Please remember that I took these notes as the video was playing. I’ve copied them here unedited – spolling mistooks, abysmal punctuation and grammar unaltered.

First few minutes, Behe and Meyer! This should be awful

Overly dramatic music

Are we dealing with Evolution or Abiogenesis?

Bill Dempskey too!!!

Up to 10 mins, OK, not too bad. Standard documentary fayre – narrator with deep gravelly voice, a bunch of names all with impressive sounding titles Dr, Prof etc.

10:00 Aaargh! Darwinism! You lose. It’s called Evolution numbnuts.

And almost straight into micro-eveolution being ok, but macro not being possible.

11:20 Funny how basically every other evolutionary biologist does the same thing but comes up with a very different answer.

12:00 again with Darwinism. Also, seems to think that Evolution hasn’t progressed as a theory in the 150years since publication of Origin.

12:15 OK, onto Behe and his discredited idea of irreducible complexity it seems.

12:30 Nope, you weren’t taught Darwinian biology, you were taught evolution that was started by the ideas of Darwin. There is a difference.

14:00 And none of that knowledge has dented Evolutionary theory at all, in fact it’s completely supported it.

16:00 Hahahaha Bacterial Flagellum. FAIL!

18:00 Not sure when this film was made, but this apparent failure to explain the flagellum is out of date. It has been explained quite successfully.

19:00 The Mouse trap analogy. FAIL. Every single one of those parts works as something by themselves. Just because they don’t necessarily work as a mouse trap individually means nothing.

20:20 Not quite. You need to explain what function they do do individually or in smaller groups. Or at least show they aren’t detremental to the organism.

20:45 Please tell me they aren’t going to mis-quote Darwin about the eye. Please!

22:00 OK, no eye, thankfully.

23:00 A tail that didn’t function as a flagellum would be selected against? What if that tail did do something useful that wasn’t a flagellum? What then?

23:50 And Behe was an idiot.

24:10 And is was religiously motivated.

25:40 Assembly instructions? What, bacteria shop at IKEA too?

28:20 It’s no use, it’s Turtles all the way down. Pity, I was almost starting to … nah.

29:30 Game over man! Game over.

29:35 Oh, wait…

30:50 So, because Darwin couldn’t explain how life began, that means that his theory – which works on the assumption that life has already begun by some other mechanism – is wrong? Fail.

31:50 So, Darwin speculated, nothing more. He never proposed a theory for the origin of life.

32:30 Let’s be clear, using evolutionary principles, is not saying that evolution had any hand in it.

34:30 OK, on to proteins, this is all way beyond my pay grade so I’ll probably mostly shut up for a while now.

37:00 Oh hang on, I see where this is going.

37:51 He said it, he said Computer Code! As a programmer he’s now encroaching on my territory.

40:39 Again, not sure how old this film is, but recent studies have shown that certain proteins can indeed spontaneously assemble.

41:30 And we’re back to saying that DNA is computer code.

42:50 Oooh, name dropper. You worked at NASA huh.

44:20 Chemical evolution theory – proved or disproved has not bearing on the veracity of biological evolution.

44:50 You’re not serious are you? If you have thousands of people doing it constantly for billions of years … well, what do you think will happen?

45:40 Wow, wasn’t expecting that. So, you just basically said that biological evolution was irrelevant for causing the start of life. So why have you just spent so much time going on about how we can’t explain the start of life? I’m a bit lost here.

46:20 Oh please, please, don’t lets have an apparently respected scientist just say ‘GODDIDIT’.

46:30 Bugger, he did. Oh well, you just lost all your science privileges. Hand in your lab coat at the door on your way out.

48:00 All very pretty for sure, but I’m hoping that you’re going to actually give a SCIENTIFIC explanation for it all that isn’t GODDIDIT. Or are you hoping we won’t actually notice that lack?

48:50 I love how this bit is suddenly accompanied by uplifting music. YAY, go GOGDIDIT, I love you now because this video has made me feel so much happier.

51:10 Sure, it’s ‘possible’, but it’s not likely. It doesn’t explain anything, it just poses more – and usually unanswerable – questions.

51:20 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That is PRECISELY what most of the ’scientists’ presented in this film have done. FAIL

52:10 Because science is about explaining the universe around us, and it must be repeatable and testable. A guiding intelligence doesn’t fit, not when it could change it’s mind and make everything work in a different way when ever it felt like it.

52:29 Nope, because we KNOW how they were made.

54:10 And humans are INCREDIBLY bad at judging how probably an event actually is.

55:15 Peridolia, so, your God really does have nothing better to do that make shapes in grilled cheese sandwhiches huh?

55:55 Nope, because we frequently observe PEOPLE DRAWING IN THE SAND. If we had never observed that we mmight come to all sorts of conclusions. Most of which would be wildly wrong. It’s interesting that you’re not claiming the very regular almost symmetrical ripples left in the sand by waves – which do look at least as ‘designed’ as the writing were created by an intelligence. Is it because you also know how they were formed?

