—for they think that showing there was a historical person somehow justifies all the mythology of Christianity.  It doesn’t, and we know that.

But Christians don’t.

In other words, Ehrman’s book is important to Americans only insofar as it can be taken to support the tenets of Christianity.  Since it doesn’t, even by Ehrman’s admission, I’m a bit baffled at the attention it gets. I conclude that all the kerfuffle rests on this: Christians conflate the existence of a historical Jesus with the existence of a divine Jesus.

And, of course, there are important questions about how one adjudicates ancient history.

Levon Helm died

April 19, 2012 • 6:38 pm

Not a surprise, really: the man smoked like a fiend and got throat cancer years ago.  He died today at 71 in New York (the New York Times has a long and wonderful obituary).

But, Lord, was he a good musician—an integral part of The Band, one of my all-time favorite groups. The Band was one of those groups, like Steely Dan, that was sui generis, with their own sound and unique type of song—country-ish in their case, but infinitely more sophisticated. They also starred in what I think was the best rock movie ever made, The Last Waltz. By all means see it on Blu-Ray if you can, and crank the volume up.

Helm anchored the band with his unique vocals and minimalist drumming. And don’t forget his acting: he was wonderful as Loretta Lynn’s father in “Coal Miner’s Daughter.”

I had the privilege of seeing them live once: at the University of Maryland around 1983.

Here are two songs from The Last Waltz featuring Levon: “The Weight” and “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.”  “Dixie” is my favorite Band song; it’s a superb concatenation of musicianship and strange lyrics that seem to emanate from a dream.

From the NYT obit:

Mr. Helm gave his drums a muffled, bottom-heavy sound that placed them in the foundation of the arrangements, and his tom-toms were tuned so that their pitch would bend downward as the tone faded. Mr. Helm didn’t call attention to himself. Three bass-drum thumps at the start of one of the Band’s anthems, “The Weight,” were all that he needed to establish the song’s gravity . .

In the Band, lead vocals changed from song to song and sometimes within songs, and harmonies were elaborately communal. But particularly when lyrics turned to myths and tall tales of the American South — like “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” “Ophelia” and “Rag Mama Rag” — the lead went to Mr. Helm, with his Arkansas twang and a voice that could sound desperate, ornery and amused at the same time.

The Staples Singers buttress The Band in “The Weight”:

Gone now, besides Helm, are Richard Manuel (a suicide at 43) and Rick Danko (dead of drug abuse at 56). Only Robbie Robertson and Garth Hudson remain of the original five.  What an agglomeration of talent they were at their peak!

Thursday owls: hunting

April 19, 2012 • 11:10 am

I have the feeling that these photos were staged: that is, some luckless voles or mice were placed on the snow to lure the owls. Nevertheless, these slow motion shots of snowy owls, great gray owls, and hawk owls are magnificent (filmed by Andrew Manske at 500 frames per second). They can pick off a prey without missing a wingbeat.

God saves man named Lord from tornado

April 19, 2012 • 10:24 am

There’s an amazingly strident and anti-religous post on Yahoo News, “Tornado survivor vainly claims God saved him,” by Andrew Riggio. (The “vainly,” by the way, doesn’t mean “fruitlessly,” but “arrogantly”.)  The man, curiously enough named Paul Lord, survived a tornado that killed several others. His “vain” statement?

“We are truly blessed. God saved us, and that’s what it’s about.”

Riggio responds, as many of us would:

That’s a load of baloney for several reasons.

For his statement to be true the events would have to have been under God’s direction. If so, describing anything about a tornado that destroys a town and kills several people a blessing is unwarranted. A true blessing would have been God’s hand directing the tornado away from the town so no one got killed and nothing got destroyed.

It’s also the height of hubris to claim God saved him. For that to be meaningful it must be assumed Lord was somehow more worthy of being saved than the five people the tornado killed. Three of the victims were girls of ages 5, 7 and 10 years old. Were those three children so vile in the eyes of God that they deserved death while Lord was deserving of rescue?

