Dawkins to edit New Statesman Christmas issue

December 9, 2011 • 3:47 am

The New Statesman has announced that its Christmas issue will be edited by no other than Richard Dawkins, who will apparently fill it with all kinds of secular stuff. (This may be a counter to the issue guest-edited by the Archbishop of Canterbury last June.)

It looks a great issue, and will include a contribution by Hitch.  As I expected from Richard, it won’t be limited to atheist pieces—though all of the “Four Horsemen” will appear—but will also contain a good dollop of science:

Dawkins has contributed an essay, written the New Statesman leader column, and travelled to Texas to conduct an exclusive interview with the author and journalist Christopher Hitchens. They discuss religious fundamentalism, US politics, Tony Blair, abortion and Christmas.

Microsoft’s Bill Gates has written a column on the wonders of innovation, the political theorist Alan Ryan has written on Barack Obama, and there are contributions from some of the world’s most respected scientists, includingPaul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, and the space explorer Carolyn Porco, on Saturn. . .

In 2007, Dawkins, Hitchens, the philosopher Daniel Dennett and the neuroscientist Sam Harris were nicknamed the “Four Horsemen” of new atheism. Both Dennett and Harris have written essays for this issue, on human loyalty and free will, respectively.

Other contributors to the special issue include the human rights activistMaryam Namazie, the comedian Tim Minchin and the rabbi and broadcasterJonathan Romain.

Elsewhere in the magazine, the Poet Laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, speaks to the NS assistant editor Sophie Elmhirst about choosing morals over politics, reading poems at Occupy St Paul’s and her “Christmassy relationship” with God, Philip Pullman defends fairytales and Kate Atkinson offers an exclusive short story, “darktime”.

The issue will be on sale on December 13 in London and on the next day in the rest of Britain.

h/t: Micha

Obama himself supports limiting access to “Plan B” pill

December 8, 2011 • 2:26 pm

Yesterday I reported (or rather, the New York Times reported) that Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, had overruled the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to allow all women of reproductive age access to the “Plan B” contraceptive pill without a doctor’s prescription.  This overruling was unprecedented, and went against the advice of America’s major medical associations as well.

Today, in a statement at the White House, President Obama himself came out in support of Sebelius’s decision. According to the NYT, here’s what our Dear Leader said:

“The reason Kathleen made this decision is that she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going to a drug store should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could have an adverse effect,” Mr. Obama said to reporters at the White House.

“And I think most parents would probably feel the same way,” the president added.

As far as I know, the pill has not been shown to have “adverse effects,” and if Obama really is worried about the 10- and 11-year old girls, he could at least favor lowering the age at which women can buy the pills over the counter from 17 to 12.

We all know why Obama made that decision: he’s up for re-election next year and can’t be seen among moderates or conservatives as favoring sex for young girls.  (Most of those people wouldn’t vote for him anyway.)

In an unusual bit of editorializing in a news article, the Times mentions that possibility:

The bluntly personal nature of the president’s response suggested that the White House is well aware of the political sensitivities, going into an election year, of allowing broader distribution of the contraceptive, whatever the Food and Drug Administration’s scientific arguments in favor of it.

Yes, by all means let young girls have unwanted children; Obama needs himself re-elected.

Obama has caved in too much to conservatives in a misguided attempt to be conciliatory, but this ticks me off more than almost anything he’s done.  It’s just too damn obvious what he’s up to, and his reasons are completely incredible.

More cause for celebration: evolution acceptance on the uptick

December 8, 2011 • 9:48 am

According to a Gallup poll released today, there’s some heartening news: acceptance of evolution in America is on the rise. It isn’t jumping up precipitiously, but here are the latest data in a long-term (29-year) survey of Americans’ views on one aspect of evolution: how humans came to be (click to enlarge):

The good news is that  although America still remains well behind most European countries in accepting a purely naturalistic scenario for human evolution, an increase from 9% to 16% is a 77% rise!  That’s not to be sneezed at.  And the proportion of Americans who think that God poofed humans into existence has dropped by 4%—a 10% decrease.  (Those who think God helped human evolution along—the official position of the Catholic Church—have remained steady at 38% with some minor ups and downs.)

