On this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn, Lauren, Gem, and Laura review Ray Comfort's new "documentary" with special guests Ash Burkowski and David Bonwick, and the panel bids farewell to evangelical cartoonist Jack Chick with a game of Jack or Fiction.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism that is produced by the Winnipeg Skeptics.
Links: Bad Science Watch | NHP Monograph Consultations (Bad Science Watch) | TRC #420: Origin of 420 + Gem Newman of Bad Science Watch + History Of Halloween (The Reality Check) | The Atheist Delusion (YouTube) | Checkmate, Atheists! (YouTube) | Jack Chick (RationalWiki) | Leonard Nimoy Gallery (NSFW)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | RSS Feed
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
14 November 2016
23 February 2014
LUEE Episode 75: News Update
Episode 75: News Update
This episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a classic news update show! Greg Christensen and Gem Newman discuss the #HamOnNye debate, the (latest) snake-handling preacher to die of a snake bite, Neil deGrasse Tyson's upcoming visit to Winnipeg, and much more!
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: The Creation of Debate: Should we engage anti-science? | Nye/Ham Postmortem: The Apologists for Religion | Answers for Creationists (Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, Steven Novella's Neurologica) | I Don't Debate Science | Reality Show Snake Handler Dies from Snakebite | Snake Handling | Neil deGrasse Tyson "The Sky Is Not the Limit" in Winnipeg | Cosmos Trailer | Astronomers Discover Oldest Star | Denmark Bans Kosher and Halal Slaughter as Minister Says 'Animal Rights Come Before Religion' | Copenhagen Zoo Kills 'Surplus' Young Giraffe Marius Despite Online Petition
What Are You Reading? Bad Pharma, by Ben Goldacre | Half Empty, by David Rakoff
What Are You Listening to? Common Sense | Hardcore History | Quackcast
Correction: According to Bishop James Ussher, the universe was created on 23 October 4004 BC, which would make it approximately 6017 years, 8 months old, not the figure of 6016 mentioned by Gem. We apologise for this error. But when you're already off by 13.7 billion years, who's counting?
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | Stitcher | RSS Feed
This episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a classic news update show! Greg Christensen and Gem Newman discuss the #HamOnNye debate, the (latest) snake-handling preacher to die of a snake bite, Neil deGrasse Tyson's upcoming visit to Winnipeg, and much more!
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: The Creation of Debate: Should we engage anti-science? | Nye/Ham Postmortem: The Apologists for Religion | Answers for Creationists (Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, Steven Novella's Neurologica) | I Don't Debate Science | Reality Show Snake Handler Dies from Snakebite | Snake Handling | Neil deGrasse Tyson "The Sky Is Not the Limit" in Winnipeg | Cosmos Trailer | Astronomers Discover Oldest Star | Denmark Bans Kosher and Halal Slaughter as Minister Says 'Animal Rights Come Before Religion' | Copenhagen Zoo Kills 'Surplus' Young Giraffe Marius Despite Online Petition
What Are You Reading? Bad Pharma, by Ben Goldacre | Half Empty, by David Rakoff
What Are You Listening to? Common Sense | Hardcore History | Quackcast
Correction: According to Bishop James Ussher, the universe was created on 23 October 4004 BC, which would make it approximately 6017 years, 8 months old, not the figure of 6016 mentioned by Gem. We apologise for this error. But when you're already off by 13.7 billion years, who's counting?
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | Stitcher | RSS Feed
06 October 2013
LUEE Episode 67: An Evening with Ray Comfort
Episode 67: An Evening with Ray Comfort
It's time for another movie review show! In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Greg Christensen, Richelle McCullough, and Robert Shindler discuss Ray Comfort's most recent YouTube "documentaries": Evolution vs. God and 180.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Evolution vs. God | Ray Comfort | The Atheist's Worst Nightmare (The "Banana Fallacy") | Crocoduck | PZ Myers on Ray Comfort (I Met Ray Comfort Tonight, Ray Comfort Confesses, Ray Comfort Sinks to New Depths of Pathos) | Jaclyn Glenn's Rebuttal of Atheism vs. God | Rick Mercer's Talking to American's Special (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) | Bilateria (Animals with Bilateral Symmetry) | "Your Argument Is Invalid" | Biblical Contradictions | "180" | Godwin's Law
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
It's time for another movie review show! In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Greg Christensen, Richelle McCullough, and Robert Shindler discuss Ray Comfort's most recent YouTube "documentaries": Evolution vs. God and 180.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Evolution vs. God | Ray Comfort | The Atheist's Worst Nightmare (The "Banana Fallacy") | Crocoduck | PZ Myers on Ray Comfort (I Met Ray Comfort Tonight, Ray Comfort Confesses, Ray Comfort Sinks to New Depths of Pathos) | Jaclyn Glenn's Rebuttal of Atheism vs. God | Rick Mercer's Talking to American's Special (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) | Bilateria (Animals with Bilateral Symmetry) | "Your Argument Is Invalid" | Biblical Contradictions | "180" | Godwin's Law
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
21 April 2013
LUEE Episode 55: Day at the Museum (Rawr!)
Episode 55: Day at the Museum (Rawr!)
On this road trip edition of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Greg Christensen, Richelle McCullough, and Robert Shindler visit Alberta's Royal Tyrrell Museum and spend the afternoon with research scientist Dr. David Eberth, who takes them on a special behind-the-scenes tour of the museum. The entire LUEE crew would like to extend heartfelt thanks to the Tyrrell Museum and especially to Dr. Eberth for this wonderful opportunity.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: The Royal Tyrrell Museum | Dr. David Eberth | Dr. Eberth at Imagine No Religion 2: "Evolution vs. Creationism: Why won't it go away?" | Dr. Ian Plimer Debates Dr. Duane Gish
Clarification: Explanation of the Global Temperature "800 Year Lag" (Potholer on YouTube, Skeptical Science)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
On this road trip edition of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Greg Christensen, Richelle McCullough, and Robert Shindler visit Alberta's Royal Tyrrell Museum and spend the afternoon with research scientist Dr. David Eberth, who takes them on a special behind-the-scenes tour of the museum. The entire LUEE crew would like to extend heartfelt thanks to the Tyrrell Museum and especially to Dr. Eberth for this wonderful opportunity.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: The Royal Tyrrell Museum | Dr. David Eberth | Dr. Eberth at Imagine No Religion 2: "Evolution vs. Creationism: Why won't it go away?" | Dr. Ian Plimer Debates Dr. Duane Gish
Clarification: Explanation of the Global Temperature "800 Year Lag" (Potholer on YouTube, Skeptical Science)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
24 March 2013
LUEE Episode 52: The Movie Review Show
Episode 52: The Movie Review Show
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, Robert Shindler, and Laura Creek Newman review several recent films from a skeptical perspective.
Warning! We discuss plot points in Life of Pi, Source Code, Wreck-It Ralph, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, Prometheus, Contagion, Looper, and the 2009 reboot of the Star Trek franchise in some detail. There are several spoilers large and small, so proceed at your own risk. Also, this episode makes copious use of "air quotes" for some reason. So, there's that.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Star Trek
Science Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: Medium
Source Code
Science Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: Maximum (All the spoilers!)
Life of Pi
Science Rating: ★★★☆☆
Spoiler Level: High
Wreck-It Ralph
Science Rating: ★★★★☆
Spoiler Level: Low
Contagion
Science Rating: ★★★★★
Spoiler Level: Low
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
Science Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: None
Looper
Science Rating: ★★★☆☆
Spoiler Level: Medium
Prometheus
Science Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: High (But who cares?)
Other Links: Sir Ian McKellen to Marry Sir Patrick Stewart | Bad Astronomy Review: Star Trek | Rasplex.com | Ridley Scott Says Jesus Was a Space Alien, or Something Like That
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, Robert Shindler, and Laura Creek Newman review several recent films from a skeptical perspective.
Warning! We discuss plot points in Life of Pi, Source Code, Wreck-It Ralph, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, Prometheus, Contagion, Looper, and the 2009 reboot of the Star Trek franchise in some detail. There are several spoilers large and small, so proceed at your own risk. Also, this episode makes copious use of "air quotes" for some reason. So, there's that.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Star Trek
Science Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: Medium
Source Code
Science Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: Maximum (All the spoilers!)
Life of Pi
Science Rating: ★★★☆☆
Spoiler Level: High
Wreck-It Ralph
Science Rating: ★★★★☆
Spoiler Level: Low
Contagion
Science Rating: ★★★★★
Spoiler Level: Low
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
Science Rating: ★★☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: None
Looper
Science Rating: ★★★☆☆
Spoiler Level: Medium
Prometheus
Science Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆
Spoiler Level: High (But who cares?)
Other Links: Sir Ian McKellen to Marry Sir Patrick Stewart | Bad Astronomy Review: Star Trek | Rasplex.com | Ridley Scott Says Jesus Was a Space Alien, or Something Like That
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
28 November 2012
What Does Creationism Say About Our Culture?
Cross-posted from Skeptic North.
According to a 2007 Angus-Reid poll, 59% of Canadians accept evolution and common descent, while 22% are convinced that God created human beings within the last 10,000 years (with acceptance of evolution being correlated with youth and with higher levels of education, and belief in special creation being more prevalent on the prairies). While it can be tempting to dismiss those who claim that evolution is a religion or that there are no transitional fossils as backward or fringe, the truth is that the prevalence of these beliefs (even in high places) is actually an interesting phenomenon.
As any skeptic can tell you, simply correcting misinformation—supplying the relevant facts, highlighting a logical fallacy, whatever—is nearly never enough to dissuade a believer. Why? Because beliefs don't stand and fall simply on their own merits. Understanding why people believe things that are sometimes downright odd can provide us with important insight. It seems to me that this sort of context can not only tell us how we might go about winning the argument, but it can give us insight into what the argument is really about.