It goes on, but you get the drift. This is all true, of course: for God to save someone, He had to have a reason to let others die. But, oy, are the faithful howling in anger—especially for Riggio’s use of the word “vainly”—in the 624 comments that follow! For example:

JustinW  •  Richardson, Texas  •  22 hrs ago

This is obviously someone who believes, as is his right, that this life on this earth is all that there is. God has always taught that His ways are not comprehendable to us, so maybe He did spare a life while taking another for purposes we cannot understand.

Kleb  •  22 hrs ago

Wooooooow. Bitter much? The author’s argument presupposes that from God’s point of view death is bad. People of “true faith”, as his last sentence mentions, are equally grateful to God for His providence in death as in life. Look at the great heroes in Christianity. When they died they weren’t bawling and begging God to spare them, they were profoundly relieved to be joining Him and, at the same time, deeply grateful for the ride they had been on in this world. From a Christian perspective, then, there is no inconsistency here. The survivor is grateful for the life God has given him here, as he should be, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t also looking forward to meeting the Lord.

Whoa!  Should we be grateful to God for asking 6 million Jews to join Him during the Holocaust?

Karen W  •  1 day 1 hr ago

Riggio, What gives you the right to pass judgement on someone else’s belief’s? I bet if you stood in his shoes and survived what he went through you’d suddenly believe in miracles too!

Get a life and get a real job! You’re obviously no good at what you do!

Clearly these people haven’t thought deeply about theodicy and the problem of evil. I’d love to talk to some of them about why God lets tornadoes kill innocent little children and animals.

But amidst the howls one can also discern a few voices of reason:

Ted  •  21 hrs ago

The problem is that human beings respect logic. If Paul Lord was honest with his assessment he would have thanked God for sparing his life and in the same breath criticized God for killing those three little girls? I mean, is God responsible for all things or not? You can’t have it one way and disregard the other. Atheists cut to the chase; they say God is not responsible for any of it; it is just nature (probabilities and chance), no mysterious guiding hand to assign blame or gratitude to. If you think about it, this makes sense.

J  •  Rochester, New York  •  21 hrs ago

Obviously, God is too busy picking baseball, football and NASCAR winners to be bothered with saving Paulie from twisters. Ask any of them… they always seem to have god’s help.

h/t: Darth Dog

Matzke doesn’t like creationism blamed on religion

April 19, 2012 • 6:25 am

I knew this was going to happen. If you indict religion as a cause of anti-evolutionism (as I did in my upcoming Evolution paper), despite the mountains of evidence supporting that claim, you’ll get accommodationists nit-picking at you.  And that is precisely what Nick Matzke (a former employee of the National Center for Science Education) has done at Panda’s Thumb. In his “rebuttal” (I use quotes because he doesn’t rebut anything), “Coyne on religion and evolution in Evolution,” Matzke makes four points.

1.  The Society for the Study of Evolution’s (SSE) statement on the teaching of evolution, which I quoted as a model for how scientific associations should promote evolution without mentioning religion, includes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous quote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Matzke takes great glee in pointing out that Dobzhansky was an accommodationist. Dobzhansky was also quite religious for an accomplished scientist.  Of course I know all this: Dobzhansky was the advisor of my advisor.  But so what? Just because the SSE statement uses a quote from Dobzhansky doesn’t mean that I, or the SSE, endorse all of the man’s views on science and religion. I’m surprised that even Matzke, not known for his acumen on these issues, can see this as a problem with my piece.

2. Matzke then points out that Darwin himself avoided direct confrontation with religion, and wrote two statements that could be construed as accommodationist.  Again, so what? First, it’s not clear what to make of these statements, for we know that Darwin’s wife was very religious and he was careful not to injure her feelings.  He also realized that explicitly dragging religion into his writings (though he constantly went after creationism in The Origin) would impede acceptance of his theory, about which he was quite nervous. (Remember his long delay in publishing the book). He let Huxley do his dirty work with the preachers. Finally, as we know, Darwin didn’t believe in a personal God. I myself suspect he was an atheist.

