Welcome to H&C,,, where I aggregate news of interest. Primary topics include abuse with "the church", LGBTQI+ issues, cults - including anti-vaxxers, and the Dominionist and Theocratic movements. Also of concern is the anti-science movement with interest in those that promote garbage like homeopathy, chiropractic and the like. I am an atheist and anti-theist who believes religious mythos must be die and a strong supporter of SOCAS.
It now seems clear why Barton and WND brought out The Jefferson Lies
now. This rather transparent attempt to claim Jefferson as a Cruz
supporter comes just as Iowans caucus next week.
Firstly, by the 1930s, commercial hybrid crop varieties began to
proliferate. When one replants second generation seeds from hybrids, one
gets a mixture of inferior varieties, so it was in farmers’ best
interest to buy new seeds each year. This was especially true for corn
farmers, who had by and large been relying almost exclusively on hybrids
for roughly a half a century before GE technology came along.
Secondly, buying seeds each year grants farmers certain quality assurances
which would let them be confident that either their seeds would be of
high quality, or that they’d at least have some recourse of action in
the event that the seeds didn’t perform as advertised.
Thirdly, the plant patent act of 1930 meant that plant breeders could
procure intellectual property rights on certain varieties of seeds. If
everyone just bought the seed once and then made as many copies as they
ever wanted, the patents would become meaningless, and there’d be less
incentive for innovation in plant breeding. In principle, this is not
all that different from software licensing agreements and other forms of
intellectual and/or artistic copyrights in which unchallenged piracy
would ostensibly permit unlimited copies to be made for free, in which
case the concept of intellectual property rights would be rendered
meaningless.
AMAZING! On Thursday we learned that
Harlem’s infamous “Jesus Would Stone Homos” hate church will be placed
to public auction on February 24th due to over $1M in unpaid debts. Late
Friday afternoon the Ali Forney Center, which serves homeless LGBT
youths, announced a campaign to buy the building and the donation drive
has already rocketed above $75,000. AFC founder Carl Siciliano tells us
that a huge chunk of the donations have come from the JMG community.
Let’s keep that thermometer rising!
You may at some point have heard people speak of glyphosate as being
“less toxic than caffeine or table salt.” What they’re referring to when
they say that is what we call its LD50, which a standard way of
quantifying acute toxicity. A substance’s LD50 is the dose at which 50%
of the subjects who ingest that amount will die of complications from an
acute overdose, and it is measured in units of mass of the substance
per unit mass of the subject (usually mg/kg). See, one of the most
fundamental principles in all of toxicology is that “the dose makes the
poison,” which was famously coined by Paracelsus, the father of
toxicology. Most substances have some amount beyond which they become
toxic. Many substances that are benign, beneficial, or even essential to
human health in one range of concentration will become harmful if taken
in sufficiently large amounts. Even water can be toxic if you drink
enough of it. So, you can’t just look at it as though there were some
toxic things in the world and some non-toxic things, or that something
that is toxic at one dose is bad in any dose, simply because that’s not
how toxicology works.
Here you can find a very brief introduction
to concepts in toxicology, but for now, suffice it to say that students
are generally taught about three main types of toxicity: acute, chronic
and subchronic.
,,,
However, that was only a matter of acute
toxicity. Many opponents are willing to concede that the acute risks are
fairly minimal, but they worry about the risks of long term low-level
exposure. The EPA took that into account as well. The EPA dealt with
this issue by setting maximum safe levels of residues called
“tolerances.” The USDA tests crops each year to make sure that herbicide
residues do not exceed the permitted tolerance levels. If any crops
contain residue amounts higher than tolerance levels, the USDA reports
the information to the FDA, who has the regulatory power to recall
foods, levy fines and take other actions to prevent the foods from
reaching consumers.
In case you’re wondering how these tolerances
were arrived at, the EPA tested glyphosate on numerous animal species.
They then used the result from the MOST sensitive species tested as the
basis for setting the Reference Dose. The RfD represents the level at
(or below) which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will
not pose appreciable risks to human health.
,,,
Another issue
worth addressing is the recent IARC and WHO reclassification of
glyphosate as a Class 2A carcinogen. The IARC classification process
isn’t designed to serve as a statement on risk analysis, and for that
reason, it did not take into account actual common usage practices. They
placed glyphosate in the 2A category, which includes “probable” (albeit
unconfirmed) carcinogens such as emissions from frying food,
hairdresser products and burning wood. It mainly pertains to application
protocols rather than minuscule trace amounts in food.