Some of the pro-evolution change has come from the “undecided or don’t know” camp, which this year is 6% but in 1982 was 9%. The other 4% of the increase came from the drop in straight creationists.

So things are looking up, I think.  And this increase resolves what had been a puzzle for me.  The data on religiosity in the United States shows it declining over time (see Sigmund’s post from earlier today).  Here, for example, is a figure from a 2011 paper by Solt et al. in the Social Science Quarterly  on religiosity and economic inequality.  (I discussed this paper a while back):

So if religiosity is dropping in America (the data above shows a decline of 20% in religiosity since 1955 or 13% since 1982), and Coyne’s Theorem predicts that acceptance of evolution is negatively correlated with religiosity (because religion prevents people from accepting evolution), then why hasn’t acceptance of evolution increased? Well, the latest data show that it has: the increase that seemed to begin in 2000 has been sustained.

It’s not a big increase, but remember also that, at least among countries, the Darwin-vs.-God curve is relatively flat.  Here’s a slide I made from survey data showing the relationship between acceptance of evolution and belief in God in 32 European countries (the US is circled).  The regression on these data (which is highly significant: p = 0.0002) shows that religious belief among countries explains 36% of the variance in evolution-acceptance (this may, of course, not be causal!), and that the slope of the line is -0.33.  That means that to get a 10% increase in evolution-acceptance, you have to give up 33% of your belief in God.  So there’s a flat curve for the tradeoff between Darwin and God. (I am aware, of course, that the relationship among nations may not be relevant to the tradeoff in the U.S).

But, at any rate, we have good news today.  And many of us feel that the benefits of waning religiosity far exceed those of simply increasing acceptance of evolution.

x

Guest post: Religiosity drops in America

December 8, 2011 • 8:02 am

Sigmund, who apparently scours the literature more closely than I, has, at my invitation, written up the results of a new Pew Survey on the prevalence of faith in America.  The results are heartening.

Pew Research Center survey reveals decline in US religiosity

by Sigmund

On November 17th, the Pew Research Center released the results of the survey, “American Exceptionalism Subsides—The American-Western European Values Gap”, designed to compare attitudes of the US population with those of four Western European countries, namely Britain, Germany, France and Spain.

The study involved a telephone based poll of 1000 participants in each country who were asked the same set of questions. While primarily focused on the question of “exceptionalism” – pride in ones national culture above all other cultures – it included several questions that help illuminate the difference in the value given to religion between the US and European populations.

Previous studies have demonstrated a much higher degree of religiosity in the US compared with most of Europe and the current survey, perhaps unsurprisingly, supports this finding.

“Half of Americans deem religion very important in their lives; fewer than a quarter in Spain (22%), Germany (21%), Britain (17%) and France (13%) share this view.

Moreover, Americans are far more inclined than Western Europeans to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 53% say this is the case in the U.S., compared with just one-third in Germany, 20% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 15% in France.”

Of particular interest, however, is the demographic breakdown of the US results. For instance the results reveals major differences in US attitudes to religion based on gender (women are much more likely than men , 59% vs 41%, to consider religion as being very important, as are older compared to younger individuals (57% vs 41%).

It is also worth noting that the religious attitudes of political moderates in the US are far closer to those of political conservatives than those of political liberals. When asked: “Is it necessary to believe in God to be moral?”, the US results show that 66% of conservatives agree, compared with 52% of moderates and 26% of liberals. [JAC note: perhaps this explains the Obama administration’s pandering to conservative views about contraception in their decision yesterday.]

One intriguing result from the demographic breakdown is in the effect that a college education appears to have on religious attitudes. While there is little difference in how those with and without a college degree view the importance of religion, individuals who have been to college are far less likely to say “it is necessary to believe in God to be moral” (37% vs 59%), suggesting, perhaps, that exposure to nonreligious individuals in the university may reduce bias against the nonreligious.