Look, it can be great fun playing whack-a-mole with creationist claims (I've done it many times myself)—we can say that evolution is the cornerstone of modern biological sciences until we're blue in the face—but when you get right down to it, belief in creationism seems relatively benign when compared to (for example) the conviction that lemongrass makes a good cure for pancreatic cancer. But it's important to understand that pseudoscientific beliefs do not exist in a vacuum, that they are instead part of a larger cultural context: and that context should be of great interest to skeptics.
I'm sure that many of our readers remember that in a 2009 Globe & Mail interview Gary Goodyear (our Minister of State for Science & Technology, for those of you who were about to check Wikipedia) refused to answer a question about his stance on evolution, stating "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."
While many people were justifiably appalled that Canada's Minister of State for Science & Technology confused a question about his position on an important scientific issue with a question about his religion, I'm inclined to think that Goodyear may have simply been engaging in a rather artless attempt to dodge a question that he may have considered politically awkward (recognizing that his position is probably not in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus). Regardless, countless people swarmed to Goodyear's defence, with National Post columnist Jonathan Kay characterizing the Globe & Mail article as a "witch hunt".
So what does the prevalence of creationism (or at the very least, the hesitation to accept the strong scientific consensus) say about our culture?
When a person finds that an opinion (even if said opinion is a deeply held religious opinion) is contradicted by the scientific evidence, most reasonable people would probably agree that this person has two real options: to impugn the evidence or to change the opinion. The choice that an individual makes may be in some sense mediated by the answer to this question: Does this person think that the evidence is contradicting the belief, or do they think that the belief is contradicting the evidence?
However, there is a hidden third option: to blithely ignore the conflict. Whether it takes the form of treating science as just another social construct, no more valid than any other, or of simply denying the necessity of basing one's beliefs on evidence, this seems to be an increasingly popular tactic for coping with cognitive dissonance.
The fact remains that we now live in a culture in which personal opinion and scientific evidence are, in the eyes of many, given equal weight. We live in a culture in which it is commonplace for a person, upon finding that established science contradicts their personal opinion, to say, "All the worse for science!" This is troubling.
It seems that many people treat their opinions about science (or politics, for that matter) in the same way they treat their preferred sports teams. These opinions are strongly influenced by social and geographical factors, but that doesn't prevent anyone from strongly and cheerfully proclaiming the superiority of their side of the argument—and in both cases, people are unlikely to be swayed by the evidence (sorry, Maple Leafs fans).
In fact, for people who hold strong opinions on any subject, evidence that contravenes the opinion is actually likely to strengthen the opinion, rather than erode it. This phenomenon is known as the "backfire effect". A widely reported study on the subject (as it relates to factual claims in politics) was conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan and Georgia State University in 2006, and it concluded that "corrections fail to reduce misperceptions for the most committed participants. Even worse, they actually strengthen misperceptions among ideological subgroups in several cases."
No one can be completely immune to the backfire effect (or to any other cognitive bias). But if your primary conviction is to the method rather than to the conclusion, then perhaps you will be better equipped to recognise that it is your opinion that is in need of correction.
So what does creationism say about our culture? That, at the very least, we must remain vigilant.
According to a 2007 Angus-Reid poll, 59% of Canadians accept evolution and common descent, while 22% are convinced that God created human beings within the last 10,000 years (with acceptance of evolution being correlated with youth and with higher levels of education, and belief in special creation being more prevalent on the prairies). While it can be tempting to dismiss those who claim that evolution is a religion or that there are no transitional fossils as backward or fringe, the truth is that the prevalence of these beliefs (even in high places) is actually an interesting phenomenon.
As any skeptic can tell you, simply correcting misinformation—supplying the relevant facts, highlighting a logical fallacy, whatever—is nearly never enough to dissuade a believer. Why? Because beliefs don't stand and fall simply on their own merits. Understanding why people believe things that are sometimes downright odd can provide us with important insight. It seems to me that this sort of context can not only tell us how we might go about winning the argument, but it can give us insight into what the argument is really about.
Look, it can be great fun playing whack-a-mole with creationist claims (I've done it many times myself)—we can say that evolution is the cornerstone of modern biological sciences until we're blue in the face—but when you get right down to it, belief in creationism seems relatively benign when compared to (for example) the conviction that lemongrass makes a good cure for pancreatic cancer. But it's important to understand that pseudoscientific beliefs do not exist in a vacuum, that they are instead part of a larger cultural context: and that context should be of great interest to skeptics.
I'm sure that many of our readers remember that in a 2009 Globe & Mail interview Gary Goodyear (our Minister of State for Science & Technology, for those of you who were about to check Wikipedia) refused to answer a question about his stance on evolution, stating "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."
While many people were justifiably appalled that Canada's Minister of State for Science & Technology confused a question about his position on an important scientific issue with a question about his religion, I'm inclined to think that Goodyear may have simply been engaging in a rather artless attempt to dodge a question that he may have considered politically awkward (recognizing that his position is probably not in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus). Regardless, countless people swarmed to Goodyear's defence, with National Post columnist Jonathan Kay characterizing the Globe & Mail article as a "witch hunt".
So what does the prevalence of creationism (or at the very least, the hesitation to accept the strong scientific consensus) say about our culture?
When a person finds that an opinion (even if said opinion is a deeply held religious opinion) is contradicted by the scientific evidence, most reasonable people would probably agree that this person has two real options: to impugn the evidence or to change the opinion. The choice that an individual makes may be in some sense mediated by the answer to this question: Does this person think that the evidence is contradicting the belief, or do they think that the belief is contradicting the evidence?
However, there is a hidden third option: to blithely ignore the conflict. Whether it takes the form of treating science as just another social construct, no more valid than any other, or of simply denying the necessity of basing one's beliefs on evidence, this seems to be an increasingly popular tactic for coping with cognitive dissonance.
The fact remains that we now live in a culture in which personal opinion and scientific evidence are, in the eyes of many, given equal weight. We live in a culture in which it is commonplace for a person, upon finding that established science contradicts their personal opinion, to say, "All the worse for science!" This is troubling.
It seems that many people treat their opinions about science (or politics, for that matter) in the same way they treat their preferred sports teams. These opinions are strongly influenced by social and geographical factors, but that doesn't prevent anyone from strongly and cheerfully proclaiming the superiority of their side of the argument—and in both cases, people are unlikely to be swayed by the evidence (sorry, Maple Leafs fans).
In fact, for people who hold strong opinions on any subject, evidence that contravenes the opinion is actually likely to strengthen the opinion, rather than erode it. This phenomenon is known as the "backfire effect". A widely reported study on the subject (as it relates to factual claims in politics) was conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan and Georgia State University in 2006, and it concluded that "corrections fail to reduce misperceptions for the most committed participants. Even worse, they actually strengthen misperceptions among ideological subgroups in several cases."
No one can be completely immune to the backfire effect (or to any other cognitive bias). But if your primary conviction is to the method rather than to the conclusion, then perhaps you will be better equipped to recognise that it is your opinion that is in need of correction.
So what does creationism say about our culture? That, at the very least, we must remain vigilant.
21 October 2012
LUEE Episode 36: Common Creationist Claims, Part 2
Episode 36: Common Creationist Claims, Part 2
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, Greg Christensen, and Ian Leung provide more evidence for evolution, and discuss some of their favourite silly creationist arguments.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: On the Origin of Species | Index to Creationist Claims (Full Index, Giraffe's Circulatory System, Paluxy Footprints, Fossil Sea Creatures on Mountaintops) | Evidence for Common Descent (Talk Origins, Wikipedia) | Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve | The Problem of Induction | Dear Emma B | Species Distribution via Plant Rafts and Tree Bridges | Point of Inquiry: The Debunking Handbook | Feakes' Pamphlets | Neo-Darwinian Synthesis | The Lapine: Atheist Suicide Bomber Kills Eighteen Agnostics | John Scalzi Visits the Creation Museum (Part 1: The Photographic Tour, Part 2: On the Creation Museum)
What Are You Reading? The Wheel of Time Series | A Memory of Light, by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson | Have a Nice Day!, by Mick Foley | Foley Is Good: And the Real World Is Faker Than Wrestling, by Mick Foley | Chronicles of the Shadow War | Shadow Moon, by Chris Claremont | On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin | Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein | Old Man's War, by John Scalzi
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, Greg Christensen, and Ian Leung provide more evidence for evolution, and discuss some of their favourite silly creationist arguments.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: On the Origin of Species | Index to Creationist Claims (Full Index, Giraffe's Circulatory System, Paluxy Footprints, Fossil Sea Creatures on Mountaintops) | Evidence for Common Descent (Talk Origins, Wikipedia) | Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve | The Problem of Induction | Dear Emma B | Species Distribution via Plant Rafts and Tree Bridges | Point of Inquiry: The Debunking Handbook | Feakes' Pamphlets | Neo-Darwinian Synthesis | The Lapine: Atheist Suicide Bomber Kills Eighteen Agnostics | John Scalzi Visits the Creation Museum (Part 1: The Photographic Tour, Part 2: On the Creation Museum)
What Are You Reading? The Wheel of Time Series | A Memory of Light, by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson | Have a Nice Day!, by Mick Foley | Foley Is Good: And the Real World Is Faker Than Wrestling, by Mick Foley | Chronicles of the Shadow War | Shadow Moon, by Chris Claremont | On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin | Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein | Old Man's War, by John Scalzi
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
18 October 2012
LUEE Episode 34: Common Creationist Claims, Part 1
Episode 34: Common Creationist Claims, Part 1
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman discusses and rebuts common creationist arguments with the help of Ashlyn Noble, Greg Christensen, and Ian Leung.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: On the Origin of Species | In the Beginning | TalkOrigins.org | An Index to Creationist Claims | Neo-Darwinian Synthesis | Debating Creationists | The Evolution of the Eye (Wikipedia, Dawkins Explains Here, and Here, and Here) | Irreducible Complexity (Iron Chariots, Wikipedia) | Examples of Transitional Fossils (Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Eohippus/Hyracotherium, Ambulocetus)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman discusses and rebuts common creationist arguments with the help of Ashlyn Noble, Greg Christensen, and Ian Leung.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: On the Origin of Species | In the Beginning | TalkOrigins.org | An Index to Creationist Claims | Neo-Darwinian Synthesis | Debating Creationists | The Evolution of the Eye (Wikipedia, Dawkins Explains Here, and Here, and Here) | Irreducible Complexity (Iron Chariots, Wikipedia) | Examples of Transitional Fossils (Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Eohippus/Hyracotherium, Ambulocetus)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
25 July 2012
18 June 2012
Prometheus
There be spoilers. You have been warned.
