Atheist Revolution

A Universe From Nothing

2010-03-15T06:59:00.001-05:00

For readers who are particularly interested in cosmology and the "why is there something rather than nothing" question, you'll enjoy this presentation by Lawrence Krauss delivered at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International convention. A reader send me the link to this clip, and I really enjoyed it. It is long (over an hour) but quite interesting.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Goddidit!

2010-03-12T15:34:00.001-06:00

You gotta love StumbleUpon for turning up gems like this. Much like the "Why is there something rather than nothing" query I recently addressed, this poster reminds us that scientific illiteracy is a poor excuse for religious belief.

Those who continue to worship the "god of the gaps" are proving that they have learned little about how science works and have even less knowledge of history. Theirs is a shrinking god with more in common with the Deistic model of theism than any sort of Christianity.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Sean Hannity

2010-02-13T08:00:00.001-06:00

With the snowstorm on the East Coast, this was a week where I knew exactly what type of idiocy I wanted to highlight for this post: climate change denial. However, it was a bit tricky to select the individual who best represented this particular form of idiocy this week. In the end, I settled for Fox "News" pundit, Sean Hannity. While it was very tempting to go with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), I think Hannity is more deserving for reasons I will offer below.

While Sen. McConnell may have been the single-most powerful individual to speak out against climate change this week, Hannity has a different kind of power: the power to shape public opinion. Here's what Hannity had to say:

And tonight’s “Meltdown” is brought to you by the D.C. snow storm, you know, the storm that dumped about two feet of snow on the Washington area over the weekend causing thousands of power outages and keeping many people home from work today. And it’s the most severe winter storm in years, which would seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories.

I put the video of Hannity making an idiot of himself up at Red State Progressive.

Anybody with a modicum of scientific literacy probably understands that scientific theories of climate change predict that precipitation will increase around the world as temperatures warm. Remember, warmer temperatures mean accelerated evaporation, resulting in more water in the air.

I have to assume that Hannity knows this and is willfully ignoring it in service to his corporate masters. Of course, he also receives bonus idiot points for the smug manner in which he delivers his misinformation.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Baylor Study Reveals Prevalence of Clergy Abuse

2009-09-14T05:22:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

When you hear someone say that the prevalence rate of something is roughly 3%, does this seem like a lot or a little? I suppose it depends on the context. The lifetime prevalence rate of schizophrenia in the general population is only 1%, and yet, many of us know someone who suffers from the disorder. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Washington DC is 3%. The prevalence of ADHD among school children in the U.S. is usually described as being between 3-7%. In such contexts, 3% is not at all trivial, is it? Well, something else occurs at a rate of 3%, and I bet you'll never guess what it is (unless you read the title of the post).

The Washington Post recently reported on a study conducted by Baylor University that revealed 1 in 33 women (i.e., 3%) who regularly attend religious services report being subjected to sexual advances by a religious leader.

The study, by Baylor University researchers, found that the problem is so pervasive that it almost certainly involves a wide range of denominations, religious traditions and leaders.

The study also showed that most of those who made sexual advances were married at the time. So much for religious morality, huh? Okay, maybe that isn't fair. After all, it isn't like these leaders are using religion to to influence their victims or anything - or are they?

Carolyn Waterstradt, 42, a graduate student who lives in the Midwest, said she was coerced into a sexual relationship with a married minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for 18 months. He had been her pastor for a decade, she said, and told her the relationship was ordained by God.

It is good to see that some churches are taking steps to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It is even better to see that some states are moving to criminalize this sort thing.

Of course, it is important to remember that members of all sorts of professions engage in this sort of activity. The power differential inherent in many professions inevitably opens the door to exploitative relationships. The public needs to be aware of this, as do professional organizations and their members.

But, Garland said, "when you put it with a spiritual leader or moral leader, you've really added a power that we typically don't think about in secular society -- which is that this person speaks for God and interprets God for people. And that really adds a power."

Indeed. There are many corrupting influence besides religion, but nothing corrupts quite like religion.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Are Atheists Less Sociable?

2009-09-04T05:45:00.000-05:00

Image by nate_marsh via Flickr

What is it about atheists that makes us so difficult to organize? Could sociability have something to do with it? Read the following statements and take a moment to consider the degree to which each applies to you ("not at all" to "a lot like me").

I am more comfortable being alone than most people I know.
I do not need a large circle of friends to be happy.
I prefer smaller gatherings to large parties or social events.

I just made these questions up off the top of my head, but their content is similar to many psychological tests of sociability. We're not going to learn much of anything with only three questions, but imagine that there were several more along these lines, and you get the idea of how we might measure sociability.

