The (unfortunately) well-known creationist Ray Comfort, who runs a number of websites aimed at discrediting evolution and/or atheism has re-published Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. Rather cheekily, this seems to be credited at amazon.co.uk as being written by Charles Darwin and Ray Comfort (it has to be said, in the interests of truth, that the cover image provided by Amazon.co.uk – pictured right – makes no mention of Ray banana man Comfort). Furthermore, judging from the reviews of this edition at amazon.co.uk, the initial listing conflated reviews of this version (bowdlerised not only by inclusion of Comfort’s crass creationist introduction but also by excision of key material) mixed with reviews of more acceptable editions. It would seem that the resounding raspberry of the seven reviews to date are now specifically associated with this version.

There has been an ongoing debate over this edition of Origins over at the US News website, beginning with NCSE Director Eugenie Scott’s piece (How Creationist ‘Origin’ Distorts Darwin) and Comfort’s attempts at justification. Scott pointed out Comfort’s evisceration of Origins:

Unfortunately, it will be hard to thoroughly read the version that Comfort will be distributing on college campuses in November. The copy his publisher sent me is missing no fewer than four crucial chapters, as well as Darwin’s introduction. Two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcase biogeography, some of Darwin’s strongest evidence for evolution. Which is a better explanation for the distribution of plants and animals around the planet: common ancestry or special creation? Which better explains why island species are more similar to species on the mainland closest to them, rather than to more distant species that share a similar environment? The answer clearly is common ancestry. Today, scientists continue to develop the science of biogeography, confirming, refining, and extending Darwin’s conclusions.

Likewise missing from Comfort’s bowdlerized version of the Origin is Chapter 13, where Darwin explained how evolution makes sense of classification, morphology, and embryology. To take a simple example, why do all land vertebrates (amphibians, mammals, and reptiles and birds) have four limbs? Not because four limbs are necessarily a superior design for land locomotion: insects have six, arachnids have eight, and millipedes have, well, lots. It’s because all land vertebrates descended with modification from a four-legged (”tetrapod”) ancestor. Since Darwin’s era, scientists have repeatedly confirmed that the more recently two species have shared a common ancestor, the more similar are their anatomy, their biochemistry, their embryology, and their genetics.

The blogosphere has been full of protests about this edition of Origins – I can’t list all articles, but here are two links to PZ Myers’ Pharyngula: Ray Comfort is a parasite (in relation to which, I note that Comfort’s bowdlerised version no longer tops the list in the search results at amazon.com) and Ray Comfort Replies to Eugenie Scott.

(This post was composed offline and submitted via Bilbo Blogger, now sadly renamed Blogilo. Let’s see how well it works!)

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Bilbo Blogger

Bookmark It

read more

Evolution on 120 seconds

Bookmark It

The government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists.

The schools minister, Diana Johnson, has confirmed the plans will be included in a blueprint for a new curriculum to be published in the next few weeks.

It follows a letter signed by scientists and science educators calling on the government to make the change after draft versions of the new curriculum failed to mention evolution explicitly.

This seems pretty good news for rational thought, particularly given the unfortunate MORI poll recently, which appeared to show public support for teaching creationism in science lessons.  The campaign for inclusion of evolution in the curriculum was coordinated by the British Humanist Association.

Bookmark It

Once you’ve finished your leisurely Sunday brunch and had some coffee, tea, cocoa or… check out some good reading opportunities.

A good place to start is the 45th edition of the Humanist Symposium, which is being hosted at Confessions of a Closet Atheist. This week’s collection of readings includes my piece, Life’s Value.

After you’ve finished with the Symposium and refreshed your snacks, meals and beverages (and used the potty), you can check out Sunday in Outer Blogness: Another Day in the Culture Wars Edition, which is available at Main Street Plaza. My piece, Atheist Statistics 2008, is included in that roundup, which was a pleasant surprise to me.

If you’ve read all of those posts and are still hungry for more reading material, check out my updated Reading Room. I re-arranged things a bit to make room for another bookshelf. Shelf #1 contains all new entries.

If you don’t feel like reading, you can always watch NFL football instead. Redskins fans would appreciate it if you’d cheer for the ‘Skins. I’d ask you to offer some prayers or sacrifices on their behalf, but, you know…

– the chaplain

• Religious regulation: a close relationship between state and church tends to turn people off it.
• Education: better educated people abandon religion
• Economic security: if people don't have to worry about their future, gods lose their appeal.
• Individualization: religion is a social phenomenon, and people are only religious because everyone around them is.