Consequently, banning glyphosate as a knee jerk reaction to its recent
classification would be similar to never going out of the house in the
daytime because sunlight is carcinogenic. Actually, it would be even
less sensible because sunlight is in an even higher class of carcinogen
than glyphosate. Think about it. It’s in the same classification as
manufacturing glass, burning wood, emissions from high temperature
frying, and work exposure as a hairdresser. Alcohol and sunlight are
both higher on their carcinogen scale than glyphosate, and neither of
those cause cancer with conservative exposure either.
If life is effectively an endless series of photocopies, as DNA is
transcribed and passed on from one being to the next, then evolution is
the high-stakes game of waiting for the copier to get it wrong.
Too wrong, and you’ll live burdened by a maladaptive mutation or genetic disorder. Worse, you might never live at all.
But if the flaw is wrong in exactly the right way, the incredible can
happen: disease resistance, sharper eyesight, swifter feet, big brains,
better beaks for Darwin’s finches.
In a paper published in the open-access journal eLife this week,
researchers say they have pinpointed what may well be one of evolution’s
greatest copy mess-ups yet: the mutation that allowed our ancient
protozoa predecessors to evolve into complex, multi-cellular organisms.
Thanks to this mutation — which was not solely responsible for the leap
out of single-cellular life, but without which you, your dog and every
creature large enough to be seen without a microscope might not be
around — cells were able to communicate with one another and work
together.
,,,
Prehoda and his colleagues began to look into what
genes could be responsible for allowing the choanoflagellates to work
together.
“We were expecting many genes to be involved, working
together in certain ways, because [the jump to multi-cellularity] seems
like a really difficult thing to do,” he said.
But it turned out
that only one was needed: A single mutation that repurposed a certain
type of protein. Instead of working as enzymes (proteins that facilitate
reactions inside the cell) the proteins were now what’s known as an
interaction domain. They could communicate with and bind to other
proteins, a useful skill for cells that have decided to trade the rugged
individualist life for the collaboration of a group. In the wild world
of pre-complex life, this development was orders of magnitude better
than Twitter for getting organisms organized. Every example of cells
collaborating that has arisen since — from the trilobites of 500 million
years ago to the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and you — probably relied
on it or some other similar mutation.
Campbell has managed to fit in every single piece of dietary insanity
on the planet into one meal plan. It's borderline impressive how
someone can cram so much non-scientifically based information,
fear-mongering of healthy foods, and just plain old bullshit into one
neatly tied, organically wrapped package. Yes, the diet may sound
healthy, given that it's loaded up on fruits and vegetables. But it also
cuts out so much food that it's composed of more air than fiber. Do you
have to do all that to be healthy? Let's parse through this hodgepodge of dietary insanity. ,,,
Notice that Gisele was gorgeous and Brady won a few Super Bowls way
before this glorified hipster took over the cooking duties in their
household? It's because their abilities and looks have very little to do
with his cooking as they were probably eating healthy diets before he
showed up. Their diet now does sound fairly healthy, even if some of the
more delicious things in life are removed. A diet loaded up on healthy
grains, vegetables, fruits, and some lean meat sounds like a good one.
However, the arbitrary rules are absolutely not necessary, and all it's
doing is showing that they have a lot of money to throw around on
turning food into a game.
How do you eat a healthy diet? The basic advice still stands. Get your
fruits and vegetables (conventional, organic, frozen, and fresh are all
fine). Whether you eat meat or not, get enough protein to support muscle
growth and repair. Get enough carbs to fuel your activity level. If
you're not sure how much of all of this you should eat, talk to your
doctor and a registered dietitian, but not a chef who arbitrarily cuts
out food groups.
“It depends on what rock you’re listening to,” he said. “Some of the
stuff is just evil. They used to talk about killing your parents and
there were just some other things. There were odes to Satan. You don’t
want that stuff coming into your mind. There’s some beat that’s out
there that, you know, probably isn’t all that bad, although in one
Indian context, they were playing rock music and the person said, ‘Why
are you calling on the demons?,’ because that was the kind of music they
used to summon demons.”
One day from the "5th Annual International Day of Protest Against
Hereditary Religion" which is taking place on January 23, 2016. Here is
part 4 of 4 from 2014 to tickle your appetite.
“When we are
desperate to become the people we were born to be, our vision changes,”
Nelson opined. “We see the Adversary’s temptations for what they really
are: tricks to make us forget our true identity and our destination.”
“We may realize that a burden is holding us back,” she said. “That
burden may be spiritual pain which always accompanies bad choices and
unrepentant sin. The truth is that unrepentant sin is like a magnet for more sin. So if you need to repent, start now.” ,,,
“We each need the savior’s help to become the people we were born to
be,” she insisted. “Perhaps we need the gift to have our sexual feelings
be in harmony with eternal laws.”
