Maybe the horse got his wings from the mud or the volcanoes..

One of the more amusing conceits of atheists is that atheists are more rational than believers. Of course atheists define "rational" as "things atheists believe".  For example, atheists assert that the belief that the heart has no purpose is "rational".

*sigh*

Case in point-- commentor Anonymous:

... believing in miracles (including winged horses that carry you away to some glorious place) is not something I can abide; it defies all logic.

Now of course I'm not a Muslim, so I don't believe that Mohammed's Night Journey to heaven actually took place. Yet as a Catholic, I do believe in many miracles-- the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Lord's healings, the Resurrection, among many others.

I do believe in miracles.

Atheists believe in miracles as well.

Atheists believe that all life arose spontaneously-- without purpose or intelligent agency-- from mud or perhaps underwater volcanoes. Contra Anonymous, I fail to see how abiogenesis is more "logical" than winged horses.

Christians: 'The Word became flesh and dwelt among us'.

Muslims: 'Mohammed flew to heaven one night on a winged horse'.

Atheists: 'Mohammed, all men, and all horses came from mud or volcanoes.'

Which one is more rational to you?

Voyager 1 at the Heliopause

From The American:

Voyager has traveled so far that it is now near the heliopause. At the heliopause, the solar wind — the stream of charged particles that emanates from the sun and causes such phenomena as aurorae and the tails of comets — becomes so attenuated that it blends into the interstellar medium. The heliopause, in other words, is the farthest limit of the sun’s empire. Beyond is true interstellar space, the empire of the Milky Way.

A man-made spacecraft has entered interstellar space. Very very cool. 

The teleology of DNA replication

Jonathan M. at Evolution News and Views has a great post on the extraordinary complexity and purpose manifest in DNA replication. He quotes from a 1998 paper in Cell:

Synthesis of all genomic DNA involves the highly coordinated action of multiple polypeptides. These proteins assemble two new DNA chains at a remarkable pace, approaching 1000 nucleotides (nt) per second in E. coli. If the DNA duplex were 1 m in diameter, then the following statements would roughly describe E. colireplication. The fork would move at approximately 600km/hr (375 mph), and the replication machinery would be about the size of a FedEx delivery truck. Replicating the E. coli genome would be a 40 min, 400 km (250 mile) trip for two such machines, which would, on average make an error only once every 170 km (106 miles). The mechanical prowess of this complex is even more impressive given that it synthesizes two chains simultaneously as it moves. Although one strand is synthesized in the same direction as the fork is moving, the other chain (the lagging strand) is synthesized in a piecemeal fashion (as Okazaki fragments) and in the opposite direction of overall fork movement. As a result, about once a second one delivery person (i.e. polymerase active site) associated with the truck must take a detour, coming off and then rejoining its template DNA strand, to synthesize the 0.2km (0.13 mile) fragments.

To which Darwinists reply: DNA replication manifests no evidence for teleology, no evidence for intelligence, no evidence for design, and no purpose at all.

;) 

"There. I've defined the heart without mentioning 'purpose'."

Several commentors and I have been having a discussion of teleology and purpose in biology.

Teleology is a metaphysical theory that change in nature is generally restricted to a limited array of outcomes. Striking a match causes a flame, but never an atomic explosion, or an ice cube.

Some philosophers have noted that teleology invokes the notion of "purpose" in nature. There often seems to be a striving, a goal-orientedness, to natural processes. Purpose seems particularly obvious in biology. The purpose of the eye is to see, the purpose of the ear is to hear, the purpose of the lungs is to breathe. Purpose is evident at the cellular level. The purpose of mitochondria is to make energy, the purpose of ribosomes is to make proteins. Purpose is everywhere in living things.

Several of our atheist commentors have a real problem with assigning "purpose" to biology. Clearly, atheists are uncomfortable with acknowledging purpose in biology because it conjures a Source of purpose, which makes them squirm. Always eager to sacrifice science on the altar of ideology, atheists claim that inference to purpose is not necessary to discuss biology.

I disagree.

bachfiend:

The heart is a hollow muscular organ which rhythmically contracts and pumps blood into relatively high pressure arteries, and rhythmically relaxes and receives blood from relatively low pressure veins. 