I don't believe that I have ever been this insulted by a film. Ever.
I don't habitually use language like this, but... Fuck that movie.
Before I saw it, my friend Gary told me that it was "officially the worst film" that he had seen in a long time. "Please, do not spend your money on it. RottenTomatoes.com lies. It lies so much." I assumed that he was speaking hyperbolically. I was mistaken.
Several reviews from several people have adequately covered most of the problems that I had with the film. I'll post a few stray observations below, before linking to the more comprehensive reviews.
You'll probably notice that I'm a little angry at the people who made this film. I was really looking forward to it, and I was sorely disappointed. I can forgive the hand-waving and the bad science and the characters behaving like utter morons—but such bad storytelling really bothered me.
So... Here goes.
So there's a cave painting of a tall dude pointing at five dots in the sky. What the hell are those dots supposed to be? A constellation? Sure, lets go with that. And now they've arrived at the only "galactic configuration" that matches the map. Ignoring the fact that the term "galactic configuration" is either misused or hopelessly vague, there's only one star at the destination. If those dots were stars, how did you know which one to go to? They can't be planets, because there seems to be only one planet in the system. With one moon. And why did the cave paintings point to an alien bioterrorism facility instead of something more helpful? I guess the aliens hate us. Except that the cave paintings are from a very long time ago. Ridley Scott revealed in an interview that the reason the Engineers hate us is because we killed space-Jesus (not kidding), but these paintings actually predate them being mad at us. So sending us to their weapons factory to be horribly slaughtered was, what, a practical joke?
The thing that I found most offensive about the film wasn't the fact that they called evolution "Darwinism" (although that alone is probably enough to make me lose all respect for anyone who approved the script), or the fact that "that's what I choose to believe" is considered sufficient to justify the pants-on-head assertion that Erich von Däniken had any idea what he was talking about. Because it makes sense to just believe things arbitrarily, instead of believing things that, you know, have some basis in reality.
No, the most offensive thing about the film was the tremendously hackneyed writing, filled to the brim with trite dialogue, cheap "twists", and characters doing things without any apparent motivation. The film seems sadly convinced that it is exploring deep and profound questions, but collapses into a mess of plot-holes and bad science after the most cursory of inspections.
And the big reveals? That Weyland was still alive? Yeah, I know! That was painfully obvious from the moment that Noomi Rapace wants her alien squid-baby aborted (sorry, a "delivered by Cesarean"—can't use the "A-word"!) and we learn that the AutoDoc is configured only for male patients. That Weyland is Charlize Theron's father? Yeah, I know! The way she delivered that line, by the way? The worst part of the film, in my opinion.
When entering a scary alien structure on an unknown moon, be sure to take your helmet off at your first opportunity, because there couldn't possibly by any dangerous alien pathogens in the air*, and the fact that the air contains some level of oxygen is surely a guarantee that it is safely breathable and will remain so. Also, don't bring any weapons, because that would be stupid.
There's more, like the fact that the guy who criticizes Noomi Rapace for wearing a cross has a cross tattooed on his arm. There's the fact that they inexplicably have Guy Pearce (in horrible old-age makeup) playing a centenarian. Because, as my friend Brendan pointed out, there is not a single distinguished elderly actor in Hollywood. And running directly away from a large alien spaceship that's rolling toward you, rather than dodging to the side? Really?
I could go on, but it's already been expressed far better here:
Prometheus in 5 Minutes or Less
Prometheus: An Archaeological Perspective (sort of)
Red Letter Media talks about Prometheus
Prometheus: Pandering to Anti-Science
The Science of Prometheus
It's worth noticing that I actually disagree with Steven Novella a bit in The Science of Prometheus, above. I thought that the bad storytelling was actually worse than the bad science. And you know me: I love me some science.
Addendum: Phil Plait has weighed in, and mentions something that actually caused me to say, "Oh, come on!" while watching the film:
* My understanding of theoretical astrobiology leads me to believe that normally this actually wouldn't be a problem, because the probability that any given alien pathogen would be compatible with human physiology would be vanishingly small—but given that the whole reason that they're there is that they think the aliens made the human race, the idea that there might be some physiological compatibility there suddenly becomes a whole lot more plausible.
I don't believe that I have ever been this insulted by a film. Ever.
I don't habitually use language like this, but... Fuck that movie.
Before I saw it, my friend Gary told me that it was "officially the worst film" that he had seen in a long time. "Please, do not spend your money on it. RottenTomatoes.com lies. It lies so much." I assumed that he was speaking hyperbolically. I was mistaken.
Several reviews from several people have adequately covered most of the problems that I had with the film. I'll post a few stray observations below, before linking to the more comprehensive reviews.
You'll probably notice that I'm a little angry at the people who made this film. I was really looking forward to it, and I was sorely disappointed. I can forgive the hand-waving and the bad science and the characters behaving like utter morons—but such bad storytelling really bothered me.
So... Here goes.
So there's a cave painting of a tall dude pointing at five dots in the sky. What the hell are those dots supposed to be? A constellation? Sure, lets go with that. And now they've arrived at the only "galactic configuration" that matches the map. Ignoring the fact that the term "galactic configuration" is either misused or hopelessly vague, there's only one star at the destination. If those dots were stars, how did you know which one to go to? They can't be planets, because there seems to be only one planet in the system. With one moon. And why did the cave paintings point to an alien bioterrorism facility instead of something more helpful? I guess the aliens hate us. Except that the cave paintings are from a very long time ago. Ridley Scott revealed in an interview that the reason the Engineers hate us is because we killed space-Jesus (not kidding), but these paintings actually predate them being mad at us. So sending us to their weapons factory to be horribly slaughtered was, what, a practical joke?
The thing that I found most offensive about the film wasn't the fact that they called evolution "Darwinism" (although that alone is probably enough to make me lose all respect for anyone who approved the script), or the fact that "that's what I choose to believe" is considered sufficient to justify the pants-on-head assertion that Erich von Däniken had any idea what he was talking about. Because it makes sense to just believe things arbitrarily, instead of believing things that, you know, have some basis in reality.
No, the most offensive thing about the film was the tremendously hackneyed writing, filled to the brim with trite dialogue, cheap "twists", and characters doing things without any apparent motivation. The film seems sadly convinced that it is exploring deep and profound questions, but collapses into a mess of plot-holes and bad science after the most cursory of inspections.
And the big reveals? That Weyland was still alive? Yeah, I know! That was painfully obvious from the moment that Noomi Rapace wants her alien squid-baby aborted (sorry, a "delivered by Cesarean"—can't use the "A-word"!) and we learn that the AutoDoc is configured only for male patients. That Weyland is Charlize Theron's father? Yeah, I know! The way she delivered that line, by the way? The worst part of the film, in my opinion.
When entering a scary alien structure on an unknown moon, be sure to take your helmet off at your first opportunity, because there couldn't possibly by any dangerous alien pathogens in the air*, and the fact that the air contains some level of oxygen is surely a guarantee that it is safely breathable and will remain so. Also, don't bring any weapons, because that would be stupid.
There's more, like the fact that the guy who criticizes Noomi Rapace for wearing a cross has a cross tattooed on his arm. There's the fact that they inexplicably have Guy Pearce (in horrible old-age makeup) playing a centenarian. Because, as my friend Brendan pointed out, there is not a single distinguished elderly actor in Hollywood. And running directly away from a large alien spaceship that's rolling toward you, rather than dodging to the side? Really?
I could go on, but it's already been expressed far better here:
Prometheus in 5 Minutes or Less
Prometheus: An Archaeological Perspective (sort of)
Red Letter Media talks about Prometheus
Prometheus: Pandering to Anti-Science
The Science of Prometheus
It's worth noticing that I actually disagree with Steven Novella a bit in The Science of Prometheus, above. I thought that the bad storytelling was actually worse than the bad science. And you know me: I love me some science.
Addendum: Phil Plait has weighed in, and mentions something that actually caused me to say, "Oh, come on!" while watching the film:
In a key scene, scientist Elizabeth Shaw compares a sample of Engineer tissue to human DNA, exclaiming that it's a 100 percent match. The thing is, if you compared two humans' DNA you wouldn't get a 100 percent match! That only happens with identical twins. There are lots of DNA variations between humans, so a 100 percent match is literally impossible. And last I looked, we're not 8-foot-tall bald translucent bodybuilders with anger management issues.
* My understanding of theoretical astrobiology leads me to believe that normally this actually wouldn't be a problem, because the probability that any given alien pathogen would be compatible with human physiology would be vanishingly small—but given that the whole reason that they're there is that they think the aliens made the human race, the idea that there might be some physiological compatibility there suddenly becomes a whole lot more plausible.