My hunch, based on little more than my personal experience and interactions with other atheists, is that the average atheist would score a bit lower on such a measure than the average Christian. That is, if we had a complete and valid measure of sociability that I administered to 100 atheists and 100 Christians, I would expect that the average score from the atheists would be somewhat lower than the average score from the Christians. Note that this in no way implies that some atheists would not score higher than many Christians or that some Christians would not score lower than many atheists.

Who cares? Well, I think that answering questions like this might have some interesting implications. Assume I'm right and atheists tend to score lower on sociability. What might that mean? Do less sociable people tend to gravitate toward atheism, or is there something about the experience of living as an atheist that leads people to become less sociable? We wouldn't know this simply by finding a group difference, but we'd probably be more motivated to pursue such questions. Findings from such studies might also inform efforts at organizing atheists.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Misunderstanding Science in Some Unlikely Places

2009-08-02T07:35:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Misunderstanding science is a widespread problem, especially in the United States. Those of us who live here run into it again and again. Those of us tasked with teaching science often find it beyond frustrating, and yet, we persevere in the hope that we can make a difference. Thus, it is especially disheartening when we see influential freethinkers spreading misunderstandings about science.

John Shook, the Vice President and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry Transnational, wrote a recent post in which he advocated for skepticism by spreading a common misconception about science that we are used to hearing from the faith-based community. Shook has a philosophy background rather than a scientific background, but I'd still hope such a prominent freethinker would be more careful.

Just what was Shook's error? After correctly highlighting the role of skepticism in the science, Shook writes,

There's too much loose talk about science proving theories. Actually, scientists spend most of their time trying to experimentally prove hypotheses false, especially their own hypotheses. Inability to prove one's hypotheses false after many kinds of trials against all available evidence, and getting confirmation of such trials by other researchers, is actually the path to reasonably establishing a hypothesis.

Actually, scientists spend most of their time testing hypotheses, not trying to prove or disprove anything. I understand what Shook is trying to accomplish here. By suggesting that scientists seek to prove their own hypotheses false, he is trying to dispel claims of bias. But this is not the most accurate way to explain the scientific method.

As scientists, we do not approach our work with grand designs about proving or disproving anything. "Proof" is a term one may encounter in philosophy or mathematics, but it is not one you will find scientists using much. We derive hypotheses carefully from the available scientific literature and test them, not solely though experimentation by with a host of research methods. We talk in terms of probabilities, significance levels, and effect sizes, not proof. When we find support for a hypothesis, we conduct more rigorous tests and publish the results to encourage others to do the same.

Now, this may seem like a minor quibble. Perhaps it is. The reason I raise it is that I see it feeding right into the constant tendency of the anti-science crowd to talk about proof. To the degree that "proof" plays any role in science, it would be way down the road at a point that most individual sciences would never see in their own research.

Another surprising error that has more to do with atheism than science:

With rival definitions of atheism now flourishing, I regard skepticism as the simplest broad category for including all disbelievers. You may prefer the label of "agnostic" while others are content with "atheist", but we are all skeptics towards the supernatural and paranormal.

Conflating atheism and skepticism is neither accurate nor helpful. One can be an atheist for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with skepticism. Atheism does not speak on the subject of the entire supernatural and paranormal. One can be an atheist while believing in UFOs, ghosts, alternative medicine, and a host of other absurdities. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. That's it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Barack Obama

2009-07-11T06:18:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Idiocy is a disturbingly common problem, making it quite difficult to select particularly dramatic examples to highlight. And yet, that is exactly what happens right here each Saturday in the Idiot of the Week series.

This week produced the most crowded field of competitors since I started the Idiot of the Week series. Not only was Sarah Palin back in the news following one of the more bizarre resignation speeches I've ever seen, but state senator Sylvia Allen (R-AZ) publicly stated that the earth is 6,000 years old while discussing uranium! Oh, this week was dripping with idiocy!

In the end, I had to go with the more controversial choice. You see, this was the week that President Obama selected Francis S. Collins to head the National Institutes of Health. In announcing his choice of Collins, Obama said,

My administration is committed to promoting scientific integrity and pioneering scientific research.

The President is evidently unaware that Collins is one of the leading advocates of the deeply flawed perspective that science is somehow compatible with god-belief.

After describing Collins as "a competent administrator," PZ Myers (Pharyngula) hit the nail on the head when he said:

We can also trust him to drape Jesus over every major announcement, use the office as a platform for promoting religiosity, and otherwise taint the whole business with embarrassingly inane nonsense…just as he did with the human genome press conference.