There. I've defined the heart without mentioning 'purpose'.

Havok:

Just because we simplify things by using "purpose" langauge, doesn't mean there is actually any "purpose" there in the sense that you require.

Egnor:

it is impossible to discuss biology without discussing purpose.

Havok: 

That's rubbish Michael (unless you'd care to demonstrate that impossibility)....
Still waiting for your demonstration of goal directedness/purpose/final causality/Thomistic teleology in biology :-)

OK. Can I demonstrate that it is impossible to discuss biology without invoking purpose? Well, here goes.

Bach was kind enough to describe the heart without explicitly invoking purpose:

The heart is a hollow muscular organ which rhythmically contracts and pumps blood into relatively high pressure arteries, and rhythmically relaxes and receives blood from relatively low pressure veins. 

But if you neglect purpose,  there are other ways to describe the heart:

The heart is red, with yellow fat.
The heart is in a pericardial sac.
The heart weighs about a pound.
The heart moves continuously.
The heart makes a lub-dub sound.

And, oh heck, there are a lot of other things that are just as true about the heart:

It makes a "splat" sound if you drop it from a tall building.
It has no eyes.
It doesn't make urine.
Most people would agree that it wouldn't taste good, even with spicy pesto sauce.
It makes a lousy soccer ball.
It can be used as a paperweight, although it makes the papers soggy.
It can be fired out of a cannon, but it makes a mess.
It has never driven a race car in the Indianapolis 500.
It can be used as a doorstop, although it is rarely used for that purpose.
It can't play the violin.

There are an infinite number of ways to describe the heart, if you eschew "purpose". The heart has never been used as a baseball in a major league baseball game. It can be used to juggle. It is meaty. It would fit in your shoe. It pumps blood. It can't dance. All are equally true, if you are unconcerned about purpose.

So how, pray tell, does a scientist decide which of the infinite number of true facts about the heart are relevant?

Here's how:

Scientists invoke the purpose of the heart.

The heart's purpose is to pump blood.

In fact, you can sum up the main project in biological science during the past 2,300 years: to learn the purpose of things like hearts and DNA and kidneys and mitochondria.

Ironically, bachfiend, in his description of the heart, picked the one description, out of an infinite number of true descriptions, that alluded to  the heart's purpose-- and then he claims that the heart can be "defined" without allusion to purpose!

:-/

Even when atheists try to describe biology without "purpose", they invariably select a property out of an infinite number of true things about biology because it alludes to purpose.

It is impossible to discuss biology without discussing purpose. You can't even begin to talk about biology without selecting facts based on purpose. DNA is less tasty than a cannoli. DNA codes for proteins. DNA would make a lousy heat shield for the Space Shuttle. All are true of DNA.

When you talk about DNA, where do you begin? You pick the description of its purpose to talk about it.

The primary goal of biological science is to understand purpose in living things. Without purpose, nothing in biology makes any sense.

Where does purpose come from? Now you atheists can go ahead and squirm. 

"Rape in India: A Result of Sex Selection?"

From Erika Christakis at Time magazine:

The horrific gang rape and murder of a 23-year old medical student in New Delhi may seem unrelated to fundamental demographic forces, but it isn’t. The public outcry following the victim’s death from catastrophic internal injuries has rightly focused on calls to reform India’s criminal justice system. Yesterday, five men were formally charged and the case is being put on a fast track set up in the wake of the incident to handle crimes against women, in contrast to the years of delay rape victims often face. 

But behind the angry protests is an even deeper story: the preference for male babies in India and much of the world may be at the root of this senseless violence. 

Growing evidence suggests that in countries like India and China, where the ratio of men to women is unnaturally high due to the selective abortion of female fetuses and neglect of girl children, the rates of violence towards women increase. “The sex ratio imbalance directly leads to more sex trafficking and bride buying,” says Mara Hvistendahl, author of Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. A scarce resource is generally considered precious, but the lack of women also leaves many young men without marriage partners. In 2011, the number of cases of women raped rose by 9.2 percent; kidnapping and abductions of women were up 19.4 percent. “At this point, we’re talking correlation, not causation. More studies need to be done….[But] it is clear from historical cases and from studies looking at testosterone levels that a large proportion of unmarried men in the population is not a good thing,” says Hvistendahl. 

