1. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54507 by alanmackenzie on July 7, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Has anyone seen a meme or explained how one could work physically?

Has anyone seen a God, or explained how one could work immaterially?

2. We'd be better off without Religion

Comment #31531 by alanmackenzie on April 13, 2007 at 6:44 am

Anyone find that right-wing apologist, Roger Scruton intensely irritating? His speech was full of bald assertions, as if all he needed to do, was state the validity of something, and then move along while pretending that was all he needed to do in order to prove his point.

3. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #28302 by alanmackenzie on March 28, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Chico said:

"I don't know if this has been addressed in another thread, but a video making Professor Dawkins appear silly is featured at the website of the New Zealander fellow from the banana clip:

http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com

Perhaps he would like to clarify?"

I know about this. A group of YECs, posing as an Australian film crew wanting to discuss evolutionary biology called at Richard Dawkins' house, and requested an interview. Dawkins agreed, and invited them in. The bit when you see Dawkins pause for 11 seconds is when Dawkins realised that the Australians were not who they said they were. Dawkins became suspicious about the nature of the questions, that is, they were so elementary, that they resembled those from someone who doubted that evolution had taken place. The silence from Dawkins is the consequence of his consideration as to whether he should curtail the interview, and ask the Australians to leave. Dawkins said that he was about to lose his temper, having allowed people into his house under false pretences. The editors then edited the footage around to make it appear that Dawkins could not answer a question about how genetic information increases. The simple answer: genetic information content increases all the time. Only a YEC would ask this kind of contrived question.

Wikipedia, that 'liberal-atheist biased' on-line encyclopaedia describes this incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Controversy_over_interview_with_Richard_Dawkins

4. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #28295 by alanmackenzie on March 28, 2007 at 4:31 pm

I've seen this video. It is called "Creation Vs. Evolution", and I reviewed it here:

http://rankatheism.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-creationism.html

Enjoy!

Alan Mackenzie.

5. Guinness 'Evolution' Ad

Comment #22182 by alanmackenzie on February 13, 2007 at 6:46 am

I think Mr. Dawkins would point out that the Guinness advertisement somewhat misrepresented evolution as deliberately aimed at the drinking of beer.

However, does the brewing of yeast have some kind of universal truth to it? Do things like Guinness just have to be so? We cannot prove it, but I wouldn't be surprised if universal nourishment was everywhere.

Alan.

6. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21632 by alanmackenzie on February 10, 2007 at 8:12 am

Richard,

How does it feel to have a stalker?

Two books, various newspaper editorials, spurned offers of a debate, and not nearly as good-looking as Anne Coulter.

Perhaps McGrath suffers from Dawk-o-mania?

Alan.

7. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21118 by alanmackenzie on February 7, 2007 at 3:42 pm

BORING, BORING, BORING!

Thank you,
Alan

8. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #19412 by alanmackenzie on January 27, 2007 at 1:37 am

Talking of "Intelligent Design", check out the new Wikipedia article on the matter of the manufactured "controversy", courtesy of our friends at "Truth" in Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Science

Alan.

9. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #19411 by alanmackenzie on January 27, 2007 at 1:35 am

Talking of "Intelligent Design", check out the new Wikipedia article on the matter of the manufactured "controversy", courtesy of our friends at "Truth" in Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Science

Alan.

10. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13838 by alanmackenzie on December 19, 2006 at 4:20 pm

Ah, Rod Liddle, and the 'BBC fallacy' of promoting 'both sides' of the debate. Now that Channel Four has joined the bandwagon of extreme relativism, we can rest assure, that yet another audience may well see the existence of God as a '50/50' question. The argument from Liddle is a prime example of what I call the 'myth of moral symmetry'. The implied line of thought, is that if two sides do something roughly analogous, then it follows that both sides have something equally useful to offer, or worse still are equally bad. So, in the case of superstition versus science, if both can pick a few holes in each other's arguments, therefore one can take his pick at any choice of outcome, regardless of truth value. So if Richard Dawkins calls people names, while Muslim Imams issue death threats, well, there's no difference. If Sam Harris gets hot under the collar about religious intolerance towards gays and women, so what? Sam Harris upsets fundamentalists too. What's the difference?