Collins is the wrong choice not because he believes in some sort of god, but because he has already demonstrated a propensity to evangelize.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Pre-Order Dawkins' New Book

2009-05-20T10:00:00.000-05:00

Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, is now available for pre-order with a September release date. I will certainly add this to my next Amazon.com order. Not only is it the follow-up to the much loved The God Delusion, but it promises to present the evidence in support of evolution in one accessible volume. Very cool!

H/T to Friendly Atheist

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Ken Ham Organizing Creation "Science" Fair

2009-05-07T05:34:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Most of us in the reality based community have at least some appreciation of science, and many of us are downright excited about it. Of course, we have also learned to recognize that not everything claiming to be scientific is in fact science. According to Panda's Thumb, Ken Ham's Creation Museum is hosting a creation "science" fair next year. As Pharyngula notes, there is certainly nothing wrong with Christians engaging in science, however, this fair has precious little to do with science. Among the entry requirements, the children must agree to AIG's Statement of Faith.

I am hard pressed to think of anything less conducive to the scientific method than the injection of faith. Panda's reaction is spot on:

Those, of course, are the antithesis of science. Having kids sign on to presuppositions that reject the evidence that has been accumulated over centuries is the height of science denial, and it is a fraud to label the exercise “science.”

Absolutely. Reading the statement should make it clear to anyone that creation "science" is not science at all. It is merely religious dogma thinly veiled in pseudo scientific jargon.

Pharyngula adds:

That's not how science works: you don't get to specify ahead of time what answers you will find acceptable. If you read that statement of faith, you will discover that many of its article insist on the truth of claims that have long been refuted — such as that there was a global flood, the earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour days, the earth was created recently, etc. — and others are just plain silly. You have to agree that homosexuals are perverts in order to present at this "science" fair!

Events like this remind us that we all have a vested interest in promoting scientific literacy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Lancet Scolds Pope's Idiocy

2009-03-27T11:14:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

In this era of American culture wars, a commonly heard refrain is that one is entitled to one's own opinion but not to one's own facts. This is often directed a politicians and media pundits, but it applies as well or better to the purveyors of religious delusion. The Pope has received considerable criticism for making erroneous statements about the transmission of HIV/AIDS. He is every bit as entitled as any of us to spout nonsense, but when he makes demonstrably false claims about the natural world, he better expect to be called out. Fortunately, this is exactly what the British medical journal, the Lancet, has done.

When the Pope recently announced that condoms "increase the problem" of HIV transmission in Africa, he found himself in direct opposition to considerable evidence from medical science. According to the Lancet, the Pope "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue." They also were ready to head off the sort of objections commonly expressed by believers in the supernatural.

When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record.

The time for politeness and respect for religion must come to an abrupt and unapologetic end when religious pronouncements create a clear and present danger to human welfare. This is precisely such a case, and it was reassuring to see the Lancet address the issue directly.

H/T to Pharyngula

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Narrow Victory for Science in Texas

2009-03-27T05:52:00.000-05:00

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

The Texas State Board of Education has rejected efforts by Christian extremists to require that "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution be taught in science classes. The scary thing is just how close this ended up being. The board tied at 7-7 on the motion, resulting in the upholding of a prior decision to remove the strengths-and-weaknesses rule in the new curriculum standards. Texas is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the U.S., meaning that what happens there influences what is available to other states.

H/T to Pharyngula

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Accurate Identification of Science is Crucial

2009-03-18T06:23:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Writing in New Scientist, book reviews editor Amanda Gefter concluded her piece on how to identify religion masquerading as science with the following:

It is crucial to the public's intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines.

How fitting that New Scientist would remove this article from their website in response to creationist complaints! The article, available at Sott.net, should be read by anyone who values science, education, or the importance of obtaining accurate information about the world in which we live.

Gefter explains that she has learned to spot scientific-sounding books as having a hidden religious agenda by looking for a number of clues. Examples include:

references to "scientific materialism"
mind-brain dualism
gross misinterpretations of quantum physics
use of terms such as "Darwinism"
frequent appeals to common sense
efforts to link the cultural implications of a theory to the veracity of the theory

I really appreciate Gefter's article, but even more than that, I appreciate that there are people like her working to help the public distinguish real science from religion dressed as science. As the creationists become more devious in trying to pass off what they do as science, the watchdogs must remain vigilant. Thus, it is truly disappointing to see New Scientist bow to creationist pressure and remove the article.

H/T to The Good Atheist

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheism in the USA

2009-03-14T07:59:00.000-05:00

A recently released report from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) continues to be big news across the atheist blogosphere (see .pdf file of the report). Considering that the report suggests that the number of Americans who report no religious affiliation or preference is increasing, interest in the report is no surprise. It also appears that Christianity is experiencing a period of decline. Granted, when one starts from a position of near absolute dominance, even a significant decline may change little. If nothing else comes of this report, at least media coverage might help lead some Americans admit to themselves that there are atheists right here in the USA.