In a natural state, slightly more male babies are born than females (roughly 105 male infants to 100 females). Male infants are a little more fragile than females at birth, and women generally have a slightly longer life expectancy, so absent conditions such as warfare or unequal access to health care and nutrition, we would expect to see a nearly 1:1 ratio of adult men and women of marriageable age. 

India’s 2011 census showed 914 females to one thousand males, the most skewed ratio since India’s independence in 1947. In some regions, such as the Northern state of Haryana, there are only 830 females to 1000 males. More than twenty years ago, Nobel prize winner economist Amartya Sen warned of more than 100 million “missing” girls from India as a result of this preference for male children. 

The imbalance has squeezed poor and uneducated men out of the marriage market in particular, so there is a surplus of young men who are unable to find partners and assume standard adult roles in their societies. According to the Economist, China has nearly as many unmarried young men, known as ‘bare branches,’ as the entire population of American men. Ironically, the men themselves are harmed by the gender preference shown to them: unbalanced sex ratios may also increase the odds of ill health and early death in men. Something similar has been observed in a number of animal species: it is stressful to compete for mates and this stress can shorten lives. 

We’ve seen spasms of outrage before after random acts of barbarism, but violence towards women in the developing world continues unabated, and unremarked upon. India was recently rated the worst country for women among the G20 group of wealthiest nations. Yet sex discrimination rarely rises to the level of diplomatic action; we don’t apply economic sanctions to countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where the violation of women’s freedom and safety is routine. But it’s long past time to recognize the problem of “missing girls” as an issue of international security. Alarmingly, the imbalanced sex ratios arising from what some have called “Gendercide” are wreaking havoc on the fabric of many growing societies, not just in Asia but in Eastern European countries such as Albania, Georgia and Armenia. Perhaps this reality will finally get the world’s attention when the shortage of women worldwide has downstream economic, health, and security effects, and we realize that the missing girls are a devastating loss to us all.

Population control is the real war on women. Its consequences are obvious. There are 100 million missing women in Asia. Each missing girl was killed by sex-selective abortion or female infanticide, both utterly predictable consequences of population control policies championed by Western scientists and fanatics and enacted by Asian nations.

There is an epidemic of sex trafficking, bride buying, rape, kidnapping and abductions of women in Asia. And there are a 100 million young men who have no chance at romance or marriage or a family. You don't need a PhD in psychology to predict what men do when 100 million women are missing.

Population control isn't just junk science. It is perhaps the most lethal public policy in human history, and it will rip nations apart, especially poor Third World nations.

When the consequences of population control are so obvious and so predictable, why are there still people who advocate it? 

Steven Novella takes on the creationists

Steven Novella has a post criticizing a recent video that challenges Darwinian orthodoxy and presents evidence for intelligent agency in nature.

As you may know I'm not a young earth creationist. The evidence is good that the universe is 15 billion or so years old, the earth is 5 billion years old, and life has evolved (changed) over time. I'm open to other evidence, but I have no good reasons to doubt these basic views.

I do assert that the universe is created by God, and that there is obvious evidence for intelligent agency in nature. My understanding of this evidence hews more to a Thomist approach than it does to a specific intelligent design approach. ID is clearly true, but I believe that ID in nature is a subset of teleology in nature, and teleology is irrefutable evidence for God's existence (Aquinas' Fifth Way).

I have no truck with Darwinism. Random variation and natural selection explains nothing. "Things change and survivors survive" is banality and tautology, and not real science. Darwin's idiot "theory" is a philosophical scam that has been successful merely because it was proposed in a culture duped by atheism and panting for a creation myth. Atheists are easy to please (c.f. Dawkins is considered a 'public intellectual') and largely innocent of even rudimentary philosophical rigor.

I'll not address the video specifically (it's a good video worth a look), but Novella's arguments are worth some commentary.

Novella:

Genesis Weak

Published by Steven Novella under Creationism/ID 

I advise you to please turn off your irony meters before reading further or clicking the link to the video I will be discussing today. You may also want to take a couple of deep relaxing breaths to help preserve your neurons from the irrational assault they are about to suffer.

