Kitteh vs. easter egg.  No chocolate egg ever provided so much fun!

[viddler id=6cc46242&w=437&h=333]

And an Easter lol:

BioLogos, formerly headed by Francis Collins, is basically a Templeton-funded religious organization that hews pretty close to the NOMA line. They claim to accept the findings of science but assert that those findings comport absolutely with religion, or at least religion as it’s “properly understood.”  But they’ve now surrendered any claim to scientific veracity.

In line with their usual policy, they have a post on their website—a discussion with theologian Alister McGrath—that deals with whether Adam and Eve were historical figures (see below).  As one might expect from BioLogos, McGrath asserts that it makes “more sense” to see Adam and Eve as metaphors that  “encapsulate the human race as a whole”:

But, oh hai, in another place, discussing a different video that was removed from their website, BioLogos makes this statement:

For example, Dr. Waltke believes in a historical Adam and Eve, and was concerned that some might construe his appearance on our site as his own tacit approval for their non-historicity. In actuality, BioLogos does not take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve.

BioLogos does not take an official position on the historicity of Adam and Eve?? Do they not realize what they’re saying?  This is like asserting that “BioLogos does not take an official position on the age of the earth.”

Adam and Eve did not exist, and we know that because the entire human race did not descend from two people who were created ex nihilo about 6,000 years ago.  Science tells us that.  If BioLogos doesn’t take an official position on Adam and Eve, then they’re flying in the face of scientific fact.

Their refusal to take a stand on this issue is, pure and simple, intellectual cowardice, designed to avoid alienating some of their more literal-minded followers.  It’s equivalent to the Discovery Institute’s refusal to take an official position on the age of the earth.

And BioLogos no longer can credibly claim that they accept scientific truth.

The BBC has posted an updated article about Simon Singh’s court victory in his libel case.  There’s a nice two-minute video of Singh (with a weird haircut) commenting on the decision.

Dr Singh described the ruling as “brilliant”, but added that the action had cost £200,000 “just to define the meaning of a few words”.

“After two years of battling in this libel case, at last we’ve got a good decision. So instead of battling uphill we’re fighting with the wind behind us,” he said.

“The Court of Appeal’s made a very wise decision, but it just shouldn’t be so horrendously expensive for a journalist or an academic journal or a scientist to defend what they mean.

“That’s why people back off from saying what they really mean.”

The British Chiropractic Association, of course, won’t back down:

BCA president Richard Brown said: “We are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial.

“Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. The BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity”.

Honesty?  Like saying that chiropractic cures colic and earaches?

h/t: Otter

One thing I’ve noticed during the proliferation of teabagger rallies is that those people can’t spell. Well, maybe this is a general problem of Americans rather than right-wing loons, but look, if you’re gonna make a sign, could you please check the spelling?

Flickr has pictures of 60 hilarious teabagger signs.

New Scientist has an interview with Francisco Ayala, the evolutionary geneticist who just won the Templeton Prize.  I think anybody familiar with this website could fill in the answers, which are straight-up NOMA-style faitheism.  For example:

You won for arguing there is no contradiction between science and religion. Many disagree.

They are two windows through which we look at the world. Religion deals with our relationship with our creator, with each other, the meaning and purpose of life, and moral values; science deals with the make-up of matter, expansion of galaxies, evolution of organisms. They deal with different ways of knowing. I feel that science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God.

Some day, just some day, I’d like one of these people to describe in a bit more detail what religion helps us “know.”

Oh, and, like Ruse and other faitheists, Ayala claims that those among the faithful who see a conflict with science aren’t practicing proper religion:

And yet conflict exists. Why?

Religion and science are not properly understood by some people, Christians particularly. Some want to interpret the Bible as if it were an elementary textbook. It is a book to teach us about religious truths. At the same time, some scientists claim they can use science to prove God does not exist. Science can do nothing of the kind.

Thank you, Dr. Ayala.  Now would you mind telling those millions of fundamentalists that they simply don’t understand Christianity?

On mutual respect:

You talk about mutual respect between science and religion. How can we foster this?

People of faith need better scientific education. As for scientists, I don’t know what they can do: not many argue in a rational and sustained way that religion and science are incompatible.

Au contraire: I think most of us make that argument fairly rationally, for at least we explicitly define what we mean by “compatible” (for me, compatibility would mean that religion and science have similar methods for learning about the universe).

Ayala, like Ruse, sees evolution as way to resolve the problems of theodicy:

Why do you say creationism is bad religion?

Creationism and intelligent design are not compatible with religion because they imply the designer is a bad designer, allowing cruelty and misery. Evolution explains these as a result of natural processes, in the same way we explain earthquakes, tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. We don’t have to attribute them to an action of God.

This is problematic because it still leaves the big question of theodicy unanswered: why would an omnipotent and beneficent God allow the occurrence of natural disasters that kill a lot of innocent people? Note that Ayala claims that “science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God”. But why would such a God choose a plan for creation that requires millions of people and creatures to suffer needlessly?  If you’re religious, evolution—or the existence of “natural processes”—is not a sufficient explanation for evil or suffering. It just pushes the problem back a notch.