Despite the rather bleak current figures for the US population, the survey does give reason for optimism.

The current questionnaire is part of the Pew Centers global attitudes survey, a series of polls carried out in several countries over the past decade. Because the same questions have been asked of the same populations at regular intervals, we can see whether attitudes towards religion, or other subjects in the survey, remain stable or are changing.

In regards the question “Do you consider religion very important?”, the US results show a 9% decrease (59% to 50%) between 2002 and 2011. In comparison the European results for the same question in 2011 are both far lower than the US result (going from 13% in France to 22% in Spain) and much less variable over the preceding decade.

The shift of US religious opinion towards a more secular outlook is mirrored in the gradual change in the answer to the question “Should homosexuality be accepted?” The current result for the US population (60% saying that homosexuality should be accepted) shows a 9% increase since the 2002 survey, albeit still remaining far below the European levels, which vary from 81% in Britain to 91% in Spain.

If the current rate of change continues (and the demographic differences between religious attitudes of the young and older age groups render this change practically inevitable) we can predict a decline of US religiosity to levels approaching that of Western Europe within the next two generations.

Space shuttle video

December 8, 2011 • 4:32 am

[JAC note: Many thanks to Matthew for finding this.  The video is stunning, and you should indeed watch it on the big screen.  Even if you don’t like space-y stuff, you’ll find it inspiring, if for no other reason than it shows the stupendous feats of a highly evolved primate.  It also shows the power of science, which underlies all of this. We’re the only species capable of getting some of our members to walk around in the frozen vacuum of space.  Truly it is science and not religion that has brought us closer to the heavens.]

by Matthew Cobb

The Infinite Monkey Cage is a BBC Radio 4 science/comedy programme hosted by comedian Robin Ince and my colleague, Professor Brian Cox. Cox is well known in the UK for his TV work, and is an excellent science communicator. The radio programme is very good – the latest episode was on the origins of life and also featured Nature journalist Adam Rutherford, Professor Nick Lane of UCL and singer-songwriter Tim Minchin. Well worth a listen! You can hear an earlier episode, which includes me on the Peppered Moth and on genetic determinism here.

Ince and Cox also have a live stage version of the show, called Uncaged Monkeys, in which other sciencey folk get up on stage. The current tour includes The Guardian’s Ben Goldacre talking about Big Pharma and data sharing, Simon Singh discussing codes (and showing an Enigma machine in live action!), Helen Arney playing her ukelele and singing her science-based songs, and Tim Minchin duetting with Brian Cox. There’s also a question and answer session in which members of the audience ask questions of the participants. At the opening gig of the current tour – in Manchester on Tuesday – Robin Ince kindly invited me to join them, and I had to answer questions like do I think neutrinos go faster than light (no) or would I go to Mars (yes).

According to Twitter, it would appear that for many people the highlight of the show was Adam Rutherford’s very personal video commemoration of the Space Shuttle missions, which he made for Nature in conjunction with NASA, and which includes footage from every shuttle flight – the video was released within hours of the final Shuttle touchdown. The video was projected on a big screen, and was very moving.

Adam introduced the video by reminding that in 1966, Bob Dylan played in Manchester and was subject to probably the most famous heckle in history – one John Cordwell shouted ‘Judas’! Dylan replied in two ways. First he said – in typical Dylanesque fashion – ‘I don’t believe you, you’re a liar’ (Adam did a very passable imitation); then he turned his back and said to The Band ‘Play it f*%king loud!’. This was also Adam’s recommendation to the sound people at the show, and it is my recommendation to you.

Put it on full screen and turn the volume control up to 11. The music is by 65daysofstatic.

Heart Like a Wheel

December 8, 2011 • 3:46 am

This lovely song was written by the French-Canadian sisters Kate and Anna McGarrigle, known to folkies but perhaps not to many others. (Kate, once married to Loudon Wainwright, died of cancer last year.) I think this is the best McGarrigle song; it’s strange and haunting, almost medieval.