13 April 2012
Creationism Makes for Antisocial Networking
A few weeks ago, Nathan Hatton, a friend of mine from the Winnipeg Skeptics, posted a link to an Examiner.com article that discussed a Tennessee bill that aims to promote "critical thinking" with regard to evolution, global warming, and other scientific subjects that "can cause controversy". Anyone with a passing familiarity with creationist propaganda should be able to spot the red flags a kilometre away. (This is HB 368/SB 893, which recently passed into law through the cowardly inaction of Governor Bill Haslam, in case you're wondering.)
Nathan quoted from the article: "Science is rigorous... Scientific theories must provide natural and testable explanations. Creationism and intelligent design provide neither." Many of his friends were rather upset by this, as it turns out, and the comment thread began to rapidly balloon in size. At his request, I took the time to respond to several of the claims made by pro-creationist commenters.
Comments are full and unedited (I have screencaps to settle any disputes that may arise), but are in some cases rearranged slightly to allow responses to directly follow claims, making the conversation a little easier on the reader. I won't reproduce every one of the 108 comments here, but I'll present both sides of this argument as fairly as I can. Spelling and punctuation as in the original.
I believe that the last commenter meant "Laconian", but given that Laconia is a region of Greece, I wasn't able to determine what argument this person was trying to make. With so little to go on, Google was unhelpful. I tried!
![]() |
| Image by Randall Munroe from the ever-awesome xkcd. (CC BY-NC 2.5) |
Nathan quoted from the article: "Science is rigorous... Scientific theories must provide natural and testable explanations. Creationism and intelligent design provide neither." Many of his friends were rather upset by this, as it turns out, and the comment thread began to rapidly balloon in size. At his request, I took the time to respond to several of the claims made by pro-creationist commenters.
Comments are full and unedited (I have screencaps to settle any disputes that may arise), but are in some cases rearranged slightly to allow responses to directly follow claims, making the conversation a little easier on the reader. I won't reproduce every one of the 108 comments here, but I'll present both sides of this argument as fairly as I can. Spelling and punctuation as in the original.
Commenter 1: wow, Nathan! There are some serious statements in there like teaching creationism is likened unto child abuse?!?! ! really? There are many scientists that have found Christianity to be the actual answer while trying to prove evolutionism. To think that teaching children to have faith in things that humans may not be able to "scientifically prove" is child abuse doesn't leave much hope for us, does it? Sorry brother, I can't say that I agree with that whatsoever..
Nathan: The "actual answer" to what? Whether a person is converted to Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, or any other faith while investigating evolution (I am sure that there are examples of each) is irrelevant to the point that "creationism" is not science and should not be part of a science curriculum. When it comes to the origins of species, a person does not need "faith" because it is something that we can "scientifically prove." Evolution is one of the most robust scientific paradigms we have. I'm all for religion classes and actually feel that students should be MORE educated on religion than they are now, but the place is not in the science classroom.
Commenter 1: You don't think there may be a small, even tiny possibility that science as we know it may actually opne day findc the truth to be that Creationism has a place? To ignore any path is to render ourselves ignorant of what it could possibly bring. We shouldn't take anything off the table if we are truly open to whatever the truth may hold. We all know my take on faith in God, but wouldn't it be silly to totally ignore the millions of people and artifacts that we have? Science should be embracing this to grow so we can all grow in understanding, I would think. Then again, who am I?....lol
Gem: In response to [Commenter 1]'s early comments, I'll quote Stephen Jay Gould, as I think that he said it best: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." Scientists aren't denying the possibility the universe may have been created, but there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, and a dearth of evidence to support creation. In science, we keep an open mind, but that doesn't mean that, given our current state of knowledge, all possibilities are equally likely, or merit equal consideration.
Commenter 1: we're debating theoretical data that, as far as we know, the government has altered so as not to alarm us of catastrophic events that have already begun to take place. This debate could easily go on forever. We're debating theories derived from findings, whether correct or not, based on man and his/her interpretation, and limited to what we believe we can or cannot prove according the the knowledge and understanding we have as of now. Something I learned from a very wise man was this. What I learn today will be wrong tomorrow. We're always discovering new things. The fact is, Christianity is what the new world known as the western hemisphere has derived it's laws and foundations upon.
Commenter 2: What that very wise man was describing was science. The book on religion never changes.
Gem: I would also dispute that the laws and foundations of the western hemisphere are derived from Christianity. I would argue that instead they are founded in the European Enlightenment. Regardless, this is irrelevant. We're talking about science, not law.
Commenter 1: That man was referring to something that had absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. Do you seriously believe we have discovered all the secrets? That we truly understand everything? Not possible my friend. Unless you have a time machine it simply seems ridiculous to discount anything that offers us substancial information and there is an unbelievable amount of information to support faith.
Commenter 2: Now you're describing science. If in the very minute chance that the beginning of existence is ever traced back to an omnipotent higher power, it will be science that proves it, not the bible. And it will be the working theory of evolution that gets there.
Commenter 1: and if it all points back to the Bible? what then, would your argument be?
Gem: To ask, repeatedly, if we "seriously believe we have discovered all the secrets" is a ridiculous straw-man. You are disingenuously misrepresenting our position, for no scientist or science enthusiast would propose such a thing. Instead, we recognise the limits of our understanding. We teach that which is established on a strong theoretical and empirical foundation. As we collect more data, we further fine-tune the models to ensure that they reflect reality as best we can.
Gem: You ask, "and if it all points back to the Bible? what then, would your argument be?" Then we would gladly reevaluate! Science is not ideologically dedicated to any conclusion; belief in a proposition should be proportional to the evidence that supports it. But you're proposing contrafactuals, here—there's no reason to believe that "it" will ever point back to the Bible.
Commenter 1: you can't disprove it and that information has been around longer than most of the things that we can date and use as fact. it's hypothetical to say the world has been here for millions of years, theoretical at best. Proof has not been provided except for what we can fathom.
Gem: [Commenter 1] keeps harping on about "proof": that's a red herring. Science doesn't deal in proof: it deals in theory and evidence. While some scientists may use "proof" colloquially, I would refer you back to the Stephen Jay Gould quotation that I posted a few minutes ago. All conclusions are provisional.
Nathan: The thing is, no matter how much evidence is put forward for evolution, the answer will never be "revealed" to theists who refuse to look at what overwhelming evidence there is. Same as the people who say the earth is flat. Or that rabbits don't chew cud.
Nathan: Above it should say "Or that rabbits chew cud."
Nathan: Evolution provides models that can be tested and falsified.
Commenter 1: To return to the point that began this conversation, I think we should be worrying about much more pressing matters than whether or not faith is introduced to the science classroom as we've already conceited, it may well be the truth that science is looking to prove in trying to discover how we came to be who and whaty we are today
Commenter 2:But... it's not. There's no evidence of it. And evidence is the root of all facts, and science. So it doesn't belong there, until there's something that leads it in that direction. That's like saying the flying spaghetti monster should be taught in classrooms, because you can't prove it wrong. The flying spaghetti monster MIGHT be the answer. But is it? Well no, probably not. So science wouldn't work with that theory.
Commenter 1: Prove to me that you love your parents...
Commenter 1: proof of what has happened, especially if it be by an all-knowing God as I and many others believe cannot be proven by a single train of thought. To discount things outside of what we know would be to prove ourselves ignorant
Gem: That old canard of "you can't prove love" was brought up. Again, this is absurd. I could provide you with ample evidence that I love my wife, and that she loves me. If my wife had no evidence that I loved her, I would hope that she would investigate the issue, and if she discovered sufficient evidence that I had been unfaithful (for example), I would hope that she would leave me.
Commenter 1: So when science opens our eyes to understand that 2000 year old book, after having to go through the trials and failures, what then will you say?
Nathan: Right. So the next time someone gets sick, I won't suggest anti-virals (developed with the help of evolutionary theory). I'll kill some doves and burn them on the altar. one works just as well as the other, right?
Commenter 1: prayer heals my friend...
Commenter 1: Faith healing, not as seen on tv, but true fith healing does exist. Ahh, but it takes absolute faith
Nathan: Again, no evidence for that. And they've done tests.
Gem: The proposition that faith healing works (but only for those whose faith is pure!) is clearly designed to be unfalsifiable. It is therefore scientifically useless.
Commenter 1: plenty of tests that cancers have disappeared, but with no explanation. Mysteries out there that we will all be happy to see
Nathan: Even if they have disappeared with no explanation, it does not mean that prayer did it.
Commenter 1: I've seen and been witness to healings that couldn't scientifically be proven
Commenter 1: Doesn't mean that faith in God and His work didn't heal, either, my dear friend
Nathan: healing could have come from many things. Why attribute it to the prayer?
Commenter 1: If science can't prove or disprove yet recognizes things claimed to be of God, how can we turn our backs on that?
Commenter 1: there are holes in scienced, it was developed by humans
Nathan: Ah, the 'God of the gaps' argument.
Commenter 1: you can't disprove it... nor can science prove the lack of existence of God. What we do know is there is an entire world beyond our imagination that we have no idea how to understand
Gem: [Commenter 1] asks, "If science can't prove or disprove yet recognizes things claimed to be of God, how can we turn our backs on that?" Science cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns or pixies, either. That doesn't somehow make them plausible or likely to exist.
Commenter 3: I have to say also that perhaps leprachauns do exist, as was said science should be testable, I am saying Creationism is. In this life there is known fact and there is faith. both are good
Gem: I see no reason to believe that faith is good or useful.
Commenter 3: creationism in true form IS scientific, has natural and testable theories
Gem: Such as?