To these ends, I have reason to believe that at least some influential people might buy the 'Argument from Liddle - let's teach both sides' of 'the controversy'. It is these slight, unimpressive resemblances between outspoken critics of religion, and the actions of religious extremists, that need to be addressed, for I think such comparisons are as misleading as they are all too common.

Firstly, I would like to say what an appalling programme Rod Liddle came up with. The whole thrust of his position was what I might call the tu quoque fallacy - you too, you also. Thus, if a few outspoken atheists have the temerity to criticise religion, therefore Dawkins, Harris etc are in the same category as those who fly planes into buildings. The whole point of his misrepresentation of atheism is this: "hey you, shut up - criticising religion is not free speech."

I found Liddle's narrative about human despair, and the inevitable tendency for people to harm others, not only offensive but dangerous too. Somewhere hidden in Liddle's message was the old Christian canard "life is simply a state of despair, so let us prepare for the next". We are extraordinarily lucky to be alive - my life, and that of my friends is the only chance we shall get to exist in the entire history of space/time, and hot dam to anyone who devalues mine with stories about the next. We are tired of these theologies based on human despair, and salvation. And we're not buying them any more.

Liddle's emphasis on the 'fine-tuning argument' brought to the fore, a number of problems with interpreting data using backwards calculations. You deal out a pack of cards, get a hand, backwards calculate the odds of getting that hand, and hey the hand looks too improbable, or even impossible. But nonetheless, you got the hand you did. End of story. The fine-tuning argument merely says "it happened", nothing more.

Those who misinterpret 'fine-tuning' put up an artificial barrier to life-forms based on other elements. What proof do we have that life cannot utilise other elements, for example, silicon?

The 'fine-tuning' argument is simply Intelligent Design nonsense, dressed in the language of pseudophysics. I can guarantee that few credentialed physicists would say that the 6 cosmological constants did not arise from anything other than the physical structure of the universe itself. You would also struggle to find one willing to say they arose from a priori reasoning, or logic.

However, for those interested in Bayesian probability, I suggest the weak anthropic principle, for it adequately exposes the fine-tuning argument for what it is - a man-made tautology. A tautology, in my view, that is consequential of our evolutionary 'middle-world common sense' which animals use as survival tools, and for pattern recognition. People choose to promote ad hoc explanations for the universe, such as Gods. People choose to see patterns in structures, when there aren't any, and then obfuscate the motives for drawing those conclusions with contrived dualisms, exaggerated uncertainty about scientific truth, and important-sounding rhetoric.

To paraphrase Rod Liddle: "Why can't we just say, "what an interesting universe we happen to live in - lets explain it without resorting to silly preconceptions, for which there is no evidence?"

It was also irritating to see Alister McGrath once again appeal to designers and evolutionists, without committing himself to either camp. McGrath has said before that Darwinism is merely the best available explanation for evolution... what on Earth is he implying?

Stephen Jay Gould once said:

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

One may criticise the arguments of those who otherwise do not believe in Gods, but nonetheless one must not commit the fundamental fallacy of confusing the phenomena of atheism, with the actions of atheists themselves. Atheists cannot compartmentalise their atheism, because there is nothing to compartmentalise –– an atheist can hold beliefs and views on a variety of subjects for which there is evidence: evolution and big bang cosmology, but, the burden of proof rests on those scientists who put forth evidence for these natural phenomenon, not the atheist. In no way does the evidence for evolution or big bang cosmology 'prove' atheism, because atheism itself does not put forth any positive beliefs, or claim to be a position of knowledge.

Anyhow, I would like to oppose the charge that Stalin killed for his atheism, as follows:

Atheism cannot be dogmatic, precisely for the reason that one needs the presence of something to be dogmatic about. This reality immediately buries the charge that Stalin killed for his atheism; someone cannot kill for an absence of something, just as a brown-haired man cannot maim others simply because he does not have ginger hair.