But again, all this is irrelevant. Even if Darwin were an accommodationist (and that’s not clear given his sometimes ambiguous statements about religion), my admiration for his science wouldn’t make me admire that accommodationism any more than I would admire Darwin’s faulty theories of genetics.

Implying that my admiration for Darwin is hypocritical because Darwin was an accommodationist is just another diversionary tactic of Matzke, who simply can’t stand religion being publicly blamed for creationism.

Matzke knows that such an accusation will rile up the more liberal religious people that the NCSE and other accommodationists want to court. We must by all means keep quiet the dirty little secret that religious belief—and not just fundamentalism, as I show in my article—is behind all American opposition to evolution. As I show in my piece, even many adherents to faiths that officially endorse evolution, like Catholics, are themselves garden-variety creationists or accept theistic evolution, in which God had a hand in the process and guided it toward humans. Neither of these views comport with the modern scientific view of evolution.  I’m always surprised when accommodationists are so eager to claim theistic evolutionists as true allies.  Evolution is a purely materialistic process; there’s a reason why one of its engines is called natural selection.

3. I’ll quote Matzke directly here:

Darwin’s point about Leibnitz [Darwin noted that Leibnitz saw the theory of gravity as subersive of religion] guts a great many of Coyne’s arguments that science is necessarily opposed to religion, since Coyne’s logical arguments mostly rely on the premise that religious people aren’t allowed to endorse natural explanations as a method of God’s action. But pretty much no religious person ever has ever taken this position.

This is so poorly written that it’s hard to follow, but it’s certainly wrong.  My “logical arguments” do not rely on the premise the religious people aren’t allowed to endorse natural explanations as a method of God’s action.  Many religious people do do that, of course. My point was that the existence of a theistic God, who actually interferes with the operation of natural law, is incompatible with science.  And many religious people, including scientists like Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Simon Conway Morris, do see God as having affected nature in this way. The Resurrection, the virgin birth, miracles, and any incursion of God into the natural world—these are all in direct conflict with science.

I’m not sure what Matzke means by saying “pretty much no religious person has ever taken this position” (what position?), but if he means “no religious people are prohibited from endorsing natural explanations as a method of God’s action,” he’s dead wrong. Remember that 40% of Americans are straight Biblical creationists, and many of the churches to which they belong do indeed proscribe accepting evolution as God’s method for creating humans and other species.

4. Matzke doesn’t like the term “accommodationist,” which he says was “invented by the New Atheists in its present sense as a term of abuse”.  He’s wrong here, I think: it was “invented” to describe a particular intellectual stance: the claim that science and religion are compatible fields of inquiry.  Now I don’t like that stance, of course, but the word itself is not a term of abuse, any more than “anti-abortionist” is a term of abuse. But again, that’s irrelevant to my piece.

Finally, Matzke questions whether Evolution should publish papers like mine:

 Is it good for the professional field of evolutionary biology for arguments about this kind of thing to be aired in the field’s top science journals? I recall a historian once writing that the journal Evolution was set up specifically to help make evolutionary biology into a serious professional science, and disabuse the world of the notion that evolution was more a topic of metaphysical and political discussions than pure rigorous science.

He says he could go either way on this, but let me remind Nick, in case he didn’t know, that well before I wrote my piece the journal created the “outlook on evolution and society” section (under which my article falls) to specifically deal with wider societal issues of our field.  Evolution, after all, has more ramifications for humans’ self-image than any other field of science (save perhaps cosmology). So why not discuss them in a special section of the journal? Further, it’s ludicrous to claim that such discussions have degraded evolution as a serious professional science. It’s been such a science since 1859.