I was recently asked to take a look at Genesis Week with Ian Juby (Wazooloo), a slick YouTube series in which Juby takes us on a mystical journey through the looking glass of creationist nonsense. In his world science and reason are flipped completely upside down. It is, as they say, a “target rich environment” – too rich for any one blog post, so I will pick out a few gems.

The title of this episode is “I’m hooked on a feeling,” referring to new research showing that acceptance of evolution is strongly influenced by a gut “feeling of certainty” that people have about the theory. Juby makes much of this study (without, of course, putting it into any context) concluding that people believe in evolution despite the evidence (what he describes as overwhelming evidence for creation) rather than because of it.

The study itself reviews prior research on this question, summarizing it:

Despite the variety of studies that have been reported, there are no convincingly clear findings about the relationships among knowledge level, beliefs, and acceptance level regarding the theory of evolution. While some studies have provided evidence for a robust relationship between knowledge level and level of acceptance (Paz-y-Miño & Espinosa, 2009; Rutledge & Warden, 1999), others found no evidence of a straightforward relationship (Sinatra et al., 2003), and little evidence that instructional treatments affect acceptance levels (Chinsamy & Plagányi, 2007), even when learning gains have been substantiated (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). It has also been suggested that the nature of relationships change when acceptance of evolutionary theory is framed in the context of macroevolution rather than microevolution (Nadelson & Southerland, 2010).

So – it’s complicated. Results of research seem to depend upon how the study was conducted, meaning that confounding variables have not adequately been controlled for so they determine the outcome of individual studies, which therefore have conflicting results.

However, at least so far there does not appear to be a clear relationship between teaching students about evolutionary theory and their acceptance of it. This is actually not surprising and in line with the consensus of psychological research, which shows that people form opinions largely for emotional and ideological reasons, and then cherry pick the facts they need to support those opinions.

The findings of the current study are therefore nothing new, and there is no reason to think that this phenomenon is unique to belief in evolution.

But to put this study into its proper context – this is about affecting the opinions of students by confronting their emotional reactions to evolution. It is not about how scientists form their opinions about evolutionary theory.

Of course it is. Darwinism is a cesspool of ideologically-driven propaganda posing as dispassionate science.

This is a common logical error that creationists make – confusing public opinion with expert scientific opinion. Juby tries to make it seem that this study shows that acceptance of evolution in general (including among scientists and educators) is about feeling rather than evidence.

It is clear that the public approaches questions of origins much more rationally than the little coterie of atheists inhabiting departments of evolutionary biology.

Ordinary people aren't stupid, and evolutionary biologists are a hopelessly ideological clump of sheep stuck in a branch of science not known for perspicuity.

Ordinary people know propaganda when they see it, and their unwillingness to be duped drives atheists nuts.

He then goes on to another common claim of creationists that reflects their astounding intellectual dishonesty.

intellectual dishonesty (noun): the ability to distinguish atheist propaganda from science.

He lists a few biologists who are creationists – as if their opinions are evidence based, and contrasting them with the emotion-based acceptance of evolution. 

Among scientists, however, >99% accept evolutionary theory

Notice that atheists never define "evolution" in a way in which their assertions can be tested. All scientists accept that organisms have changed over time. Most scientists don't accept Darwin's assertion that RM + NS can account for all of it. Only a subset of all scientists (although a near unanimity of evolutionary biologists) accept the atheist framework on which Darwin's theory hangs.

The meaning of "evolution" constantly changes, in accordance with rhetorical needs.

– a relevant fact that Juby failed to mention. This is also in line with other research, showing that only at the highest levels of science education do facts trump emotion in forming our beliefs about controversial or emotional topics.

Yea. Only students at the pinnacle of their scientific training are really rational. What b.s.

Among the experts there is a strong consensus – the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that all life on earth is related through an evolutionary process.

Living thing change. No one doubts that.

Does the fossil and molecular record support universal common ancestry? The evidence is mixed.

Juby, however, rattles off a couple of creationist exceptions as if they are the rule.

It is the exceptions in science that lead to genuine new insight.