Among what I consider the most interesting findings are the following:

When asked to specify their religious affiliation, roughly 15% of of those surveyed reported no preference. Only 8.2% responded this way in 1990.
The number of those surveyed reporting affiliation with Christianity is 76%, down from 86.2% in 1990.
34% of the sample identified themselves as "born again" or evangelical Christians.
Approximately 12% of those surveyed were atheists or agnostics, representing a sharp increase from 1990.

The implications of this report are numerous and have been discussed extensively on many other blogs. The most common interpretation appears to be that the unaffiliated category, which includes atheists and agnostics, is the fastest growing group today. Perhaps the most positive interpretation is that increasing numbers of Americans are identifying themselves as atheists or agnostics.

I caution against over-interpretation of the report's findings without recognizing the methodological limitations inherent in studies of this nature. I think that it would be a mistake to conclude that evangelical Christianity is going to disappear soon. This has been predicted many times before, only to see a resurgence of religious idiocy. I have little doubt that our nation will experience another. Still, the report does seem to contain at least some good news for those of us eager to see less religion in America.

H/T to Spanish Inquisition

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Skeptical Attitude in Science

2009-03-11T05:26:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

An attitude of skepticism is essential to the scientific endeavor. In addition, most atheists will tell you that the skeptical attitude can and should be applied to religious belief. Simply put, skepticism allows us to guard against believing absurdities which, although they might make us feel better temporarily, tend to have negative effects on individuals and societies. Many religious believers effectively utilize skepticism in other spheres of their life; they just refuse to do so when it comes to their religion. We atheists know that this is a mistake, but we sometimes make the mistake of framing skepticism too narrowly, emphasizing its application to religious claims so much that we may miss other important applications. In this series, I plan to explore the skeptical attitude in science, atheism, and some other important spheres which tend to be neglected even by atheists.

Briefly, the skeptical attitude refers to the stance of withholding acceptance of various claims until one has evaluated the available evidence in support of such claims. The more stupendous the claim, the greater the necessary evidence must be. So when someone claims that Omega-3 fatty acids in the form of fish oil supplements increase good cholesterol, for example, we are intrigued but we do not accept the claim without good evidence.

The skeptical attitude pervades science and is applied to scientific claims as well. Scientists are are skeptical of their colleagues' claims and even their own research findings. This is the point of replication and convergence in science. Results must be obtained again and again before too much is made of them. Independent labs must obtain similar results, and differing methodologies must converge before even seemingly trivial findings are trusted. This is a big part of what scientists mean when they refer to science as a "self-correcting process."

Some scientists compartmentalize their skepticism deliberately. They view it as an important part of the scientific enterprise but do not allow it to impact other spheres of their lives, such as the religious sphere. The reasons for this decision are largely psychological, and I do not intend to address them here. My point is simply that such compartmentalization is possible and actually rather common.

Other scientists, and I am proud to count myself among them, see little point in such compartmentalization. We apply the skeptical attitude to most or all spheres of live. In short, we see no reason to grant religious claims an exemption from the requirement for evidence.

The next post in this series will focus on the skeptical attitude in atheism.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Darwinism is Not a Religion

2009-02-12T15:48:00.000-06:00

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

Why is it that people even refer to "Darwinism" in the first place? Nobody calls those of us who believe in gravity "Newtonians," or...well, you get the point. The word "Darwinism" is nothing more than a weak attempt by creationists or those who have been misled by creationists to disparage evolution. They know that opposing the foundation of modern biology is likely to raise questions about their grasp on reality, so they manufacture controversy and pretend that evolutionary theory, which they equate with Darwin, is somehow controversial. It does not bother them that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community. They are quite content to ignore facts that get in the way of their religious beliefs. And their worst accusation of all...that we who accept the reality of evolution are just like them (i.e., religious).

Darwin was tremendously influential, and his fingerprints remain all over modern biology. Along with his predecessors, he gave us concepts without which contemporary biological sciences could not exist (e.g., natural selection). His lasting contributions deserve respect and admiration. In fact, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, they deserve to be taught in science classrooms across the world.

But if there is one thing Darwin was not, it is divine. There is nothing magic, sacred, or holy about his theory. It is firmly grounded in reality and has the full strength of science behind it. Darwin provided us with a scientific theory, not a religion.

