Enriching the Future...

The reception of Darwin’s ideas has been mixed. On the one hand, almost the entire scientific world accepts the neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolutionary theory. Almost no field of modern science would be able to function in quite the same way without evolutionary thought. On the other, Darwin’s popularity among non-scientists, especially people of faith, has been mixed from the beginning. He had his defenders among Christian theologians from the outset, but also his critics. In earlier generations, most of those theological critics concentrated on the challenge of Darwinian thought to teleological and cosmological arguments for God’s existence, for the goodness of Creation, the uniqueness of humanity and of purpose to human existence. In recent decades, however, these larger questions have been downplayed in favor of biblical literalism and of pseudo-scientific attempts to justify that literalism via such oxymoronic schemes as “creation science,” and “intelligent design theory.”....

Ironically, it was Abraham Lincoln who, even in the midst of our nation’s greatest struggle for survival (both physical and as a nation of freedom and equality for ALL), created our National Academy of Sciences. He sought not only to preserve the Union physically, but to enrich its future through promotion of scientific inquiry. Origin of Species was only published in 1859 and The Descent of Man was not published until 1871, so it is unclear if Lincoln had ever heard of any of Darwin’s researches or theories. (Lincoln was self-taught, but widely read. He won his law license and admission to the Illinois Bar completely through self-study.) Yet, I think Lincoln would be disappointed that the United States today, though in many ways far more advanced than in Lincoln’s day, would take knowledge and scientific inquiry so lightly that only 39% of the public is completely convinced of biological evolution via natural selection.

Many Americans are reading more about Lincoln this year in honor of his bicentennial. It’s a good idea. But take some time out to read Darwin, too. {full post}

[via Levellers]

Big Yellow Taxi, Bruckner's Symphonies and Scholarly Confusion Between Orality and Quantum Mechanics

[via Exploring Our Matrix]

not positing god v. positing “no god”

[via Notes From Off-Center]

The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

[via Wired, HT: IdeaJoy]

Bikini-inspired Impatience

[via the view from her]

The New Atheism as Inadequate Theodicy

[via TheOtherJournal.com, HT: Rumblings]

Good For The Environment

You may have heard that religion and science are at war. There are those who say that science has made religion obsolete. There are others, on the other side, of the spectrum, who say that Charles Darwin, and scientists like him, is the devil incarnate. You have to choose. And there’s my problem, I don’t want to choose. In fact, I’ve come to believe that my faith can live in peace with science, including evolutionary science.

Because Evolution Sunday falls this year on the First Sunday of Lent, I thought maybe this year we could combine the two observances. Evolution Sunday challenges us to learn from the witness of science. Yes, it challenges some of our cherished ideas, but the end result is a stronger faith. As they say, Darwin is here to stay, so how are we going to deal with him? Lent, on the other hand, calls us to a time of fasting, prayer, reflection, and sacrifice. Maybe this year, instead of giving up chocolate or Doritos, we could do something more constructive. Perhaps we could take some time and change some light bulbs, turn off some appliances, drive a smaller car, and do something good for the environment.

[via Words of Welcome, HT: Ponderings on a Faith Journey]

How We Are?

We have just seen the last of a terrible century with, quite possibly, worse to come. Why is it so hard for us to be good? Why is it so hard for us to be happy?

One thing, at least, has been pretty widely agreed: we can’t expect much help from science. Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it couldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are. There couldn’t be a science of the human condition. {more...}

[HT: Prolegomena]

Breakdown of Compassion

Of course, psychological factors are only some of many causes underlying the failure to respond to genocide. But the psychology is important and it has implications for policy that, so far, have not been addressed....

The broader message of this psychological explanation is that we cannot trust our quick, natural, intuitions that we rely upon heavily to tell us whether or not some moral transgression is occurring and to motivate us to respond. Rather, our moral intuitions fail us when the number of lives involved becomes large. Indeed, the research shows that the breakdown of compassion can be seen to begin when the number of needy persons goes from 1 to 2!

[via The Situationist]

Entrenched and Evokative

Race, Myth, and Ritual in Jena

[via Ponderings on a Faith Journey]

Lima Beans - Yuch! (Why Wanting Not To Be Prejudiced May Not Be Enough)

[via The Situationist]

Your Future Has Detail

and

The Lens That Sees Its Flaws

[via Overcoming Bias]

Not Politics, Not Alarm

I've noticed two patterns in global warming skepticism. Firstly, many reasons for disbelieving in anthroporphic global warming (AGW) seems to be political rather than scientific. Eg - it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism (or sometimes just plain dislike for Al Gore). As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove".