Here, for Matzke’s edification, are the author guidelines for articles like mine:

Outlook on Evolution and Society articles present essays on the relationships between academic evolutionary biology, on the one hand, and other scientific disciplines and social issues on the other hand.

And here are some of the article on science and religion and have been published as “outlook pieces” (mine is last). I give the abstracts of each of the pieces as well:

Evolution and creationism in Middle Eastern Education: A new perspective, by Elise K. Burton

Statements made in a recent outcry against a creationist in the Israeli Ministry of Education starkly illuminated Western misconceptions about Iranian science education. These misconceptions are perpetuated not only among the general public but also within the international scientific community, where investigations of “Islamic creationism” often incorporate misleading assumptions regarding Islamic religious attitudes toward science as well as the nature of secularism in non-Western states. In turn, these assumptions have led to superficial analyses that overly rely on state religiosity to explain the treatment of evolution in national science education. Therefore, a new framework accounting for local political and social circumstances is crucial and urgently needed to effectively analyze science education in the Middle East.

Accepting evolution, by Anyusuya Chinsamy and Eva Pláganyi

Poor public perceptions and understanding of evolution are not unique to the developed and more industrialized nations of the world. International resistance to the science of evolutionary biology appears to be driven by both proponents of intelligent design and perceived incompatibilities between evolution and a diversity of religious faiths. We assessed the success of a first-year evolution course at the University of Cape Town and discovered no statistically significant change in the views of students before the evolution course and thereafter, for questions that challenged religious ideologies about creation, biodiversity, and intelligent design. Given that students only appreciably changed their views when presented with “facts,” we suggest that teaching approaches that focus on providing examples of experimental evolutionary studies, and a strong emphasis on the scientific method of inquiry, are likely to achieve greater success. This study also reiterates the importance of engaging with students’ prior conceptions, and makes suggestions for improving an understanding and appreciation of evolutionary biology in countries such as South Africa with an inadequate secondary science education system, and a dire lack of public engagement with issues in science.

Is the age of the earth one of our “sorest troubles”? Students’ perception about deep time affect their acceptance of evolutionary theory, by Sehoya Cotner, D. Christopher Brooks, and Randy Moore.

From the abstract:

. . . In this study, we examined how college students’ self-described religious and political views influence their beliefs about Earth’s age and how this may affect their knowledge and acceptance of evolution. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine these factors in college students.

The relationship between evolutionary biology and religion, by Michael J. Reiss.

Belief in creationism and intelligent design is widespread and gaining significance in a number of countries. This article examines the characteristics of science and of religions and the possible relationship between science and religion. I argue that creationism is sometimes best seen not as a misconception but as a worldview. In such instances, the most to which a science educator (whether in school, college or university) can normally aspire is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, the scientific worldview is unlikely to supplant a creationist one for students who are firm creationists. We can help students to find their evolutionary biology courses interesting and intellectually challenging without their being threatening. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution but better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.

and mine:

Science, religion, and society, the problem of evolution in America, by Jerry A. Coyne

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the U.S. suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Since creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the U.S. is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.

It’s curious that Matzke didn’t get his knickers in a twist about the Reiss paper, which is also about the conflict in America between religion and evolution. Could that be because because Reiss’s paper is far more respectful of religion than mine? It seems that what Nick objects to is not discussing religion and evolution in the journal, but discussing it in a certain way. For Matzke, evolution and faith must be friends, not opponents.

Owl Wednesday

April 18, 2012 • 10:45 am

The barred owl (Strix varia) is a noctural North American owl with a long life (10 years in the wild, up to 32 years in captivity. The Owl Pages list its many names (my emphasis):

The first description of a Barred Owl was published in 1799 by amateur naturalist Benjamin Smith Barton. In Latin, “varia” is a form of the word “varius“, meaning diverse. It has also been known as Northern Barred Owl, Swamp Owl, Striped Owl, Hoot Owl, Eight hooter, Round-headed Owl, Le Chat-huant du Nord (French for “The Hooting Cat of the North”), Wood Owl, and Rain Owl. It is also mistakenly known as a Bard Owl.