People commit an almost innumerable variety of heinous acts for positive beliefs, including, but not limited to, political ideology, land, resources, historical intolerance or persecution, conflicting world-views, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and much more. It thus follows, that allegations against people who killed for their atheism are a non-sequitur, and doomed to fail from the outset: all one need do is define atheism, and the whole argument of killing for absences/negatives comes crashing down. Atheism does not take any position on killing, violence, politics, democracy, and so remains silent on these issues. Atheism only addresses whether or not a person believes in God: a mere blank slate mischaracterized by theists, 'realists', and propagandists for the promotion of their ideologies. A blank slate which has unfortunately been scribbled with graffiti by a set of sophists, and adopted by unwitting non-cognizant droves who, in their naivety, fell prey to these ruses.

Alan,
http://rankatheism.blogspot.com/

11. Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

Comment #12550 by alanmackenzie on December 12, 2006 at 2:32 pm

The seven danger signals of a fertile environment for pseudoscience:

* Disrespect of authority: Since everyone knows a little about everything, some can pretend to know more than the experts. The tendency for the uniformed public to question authority is no more prevalent than in the field of medicine, so it is unsurprising that superficial people should 'critique' other subjects they know so little about. Notice how those who question figures of authority rarely spend the time and money garnering expertise of their own: the issue here is pride, superficiality, and that hackneyed phrase which all charlatans use when cornered by an expert - "I have a right to my opinion". You have no right to an uninformed opinion about evolution, if you do not at least endeavour to read the latest papers and books on the subject.

* Extreme relativism: and the willingness of educators to lend 'equal validity' to ideas representative of a wide range of cultural symbionts.

* Vernacular understanding of the term 'theory': scientific theories are not 'guesses' or 'assumptions', they are a precise and quantifiable interpretation of data. Facts do not go away when scientists debate them, and so evolution is a fact, whether Darwin's theory adequately describes that same data, or whether some future theory [none is foreseen in mainstream science] describes evolution more precisely.

* Conspirational thinking: anti-evolution is a Man-made Pseudo-Christian Cult, which lacks central doctrinal authority. Man-made, because the conflict over evolution is entirely bogus and a matter of personal choice; Pseudo-Christian, because the advocates of ID and creationism ignore the fact that other Christian denominations fully endorse good science, respect secular values, and demonstrate a commitment to living alongside non-believers; Cult, because ID and creationism promote conspirational thinking against good science and mainstream society; lacks central doctrinal authority, because Protestant anti-evolution denominations lack guidance from competent leaders, which in turn leads to competing sophomoric apologists vying for internal and external power.

* Low quality entry requirements in higher education: modern higher educational establishments will lower their standards to permit the entry of shallow thinkers, the illiterate, and those vulnerable to propositional logic, which in turn affords a fertile environment for indoctrination by Intelligent Design theorists.

* Laziness: sorting out valid ideas looks like far too much hard work: when one says it was designed, this gives the false impression that design represents the Occam's razor, and evolution clogs science with complicated, unnecessary explanations. For example, the difficulty people experience in understanding the evolution of the eye is a perfect example of how Intelligent Design theorists will encourage people to give up, and say God did it. Furthermore, 'irreducible complexity' is just a rehashed version of the old creationist slogan 'what use is half an eye?' and so indicates that ID theorists assume that macro evolution operates as a linear process in which structures appear suddenly.

* Arrogance: Intelligent Design theorists have the temerity to 'put Darwin on trial', 'corner those neo-Darwinists, and rigorously cross-examine them', or repeatedly state discredited ideas as if they were still useful to science. Who do these people think they are? Well, check out the crackpot index, and tally up the scores, starting with The Discovery Institute.

It is therefore of utmost importance, that United Kingdom educators and scientists have answers for everything these creationist chameleons produce: for every instance of a school science class bought off by 'teach the controversy', a generation of future scientists ceases to exist, and so Britain may lose it's scientific heritage for an indefinite period.

Alan,

http://rankatheism.blogspot.com/