Commenter 3: carbon dating, a man had his tooth pulled and carbon dated it. I don't remember the exact age it dated at but it was apparently thousands of years old. There are some creatures from dinosaur age that still exist which are listed in the Bible. The Bible supports dinosaur theories. I did not see the presentation myself or I am sure I could tell you alot more
Gem: First of all, those aren't testable claims made by a "creation theory": they are attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory. Even if evolution were "proven" false, it wouldn't make Biblical creation any more plausible.
Gem: I cannot speak to your specific tooth example, but radiocarbon dating is only accurate for items that are between 150 and 50,000 years, for several different reasons (significant increases in carbon production since the industrial revolution and atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950s, for example). There are several other types of radiometric dating, which work for various periods of time (due to the varying half-lives of the isotopes in question). These forms of radiometric dating are calibrated to each other (the isotopes used are valid for overlapping periods of time, which allows for such calibration) and to other forms of dating, such as sedimentary dating, tree-ring dating, and the known dating of archaeological objects whose provenance is well documented. They match, within known error bars. (More info here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html)
Gem: I'm not sure how creatures from the "dinosaur age" that still exist (e.g., crocodillians?) are relevant. Evolution does not predict that all creatures from the Cretaceous period would now be extinct. Would you mind clarifying this point?
Commenter 3: I believe that Christians came to North America because they weren't allowed to practice their religion freely at the time. Guess what? They aren't again
Gem: No? I find that claim laughable, given the fact that 84% of Americans are Christian (2005 estimate), 73% of Canadians are Christian (2010 estimate), and 96% of Mexicans are Christian (2005 estimate).
Gem: Christians can't practice their religion freely? Of course they can! They simply aren't allowed to impose it on others quite so much as they used to be able to.
Commenter 3: Christians have scientifically studied the dinosaur age and is not just a fly by theorie
Gem: "It is not just a fly by theorie"? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Commenter 3: for one thing it would be nice if you would give me time to respond
Commenter 3: I am done for now, look that stuff up on the computer if it interests you,
Commenter 3: and i think it was lakonian
Gem: You haven't given me anything to look up.
Commenter 3: then go away, I can't think anymore right now
Nathan: Well, whadda ya know, a "science versus religion debate" involving theists and methodological naturalists wasn't put to rest once and for all on my facebook page.
I believe that the last commenter meant "Laconian", but given that Laconia is a region of Greece, I wasn't able to determine what argument this person was trying to make. With so little to go on, Google was unhelpful. I tried!
12 April 2012
Atheists Can't Talk About Mental Illness
You may remember Mr. John Feakes. He is the curator of the creationist "Christian Evidences Museum" that the Winnipeg Skeptics visited in 2010. (Or perhaps I should say that he was the curator; the museum is apparently no longer housed at the Oxford Bible Church, and all of its "evidences" are currently in storage.)
A Twitter follower recently sent the Winnipeg Skeptics a link to a short article that Mr. Feakes wrote for his website. On the subject of mental illness, Feakes writes:
Of course! Because skeptics couldn't, say, see mental illness as a barrier to human flourishing.
This gentleman is apparently unable to fathom that we might be motivated by simple human compassion, or that the risks and harms associated with certain behaviours and mental states might be evaluated rationally.
I will say this, however: as a skeptic, an atheist, and a materialist/monist, I have nothing but compassion for those who suffer from mental illness, and see no reason to heap blame or shame upon them.
I won't waste my time or yours with a blow-by-blow, but the absurdities of the article should be clear. If you happen to disagree, then by all means, let's hash it out in the comments!
A Twitter follower recently sent the Winnipeg Skeptics a link to a short article that Mr. Feakes wrote for his website. On the subject of mental illness, Feakes writes:
Like most people, I agree that we ought to try to help folks dealing with psychological, emotional and behavioral problems. No doubt many of those that call themselves atheists, humanists or skeptics in Winnipeg would agree also. The very interesting thing is, whereas we all might agree that mental illness ought to be treated, such antitheists have no foundation for doing so.
On atheism, all that exists is reducible to matter and energy. Even human beings are at bottom nothing more than complex electrochemical machines. We, like everything else in the universe, are simply concatenations of atoms; mere molecules in motion. If this is true, it is difficult to understand how one could determine how exactly we ought to think and behave. In an atheist universe how does one determine which thoughts are more valid than others?
Of course! Because skeptics couldn't, say, see mental illness as a barrier to human flourishing.
This gentleman is apparently unable to fathom that we might be motivated by simple human compassion, or that the risks and harms associated with certain behaviours and mental states might be evaluated rationally.
I will say this, however: as a skeptic, an atheist, and a materialist/monist, I have nothing but compassion for those who suffer from mental illness, and see no reason to heap blame or shame upon them.
I won't waste my time or yours with a blow-by-blow, but the absurdities of the article should be clear. If you happen to disagree, then by all means, let's hash it out in the comments!
Labels:
atheism,
creationism,
ethics,
local,
religion
22 February 2012
LUEE Episode 14: A Creationism Primer
Episode 14: A Creationism Primer
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Robert Shindler, Laura Targownik, Richelle McCullough, and Greg Christensen define creationism and discuss several key points relating to intelligent design, evolution, and the scientific method.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Quebec Kids Cannot Opt Out of Religion Course (CTV, Global) | Hyperbaric Chamber Explosion Kills Horse and Employee (Eventing Nation, Chronicle of Horse, Chronicle of Horse Followup) | Hyperbaric-Oxygen Therapy | An Introduction to Creationism | TalkOrigins | Index to Creationist Claims | The Winnipeg Skeptics Visit the Creation Museum | The Counter-Creationism Handbook
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Robert Shindler, Laura Targownik, Richelle McCullough, and Greg Christensen define creationism and discuss several key points relating to intelligent design, evolution, and the scientific method.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Quebec Kids Cannot Opt Out of Religion Course (CTV, Global) | Hyperbaric Chamber Explosion Kills Horse and Employee (Eventing Nation, Chronicle of Horse, Chronicle of Horse Followup) | Hyperbaric-Oxygen Therapy | An Introduction to Creationism | TalkOrigins | Index to Creationist Claims | The Winnipeg Skeptics Visit the Creation Museum | The Counter-Creationism Handbook
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
15 January 2012
LUEE Episode 9: Communicating with People Who Believe Weird Things
Episode 9: Communicating with People Who Believe Weird Things
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, Anlina Sheng, and Greg Christensen discuss how to approach someone with odd beliefs and whether or not it's okay to be a dick in the name of science.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Legal Challenge to Catholic Schools' Taxpayer Funding | Phil Plait's "Don't Be a Dick" | Greta Christina's "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" | Intelligence2 Debate: "The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World" | The Winnipeg Skeptics Visit a Creation Museum | Gem Newman's "I Don't Debate Science" | Cut Onion Contamination on Snopes
Also on this episode, the first instalment of Where's My Jetpack? This week Old Man Newman asks, "Where's my jetpack?"
Where's My Jetpack? Links: Soar Over Water on Your Hydro Powered Jet Pack | Man with Jetpack Races Actual Jets | Jetpack (Wikipedia)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, Anlina Sheng, and Greg Christensen discuss how to approach someone with odd beliefs and whether or not it's okay to be a dick in the name of science.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.
Links: Legal Challenge to Catholic Schools' Taxpayer Funding | Phil Plait's "Don't Be a Dick" | Greta Christina's "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" | Intelligence2 Debate: "The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World" | The Winnipeg Skeptics Visit a Creation Museum | Gem Newman's "I Don't Debate Science" | Cut Onion Contamination on Snopes
Also on this episode, the first instalment of Where's My Jetpack? This week Old Man Newman asks, "Where's my jetpack?"
Where's My Jetpack? Links: Soar Over Water on Your Hydro Powered Jet Pack | Man with Jetpack Races Actual Jets | Jetpack (Wikipedia)
Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email
Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed
04 October 2011
Skeptical News Roundup!
Some quick hits, cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog!
Steve Thoms from Skeptic North has posted an excellent summary of the WiFi scare, detailing why you shouldn't worry too much about EMF.
This wonderful Pharyngula post was recently nominated for the 2011 edition of The Open Laboratory. This provides me with an excuse to link to it, which I've been meaning to do for months. Give it a read. Seriously, it's excellent.
Diana Goods of the Humanist Association of Manitoba wrote a nice letter to the editor explaining why Steinbach's newest megachurch isn't anything to get excited about. Hat tip to Jeff Olsson.
Also from Pharyngula comes the tale of this new lunacy from Orson Scott Card. Apparently Card's 2008 rewrite of Hamlet depicts the ghostly king as an evil paedophile who turns everyone gay. I'm not making this up.
And finally, on a lighter note, Felicia Day linked to this on Google+:
Also, these watches are awesomely geeky. That is all.
Steve Thoms from Skeptic North has posted an excellent summary of the WiFi scare, detailing why you shouldn't worry too much about EMF.
This wonderful Pharyngula post was recently nominated for the 2011 edition of The Open Laboratory. This provides me with an excuse to link to it, which I've been meaning to do for months. Give it a read. Seriously, it's excellent.
Diana Goods of the Humanist Association of Manitoba wrote a nice letter to the editor explaining why Steinbach's newest megachurch isn't anything to get excited about. Hat tip to Jeff Olsson.
Also from Pharyngula comes the tale of this new lunacy from Orson Scott Card. Apparently Card's 2008 rewrite of Hamlet depicts the ghostly king as an evil paedophile who turns everyone gay. I'm not making this up.
And finally, on a lighter note, Felicia Day linked to this on Google+:
Also, these watches are awesomely geeky. That is all.
12 July 2011
Evidence for Creationism? Nope!
Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.
So creationist David Buckna has been hanging out in the comments section of the Winnipeg Skeptics blog for the last few days. Rather than have my replies buried deep in the comments section, I like to use them as the opportunity for blog-fodder, especially when they begin to exceed the character limits imposed on comments by the various blogging platforms that we use.