Those who accept the reality of evolution go by many names - "scientists," "informed consumers of science," "educated people," etc. Calling them "Darwinists" does little more than shine a spotlight on the idiocy of the speaker.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Science Education in Mississippi Jeapordized By Creationist Nonsense

2009-01-09T11:44:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaThings are buzzing today over at Mississippi Atheists. I am focusing my efforts there on mobilizing the small reality-based community in our state to oppose House Bill 25, the latest effort in our state to affix disclaimers attacking evolution on science textbooks. If passed, this bill would require the following text to be attached to any textbook in which evolution is discussed:

The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

Study hard and keep an open mind.

I contacted the National Center for Science Education this morning to make sure they had heard about the bill. I just posted information for persons wishing to contact members of our state legislature's education committee. Next up, I'll be posting at least a couple sample letters.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

God: The Failed Hypothesis

2008-08-08T06:31:00.000-05:00

I read quite a bit on the subjects of atheism, Christian extremism, and politics. I suppose I should write more book reviews here. The problem is that writing an effective book review is quite a bit of work and reminds me too much of the sort of writing I do at my job. You'll have to make so with brief recommendations and mini-reviews. One such recommendation is Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis.

In introducing his book Stenger writes,

In the present book, I will go much further and argue that by this moment in time science has advanced sufficiently to be able to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of a God having the attributes that are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

This is an apt description of what to expect. But it is also rather easy to present the core of Stenger's case in the briefest possible terms as follows:

Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
Look for such evidence with an open mind.
If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

Essentially, this is the process around which Stenger organizes his book. Again and again, we see none of the evidence that should be present if there was a god with the properties agreed upon by most Christians. But this really isn't the most damning part of Stenger's analysis. Consistent with Dawkins and many other prominent authors, he finds that the evidence leads to the conclusion that no such god exists. Simply put, "Indeed, Earth and life look just as they can be expected to look if there is no designer God."

I enjoyed the book. Stenger's Ph.D. is in physics, so it was to be expected that he went more into that field than many others. But I appreciated this perspective and found it a fitting complement to those from biology, anthropology, psychology, and other fields.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Interpreting the Serotonin-Spirituality Link

2008-07-27T07:55:00.000-05:00

You have probably heard about a Swedish study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and popularized by Psychology Today and other mainstream news outlets finding a link between serotonin and spirituality. I am not going to put much stock in this until I have read the original study and the findings have been replicated by independent researchers. However, I do have some words of caution for those trying to make sense out of these findings and their possible implications.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter with many functions, one of which involves the regulation of mood. Clinical depression is associated with low serotonin levels in the brain. Most modern antidepressants (e.g., Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, etc.) work by indirectly increasing available serotonin in the brain. That is why this class of drugs is known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Data from the Swedish study suggest that serotonin may be associated with "spiritual experiences." Specifically, increased serotonin activity in the brain may be associated with various spiritual experiences (e.g., transcendence, etc.).

Even if it holds up, this is not a particularly groundbreaking finding. We have long known that drugs such as LSD that influence neural transmission, resulting in experiences often described as "spiritual." Still, these findings may help elucidate one neural pathway by which this occurs.

What studies like this do certainly imply is that spirituality involves biology as well as culture and environment. There are no supernatural forces at work here, but one's brain chemistry can certainly lead one to experience phenomena which one interprets as supernatural.

But we should be cautious of what we are seeing in the mainstream media about this study. Some are trying to interpret these and other similar findings as evidence that spirituality is less about culture and more about biological characteristics (remember that god gene nonsense?). The problem with this is that environmental experiences can and do influence serotonin levels. Biology is not independent from but interacts with one's environment. Going from studies like this to the conclusion that god belief is inborn are simply not justified.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Evolution Has Been Disproven

2008-07-17T05:45:00.000-05:00

Matt over at [GBG] Atheist News deserves props for making me laugh out loud with this one. I won't even blame him for the coffee I had to wipe off my keyboard because it was so worth it! It seems that a Christian who came across his blog decided to e-mail him one of the best refutations of evolutionary theory one could hope to find. This is going to set the science world on fire, so make sure you pay Matt a visit and express your appreciation for his willingness to share the gem I have reproduced below.

Here is the e-mail Matt received, unedited and titled "Proof evolution is wrong:"

i saw on your blog that you like to talk about the religion of evolution and trick people by using big words and pretending that science actually proves evolution. I dont know any science or anything and even i know evolution isnt real. for one it isnt in the bible the bible said god made everything in 6 days, not millions of years. second, when we go to the zoo we cant talk to monkies, if we used to be monkies why cant we talk to them? three, how could a monkey become a person over billions of years when they dont live that long? AND why are there still monkies if they turned into people? five, even darwin said he was wrong. on his death bed he converted to christianity and said evolution was a hoax. If there is any science that makes it look like evolution is real then it has to be either a hoax by EVILutionists or put there by god to find out who believes in him.