“When we are desperate for any gift of the spirit, that is when we will
finally pray with all the energy of heart for that gift,” she added. “I
pray that this year that you will have some moments of anguishing
desperation that will propel you further along the path to becoming the
man or woman you were born to be.”
“Your true self is spectacular, never settle for less.”
“The promise of strong efforts these past seven years to restore
fatherhood and reestablish family life in our poorest communities has
faded completely,” he said. “Instead, national policies have sown
confusion about the very definition of family. President Obama has
extolled the virtues of fatherhood even as he has fought for same-sex
marriage, in essence saying two same-gendered person can parent as well
as a mom and a dad. This contradictory message is more than disappointing.
For our children throughout the country, it is devastating. It reduces
mothers and fathers to genderless caregivers. Our children deserve
better: They deserve a mom and a dad.”
“And we pay a price for this incoherent, ideological campaign by havoc
in our homes and blood in our streets,” he added. “That’s why we have to
re-empower American parents. The decision of our courts on
contraception for minors, abortion on demand and redefining marriage
have gravely weakened the family.”
And this is a point Michael (my initial adversary) alludes to, a common trope among the ID crowd, "order and information don't just come together by randomness and chance." Well sir, last I looked I was not slammed together like the 747 or in your case a computer code. I am the product of my parental lineage which operated according to five principles of natural selection. Which are, [1]
[I will be hitting the idea of "no new information" in a separate segment as it is a topic unto itself.]
Chance does plays a part in Evolution (ie. the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on it. Natural selection, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" features and eliminating "undesirable" ones. [Again the oft twisted notion of "survival of the fittest"] As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution forward. [2]
The most excellent example of this is HBD Kettlewell's 1952 Peppered Moth experiment: [1,3]
The classic case study of natural selection was recorded by H. B. D. Kettlewell in 1952. In a most interesting experiment, he concluded that an environmental influence, predation by birds, affected the total number of reproducing moths depending on their color. Kettlewell was working at Oxford University at the time and discovered a shard of information from the 1840s, 100 years earlier, that noted the first appearance of a dark morph of the peppered moth. Until that time, only white or pepper-colored moths had been observed. He connected the dates with the onset of heavy industrial output in that area. He also knew that the factories at that time and in his time produced [lots of] daily clouds of black smoke heavily laden with soot. He also knew that the peppered moths were common all over England; they were nocturnal and hid on tree trunks during the day; they were preyed upon by many species of birds. He hypothesized that the birds were preying upon the moths that were less camouflaged and therefore easier to see. In so doing, they were favoring the one morph type over another, which created uneven reproductive rates that favored an increase in one type of moth over the others.
,,,Those moths best adapted to the environment survived and reproduced; the others did not. Kettlewell's experiment is an example of how environmental pressures can determine the characteristics of species.
So taking the 5 basic principles of natural selection as outlined prior and comparing to Kettlewell's experiment this is what we see:
What is interesting to note, as pointed out in my class on Genetics and Evolution [4], this genetic melanism continued until around 1980s, when the Clear Air Acts in 1956 and 1968 began to have an impact. Instead of the dark morph, the peppered color is again the predominant. [5]
Another classic example would be Darwin's Finches. [6] And I know y'all are familiar with this one.
What Darwin discovered, with the assistance of ornithologist John Gould, these birds (14 different specimens), "although nearly identical in all other ways to mainland finches, had different beaks. Their beaks had adapted to the type of food they ate in order to fill different niches on the Galapagos Islands. Their isolation on the islands over long periods of time made them undergo speciation." What Darwin had to say: [7]
And finally, if you want to see NS in action, one needs to look no further than your medicine cabinet and take note of what is no longer there - Penicillin. [8]
From the time of discovery through WWII, penicillin was the "miracle drug" in fighting staph bacteria. By 1947 the first resistant strain of staph was discovered; by the 1960s, 80% of staph isolates were resistant to penicillin. Now, well virtually all the strains out there are resistant to penicillin.
My battle with MRSA finally ended after 18 months of hell because of this adaptation by bacteria. Three different antibiotics and one messed up belly, I have been MRSA free almost 2 years. I did have one minor flair but that was thankfully dispatched quickly.
[FYI::As some may be aware, I am diabetic which at times can weaken my immune system hence I am prone to what is called CA-MRSA - Community Associated MRSA. Although not a "serious" as the newsworthy cases, as it usually is confined to localized skin infection, it can be a fairly substantial battle. My first bout was a case in point as I have a 1" scar in my armpit where a drainage hole was inserted. Needless to say it was gross and I felt like shit for 3 months.]