Here is Buckna's most recent comment:
Is it any wonder that I keep having to dig these out of the spam filter?
In any event, I'll try to address each claim one by one.
I agree with you, and I made no such claim. I'll repeat what I said, as it seems like you weren't listening: "Critiquing evolution does provide evidence for the creationist position."
So sure, feel free to critique evolution. That's fine. But you should understand that if you are advocating an alternative hypothesis (as creationists are), you are obliged to provide evidence for it.
Obviously.
This is evidence? That article is hilarious! It contains nothing but wild assertions and Biblical quotations. The author seems to think that because the universe is composed "of Space, Matter, and Time, each permeating and representing the whole", this somehow provides evidence that it was created by a triune God.
In support of his thesis, Morris states that "in fact, many scientists speak of it as a Space-Matter-Time continuum." Actually, they don't. From what little I understand of the topic, space and time speak to the dimensionality of our universe. Our universe is composed of matter and energy (which are interchangeable). Why not then speak of a "space-matter-time-energy continuum", you might ask? Because that wouldn't fit the pattern of the trinity, of course!
And scientists speak of it as a "space-time continuum"; it seems to be mostly creationists who speak of it as a "space-matter-time continuum" (here, let me Google that for you).
So you look at the "geological features" of the planet and infer catastrophism "on a global and regional scale"? You were not specific, probably because you'd like to maintain a position of unfalsifiability. Perhaps you're referring to the Grand Canyon? It's features are not consistent with a global flood. The geologic column? Ditto. Fossil sorting? Nope.
And "the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion)"? What's that supposed to mean? Presumably that complex life forms appeared suddenly, with no ancestral fossils? That is false. The Cambrian "explosion" was "sudden" on a geological timescale, but actually took place over an estimated 70–80 million years, and is in no way inconsistent with an evolutionary understanding of speciation. The Wikipedia article provides a useful summary of the Cambrian explosion for anyone interested.
As for "man and apes have a separate ancestry", you'd be wrong. Humans are apes. If you want to present evidence to the contrary, be my guest. Until then, citation needed.
You say that natural selection is "a creationist’s idea". Perhaps you're referring to Gregor Mendel's theories of inheritence? The term "natural selection" was first coined by Darwin in Origin, but even if it had originated with a creationist, that's a nonsequitur. If you would kindly limit yourself to arguments that make sense, I'm sure that we'd all appreciate it.
I won't waste anyone's time discussing the "design inference", as it has been more than adequately addressed elswhere, most notably at Iron Chariots and at Talk Origins' Index to Creationist Claims. If you're interested, you know where to look.
I'm familiar with Kuhn. But paradigm shifts are rare, and I'm not convinced that we're on the verge of one. There are also many insightful criticisms of Kuhn's work, some of which are summarised here. But I think that PZ Myers addresses this claim quite adequately here.
So you've thrown a veritable Gish Gallop of nonsense at the wall, hoping that some of it will stick. What a waste of time.
Look, Buckna: I have neither the time no the inclination to deal with any more of your foolishness. I have two jobs, a family, and a community of friends with whom I'd like to spend more time. I do this in my free time, which is scarce enough, and I have other projects on which I'd like to work. So unless you can come up with something interesting, instead of just throwing out wild assertions and long-debunked creationist canards, I'm not going to waste any more time on you.
![]() |
| Here we go again. |
So creationist David Buckna has been hanging out in the comments section of the Winnipeg Skeptics blog for the last few days. Rather than have my replies buried deep in the comments section, I like to use them as the opportunity for blog-fodder, especially when they begin to exceed the character limits imposed on comments by the various blogging platforms that we use.
Here is Buckna's most recent comment:
Gem wrote: “If your only means of supporting your position is to attempt to poke holes in the position of your opponents, you demonstrate that your own position is untenable. Please present evidence for your position.”
You are not obliged in science to come up with an alternative theory for a theory you are criticizing. There is no rule like that in science.
That said, there is ample evidence and related inferences for creation/intelligent design, but evolutionists choose to ignore them because evolutionists interpret evidence and data through the lense of philosophical naturalism. Why _is_ evolution the one subject skeptics aren’t skeptical about?
Evidence for creation/intelligent design include: the universe is a Tri-Universe,
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2590/215/
earth’s geologic features appear to have been fashioned by rapid, catastrophic processes on a global and regional scale, the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion), man and apes have a separate ancestry, natural selection (a creationist’s idea), the design inference,
rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from radioactive crystals
http://www.icr.org/article/new-rate-data-support-young-world/
irreducible complexity, the complexity of living cells, etc.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/pdf/464664a.pdf
Maybe it’s time for the evolutionists to read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
Are we on the verge of another great paradigm shift?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
“In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Thomas Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative. There are many examples in the history of science in which confidence in the established frame of thought was eventually vindicated. Whether the anomalies of a candidate for a new paradigm will be resolvable is almost impossible to predict. Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory’s potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift will have occurred.”
Is it any wonder that I keep having to dig these out of the spam filter?
In any event, I'll try to address each claim one by one.
You are not obliged in science to come up with an alternative theory for a theory you are criticizing. There is no rule like that in science.
I agree with you, and I made no such claim. I'll repeat what I said, as it seems like you weren't listening: "Critiquing evolution does provide evidence for the creationist position."
So sure, feel free to critique evolution. That's fine. But you should understand that if you are advocating an alternative hypothesis (as creationists are), you are obliged to provide evidence for it.
Obviously.
Evidence for creation/intelligent design include: the universe is a Tri-Universe,
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2590/215/
This is evidence? That article is hilarious! It contains nothing but wild assertions and Biblical quotations. The author seems to think that because the universe is composed "of Space, Matter, and Time, each permeating and representing the whole", this somehow provides evidence that it was created by a triune God.
In support of his thesis, Morris states that "in fact, many scientists speak of it as a Space-Matter-Time continuum." Actually, they don't. From what little I understand of the topic, space and time speak to the dimensionality of our universe. Our universe is composed of matter and energy (which are interchangeable). Why not then speak of a "space-matter-time-energy continuum", you might ask? Because that wouldn't fit the pattern of the trinity, of course!
And scientists speak of it as a "space-time continuum"; it seems to be mostly creationists who speak of it as a "space-matter-time continuum" (here, let me Google that for you).
earth’s geologic features appear to have been fashioned by rapid, catastrophic processes on a global and regional scale, the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion), man and apes have a separate ancestry, natural selection (a creationist’s idea), the design inference,
So you look at the "geological features" of the planet and infer catastrophism "on a global and regional scale"? You were not specific, probably because you'd like to maintain a position of unfalsifiability. Perhaps you're referring to the Grand Canyon? It's features are not consistent with a global flood. The geologic column? Ditto. Fossil sorting? Nope.
And "the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion)"? What's that supposed to mean? Presumably that complex life forms appeared suddenly, with no ancestral fossils? That is false. The Cambrian "explosion" was "sudden" on a geological timescale, but actually took place over an estimated 70–80 million years, and is in no way inconsistent with an evolutionary understanding of speciation. The Wikipedia article provides a useful summary of the Cambrian explosion for anyone interested.
As for "man and apes have a separate ancestry", you'd be wrong. Humans are apes. If you want to present evidence to the contrary, be my guest. Until then, citation needed.
You say that natural selection is "a creationist’s idea". Perhaps you're referring to Gregor Mendel's theories of inheritence? The term "natural selection" was first coined by Darwin in Origin, but even if it had originated with a creationist, that's a nonsequitur. If you would kindly limit yourself to arguments that make sense, I'm sure that we'd all appreciate it.
I won't waste anyone's time discussing the "design inference", as it has been more than adequately addressed elswhere, most notably at Iron Chariots and at Talk Origins' Index to Creationist Claims. If you're interested, you know where to look.
Maybe it’s time for the evolutionists to read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
Are we on the verge of another great paradigm shift?
I'm familiar with Kuhn. But paradigm shifts are rare, and I'm not convinced that we're on the verge of one. There are also many insightful criticisms of Kuhn's work, some of which are summarised here. But I think that PZ Myers addresses this claim quite adequately here.
[M]ainstream journalists play this game with scientists, and some scientists play it up as well; but the real masters are the creationists. It's all they've got: rhetoric that tries to put them in the role of the brave, noble, clever underdog trying to overcome the stifling influence of a stagnant scientific orthodoxy. It's even more false, but it does appeal to the media.
Can we just get something straight? Science builds on past discoveries. You don't get to cherry pick what bits you want to include in your theory — successful new theories don't throw away old evidence, they extend and strengthen and reinforce, and offer new insights. There may be new theories that follow the theory of evolution … but they will all incorporate the basic facts of earth's history — its age, common descent, the relationships between species, etc. — and will not be any more appealing to creationists than what we've got now.
So you've thrown a veritable Gish Gallop of nonsense at the wall, hoping that some of it will stick. What a waste of time.
Look, Buckna: I have neither the time no the inclination to deal with any more of your foolishness. I have two jobs, a family, and a community of friends with whom I'd like to spend more time. I do this in my free time, which is scarce enough, and I have other projects on which I'd like to work. So unless you can come up with something interesting, instead of just throwing out wild assertions and long-debunked creationist canards, I'm not going to waste any more time on you.
08 July 2011
I Get Mail: Creationism Edition!
![]() |
| Wow, that was quick. |
I just received the following email from David Buckna, who I think is probably also the anonymous commenter from my previous post about creationism. [Edit: Nope, apparently it wasn't him.]
Subject: Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
Gem:
Programmers utilized complex codes to create software. The genetic code, which is more sophisticated, controls the physical processes of life and is accompanied by elaborate transmission and duplication systems.