On morality:

What do you say to people like Richard Dawkins, who argue that we don’t need religion to lead moral lives?

One can accept moral values without being religious. However, by and large, people get their moral values in association with their religion.

Well, they might say that they get their moral values in association with religion, but I really believe, with Plato, that most peoples’ morality comes from places far deeper than religion, and in fact is antecedent to religion.  I would claim that in a world without faith, morality would increase, not decline.  Look at atheistic Europe, for instance.  But at least Ayala avers that you can be moral without faith.

I’m an atheist. Am I missing out?

No, because you can have a meaningful life without faith in God. But most people live in poverty and misery, suffering from diseases. The one thing that brings them some hope and meaning is their faith. I don’t want to take that from them.

This is a really bad argument for refraining from criticizing religion. As P.Z. has noted, none of us are boorish enough to preach atheism to our dying religious grandmothers.  Indeed, religion does bring some hope and meaning: that’s why it is strongest in those societies that are most dysfunctional (e.g., the work of Gregory Paul and others).  But religion is also a potent source of poverty, misery and disease (look at AIDS in Africa, for instance, or the effect of Islam on the suppression of women, or of Catholicism on the abuse of children), and by and large it’s an excuse to do nothing.  Without faith, we have only ourselves to look to, and, rather than blaming God, we must realize that we have to roll up our sleeves and fix those problems ourselves.

I think that by now all of us could give these stock answers to questions about faith and science.  Just adhere to and preach the following principles, and you’re on your way to a Templeton Prize!

1.  Faith and science are alternative and complementary ways of knowing about the world.

2.  Faith and science should respect each other.

3.  Faith and science are not in conflict.  If they appear to be, that’s simply because the faith is improper!

4   Faith is good because it makes us moral.

5.  If there is a God, He used evolution as His means of creation, and you shouldn’t ask questions about that.

6.  Atheists (especially New Atheists) should refrain from criticizing religion.

by Matthew Cobb

It’s not often I’ll cite the rightwing UK newspaper The Daily Mail, but yesterday they picked up on an amazing set of photos by Polish amateur photographer Mirosław Świętek. Świętek, a 37 year old physiotherapist, went out into the woods at about 3am and took these stunning photos of dew-covered insects. There’s a Drosophilid in there, just for me and Jerry. Apart from their beauty, these photos show the way that physical characteristics change depending on what size you are. When you are the size of an insect, being covered in dew is primarily a problem of aerodynamics and temperature, not getting wet! You can see more of Świętek’s amazing macro photos here. [UPDATE: a far wider selection of his photos (not all macro) can be seen here. For those interested in the technical aspects, he uses a Canon EOS 40D camera, with a Tamron SP 90 mm/2.8 1:1 macro. And a lot of patience.]

h/t: Nelly Gidaszewski

Philip Pullman responds deftly and incisively to a Christian who is offended by the title of Pullman’s upcoming book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ:

A sure sign that atheists are making progress is the increasing number of anti-atheist books issuing from theists (these, in fact, far outnumber the Big Four “new atheist” books).  And now there’s a push-back DVD, coming from, of all places, the UK: “God, new evidence”.  It’s produced by Focus, described as a “UK registered charity”.

Focus has produced a new DVD resource to help churches respond to the claims of new atheists like Richard Dawkins.

‘God: new evidence’ features Christian academics, including John Polkinghorne, former Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, David Wilkinson, Principal of St John’s College, Durham, and Rodney Holder of The Faraday Institute.

They shed light on some of the developments in science in the last half century that support the theory that the creation of the universe and earth has been designed, contrary to the claims of new atheists that it was a random change of events.

Producer David Couchman, said: “Dawkins claims that God is a delusion and that religious faith is evil. But what if the scientific evidence itself is telling a different story?

“Over the past fifty years, scientists have uncovered a series of remarkable facts which show that the creation is an extremely unlikely place, fine-tuned in many specific ways that make human life possible. It shows all the signs that it has been purposefully designed as a place for us to live.

“We’ve made ‘God: new evidence’ as a series of videos about these remarkable discoveries that point us towards the Creator’.”

Now what’s the harm of organizations like Templeton and BioLogos, you ask? Just read the above.  They are enablers of woo, ultimately devoted to the idea that science proves superstition.  There’s no difference between their mischief and the blather of homeopaths and astrologers.

It’s weird, you know, that—in the absence of evidence for God—the faithful always claim that even looking for such evidence is a misguided strategy. But whenever they think they have some evidence, as with the so-called “fine tuning” of physical constants, they’re not hesitant to use it.  It reminds me of the intercessory prayer study.  When the study found no evidence that prayer speeded healing, the faithful dismissed that study as wrongheaded, but had the evidence come up positive, they would have trumpeted it to the skies.

Polkinghorne, of course, was a recipient of the Templeton Prize;  Rodney Holder not only participated in a Templeton “Humble Approach” conference on “Multiverses and String Theory,” but also wrote a paper on miracles that won a Templeton Foundation Prize.

You can find all the videos here.  I can’t bear to watch them; perhaps a stalwart reader will report?

h/t: Miranda Hale