One final important note concerning "chance", natural selection is a measurement "across a population and through generations. If a creationist someone starts talking about natural selection being random and pointing out individual responses to the environment, then we might not be talking about the same evolutionary mechanism anymore. Everything that happens within evolution is happening to populations. Individuals do not evolve. So natural selection is the differential survival of individuals (or genes, depending on your perspective), but it is measured through time and within the context of a population. [9]
An overly simplified explanation using the "Blueprint Analogy":
What I hope to have provided is 3 solid refutations to the notion that Evolution by Natural Selection is just "chance". [10]
The remaining land-birds form a most singular group of finches, related to each other in the structure of their beaks, short tails, form of body and plumage: there are thirteen species, which Mr. Gould has divided into four subgroups. All these species are peculiar to this archipelago; and so is the whole group, with the exception of one species of the sub-group Cactornis, lately brought from Bow Island, in the Low Archipelago. Of Cactornis, the two species may be often seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus-trees; but all the other species of this group of finches, mingled together in flocks, feed on the dry and sterile ground of the lower districts. The males of all, or certainly of the greater number, are jet black; and the females (with perhaps one or two exceptions) are brown. The most curious fact is the perfect gradation in the size of the beaks in the different species of Geospiza, from one as large as that of a hawfinch to that of a chaffinch, and (if Mr. Gould is right in including his sub-group, Certhidea, in the main group) even to that of a warbler. The largest beak in the genus Geospiza is shown in Fig. 1, and the smallest in Fig. 3; but instead of there being only one intermediate species, with a beak of the size shown in Fig. 2, there are no less than six species with insensibly graduated beaks. The beak of the sub-group Certhidea, is shown in Fig. 4. The beak of Cactornis is somewhat like that of a starling, and that of the fourth subgroup, Camarhynchus, is slightly parrot-shaped. Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends. In a like manner it might be fancied that a bird originally a buzzard, had been induced here to undertake the office of the carrion-feeding Polybori of the American continent.
For a more modern take on Darwin's finches, ie science never stops seeking answers
Darwin's finches are a classic example of species diversification by natural selection. Their impressive variation in beak morphology is associated with the exploitation of a variety of ecological niches, but its developmental basis is unknown. We performed a comparative analysis of expression patterns of various growth factors in species comprising the genus Geospiza. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5689/1462.abstract
Researchers at Harvard Medical School have taken the story one step further. Using modern genetic analyses, they found a molecule that regulates genes involved in shaping the beaks of Darwin finches. "Calmodulin is a protein that binds and activates certain enzymes, which triggers a signal that eventually turns specific genes on or off," explains Arkhat Abzhanov, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. These signals alter the behavior of cells responsible for beak sculpturing. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/31-finches.html and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/abs/nature04843.html
But evolution itself is a science, and like all sciences, it tells us only what is, not what should be. It is a description of one particular aspect of reality, and that is all it is. It would be foolish to use it in an attempt to derive a moral code, a purpose for our lives, a meaning to life, or any such thing. Those things do not fall within the realm of science, and science will not give us answers to them; it is up to us as individuals to decide that for ourselves. Some people seek answers to these questions through religion, while others find them through other paths.
When creationists say that one who accepts evolution must believe that life is nothing but the result of random chance, they are abusing the theory. In the scientific sense, this conclusion leaves out the most important part of the entire theory, and in the metaphysical sense, this is a deceptive attempt to derive from the theory an explanation of something it was never meant to explain. Evolution does not tell us that our life is the purposeless result of chance; it does not say anything on the topic at all. Either way, the creationists’ conclusion is flatly inaccurate. Their strategy is to tar evolution with offensive-sounding implications and turn people away from it regardless of the evidence, but this fallacious attack will always wither before the truth.
If you remember, in part one I introduced the basics of the JA. I also made mention that my adversary had a "a very polished apologistic agenda". I want to briefly expand on that point before continuing. What many people, religionists and non-believers, don't fully grasp is the importance of the Theory of Evolution and why some Creationists or IDers cling so tightly to their refusal to accept science.
Simply put, eliminate the Creation mythos you eliminate the authority of the "church". As I have noted before, "It's all about manipulation and control. Without Genesis, the creation narrative, there is no Christ and he becomes just another myth." But there is a deeper level to the controversy.
In an article titled "Were There Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?", Jeffrey Goldberg writing for The Atlantic spoke with Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson of AIG. The gist of both men can be summarized by the following. [1]
While Goldberg seems to have a simplistic view of the controversy, "I found this preoccupation with gay marriage significant, because it suggests that perhaps at least some of those who profess a belief in creationism might simply be signaling their preference for a more traditional social order, rather than a rejection of modern science and free intellectual inquiry." I beg to differ based on Ham's own words.