How does evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?
My first question is this: In what way is the genetic code "more sophisticated" than, say, C++ or SmallTalk or Python or MATLAB? (Okay, I'll grant you MATLAB.)
The theory of evolution proposes that mutations (insertions, deletions, changes) to the genetic "code" are acted upon by natural selection. Those that are advantageous are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.
It's important to keep in mind that this code is does not constitute information in any abstract or absolute sense; it only constitutes a "code" in the context of the biological processes involved in reading and replicating it.
Similarly, the code "buffer = ( char* ) malloc ( i + 1 );" is meaningful in the context of C but meaningless in the context of Java. If C had never been invented, that code segment would be gibberish. And here's the important bit: genetic "code" (e.g., "ATA CTG") outside of the context of DNA is also meaningless gibberish.
I recognise that Buckna's question was probably disingenuous: he's not looking for an answer; he's looking to play "stump the evolutionist". But it's possible that others may learn when proponents of science respond to his ramblings.
It's interesting to note that this is probably also the same creationist who attempted to insert his propaganda into Jeff Proling's Dinosauria On-Line. The story is enlightening. He's also been trolling PZ Myers and the folks at Radio Freethinker, so I'm in good company.
Addendum (11 July 2011): After the 40+ comments that this response has garnered so far, it occurs to me that I should make a few things clear.
The original question that was posed to me ("How does evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?") should be better addressed to an evolutionary biologist. I briefly addressed some of the premises of Buckna's argument from the perspective of a software developer, but I'm no expert in evolution, nor have I ever claimed to be. It seems to me that the combination of random variation and selection adequately explains increasing information content over time (as can be trivially demonstrated via computer simulation).
But let's suppose for a moment that the answer was, "I don't know. I don't know how evolution accounts for that." So what? The argument "Since evolution can't explain X, creationism is true!" is fallacious. I'm told that there was a time before we understood how electrostatic discharges worked (although I wasn't there). However, to assert that since science couldn't explain lightning it therefore must have been a manifestation of Zeus' divine will would be to appeal to a god of the gaps.
The evidence for special creation is non-existent, while the evidence for evolution is legion. (Look here if you'd like some examples.) That said, even if there were no convincing evidence for evolution, or if all evidence for evolution were convincingly falsified, that would not somehow make special creation a plausible alternative hypothesis—to promote this idea is to commit the fallacy of the false dilemma. Critiquing evolution does provide evidence for the creationist position.
If your only means of supporting your position is to attempt to poke holes in the position of your opponents, you demonstrate that your own position is untenable. Please present evidence for your position.
An Introduction to Creationism
Cross-posted from SkepticsOnThe.Net.
Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and everything within it is the result of special creation by a supernatural entity. Creationists hold that the diversity of life did not result from natural processes such as evolution, but that human beings and other animals were explicitly created by one or more deities.
Proponents of creationism commonly propose that educators should "teach the controversy" between evolution and creationism, or that students should learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories—but evolution is scientifically uncontroversial. According to a 2009 Pew Research poll, "nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public." Scientific acceptance of evolution is even higher among biologists and others trained in the life sciences.
Creationists typically belong to one of two groups:
Until the middle of the twentieth century, teaching the theory of evolution was forbidden by law in many states. When challenged on First Amendment grounds, these laws were found to be in violation of the establishment clause and were rescinded. After a series of unsuccessful attempts to reinstate the teaching of creationism in American public schools, many Old Earth Creationists re-branded themselves proponents of "Intelligent Design", intending to mask their religious agenda.
Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first court case to test the teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that "Intelligent Design is not science, and ... cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents." This ruling was based on testimony from leading scientists in the field and in part on the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document", whose stated goal was "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".
More recent creationist tactics have focused on "academic freedom", proposing that creationists are oppressed by mainstream science. This was the theme of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which also attempted to link the theory of evolution to fascism and genocide. The National Center for Science Education put together the excellent Expelled Exposed website which addressed the film's many gross misstatements of fact.
Support and Opposition
The leading modern proponents of Young Earth Creationism include Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, who runs Kentucky's Creation Museum, Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism, who ran the now-defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land, Ray Comfort of The Way of the Master, and the Institute for Creation Research. Intelligent Design Creationism is promoted primarily by the Washington-based Discovery Institute.
The leading modern opponents of creationism include Dr. Eugenie Scott and The National Center for Science Education, popular blogger and evolutionary biologist Professor PZ Myers, Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella, and scientists and skeptics around the world.
Creationist Claims Refuted
As no persuasive scientific evidence exists that supports creationism, creationists commonly attempt to advance their cause by proposing problems with evolution—this attempts to leverage a false dichotomy between creationism and evolution: any problems that exist with the current formulation of the theory of evolution do not provide evidence for creationism.
The Index to Creationist Claims is an indispensable reference site that provides refutations of many of the most common creationist attacks on evolution. Here is a small sample:
Creation Museums
Private museums that promote a literal biblical view of history can be found in several cities across North America. PZ Myers and the Secular Student Alliance toured Kentucky's Creation Museum run by Answers in Genesis in 2009. (You can find an account of the trip written by Jen McCreight here.) In 2010 the Winnipeg Skeptics visited Manitoba's much smaller Dinosaur Discovery Zone Kids Club & Creation Museum run by CARE Ministries. (You can find an account of the trip here.)
References and Suggested Reading:
Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. "The Wedge". Discovery Institute. Accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Theobald, Douglas. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent. Version 2.87. Updated 19 June 2007, accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Isaak, Mark (editor). An Index to Creationist Claims. Updated 5 November 2006, accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
The National Center for Science Eductation. Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks. Accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.expelledexposed.com/
The National Center for Science Eductation. "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial". 17 October 2008, accessed 3 July 2011. http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover
The National Center for Science Eductation. Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Volume 26, Issues 1–2. January–April 2006, accessed 3 July 2011. (Some articles not available online.) http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2
Pew Research Center. "Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago. 9 July 2009, accessed 3 July 2011. http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and everything within it is the result of special creation by a supernatural entity. Creationists hold that the diversity of life did not result from natural processes such as evolution, but that human beings and other animals were explicitly created by one or more deities.
Proponents of creationism commonly propose that educators should "teach the controversy" between evolution and creationism, or that students should learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories—but evolution is scientifically uncontroversial. According to a 2009 Pew Research poll, "nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public." Scientific acceptance of evolution is even higher among biologists and others trained in the life sciences.
Creationists typically belong to one of two groups:
- Young Earth Creationists hold that the planet and all living things were created within the last 6,000–10,000 years, usually in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
- Old Earth Creationists generally accept the scientific consensus with regard to the age of the Earth, but maintain that the theory of evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life.
Until the middle of the twentieth century, teaching the theory of evolution was forbidden by law in many states. When challenged on First Amendment grounds, these laws were found to be in violation of the establishment clause and were rescinded. After a series of unsuccessful attempts to reinstate the teaching of creationism in American public schools, many Old Earth Creationists re-branded themselves proponents of "Intelligent Design", intending to mask their religious agenda.
Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first court case to test the teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that "Intelligent Design is not science, and ... cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents." This ruling was based on testimony from leading scientists in the field and in part on the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document", whose stated goal was "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".
More recent creationist tactics have focused on "academic freedom", proposing that creationists are oppressed by mainstream science. This was the theme of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which also attempted to link the theory of evolution to fascism and genocide. The National Center for Science Education put together the excellent Expelled Exposed website which addressed the film's many gross misstatements of fact.
Support and Opposition
The leading modern proponents of Young Earth Creationism include Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, who runs Kentucky's Creation Museum, Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism, who ran the now-defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land, Ray Comfort of The Way of the Master, and the Institute for Creation Research. Intelligent Design Creationism is promoted primarily by the Washington-based Discovery Institute.
The leading modern opponents of creationism include Dr. Eugenie Scott and The National Center for Science Education, popular blogger and evolutionary biologist Professor PZ Myers, Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella, and scientists and skeptics around the world.
Creationist Claims Refuted
As no persuasive scientific evidence exists that supports creationism, creationists commonly attempt to advance their cause by proposing problems with evolution—this attempts to leverage a false dichotomy between creationism and evolution: any problems that exist with the current formulation of the theory of evolution do not provide evidence for creationism.
The Index to Creationist Claims is an indispensable reference site that provides refutations of many of the most common creationist attacks on evolution. Here is a small sample:
Creation Museums
Private museums that promote a literal biblical view of history can be found in several cities across North America. PZ Myers and the Secular Student Alliance toured Kentucky's Creation Museum run by Answers in Genesis in 2009. (You can find an account of the trip written by Jen McCreight here.) In 2010 the Winnipeg Skeptics visited Manitoba's much smaller Dinosaur Discovery Zone Kids Club & Creation Museum run by CARE Ministries. (You can find an account of the trip here.)
References and Suggested Reading:
Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. "The Wedge". Discovery Institute. Accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Theobald, Douglas. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent. Version 2.87. Updated 19 June 2007, accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Isaak, Mark (editor). An Index to Creationist Claims. Updated 5 November 2006, accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
The National Center for Science Eductation. Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks. Accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.expelledexposed.com/
The National Center for Science Eductation. "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial". 17 October 2008, accessed 3 July 2011. http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover
The National Center for Science Eductation. Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Volume 26, Issues 1–2. January–April 2006, accessed 3 July 2011. (Some articles not available online.) http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2
Pew Research Center. "Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago. 9 July 2009, accessed 3 July 2011. http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
28 June 2011
Escape to Reality!
Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.
The Humanist Association of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Skeptics were joint sponsors of an informational booth at the Red River Exhibition that ran 17–26 June 2011. Surrounded as we were by booths from the Gideons, the Winnipeg League for Life, the Church of Scientology, and folks hawking knock-off Power Balance wristbands, we called the booth "Escape to Reality".