Linda Ronstadt did the most famous cover, but here the song is performed here by all three, joined by sister Jane McGarrigle and Maria Muldaur (remember “Midnight at the Oasis”?). The order of solos are Linda, Anna, and Kate (at the piano), and the harmony at the end is of high caliber.

There’s a great live version by Linda Rondstadt here, and the pure McGarrigle version is here.

Obama administration overrules FDA, prohibits unrestrained access to contraception

December 7, 2011 • 5:15 pm

This is a first: in no time in history has an American Secretary of Health and Human Services overruled a recommendation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  But Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just did so, overturning an FDA recommendation that all women of reproductive age be allowed access to the “Plan B” emergency contraceptive pill without a doctor’s prescription. Free access holds for women 17 and older, but the FDA recommended extended non-prescription access for younger women. (The pill, which contains progesterone, halves the chance of pregnancy if taken within three days of intercourse.)

According to the New York Times:

The pill’s maker, Teva Pharmaceuticals, had applied to make Plan B easily accessible to everyone. In a statement, the commissioner of the drug administration [i.e., the head of the FDA] Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, wrote that all the studies and experts agreed that young women would benefit from having easy access to Plan B.

The agency’s scientists, she wrote, “determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted disease.”

”Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider,” she wrote.

After reviewing the scientists’ determination, Dr. Hamburg wrote that she agreed “that there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential.”

Sebelius nixed this:

 . . . on Wednesday morning, Ms. Sebelius sent Dr. Hamburg a note saying that she did not agree, so the agency was rejecting the application for the change.

In a statement, Ms. Sebelius said that the drug’s manufacturer had failed to study whether girls as young as 11 years old could use Plan B safely. And since about 10 percent of girls are capable of bearing children as early as 11, those girls need to be studied as well, she wrote.

“After careful consideration of the F.D.A. summary review, I have concluded that the data submitted by Teva do not conclusively establish that Plan B One-Step should be made available over the counter for all girls of reproductive age,” Ms. Sebelius wrote.

Doctors are on the FDA’s side:

“Very few medications are this simple, convenient and safe,” said Dr. Kathleen Hill-Besinque, an assistant dean at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. . .

The American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have endorsed over-the-counter access to emergency contraception.

Make no mistake about it, Sebelius’s decision was made with the approval of President Obama, who knows the political costs of allowing young women free access to emergency contraception. In the minds of conservatives, this is a license for untrammeled sex.  And Obama’s running for President again next year.  This is not a medical decision, but a cynical and political one.

Steve Jones on Muslim students vs. Darwin

December 7, 2011 • 2:05 pm

When I reported earlier about Muslim students boycotting evolution lectures at University College London, some readers doubted that story.  Now my good friend Steve Jones, who gave some of those evolution lectures, confirms in the Telegraph that the story is true.  Go have a look at his essay, “Islam, Charles Darwin, and the denial of science.”

I have tried asking students at quite what point they find my lectures unacceptable: is it the laws of inheritance, mutation, the genes that protect against malaria or cancer, the global shifts in human skin colour, Neanderthal DNA, or the inherited differences between apes and men? Each point is, they say, very interesting – but when I point out that they have just accepted the whole truth of Darwin’s theory they deny that frightful thought. Some take instant umbrage, although a few, thank goodness, do leave the room with a pensive look.

The problem is not with any particular belief system but with belief itself. Sir Francis Bacon once said that: “If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” In other words, if you are absolutely sure that you are right whatever the evidence, you will end up in trouble; but if you are always willing to change your mind when the facts change you will emerge with a robust view of how the world works.

I sometimes wonder how many of those who pour their inane opinions about creationism into their young pupils’ ears ever consider the damage they are doing; not to my science, but to their religion. Why, when a student begins to learn the simple and convincing facts, rather than the fantasies, about how life emerged, should he believe anything else that his pastor, his rabbi or his imam has told him? Why build a philosophy based on fixed untruths, when we have so many truths, and so many things still to find out?

There is no creationism, no anti-evolutionism, that doesn’t sprout from religious roots.

 

h/t: Raymond