57:00 Huh? SETI? WTF?

57:30 And just to be clear before they carry on, even if we never detect such a signal it does not disprove intelligent life beyond earth. Also, irrespective of the type of signals received, it says precicely ZERO about non intelligent life.

58:50 Oh WOW. In one breath you say we haven’t found any other life, then in the next you say that the life here on Earth is the BEST! Statistically irrelevant sample anyone?

1:00:00 GOD OF THE GAPS! So, presumably when scientists DO find the answer you’ll STFU?

1:01:21 There is no comprehensive case. They’ve still COMPREHENSIVELY failed to provide the actual evidence that both proves intelligence and disproves evolution.

1:02:00 And so far the evidence has pointed comprehensively away from intelligence.

1:02:30 Again with the uplifting music to add gravity to what these idiots are saying.

1:03:09 GOD OF THE GAPS again. Proves nothing.

1:03:45 If there was a supreme intelligence that wanted the world to be understood, then why did he apparently make it so difficult. If I want my young daughter to understand something I explain it in nice simple terms for her. I don’t give her a book on electronic theory and circuit design so she can understand how to use her MP3 player.

1:04:10 Pity we also find irrationality, pain, and suffering. All things that we would expect to find if the universe wasn’t guided by an intelligent agent.

1:05:21 And what do you think will happen in the 22nd century when all that is explained by naturalistic methods just as you are dismissing what happened in the 19th century?

1:06:54 OK, (C) 2002, so that explains why some of the claims are so out of date then.

Well, yes, that was almost completely awful. Very little actual substance to the arguments. I can sum  the whole thing up with … “We don’t yet understand how it happened so we’ll just go with GODDIDIT.” But my hopes weren’t high to be honest.

As usual, I’ll just take a minute to remind everyone I don’t claim to be a scientist of any kind. I’m just an interested bystander. I welcome reasoned and informed discussion. If I have made an egregious error then I am happy to be corrected – especially if you can provide evidence to back up your position that will allow me to learn my mistake.

Please visit the Libel Reform Campaign website, sign the petition (it’s not just for UK citizens) and send a message to your MP (if you are a UK citizen).

The recent earthquake in Haiti is a major disaster. From the what I have heard and read there are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands dead, and the immediate area is in chaos. Governments and organisations the world over are promising aid and financial assistance, and people of all beliefs are dipping into their pockets to give money to the various aid agencies that have sprung into action.

So, this is all the things that normally happen when there is a huge humanitarian disaster. Everyone bands together in an effort to help those stricken by whatever natural even has befallen them.

Then the religious nuts chime in. First it was that odious toad Pat Robertson claims that it was divine retribution because of Haiti’s pact with the devil to throw out the French, and that it is a blessing in disguise. Second, whilst driving in to work this morning I was listening to Chris Evans on BBC Radio 2, and some religious numpty came on (I didn’t catch his name unfortunately) and proceeded to make some utterly bizarre claims. Echoing Pat he said something along the lines of “How can a god exist and allow this sort of thing to happen. Well, he can’t, unless some good comes of it.”, “Among the first support that came were words of support from the Pope.”, and “God didn’t cause this, it was just a natural event.”

HOLY COW!

OK, first off Haiti overthrew the French over 200 years ago. There is a saying that “Revenge is a dish best served cold” but wow, God obviously wanted it very cold!

Next, this is a huge disaster, with massive loss of human life. What sort of heartless, uncaring, opportunist do you have to be to say “It’s OK, don’t worry about all those dead people,God allowed this to happen so something good would come of this”. An all powerful, loving being would manage to bring about good without killing off vast swathes of the population of a country. A country by the way where around 95% of the population identify themselves  as Christians.

But lastly, the Pope(^TM ) can blow it out has fat ass. Right now what the people of Haiti need is food, medicine, and rescue workers then money in the coming months not some pompous twit sitting in his lavish palace blowing hot air.

If you can, please give to one of the international aid organisations that is actually doing something. I suggest either the Red Cross, or Oxfam.

*** FOLLOW UP ***

Some details of the supposed Pact with the Devil from StraightDope.com

Just shows that Pat has his facts wrong – no great suprises there.

Happy New Year everyone!

http://politicalirony.com/2009/12/10/what-if-2/

(c) Joel Pitt

In many ways AGCC is a very contentious issue, and in many ways it isn’t. There is a substantial, an often vocal, group of denialists who see a conspiracy at every turn, and try to use any perceived crack as a way to shatter the whole thing. There is also an equally vocal group of AGCC evangelists who are trying to get the word out to the world, and convince us to mend our ways. Both sides have a right to an opinion, although not everyone’s opinion is backed up by evidence nor does everyone’s opinion necessarily have a right to be heard on a public platform.