I spent a fair portion of my free time over the last week staffing the booth (along with the indefatigable and demonstrably more dedicated Donna Harris and others), and generally had a lot of fun. We even got a shout-out from PZ, which is always appreciated. We had many enjoyable conversations with believers and skeptics of all stripes.
Donna, Laura, and I chatted at length with a few creationists, who were apparently offended that one of our signs put "Young Earth Creationism" in the same evidential category as "The Easter Bunny". When pressed, they could provide no positive evidence for their position, and seemed to forget several of their own talking points. Apparently there are no beneficial mutations, evolution cannot add information to the genome, and Darwinism predicts that species will just get stronger, smarter, and better over time, while we're clearly just getting sicker and sicker.
When I tried to explain that evolution only predicts increasing adaptation to the species' environment, I was smugly informed that I did not understand evolution. When I tried to explain precisely how mutations can add "information" in a genetic sequence, bringing up insertions, deletions, transpositions, and point mutations, I was met with blank stares. I pulled out a sheet of paper and wrote out some codons (ATG CTG TAG...), changing or crossing out letters to illustrate the replication or replacement of one or more nucleotides.
"I'm going to stop you there," one of the creationists said. "What are all those letters supposed to mean?"
Sorry, I thought, my mistake. I assumed that because you so arrogantly asserted that mutations were incapable of adding new information to a genome, you were at least passingly familiar with what "information" means in the context of genetics. I decided to cut my losses and move on.
There were times that they stumbled over their own talking points, which I found amusing. For example, they brought up Mount St. Helens several times, but couldn't seem to remember why it was so important for their case. I reminded them that Steven Austin had rock from a new lava flow at Mount St. Helens dated, and the potassium-argon dating showed the rock to be hundreds of thousands of years old—unfortunately, it is well established that Austin (either knowingly or in ignorance) used the incorrect radiometric dating methods. The various types of radiometric dating are accurate for varying (and overlapping) ranges of time. They are validated not only against each other, but also by other dating methods, such as dendrochronology, which uses tree rings.
Of course, the creationists weren't the only people we met whose beliefs took a sharp right turn when confronted with reality. A young woman who seemed very interested in our booth asked me, "Do you guys believe in energy?" "Sure!" I said. "Energy is the capacity of a system to perform work." She seemed a little nonplussed by this. "No," she said. "How we're all connected by energy. It's all about science. There's this movie you should see..." "Ah!" I said. "You're talking about What the Bleep Do We Know?." And then I told her, as gently as I could, precisely what I thought of that particular quantum fantasy film.
We spent much of our time at the Ex promoting SkeptiCamp Winnipeg, which is coming up on September 17th at Aqua Books, and the MASH Film Festival, on August 14th at the Park Theatre. Both events garnered a lot of interest.
We also did a few demonstrations. I'm told that the fellow hawking "Energy Balance" bracelets ($30 rubber bands—with "ions"!) threatened to call security on Ashlyn as she calmly explained to his marks how all of his tricks could easily be faked. Hypothetically, of course. She wasn't calling him a fraud. It's all about the consumer protection, folks! (Richard Saunders explains the tricks here.)
On Thursday night, Scott and I went to get "stress tests" at the Dianetics booth run by the Church of Scientology. There, we were asked personal questions while we held tin cans connected to a volt meter. I found that if you squeezed the cans, the needle would jump, which led to some amusing shenanigans.
There, we learned that L. Ron Hubbard had apparently been both a renowned physicist and a research psychologist. "Through his research," I was told, "he discovered that humans are spiritual beings." Fascinating! We were told that Scientologists were first responders in Haiti and Japan. "Oh," I said, "that's great! How did they help?" I was informed that these "first responders" were trained in Touch Assist, a form of energy healing.
The recruiters told Scott and I that one of the greatest boons that Dianetics has to offer is increased mental discipline and help to those who suffer from mental illness. "You know how Einstein said that you only use this much of your brain?" my recruiter said, holding her hands about an inch apart. "Well, with Dianetics..." She spread her arms wide, presumably indicating that Dianetics would allow me to meet my intellectual potential.
"So Dianetics is about mental health," I said slowly. "That's exactly right," she told me.
"Oh," I said. "Like psychiatry."
She stared at me as though I'd slapped her. Recovering quickly, she launched into a conspiracy-mongering diatribe about drug dependency and the Big Psychiatry smear campaign against the Church of Scientology. Scientologist successfully trolled. I'm such a bastard.
My favourite quotation of the night: "Dianetics is a science. It's like gravity. You can't disprove it." Fact.
A big thank-you to everyone who helped out with planning and staffing the booth, and to those who stopped by for a chat!
The Humanist Association of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Skeptics were joint sponsors of an informational booth at the Red River Exhibition that ran 17–26 June 2011. Surrounded as we were by booths from the Gideons, the Winnipeg League for Life, the Church of Scientology, and folks hawking knock-off Power Balance wristbands, we called the booth "Escape to Reality".
I spent a fair portion of my free time over the last week staffing the booth (along with the indefatigable and demonstrably more dedicated Donna Harris and others), and generally had a lot of fun. We even got a shout-out from PZ, which is always appreciated. We had many enjoyable conversations with believers and skeptics of all stripes.
Donna, Laura, and I chatted at length with a few creationists, who were apparently offended that one of our signs put "Young Earth Creationism" in the same evidential category as "The Easter Bunny". When pressed, they could provide no positive evidence for their position, and seemed to forget several of their own talking points. Apparently there are no beneficial mutations, evolution cannot add information to the genome, and Darwinism predicts that species will just get stronger, smarter, and better over time, while we're clearly just getting sicker and sicker.
When I tried to explain that evolution only predicts increasing adaptation to the species' environment, I was smugly informed that I did not understand evolution. When I tried to explain precisely how mutations can add "information" in a genetic sequence, bringing up insertions, deletions, transpositions, and point mutations, I was met with blank stares. I pulled out a sheet of paper and wrote out some codons (ATG CTG TAG...), changing or crossing out letters to illustrate the replication or replacement of one or more nucleotides.
"I'm going to stop you there," one of the creationists said. "What are all those letters supposed to mean?"
Sorry, I thought, my mistake. I assumed that because you so arrogantly asserted that mutations were incapable of adding new information to a genome, you were at least passingly familiar with what "information" means in the context of genetics. I decided to cut my losses and move on.
There were times that they stumbled over their own talking points, which I found amusing. For example, they brought up Mount St. Helens several times, but couldn't seem to remember why it was so important for their case. I reminded them that Steven Austin had rock from a new lava flow at Mount St. Helens dated, and the potassium-argon dating showed the rock to be hundreds of thousands of years old—unfortunately, it is well established that Austin (either knowingly or in ignorance) used the incorrect radiometric dating methods. The various types of radiometric dating are accurate for varying (and overlapping) ranges of time. They are validated not only against each other, but also by other dating methods, such as dendrochronology, which uses tree rings.
| Wait a second, it says here that God created humanity, not Darwin... |
Of course, the creationists weren't the only people we met whose beliefs took a sharp right turn when confronted with reality. A young woman who seemed very interested in our booth asked me, "Do you guys believe in energy?" "Sure!" I said. "Energy is the capacity of a system to perform work." She seemed a little nonplussed by this. "No," she said. "How we're all connected by energy. It's all about science. There's this movie you should see..." "Ah!" I said. "You're talking about What the Bleep Do We Know?." And then I told her, as gently as I could, precisely what I thought of that particular quantum fantasy film.
We spent much of our time at the Ex promoting SkeptiCamp Winnipeg, which is coming up on September 17th at Aqua Books, and the MASH Film Festival, on August 14th at the Park Theatre. Both events garnered a lot of interest.
We also did a few demonstrations. I'm told that the fellow hawking "Energy Balance" bracelets ($30 rubber bands—with "ions"!) threatened to call security on Ashlyn as she calmly explained to his marks how all of his tricks could easily be faked. Hypothetically, of course. She wasn't calling him a fraud. It's all about the consumer protection, folks! (Richard Saunders explains the tricks here.)
On Thursday night, Scott and I went to get "stress tests" at the Dianetics booth run by the Church of Scientology. There, we were asked personal questions while we held tin cans connected to a volt meter. I found that if you squeezed the cans, the needle would jump, which led to some amusing shenanigans.
| Pictured: Science. |
There, we learned that L. Ron Hubbard had apparently been both a renowned physicist and a research psychologist. "Through his research," I was told, "he discovered that humans are spiritual beings." Fascinating! We were told that Scientologists were first responders in Haiti and Japan. "Oh," I said, "that's great! How did they help?" I was informed that these "first responders" were trained in Touch Assist, a form of energy healing.
The recruiters told Scott and I that one of the greatest boons that Dianetics has to offer is increased mental discipline and help to those who suffer from mental illness. "You know how Einstein said that you only use this much of your brain?" my recruiter said, holding her hands about an inch apart. "Well, with Dianetics..." She spread her arms wide, presumably indicating that Dianetics would allow me to meet my intellectual potential.
"So Dianetics is about mental health," I said slowly. "That's exactly right," she told me.
"Oh," I said. "Like psychiatry."
She stared at me as though I'd slapped her. Recovering quickly, she launched into a conspiracy-mongering diatribe about drug dependency and the Big Psychiatry smear campaign against the Church of Scientology. Scientologist successfully trolled. I'm such a bastard.
My favourite quotation of the night: "Dianetics is a science. It's like gravity. You can't disprove it." Fact.
A big thank-you to everyone who helped out with planning and staffing the booth, and to those who stopped by for a chat!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)