It is hard to imagine that Juby is not aware of these facts. We are left to conclude that he is either living in a creationist bubble or is flagrantly dishonest in dealing with the question of scientific acceptance of evolution...

... whatever atheists mean by "evolution" at a given moment.

Eventually Juby gets around to listing some of the alleged overwhelming evidence for creation, including irreducible complexity and lack of a mechanism for increasing genetic information. He lists a bunch of old long-discredited creationist canards, and that is his “overwhelming evidence.”

Irreducible complexity and the enormous difficulty in explaining complex biological systems using known rates of heritable change are profound problems for atheism. Teleology explains such observations naturally, but teleology presupposes intelligent agency.

Teleology has been under a code of Omerta in natural science for several centuries for just that reason.

Creationists proposed the notion of irreducible complexity over a decade ago, and really it was just a reformulation of arguments they have been putting forward for a century and a half – since Darwin proposed his version of evolutionary theory.

IC is an old idea, asserted recently by Mike Behe based on modern biochemical evidence. It is obviously true, and a very important observation that is devastating to Darwin's theory.

It has been debated and discussed among scientists, and found to be a fatally flawed idea.

fatally flawed idea (noun); any idea inconsistent with atheism.

It’s flat out wrong – disproved by numerous counter examples.

Just-so stories aren't examples. There is vanishing little actual scientific evidence that complex biological systems can evolve step-by-step through IC roadblocks.

I first wrote about it myself in 1999, and the arguments haven’t changed.

The arguments haven't changed because they are valid, and there's no reason to change them.

The alleged lack of a mechanism for generating new genetic information is nonsense – not a serious scientific or even philosophical argument.

I challenge Dr. Novella to write one paragraph of his blog post using randomly generated variations of letters "selected" by an algorithm that lacks the endpoint of a syntactically correct and semantically coherent paragraph.

Generating Dr. Novella himself without intelligent agency is an even more difficult matter, as you might imagine.

Generating Dr. Novella's ideas without intelligent agency has already been done.

(I first debunked this one in 2002.) The combination of random mutations and selective pressures, combined with gene duplication and other genetic mechanisms, are fully capable of increasing overall genetic information and creating new information.

Scrambling information without forethought creates no "new" information. Tearing up newspapers into tiny bits and flinging the bits in the air does not generate new newspapers.

Creationists like Juby have no counterarguments to the scientific consensus clearly demonstrating that irreducible complexity and creationist abuses of information theory are false. They simply trot out the same discarded claims over and over again with arrogance and casual dismissiveness of the scientific consensus – a consensus slowly built on a mountain of evidence.

IC remains fatal to atheism and to Darwinism.

I’m not bothered by the fact the people like Juby can promote their nonsense on an open forum like YouTube.

Why would Novella even think to question Juby's right to free speech?

He is unlikely to change anyone’s opinion.

He doesn't have to. Creationists are the majority, Steven.

He also provides yet another opportunity to point out the terrible logic and questionable honesty of the creationists. They do make it easy in that they have nothing new to say.

We tell the obvious truth, which is not new.

Science changes and new ideas and new evidence are brought to bare.

... brought to bear. Maybe Novella is writing his post using random letters...

Creationism is stuck in its prescientific conclusion, and continue to rely upon long discredited arguments – even when dressed up in a slick YouTube video.

Creationism terrifies atheists, because atheism can't explain design in nature. Atheists have known since the mid-19th century that their only hope to prevail is if they can silence debate.

That's getting harder to do.

Nick Gillespie on gays in the Boy Scouts

From Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine:

A Lesson From the Scouts' Own Book 

The Boy Scouts of America are in the news again, for the only thing they ever seem to be in the news for anymore: their attitudes toward homosexuals. 

Next week, the Scouts will hold a vote that's widely expected to end the blanket ban on gays joining as members or holding adult leadership. By most accounts, the century-old organization will probably let individual chartering groups—many of which are churches—decide whether homosexuals can join and help run their troops.

A 1940S Boy Scout playing bugle. Can the organization be as resilient as its members?
Before I get to whether that's a good idea, let me share some of the lessons I learned while working toward the rank of Eagle Scout which I earned in 1980. Many were trivial, others profound. Most have stayed with me. 