From Ham's 2002 posting, "The Evolution Connection": [2]
Many Christians, including most Christian leaders, don’t understand the connection of evolution to the social ills of our culture and the difficulties in getting people interested in Christianity. They see evolution as something totally separate from such issues. I think the main reason for this misunderstanding is because many Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that evolution is factual science.
,,,
It is true that most evolutionary scientists, the media and the average public school textbook today present atheistic (perhaps subtly rather than overtly) evolution as fact. Students are taught that the universe and all life arose by strictly material causes. God is not given any place in the ‘origin of anything.’ Over the years, the teaching of evolution has intensified in our school systems and through the media. So much so that the average person believes that scientists have proved the earth is billions of years old and that the different forms of life arose through an evolutionary process of death and struggle.
,,,
The more evolutionary ideas pervade the culture, the more a person’s whole way of thinking will change. For them, right and wrong will be whatever they determine for themselves, if they can get away with it. If they are just an animal, then no-one owns them, so their body is their own. Thus, why can’t they do what they want with sex? Also, if this life is all there is, and death ends it all, then if things get tough, why not commit suicide now and get out of it—after all, a person won’t remember they ever had life, so what’s the point anyway? And, if we get rid of spare animals by killing them, then what’s wrong with getting rid of spare babies by abortion?
,,,
Some people misunderstand me when I say there’s a connection between evolution and these social ills mentioned above. I’m not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I am saying is that the more a culture abandons God’s Word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change. I’m not saying that a student says to himself, ‘Now, I’m just an animal—I know evolution is true—therefore there’s no basis for right or wrong—so there’s nothing to stop me from shooting my teacher.’
What people need to keep in mind is what Ham means by "authority" and how and where it is applied. In the Christian theocratic mind-set, that authority is their particular simplistic interpretation of what the Bile states devoid of any actual hermeneutical principles. In other words they are biblical "letteralists". [3] Some day I may revisited that premise, but for now I am safe in saying there really is an apologistic agenda to those with a "polished" ID presentation.[4]
In other words they want what the Kleins and Kim Davis want. [5] In essence,
They want what Ted Cruz [6] wants and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. [7] Yes, I am talking about Dominionist. Listen to the 3 characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:
It is an ideology that has been well polished and implemented within the ranks since, at least, 1982 when the failures of the Religious Right were examined and the need to "reconstruct" the church began. [8]
I know I went a bit off-topic today, but it is relevant especially in light of recent headlines. Dan Arel's battle with AIG's, Ark Encounter - Kentucky bill looks to extend summer vacation to promote creationism. [11] Dan Courtney and Katherine Stewart's ongoing battle with the Good News Club infiltrating schools. [12] Or, Roy Moore's continued fight with the supremacy of SCOTUS rulings. [13]
I can't say for sure that Michael's agenda goes quite this deep but his association with the Discovery Institute makes his motivations suspect. Religionists can not "lose" this battle as I mentioned prior, to do so would undermine the whole of Christianity. It is a battle they have been waging since the 1968 Epperson trial [9], through Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) [10] and more recently the 2006 Kitzmiller trial. The Reich's tactics might change but the desired outcome is still the same.
How do I know this, because Phillip E. Johnson admitted as such as the architect of the Wedge Document: [14]
I promise that next week to get back to dismantling the JA but I think y'all may understand why fighting against such bullshit is important. Nothing is as simple as the creationist loons make it out to be. It has nothing to do with "it's just a belief" or simple denial of science and much to do with manipulation and control.
Back in 1983 or 1984 (maybe even 1985 things are kind of a blur going back that far), I was taught that there were two prominent, overall thought processes in regards to biblical interpretation. The "literal view" asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context; its meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. The second process is what my professor referred to as the "letteral view" of interpretation. In essence it is a strict almost legalistic point of view. A good example, that illustrates both views, Christ versus the Pharisees. Within the Bible, the Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (cf. Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6)
[4] In concluding his 5-part presentation on the Arrogance of Creationists, KC in part 3 talks about how Creationists love to use vague and misleading terminology which leads to equivocation and moving the goal posts. This equivocation, as KC explains is due to that same view concerning authority that both Ham and Mortenson both have, "in the case of most creationists it is because of a dogmatic adherence to a literal interpretation of their sacred texts,,,. Discourses in science are not centered around learning but to rationalize that which they adhere to as unquestionable." [paraphrased]
In other words, we have one big circle-jerk: 1] the Bible is inerrant and authoritative in all things (science included); 2] this leads to equivocation and shifting the goal-posts; 3] in order to rationalize their dogmatic adherence the Bible.