I hope that after reading my questions you will see that evolution cant be true and people dont come from monkies. i will pray to god asking him to make you think like me.

Priceless! I just keep reading it over and over again. If it was intended as a joke, it is a good one. If it was not intended as a joke, it is a better one. I think I might have to print and frame it. It would be perfect for some blank wall space right above my monitor.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Science Education Endangered in Louisiana

2008-07-07T05:36:00.000-05:00

I feel terrible for the parents in Louisiana who want their children to receive an adequate education and realize that science is an important part of such an education. After Gov. Bobby Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law, it is going to be increasingly difficult for Louisiana's children to receive the education they deserve. If you have not been following this one, the new law permits local school boards to approve the use of supplemental materials by public school science teachers when discussing "controversial" topics such as evolution. While the law was deliberately vague on what such supplemental materials might look like, details are now emerging.

For a brief and informative analysis of Louisiana's new creationist bill, I recommend Panda's Thumb. Clearly, this law is terrible for science education in Louisiana. Teachers in the state are understandably concerned that this will permit creationism in the classroom.

Probably the best outcome to hope for now is a series of lawsuits throughout the state with Dover-like outcomes. I am just a bit less confident in predicting the success of such suits in a state like Louisiana. In any case, it is going to be the taxpayers of the state and their children who get screwed in this one.

It really is baffling that battles like this are still being waged in 2008.

For more on this important topic, see the following:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

I Was Wrong: Why We Must Discuss Expelled

2008-04-20T09:36:00.001-05:00

After receiving a few e-mails from readers of this blog asking why I had been silent on the recent Expelled debacle, I tried to explain myself by saying that I felt like the topic had been adequately addressed by others and that I was reluctant to contribute to controversy for fear it would help the film. I was wrong. Expelled is something we in the reality-based community, atheist or not, must be discussing.

Why the change of mind? I wish I could tell you that PZ Myers opened my eyes with his call on bloggers to help boost the placement of the Expelled Exposed website in search results for Expelled. While I am trying to help that goal here, this was not what brought me around. I also wish I could say that it was the seemingly endless series of posts on Panda's Thumb about the film, but I actually began to find those annoying after awhile and stopped reading.

While pouring myself a cup of coffee this morning, it just suddenly hit me out of nowhere - I live in a country where there is so much resentment over evolution that it was deemed necessary to make a propaganda film, cloaked in the garb of science, to lend credence to creationism. In 2008, there are still creationists right here in America! This is newsworthy, and demands attention.

With Expelled, creationists are deliberately trying to mislead the public by making the foundation of modern biology seem controversial when it is not. By dressing creationism up in scientific clothing, they seek to present it as a valid hypothesis which mainstream science is neglecting. Rather than openly complaining that science is destroying their religiously-derived worldview, they find it necessary to pretend that mainstream science is somehow biased against their "scientific" alternative.

Before we dismiss this as pure rubbish and conclude that it has no hope of succeeding, I'd like you to consider one possible analogue: what Fox "News" has done in the world of media. Look at how Fox has managed to convince many people that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. By offering themselves up as "fair and balanced," they claim to occupy the real center. We all know that they are actually the extreme right, but the mainstream media has been unable to oppose them effectively and has actually migrated more toward the right themselves. I'm not saying that the ID stuff is truly parallel, but I do think we better perceive it as a real risk.

I am happy to live in a country where my fellow citizens have the freedom to create a vile propaganda film such as Expelled and where those few who choose to see it may freely do so. What worries me is that the average citizen is so far removed from the scientific community, due to relatively poor science education, widespread religious delusion, and an embarrassingly poor effort on the part of many scientists (myself included) to make science more accessible to the public, that a film like this may be able to do real damage. This film cannot be shown in our public schools. To do so would be akin to showing children professional wrestling and telling them that it was real.

I am also worried that Expelled both reflects and may help fuel bigotry toward atheists. By attempting to link Darwin, atheism, fascism, and even the Holocaust, we end up with an anti-atheist hate film as well as a pro-creationist propaganda film. This is truly a Christian extremist's wet dream!

Following Atheist Ethicist's excellent suggestion, I will be donating to the National Center for Science Education.

Tags: Expelled, science, evolution, Darwin, atheist, education, film, creationism, intelligent design, Fox News, media, biology, religion, bigotry, atheism, Christian extremism, National Center for Science Education, Expelled Exposed

My Expelled Dilemma

2008-04-12T10:41:00.001-05:00

I have received a few e-mails from readers expressing surprise over my total silence up to now on the Expelled film. I can't say I blame them. Virtually every other atheist blog has been reporting on the film, exposing its many lies and the bizarrely restrictive screenings. In fact, part of the reason I've steered clear of it is that so many others have covered it so well that I wasn't sure what I could add. However, I have also avoided the topic of the film because I do not want to do anything that might help its publicity. Let me explain.