I learned how to show up on time, or better yet, 10 minutes early. I learned how to dress carefully and distinctly, how to roll and secure my troop's signature pale blue neckerchief in exactly the prescribed manner, how to shine my shoes and how to cinch my belt so that the metal-clad tips met "brass on brass." I learned that wearing a uniform didn't mean you all had to think the same way. 

I learned how to stand straight and not laugh inappropriately and how to tie not just a bowline knot but a sheepshank, too. I learned that woodworking and carving were hard but, like any other skill, if you practiced it long enough, you could get pretty good at it.
For one of my 20-plus merit badges, I learned that I could survive in the woods overnight with nothing but a length of rope, a pound of ground beef, a pocketknife and a flint-and-steel for starting a fire. 

I learned the incredible rush that comes from starting a fire with nothing but a hunk of rock and a piece of metal when you're cold and hungry and wondering what the heck you were doing outside with nothing to eat except a pound of ground beef. I learned I could swim a mile in a lake without touching the bottom once and that I could use a compass to find my way through the woods. 

I learned that one of the best ways to deal with a troublemaker was to give him a little responsibility (I was a troublemaker). I learned that I could talk to my father about sleeping outdoors in a tent as he had done as an infantryman in World War II. I learned that men who weren't your dad but had fought in Korea and Vietnam and worked jobs that weren't glamorous or even personally rewarding could teach you a lot—and could be great fun.
I learned about trust and confidence and leadership when I was asked to instruct Tenderfoot scouts (the lowest rank) on how to use axes and hatchets safely, build fires without burning down the forest, and shine their shoes and roll their neckerchiefs properly and stand at attention without laughing inappropriately. 

I learned that not everything and everyone had to be ironic or cynical or jaded all the time and that some of the goofiest, most earnest traditions and rituals—circling up for "Taps" at the end of each weekly meeting, say, or reciting the Scout Law ("A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful...")—held enormous power. I learned that the Scout motto ("Be Prepared") and slogan ("Do a good turn daily") were pretty good ideas to take seriously throughout life. 

During hundreds of camping trips and meetings and service projects and weird and wonderful events such as the Klondike Derby (a cold-weather competition in which scouts drag makeshift sleds over frozen ground for hours), I learned how to adapt to changing circumstances on the fly while keeping the main goals in sight. 

Now, of course, it's time for the Boy Scouts themselves to learn a lesson about adaptability—one that I fear may be coming too late to save the group from its long decline in numbers and influence. 

I still draw on what I learned in the Scouts, whose mission statement talks about preparing "young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes." That creed has helped to make me a better father—or at least a less-bad one—to my two sons, whom I kept from joining the Boy Scouts because of the group's position on gays. 

It was a decision that I made with much sadness and not a little anger, but it was fully in keeping with the Scout Oath, which requires members to do their best to be "morally straight" at all times and to do what they think is right. 

I hope that by the time my sons become fathers, they will feel comfortable enrolling their own children in the Scouts, and I will be able to talk with my grandkids about what it's like to sleep in a tent outdoors and to pull a sled over frozen ground and how to stand at attention without laughing inappropriately and all the rest.

Shame on the Boy Scouts for caving on this critical issue.

The Boy Scout's ban on homosexuals has been because homosexual conduct is immoral, and because putting boys and young men in intimate situations with men in authority who are sexually attracted to them is unsafe. Even if one makes the argument that being 'gay' does not predispose to pedophilia (it does), most Boy Scouts (age 12-17) are post-pubescent and sexually mature, and same-sex attraction to them isn't pedophilia anyway.

Sorta puts the lie to libs who claim that their excoriation of the Catholic Church for the abuse scandal is because they want to 'protect the kids'.  When it comes to letting gays in the Boy Scouts have easy access to youngsters to which they are attracted, libs are in the cheering section. But then again why would we expect people who defend aborting kids to have qualms about putting them at risk for sexual abuse?

Nick Gillespie may have the opportunity to talk with his grandsons about a lot of things besides sleeping in a tent outdoors, after their first overnight camping trip with their gay scoutmasters.