[8] http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/4/3/155629/6754 Christian Reconstructionism is often described as the movement that wants to execute adulterers, blasphemers, and homosexuals, by stoning. Since this is not likely to happen any time soon, the movement is often dismissed as fringe and inconsequential. The preoccupation with the stoning aspect has obscured the fact that many other foundational components of the movement have been mainstreamed in the Religious Right since the time when Gary North wrote the following words.
Gary North writing in the first volume of the journal Christianity and Civilization, published by the Geneva Divinity School in Spring, 1982. The entire issue was dedicated to a symposium on "The Failure of American Baptist Culture." http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/cc_1.html (40-25)
[9] Susan Epperson challenged the Arkansas law that prohibited public school teachers from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution.
[10] Which held that traditional creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be taught in public school biology classes.
[14] Bohlin, Ray, ed. (2000). Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science: Probing the Headlines That Impact Your Family. Foreword by Phillip E. Johnson. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, p. 5.
So recently I became involved in a discussion concerning Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution or more specifically the principle of Natural Selection. (In retrospect the discussion goes much deeper than that but I will save that for another day.) Debating such is NOT my forte, and I approach it from a layman's POV but considering I was unprepared, I think I held my own. While the gentleman (Michael was the name he gave) involved, claimed he was not a biblical Creationist per se he was referring to a "creator" or "creative force"; his arguments where basically the standard fare presented in such discussions. Michael's fall back position, used prominently throughout the conversation - besides the rejection of peer review [1] because of alleged bias against thinking outside the box [2], ie. Christian persecution complex - Natural Selection does not account for the introduction of new genetic material. (No shit Sherlock, if you would quit conflating NS as Evolution you may not be so confused. NS is only one mechanism of Evolution.) Like I said standard fare.
What I would like y'all to do whilst listening, is to remember I am a layman. I am not a scientist nor a researcher. Just like y'all I get into these discussions and sometimes flounder around trying to hold my own against individuals who have a very polished apologistic agenda. In other words, they are religious fucktards. Science, on the other hand, does not have an agenda; it is either true or it is not. You either accept it or you don't.
My confrontation with Michael, was in essence the straw that broke the camels back. It was time for me to become better able to counter his type of bullshit. I wanted to know exactly "how" bad I did and where I could improve. If his "research" (he actually referred to "his team" and taking into consideration an "author" he cited was published by the Discovery Institute, I can imagine who his team consisted of) is so fucking brilliant and groundbreaking, why then is he hawking his shit on a BTR program? [3] I even asked him where his paper was published and when he was receiving his Nobel prize. But to no avail.
This segment is the result of such. This segment is the accumulation of my google-foo over the years. It is a look at specific points with (what I think are) solid examples to refute those points. [Whether a Creationist or IDer chooses to accept such evidence is a whole different story but at least I know I ain't crazy.]
What was missing at first listen though was the "Tornado in a Junkyard Fallacy". It was there but I missed it in the beginning as Michael re-packaged the fallacy in more modern sounding terms, a computer coding analogy as well as moving the interjection of the "creative force". It was an analogy I was unfamiliar with and have come to learn, that it is not new and has been around for some time. So his "claim" for original thinking falls flat. Just as with standard apologia, there is nothing new; just re-packaged garbage. Other forms I have come across: DNA is like a computer, or DNA is like data on a hard drive. There are others, but I think you get my drift.
So today we're going to take a look at this analogy and why it is a fallacy AND even if there was a prime mover Michael would still have to show this PM's existence. Which we all know is not a possibility. And, even if this PM existed, Evolution would still be true. [Note:: It was at this point that Michael abruptly disappeared from the conversation. Stan another participant, had alluded to this point and I was going to drive the point a bit more, but didn't get the chance.]
There is no question whatsoever about the truth of Evolution. The only debates that exist about Evolution are about the relative importance of different forces on particular cases [4]. With that said,,,
Originally coined by British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, it was originally used as an argument against Abiogenesis not Evolution. It is an oversimplifying of a complex theory hence a strawman. Abiogenesis does not suggest that complex high-order beings appeared from primordial soup in one magical step. As an argument against Evolution, it also fails as one of the main mechanisms of Evolution is Natural Selection which is non-random. [5]
Michael wants to know the "initial formulation" of DNA as it comes together in a "system kind of way."