The box office success of any film will go a long way these days to determining whether others like it are made. Publicity, even bad publicity, goes a long way toward impacting box office success. I am convinced that it is far worse for a film to be ignored than it is for it to become controversial.

I had no interest whatsoever in seeking The Da Vinci Code or The Golden Compass until Christians protested these films, and I can think of many similar examples over the years. I simply figure that I might enjoy anything that would make Christians this upset. Even if I do not end up liking the film, I feel better for demonstrating that will not give in to Christian boycotts.

It is unlikely that I will see Expelled anytime soon. I have read enough about it on other blogs to be fairly sure that I would find little value and that it would just make me mad. I do not particularly want to help create buzz for it either. I have no problem with those who have been making it a controversial film, but I choose not to do so.

What do you think? Am I wrong to ignore it?

Tags: Expelled, movie, film, entertainment, science, Expelled the movie, Ben Stein, intelligent design

Non-Religious Americans Outnumber Most Faiths

2008-03-03T09:23:00.003-06:00

We knew there were more of us than anyone seems willing to admit, but now we have additional evidence of our numbers. Recent data from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life show that 16.1% of Americans describe themselves as having no religion. This means that we are second only to Catholics (23.9%) in number. I have provided a recent press release from the Center for Inquiry below.

Pew study confirms non-religious are significant bloc

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Nathan Bupp
Phone: (716) 636-7571 x 218
E-mail: nbupp@centerforinquiry.net

Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Americans' Faiths in Flux as More Reject Their Given Religions

Amherst, New York (March 3, 2008)—The most detailed estimates to date of Americans' religious affiliations reports that a significant portion of U.S. citizens claim "none of the above," placing the unaffiliated second only to Roman Catholics in number. Monday's release of the 35,000-respondent U.S. Religious Landscape Survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that 16.1 percent of Americans have no particular religion at all, while 23.9 percent identify themselves as Catholic. The next largest "belief group" is Evangelical Baptist at 10.8 percent. All other denominational groupings show in the single digits or less.

The study also shows the number of Americans who identify as atheist or agnostic has risen from 3.2 percent to 4 percent, while a "remarkably high" 44 percent have rejected the religion placed on them in childhood.

"People are finding out that what they've been handed in youth doesn't work, or isn't important enough to defend when confronted with marriage or some other life situation that forces them to examine it," said Paul Kurtz, founder of the Council for Secular Humanism. "But when the shuffling is done, this study shows that three people are dropping religion altogether for each one gaining a faith."

The study also confirms the previous 2004 Pew Forum-University of Akron study findings that those who identify as strictly secular comprise more than 10 percent of the population, only on a much larger scale.

"The breakdown is interesting, in that it distinguishes between the vaguely religious and those who fall squarely in the secular camp," Kurtz said. "But I would venture to say that there is a significant number of Americans who sympathize with secularism, but who may still be nominal members of religious organizations. It's apparent that a significant percentage of the population identifies with secularism, and I trust politicians will bear this in mind."

The Council for Secular Humanism is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization promoting rational inquiry, secular values and positive human development through the advancement of secular humanism. The Council, publisher of the bimonthly journal Free Inquiry, has a Web site at www.secularhumanism.org.

###

Tags: atheism, America, religion, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Center for Inquiry, Catholic, Council for Secular Humanism

America's Evolution Denial

2008-02-12T05:47:00.000-06:00

If you have ever used a computer, talked on a cell phone, visited a physician, or operated a motor vehicle, you have benefited from science. Much of the food you eat, the medicines you use, and so many other things you may take for granted have been influenced by the biological sciences in particular. In addition to being the foundation of the modern biological sciences, evolutionary theory has been more rigorously evaluated and received more empirical support than any other theory from any branch of science. And yet, more Americans endorse creationist explanations for human origins than evolutionary ones (2001 Gallup poll).

The Importance of America's Evolution Denial

America has a long history of religious fundamentalism, and Americans' distaste for evolution is not exactly a new phenomenon. Despite widespread rejection of evolution in the general population, American science has continued to advance to the benefit of all citizens. Why then should this be a pressing concern now?

It is important to recognize that our modern world is becoming increasingly complex, as increased technological prowess is required in one's daily life. I remember making fun of my grandparents for not understanding how to hook up a VCR, but I now struggle to set up some of the high-end HDTV setups. My competence with computers far outstrips that of my parents, but I am confident that many 10 year-olds would blow me away without breaking a sweat.