Then there is me. Up until about 9 months ago I was what most people would probably consider to be a denialist. Not that that is how I saw myself of course, but of the two extremes that is the camp that I probably closer fitted in with. I was openly sceptical of the climate change ‘promoters’, and their motives. I knew that the long term records (various proxies – tree rings, ice cores etc) showed that CO2 and temperatures had been both much higher and much lower than they are today so it seemed reasonable that whatever was the cause then could equally be the cause today. There was no need to invoke a human cause, and try to stir up the demons that changing our ways would invoke. I didn’t so much think that the scientists were part of a conspiracy, or that they were wrong per se, but that their models were too simplistic, and that there was some hidden ‘something’ that was being ignored or overlooked.

Then I decided to take a step back, and examine some of my core beliefs a little closer. My musings reaffirmed my atheistic beliefs, but in doing so I realised that my reasoning for being sceptical about AGCC were almost identical to that of Creationists/Intelligent Designers and their attitude towards Evolution. Given that I accept evolution because it works, it’s supported by the science, and is the prevailing opinion of the experts in the field it seemed slightly unacceptable to deny AGCC for exactly the same reasons.

That’s not to say that I’ve done a complete about turn. I haven’t. As I said above, I never thought of myself as a denialist to begin with. I accepted that the data showed that we have experienced a 0.7C increase in temperature since the start of the industrial revolution. I knew that CO2 had at least the potential to influence the temperature. I was just unsure that human activity was the sole cause of it all.

My current view is quite a bit more complex. I accept the prevailing scientific view that human activities seem to be the primary driver behind increased CO2 levels (and other atmospheric greenhouse gasses like methane), and that these increases seem to be the primary driver behind the observed temperature increase. I am still sceptical about certain aspects however. I’m not convinced that human activities are the sole cause of climate change. I have concerns that many of the pieces of remedial action that governments and ‘green’ groups are trying to push on us are nothing more than just fund raisers, or an attempt to gain attention. Whilst stumbling around the web I frequently come across websites promoting ‘green’ goods or initiatives. Almost without fail such goods only have a thin veneer of green, and if you dig even slightly below the surface they quickly lose their credentials and they just become another persons attempt to make money on the back of a global problem. I still believe that our understanding of the intricacies of our climate are still woefully inadequate. We still do not understand whether certain aspects are positive or negative feedback systems. We’re constantly gaining insights into how the whole system hangs together, and how best to integrate such information into the models that we use to predict what will happen.

One thing that strikes me as odd however is that there are certain aspects of the whole Climate Change/Green arena that are surely beyond argument, but are rarely mentioned. We are highly dependant on oil, and oil is a very finite resource. Once it runs out, it’s gone. At this point it’s unclear exactly how much is left (estimates change all the time, I remember in the mid 1980s there being talk of only 15-20 years left) but it will run out. We need to work hard to find alternatives to oil (and coal) that are at least as cost effective financially. At worst such alternatives are a win, at best they’re a win-win. As a minimum they will allow our society to continue to function approximately as it does today. If the currently accepted position of too much CO2 being a bad thing continues to be held as true then anything that reduces that additional load must be a good thing.

As always I must point out I am not a scientist. I do not work in any field even remotely related to any form of climate science. I am just an interested bystander, and aspiring sceptic. I am willing to be proved wrong, and if I have my facts wrong I only too happy to be shown sources that help me to understand where I have gone wrong.

So, once I got home I looked it up. According to BibleGateway.com the KJV version reads:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

So… lets see. It appears to mean that they will wonder the streets randomly knocking on doors. If someone answers they’ll just walk in and start consuming the occupants food. They will at least be gracious enough to allow the resident of the recently invaded house to eat some of their own food whilst they do this. That seems like a very odd and not particularly neighbourly or moral act. Gives me yet another reason not to want to answer the door when these freeloading degenerates come knocking.

Isn’t it handy when people like this warn you up front of their poor judgement. Albeit by hiding behind an weird verse written by bronze age desert dwelling goat herders, translated and re-translated over and over again over the centuries. Don’t let that last bit worry you though, the Bible is after all the unchanging and inerrant perfect word of God!

GAH!

Come on people, what the hell are you thinking? No matter how you dress it up neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design is science. It poses no testable theory. It is not falsifiable. There has never been a paper written about it that has been subjected to peer review in any repultable science journal.

It’s NOT SCIENCE.

You can’t teach it in a SCIENCE classroom.

Just like you can’t teach Woodworking in an English classroom. Or Cooking in a Physical Education class.

Please, for the sake of our children, keep the science curriculum strictly scientific. Don’t let educational standards fall any further.

If you absolutely have to teach Creationism then there is already a classroom to do it. It’s the Relgious Studies class (which, by the way, I’m still pissed that no-one told me I could opt out of when I was at school, it could have saved me from a huge amount of tedium).