If I am understanding his POV we have this:
As much as Michael likes to state that he is NOT speaking to Abiogenesis (see show notes) [5], he is in fact making such a claim ("the initial formulation of DNA") but he makes his first mistake by referring to DNA. What he "should" have said - for a better, but still flawed analogy - is GENOME which is the complete set of DNA (the hereditary material that makes up the genome or the "ordered code" of which DNA is a part of). [6]
That aside for the moment, it matters not in the grand scheme of things whether genome or DNA. Arguing from analogy is a bad idea and always fails. Instead of discussing the actual issues (Intelligent Design vs Evolution) the conversation devolves to arguing the points of the analogy. "Analogies are a teaching tool. They are for describing a difficult concept to someone who has no experience with that concept. By relating that concept to something that they already understand, then they can begin to see how that concept works." [7]
DNA cannot be placed in isolation, or taken out of context. "It is not a stand alone piece of the puzzle." As blogger Smilodon notes, it get us into some really techie areas of chromatids, histones and effects on replication, translation, and mutations, etc,,,.
One final point concerning analogies [8]. As with Paley's Watch, [9] the JA , is comparing a nonliving object to living things capable of self-reproduction and subject to mutations. Again as Smilodon points out, ",,,there is a false analogy. Because watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid." It is an invalid argument regardless of whether living things have a designer or not. [10]
As noted prior, the Junkyard Analogy can be attributed to Fred Hoyle, as an argument against Abiogenesis. What was not mentioned in that brief introduction, the JA is a statistical analysis applied to Evolutionary origins. In other words, the statistical probability of life originating by chance. There are earlier iterations alluded to by the ID crowd such as the so-called "Borel's Law" [11] as well as other bad analogies. [12] Regardless of which is used, they all fail as noted prior "[b]ecause watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid."
While Musgrave goes into much more detail, his overall conclusion, "The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies." Remember Abiogenesis, or origin of life is not Evolution. They are two distinct fields with Natural Selection (Michael's apparent issue) being just one aspect of the later. As Dr Mohammed Noor references in my class on Genetics and Evolution: [14]
In essence the JA is well, junk. It doesn't really explain what IDer's or Creationists thinks it does and over looks the differences between complex living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves with inanimate objects that are unable to pass on any reproductive changes.
So that in a nutshell is a more technical look at what is wrong with the JA, but what about for us peons that do not have the "science" at our finger tips to counter the bullshit? What can we do besides using our google-foo?
Ten years ago I came across a really nice break-down of what is wrong with the JA, I have broken it down even further to "KISS" it.
So next week we will take a look at what I consider four primary points of contention with the JA and how one can begin to counter the bullshit. Notes:
While I disagree that, "God and science can co-exist", I do agree with Clifton's overall point.
"To me creationists aren’t Christian (though they might believe in God and Jesus), they’re something entirely different. I see them more like a cult than a religion. A brainwashed grouping of people who reject all proven science for the sake of unrealistic beliefs.
,,,
But the fact is, Christianity is a faith – not science. That’s something creationists fail to understand. That’s why creationism doesn’t belong in a science class, because it’s not science."
,,,
And that’s the mindset of most who join cults. They ignore all the reality outside of their system of beliefs and convince themselves (despite all facts to the contrary) that they’re right and everyone else is a part of some massive conspiracy to cover up the truth. Just like creationists believe that science is some conspiracy to “get rid of God.”
,,,DNA is nothing like a computer program. A computer program executes steps in a particular order. DNA can be transcribed in any order and each cell on uses part of the DNA. Again, a reasonably competent programmer can understand the code, figure out what it’s doing and even repair the program. Not so with DNA.
DNA is also not something that runs on some kind of platform. It is an integral part of the ‘platform’. Indeed, it is the “hardware” as well as the “software”. Oh and it’s also the memory and it’s also the CPU. Even further, the DNA can undergo some pretty drastic changes to the code and still work. In fact, random changes to DNA can actually result in new effects and improvements in the resulting proteins. Which simply does not happen with software.
[11] Any discussion concerning Emil Borel, while fascinating, is way beyond the scope of this presentation. I note it only because 1) I'm an information junky, and 2) as John Stockwell notes, it is another bit of science (in this case mathematics) that has been hijacked by creationists to suit their "needs". The only issue, once examined the hijacking is thwarted. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.
As noted by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado, "[t]he true law being referenced is actually the Strong Law of large numbers, but creationists have taken a simple statement made by Borel in books written late in his life concerning probability theory and called this statement Borel's Law." Under his subsection "A Discussion of Borel's Law", Stockwell explain how and why this hijacking may have occurred and why such is in error, ",,,Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.