...we find that attendance rates are particularly high in countries with more socioeconomic inequalities and fewer social welfare expenditure. This effect equally applies to both poor and rich people, which is in line with the idea that because of economic mobility and the possibility of unemployment in the (nearby) future also the more affluent population feels more insecure in countries with more inequalities and without a well-developed social welfare system.

We also see that people with a lower income and who are unemployed attend religious meetings more often, and we find an enduring effect of growing up in times of war. In summary, the results of our study suggest that personal and societal insecurities play a crucial role in explaining cross-national variation in religious attendance.

First, faithlessgod says he has "quibbles" with my understanding of the theory, but is satisfied to leave my synopsis as is.  I appreciate his review for any errors on my part.  Hearing no specific problems I'll assume I've got a workable understanding of DU and proceed from there.

The key is to consider whether a malleable desire promotes the fulfilment of other desires, or thwarts them.  If it promotes their fulfilment, then it is "good" in the moral sense, and "bad" in the moral sense if it thwarts them.[my emphasis and typo corrections]

The descriptive view is a desire is labelled good to the extent that it tends to fulfil and not thwart other desires. The prescriptive view is a desire is labelled good to the extent the people generally have reason to promote and not inhibit that desire. Both are views of the same facts but with different emphasis, the descriptive focused on the desires, the prescriptive focused on the people.

All intentional action is motivated by desires and beliefs.  Presumably, by "intentional action", Fyfe means something like "all acts that are free", or "all acts that are worthy of moral evaluation".  Unconscious breathing surely is excluded from the scope of intentional acts.

So the typical conscientious Desire Utilitarian would evaluate act X based on whether or not someone with good desires would do act X.  Since good desires are those which promote the fulfilment of other desires, in practice we should be asking ourselves: "what kind of desires should I have?"  That is the root of morality for the Desire Utilitarian.

It can beg the question of those other desires, and a moral evaluation of them is to be expected.  But that evaluation is a red herring. The objection is grounded in the definition of a desire as either good or bad once those other desires change (maybe they no longer exist, or are altered).

Here’s an interesting little video (less than 3 minutes) that presents fairly recent atheist statistics. The author cites several of his sources in the video, and provides a complete list of his sources, with links, in the sidebar at the YouTube site where the video is posted. He explains his reason for making the video in a brief introductory note:

This is a REBUTTAL to Christian claims that atheists are immoral, dumb, or evil. This is not an attack on Christians. In other words, I wouldn’t have felt the need to make this video if it hadn’t been for all the insane opinions Christians have of atheists and the non-religious.

Many atheists are already familiar with most, if not all, of the information in the video. Many of you may also be familiar with the sources listed in the sidebar. I was familiar with some of them, and I also discovered some new ones (to me) that I’m interested in exploring further.

Enjoy and discuss.

– the chaplain

Apart from the sheer arrogance of this approach, this does fill me with amusement.  Back in the late 70s and early 80s, when I was a student at Edinburgh, Pollock Halls appeared to double its occupancy on Friday and Saturday nights following the dread discos (usually closing with the rousing sing-along anthem Hi Ho Silver Lining).  Indeed such frequently carnal activity was reflected in amused comments from University accommodation officers concerning the single beds provided at Pollock Halls.

So, I suppose if passed, the distribution of bibles will be followed with a multitude of other holy books.  Will it extend to the works of L. Ron Hubbard, who’s flights of fancy came a cropper in French courts recently?  After all, Hubbard’s bonkers beliefs aren’t especially unusual in comparison to the tosh found in the bible.

I particularly liked Barry Duke’s (Freethinker blog) suggestion of a warning label that should be affixed to each copy:

I have an upcoming trip to the US – I imagine there will be Gideon bibles in each hotel room I will stay in.  The temptation to affix such labels would be severe…

On the other hand, perhaps the kindly souls at the christian union would consider Robert Crumb’s illustrated version of Genesis.  At least that would amusingly illustrate (probably in a nice earthy sort of way) several elements of the warning label.

Good luck to those who seek to prevent this absurdity.  Students don’t need extra doorstops in their tiny Pollock Halls bedrooms.

Bookmark It

I probably don’t need to say much about this:

Islamists in southern Somalia have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth.

Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of Merka.

An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby.

If you haven’t thrown up yet, read on:

A 13-year-old girl was stoned to death for adultery in the southern town of Kismayo last year.

Human rights groups said she had been raped.

After giving the matter about 2 seconds of thought (yeah, I’m running a bit slowly tonight), I’ve decided that I’ll bypass this value system and stick with my own home-brewed values. My values have two advantages for me and one for my neighbors:

1. They help me keep my food down,
2. They let me sleep at night, and
3. My neighbors need not fear that I will respond to their bedroom gymnastics – or rapes – with deadly violence against them.

‘Nuff said.

– the chaplain