Increased complexity requires increasingly sophisticated levels of scientific literacy and education, especially if America hopes to compete with the rest of the world in science and technology. The numbers are not encouraging in this regard, as America trails all countries but Turkey in acceptance of evolution. It is also concerning that the percentage of Americans who accept evolution has declined over the past 20 years.

Sources of the Problem

When one considers the sources of America's denial of evolution, the first thing that likely comes to mind is Christian fundamentalism. According to Michigan State University professor, Jon Miller, "American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close" (LiveScience).
Far too often, the media, and even many scientists, refuse to point the finger at religious fundamentalism. We are taught that we must respect religious beliefs, and a surprising number of scientists adopt the position that science and religion are two mutually exclusive domains which should not poach each other's subject matter.

In addition to religious fundamentalism, poor scientific literacy is a relevant contributing factor. Simply put, if the American educational system continues to turn out children who lack a solid science education, it is reasonable to expect that Americans will remain vulnerable to pseudoscience and other forms of misinformation. Facing tremendous pressure from vocal parent groups, many high schools water down their science curricula to the point where students are unlikely to learn the basics they will need.

Partisan politics appears to be yet another factor contributing to evolution denial in America. A surprising 70% of Republicans deny evolution, and the lead up to the 2008 election has revealed a number of Republican candidates willingly to publicly proclaim their rejection of evolution. If nothing else, this suggests that they do not fear being laughed out of the room for making such absurd statements.

Solutions

A complex problem with multiple causes requires a multi-pronged solution. First, we need to increase public awareness of the problem. A public awareness campaign is needed to show our fellow citizens that science education is under attack by religious fundamentalists and that this has important consequences for all Americans.

Second, scientists must be strong advocates for science education and improved scientific literacy. The good news is that many Americans want to hear more from scientists. This should be cause for optimism, but it will require more scientists to advocate for their fields.

Third, political candidates should be asked about their views of science and how they plan to improve science education. One excellent proposal for doing so would involve a science debate, where scientific issues took center stage. Americans should have deep reservations about supporting any candidate who denies evolution.

Fourth, all concerned Americans should proudly carry the banner of reason. If there is one point we must get across in every interaction and every blog post, it is this: Americans are free to believe anything they want, but believing something does not make it true or immune from criticism. Cloaking a false belief in the mantle of religion does not make it any less false and must not be allowed to shield it from criticism. We can maintain respect for one's right to believe something without having to respect the belief itself.

Tags: science education, science, education, creationism, evolution, scientific literacy, religion, fundamentalism, America, religious belief

Scientists Colluding with Ignorance on Evolution Weekend

2008-02-11T05:43:00.000-06:00

An odd article appeared in the Battle Creek Enquirer (Michigan) reporting on an Evolution Weekend event held at St. Thomas Episcopal Church. According to the article, a panel of "experts" came to the conclusion that science and religion can agree on the origins of the universe. And no, I still haven't told you the really odd part.

The panel of 7 "experts" appeared to consist of at least a few scientists: professors of physics, geology, neurobiology. Don't ask me what any of these fields have to do with evolution or why nobody would think to invite a biologist or two. The rest of the "experts" were clergy. Somehow, being a rector or deacon makes one an expert on evolution too.

The truly odd part came at the end of the panel presentations when audience members were offered the opportunity to ask questions.

Fred Betz, 63, of Galesburg told the panelists he took the words of the Bible at face value, and his understanding of scripture disproved evolution.

"What's wrong with my simplistic view of reading the Bible?" Betz asked.

And the answer? Wait for it...wait for it...

Panelists said nothing was wrong and pointed to the central themes of Evolution Weekend: open-mindedness and discussion.

"The way we deal with each other is more important than any of our individual theories," Brabson [the physics professor] answered.

Nothing is wrong with this guy reading his bible literally, huh? And the reason nothing is wrong is that we are trying to be open-minded and facilitate discussion? I guess any desire for accuracy is checked at the door, huh? I would hope this "scientist" is more serious about science than that! And what is this drivel about how interacting politely with one another is more important than the foundation of modern biology? This sounds an awful lot like colluding with ignorance to me.

Mr. Betz, you have every right to take your bible literally and believe as you do. However, I'd like you to reflect for a moment on the many ways in which you have personally benefited from science. Your transportation, your television, the medicine you take when you are ill and the medical professionals with whom you interact - all are here because of science. Of all the scientific theories that have ever existed, none have received as much support as Darwin's theory of natural selection. Quite simply, evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community. So I suppose what I am saying is that you have the right to be wrong, but you are indeed wrong if you place your bible above the vast body of scientific evidence supporting evolution. What is wrong with your bible is that it does not accurately reflect the world in which you live.

Tags: science, evolution, bible, religion, Evolution Weekend, Evolution Sunday