[12] With all the various analogies floating about, I will admit to some confusion. These are but a few ideas to explore in a bit more depth:
“[W]hat is the probability that a monkey (or chimpanzee) with a typewriter randomly pounding on the keys could produce the works of Shakespeare?” A better analogy is a monkey with a word processor, whose program (like your spell checker) automatically deletes or fixes mistakes, so that even by typing random keys, the monkey will eventually assemble a recognizable string of words.
Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
,,,
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
Richard Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, and Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996) has provided many interesting examples and computer models that show just how easily this can be done. This is the fundamental misunderstanding: evolution is not just “random chance” but a strong non-random force capable of changing genomes and acting upon material provided by chance.
This spring, the world learned of a newly discovered missing link between microbes and humans called Lokiarchaeota.
The actual story is that the microbe Lokiarchaeota, discovered on the
deep sea floor by a hydrothermal vent called Loki’s Castle, shares
features with both bacteria and us. The spin is that this makes it a
missing link between the two. Microbiologists have been discreetly quiet
about this narrative fiction; although the microbe is fascinating, and
so deserves the spotlight, it is no more a missing link than the
platypus is a missing link between ducks and humans.
This missing link imagery, based on the idea that evolution
is a methodical process with logical, continuous connections to be
discovered and mapped, might set up a good story. But it’s wrong – and
can detrimentally influence our understanding of immediately threatening
processes like the rapid evolution of flu.
,,,
But we cannot content ourselves with old narratives just because they are comfortable and familiar. Theoretical epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta presents the case that many infectious diseases, including influenza virus, evolve by the reassembly of old parts from disparate sources,
not by a continuous evolutionary stroll somewhere new. Rather than a
Blind Watchmaker tinkering with last year’s model – Richard Dawkins' famous image of evolution – a Mad Scientist assembles new Frankensteins each year in his laboratory.
The Complaint alleges that the Policy explicitly and implicitly seeks
to establish a non-theistic religious worldview by leading students to
ask “ultimate religious questions” like “where do we come from?” Rather
than objectively informing children of the actual state of our
scientific knowledge about these questions in an age-appropriate manner,
the F&S lead them “to answer the questions with only
materialistic/atheistic answers.” This and numerous other deceptive
strategies alleged in the Complaint amount to a prescription for
indoctrinating student acceptance of a materialistic/atheistic worldview
by the time they reach middle school.
The Complaint alleges that the principal tool of
indoctrination is the concealed use of an Orthodoxy known as
methodological naturalism or scientific materialism. It holds that
explanations of the cause and nature of natural phenomena may only use
natural, material or mechanistic causes, and must assume that
supernatural and teleological or design conceptions of nature are
invalid.
"Supernatural and teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid" for a reason, they cant be tested. this group doesn't even understand what science is nor have even the most basic grasp on the scientific method but yet they want to dictate the standards by which science is taught.
Kansas education officials deny standards they adopted for teaching
of science in public schools endorse what critics say is a “a
non-theistic religious Worldview.”
The Kansas State Board of Education stated its position Monday in
arguments submitted to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
The arguments are in response to an appeal by critics of a document
the board adopted in 2013. The opponents contend the document violates
the religious rights of students, parents and taxpayers, and is
unconstitutional.
The document treats evolution and climate change as key scientific
concepts for classes from kindergarten through 12th grade, The
Associated Press reported when the controversy arose.
Opponents who sued to overturn what they characterized as a “teaching
plan” include an organization known as Citizens for Objective Public
Education (COPE).
As I stated in my original post concerning COPE, "Creationism is not scientifically valid, it’s a religious story that has
zero evidence to support it,,,. [I]t is a point made very clear by Justice Jones in Kitzmiller v Dover (2005)."
Even
if these "educational standards" were to be adopted across this
country, these kids would never be able to compete on an international
level. It is akin to child abuse
to so stunt their future prospects in the name of religion; these kids deserve better.
What COPE is saying, their faith is fragile and they don't want anyone to be exposed to critical thought or the
scientific method. They're not content to condemn their own children to ignorance, tthey want to do this to everybody's kids. This flap concerning the Next Generation Science Standard is just one means of creating an opportunity to
indoctrinate impressionable children they might not otherwise be able to
reach with their own religious belief system.
So, let me get this straight. Every time the public school science
curriculum properly refuses to teach creationism, it is guilty of
teaching a religious world view? That makes no sense. Evolution is a
well-established explanation in the scientific community. Teaching it in
science class is not teaching a religious view in violation of
church-state separation.
It sounds like proponents would prefer teaching no science at all?
Should we just throw up our hands and say, to every question, “we don’t
know?” Will that be the science education of the 21st Century if
arguments like this one prevail?