Here’s its distribution:

But perhaps the most striking thing about this owl, which gives it the name “hoot owl,” is its distinctive call. The Owl Pages say:

Voice: The Barred Owl is a highly vocal Owl giving a loud and resounding “hoo, hoo, too-HOO; hoo, hoo, too-HOO, ooo” which is often phrased as “Who, cooks, for-you? Who, cooks, for-you, all?” – The last syllable drops off noticeably. Like some other Owl species, they will call in the daytime as well as at night. The calls are often heard in a series of eight, then silence, when the Owl listens for a reply from other Owls. Other calls include “hoo-hoo, hoo-WAAAHH” and “hoo-WAAAHHH” used in courtship. Mates will duet, but the male’s voice is deeper and mellower. Many other vocalisations are made which range from a short yelp or bark to a frenzied and raucous monkey-like squall.

Here—have a listen!

My paper on religious and social factors affecting American acceptance of evolution

April 18, 2012 • 5:07 am

I’ve written a paper for the “Outlook on Evolution and Society” section of the journal Evolution, “Science, religion, and society: the problem of evolution in America.”  They’ve agreed to free public access since it’s about education, and you can download it free at the link.  Be aware of two things: 1) this is the accepted manuscript, and I’ll be making some stylistic corrections in it before it’s published, and 2) the paper was reviewed, so the facts and assertions in it have been vetted.

As you’ll see, it doesn’t pussyfoot around, but places the blame for evolution denial squarely on the shoulders of religion (something that accommodationists all know but are loath to admit), and then discusses ways to deal with religiously-based opposition.

UPDATE: I wasn’t aware this was behind a paywall; they may be keeping it there until the final draft is published.  You can access it through your library if they have a subscription, and I’ll see if I can make a pdf available to readers.

Religion poisons everything, including schoolgirls’ water

April 18, 2012 • 5:00 am

The Taliban, or someone of their stripe, are going after women again for the crime of trying to get an education.  CNN reports that “Extremists poison schoolgirls’ water“:

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) — At least 140 Afghan schoolgirls and female teachers were admitted to a local hospital Tuesday after drinking poisoned water, said local health officials, who blamed the act on extremists opposed to women’s education.

The victims range in age from 14 to 30 and were taken to a hospital in Afghanistan’s northeastern Takhar province after their school’s water tank was contaminated, according to provincial health department director Dr. Hafizullah Safi.

No deaths were reported, but more than half the victims partially lost consciousness, while others suffered dizziness and vomiting.

“Looking at the health condition of these girls, I can definitely say that their water was contaminated by some sort of poison,” Safi said. “But we don’t know yet what was the water exactly contaminated with.” . . .

In 2010, more than 100 schoolgirls and teachers were sickened in a series of similar poisonings.

During the Taliban’s rule from 1996 to 2001, many Afghan girls were not allowed to attend school, though the schools began reopening after the regime was toppled by the U.S.-led invasion.

Observers say, however, that abuse of women remains common in the post-Taliban era and is often accepted in conservative and traditional families, where women are barred from education and commonly subjected to domestic violence.

In January 2011, Afghan Education Minister Dr. Farooq Wardak told the Education World Forum in London that the Taliban had abandoned its opposition to girls’ education. But the group never offered a statement confirming or denying that claim.

Female educational facilities, students and teachers, meanwhile, have come under vicious attack as the insurgency has spread outside Taliban strongholds in the southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand.

Now I’ve often decried the fact that “moderate” Muslims never protest this kind of vicious extremism, and thereby are enablers.  Some readers have taken issue with this. So if you’re one of those readers, do post below every instance you can find of a Muslim group denouncing this incident.

h/t: Diane G.