But beneath the politics is a more elemental instinct - an aversion to alarmism. We've been burnt before. The media predicted an ice age in the 70's which never eventuated. Y2K was going to destroy society - it was barely a hiccup. And I won't deny there are alarmists in the global warming camp. Urgent cries that the ice sheets are on the verge of sliding into the sea. Hysteric predictions that Manhattan will soon be underwater. Or emotional pleas to save those cute little polar bears. Sadly, alarmists seem to be the loudest voices in the global warming debate. But that doesn't change the science underneath.

So I avoid the distractions of political agendas, ad hominem arguments and hyperbole about "the new religion". Instead, I concentrate on the science. {more...}

[via Skeptical Science, HT: The Heresy]

The Myth of Consistent Skepticism

[via Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 2007]

After A Universal Rapture

Imagine Earth without people

[via New Scientist, HT: Jordon Cooper]

Eternal Expiration

Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that the first cells were indeed designed and used to seed this planet. What would this look like to someone who was convinced that this planet instead spawned those seeds? A gap. That is, if one is committed to the hypothesis that the planet’s geochemistry is sufficient cause for the origin of these cells, yet their origin depends, at least in part, on some form of intelligent design, the non-teleological perspective interprets its difficulty in bridging the discontinuity in epistemological terms – a gap.

Now, once we realize that such a design event will be perceived by non-teleologists as a gap, two other interesting insights follow....

Things get more interesting when you realize that most non-teleologists believe that a design inference necessarily depends on the ability to identify and describe independent information about the designer(s). Without such information, the teleologist is left with nothing more than gaps. If it can thus appear the gaps are slowly being filled, the non-teleologist will never suspect that life was designed (remember we are making this assumption for the sake of argument).

But there is one major problem with the Promissory Note Argument – it has no expiration date. Since, FAPP, we can indefinitely generate new speculations and lines of inquiry that provide new sets of circumstantial evidence, the perception of a discontinuity as a gap can be maintained long past my lifetime. And this takes us to Dawkins' argument about the origin of life – the OOL event was so ancient and improbable that we should NOT expect an ability to completely close the gap. In other words, the Promissory Note has been given an expiration date after all – eternity.

[via Telic Thoughts]

Related: PUC in the Gaps

Another Fact That Can Be Proved?

A faith proven is no longer faith, it is fact. By attempting to distinguish between Christianity and science by proving faith in a scientific way, all Ham has done is simply blurred the two. Now, Christian faith has been reduced to just another type of science, another fact that can be proved.

Everyday we are bombarded by a sea of facts. Have you watched CNBC lately? There are more scrolling bars than any normal human can handle. Apparently a business degree enables you to sit there in a trance and ingest the data without causing your head to explode. We in the West suffer from information overload to the point that we can no longer sift through what’s true and what’s not....

If faith can be proven, it can also be unproven. That little “fact” does not sit well with me.

Ultimately our faith has to transcend grudge matches of “my facts are more true than your facts”. Seekers of truth are not looking for facts, they are looking for a genuine and authentic faith which can be applied everyday. They have to wade through diverse sets of facts everyday, so what’s one more?

....People who are persuaded to be a Christian based on facts, rather than faith, will have a much harder time putting that faith into practice.

[via Moral Contradictions]

The Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts

[via denialism blog]

The Elect Gene?

March 19, 2007

Joe Bob Briggs
Door Science Correspondent

After several years of research, scientists at the Clinical Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico have isolated three genes that are believed to prove a biological basis for becoming a practicing Southern Baptist.

"We were stunned," said Jose Aguilar de la Estacionamiento, Director of Basic Research at the university, at a morning press conference. "We were actually looking for the determinant gene for sphincter occlusion. It's one of those inadvertent discoveries that sometimes occur when you're doing basic science."

Aguilar said the results were so shocking that he withheld publication for two years while the DNA was taken from every member of the Iglesia Bautista Hugo Chavez mega-church in San Miguel Allende. He found a 99.7 percent correlation between the genetic makeup of the Baptists in that congregation and the presence of the three mutated genes that normally identify people with a tendency toward stiff necks, rigid sphincter muscles, and early-pattern baldness. Given the overwhelming evidence, Aguilar said, there was no choice but to announce his findings to the scientific community.

Instantly, there were ethical issues raised as Mexican Catholics besieged parish priests with questions about whether it was possible that their infants could grow up to be Baptists. {continue...}

[via The Wittenburg Door Insider, HT: The Raging Paradoxidation]