Two views of the Ottawa River from Parliament Hill. That's the City of Gatineau (Quebec) on the other side of the river. It used to be called Hull when I was growing up in Ottawa.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Ottawa River
Two views of the Ottawa River from Parliament Hill. That's the City of Gatineau (Quebec) on the other side of the river. It used to be called Hull when I was growing up in Ottawa.
High School Science Fair Winners
The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair bills itself as "the World's Largest Pre-College Science Competition."
The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (Intel ISEF), a program of Society for Science & the Public, is the world's largest pre-college science competition, bringing together more than 1,500 young scientists from over 51 countries, regions and territories in 2008.The title of the competition includes technology (engineering) but the descriptions are a bit confusing. It's not always clear that the "science" fair will also reward technology projects.
Every year, talented students share ideas, showcase cutting-edge science, and compete for more than USD 4 million in awards and scholarships.
Here are the 2008 winners.
Sana Raoof, left, 17, of Muttontown, N.Y., Yi-Han Su, 17, center, of Chinese Taipei and Natalie Saranga Omattage, right, 17, of Cleveland, Miss., pose after receiving top honors at the 2008 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Atlanta, Friday, May 16, 2008. The young women each received a $50,000 scholarship from the Intel Foundation as part of their award. The 2008 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair brought together more than 1500 students from 51 countries, regions and territories to compete for more than $4 million in awards and scholarships.Here's a description of the winning projects.
Omattage developed a more efficient and less expensive way to screen for food additive contaminants, including those responsible for the recent deaths of many pets. By developing biosensors based on quartz crystal microbalance (QCM), Omattage’s research provides a new way for ports and warehouses to more thoroughly screen for food additives and other contaminants that could be found in food imported into the United States.Congratulations to the winners. They should be proud ot their achievements.
Raoof’s research provided new insight into how a better understanding of mathematical knot theory could help resolve classic biochemical problems. Specifically, her work focused on the Alexander-Conway polynomial invariant for chord diagrams to help prove how to classify molecules on a structural basis.
Su focused her efforts on identifying a high-activity catalyst that could improve methanol reforming reactions in order to generate hydrogen more efficiently. In doing so, Su has developed a method that can be used to improve the homogeneity of metal mixing and increase the surface area of catalysts which can also be used for the synthesis of other multi-composition materials with high homogeneity.
Am I the only one who finds it a bit sad that there is so much emphasis on the applications of science and so little on discovering new things about the natural world? This is not meant to detract from the efforts of the competition winners since they were following the rules. But I'd like to change the rules. Why couldn't we have separate competitions for science and applications of science?
The event was held in Atlanta, Georgia. This is one of the states that removed the word "evolution" from the school curriculum. Kathy Cox is Georgia's superintendent of schools and she explained it like this ... [ Georgia Takes On 'Evolution' As 'Monkeys to Man' Idea].
Georgia's schools superintendent, Kathy Cox, held a news conference near the Capitol on Thursday, a day after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article about the proposed changes.Kathy Cox was one of the speakers at the Intel Science and Engineering Fair awards ceremony. Her favorite science fair project was one were a student was trying to discover whether kudzu would be a good source of biofuel.
A handful of states already omit the word ''evolution'' from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it ''a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction.'' She added that people often associate it with ''that monkeys-to-man sort of thing.''
Still, Ms. Cox, who was elected to the post in 2002, said the concept would be taught, as well as ''emerging models of change'' that challenge Darwin's theories. ''Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory,'' she said.
...
In the past, Ms. Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools.
''I'd leave the state out of it and would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories,'' she said at a public debate.
What Is Science For?
What Is Science For? is the title of a debate between Sir John Sulston and John Harris. Those of us who are scientists will recognize John Sulston as the Nobel Laureate who won the prize in 2002 with Sidney Brenner and John Horvitz. John Harris is a professor of ethics. The debate is sponsored by The James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford University.
The debate is introduced by Richard Dawkins who expresses his own opinion of what science is. (Be sure to listen to the questions & answers with Dawkins.)
John Sulston argues the case for curiosity motivated research and for science as a quest for knowledge. John Harris argues the case that science must do good and it must benefit humanity. The second half of the "debate" degenerates, in my opinion, into a discussion about the value of biotechnology. That is not the topic that should have been debated. Science is not technology. Sulston tries to make this point about science not being technology during the question period but Dawkins seems to dismiss it as "obvious." It's not at all obvious.
The issue was raised in the comments to Should Universities Help Students Become Good Citizens?. This is good, since it is exactly the problem that I wanted to debate.
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]
Should Universities Help Students Become Good Citizens?
Academic Matters is an educational journal published by the the Ontarion Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). Last Fall's issue was devoted to "The Engaged University" and one of the lead articles is by Professor Janice Stein of the University of Toronto. Stein is often seen on local television discussing foreign affairs since she holds an appointment at the Munk Centre for International Studies. I'm a fan of hers because she often seems to make a lot of sense when discussing the Middle East and international politics.
Her article is titled The University as Citizen. In it she says,
I argue that universities have two fundamental civic obligations, obligations that flow directly from what universities are. The first is to help their students to become good citizens. The second is a broader obligation to the public: to share knowledge, explore issues, and create safe space for debate and discussion of public issues.I don't have a problem with the second obligation, although I wouldn't have made it so specific. I would have left off the last three words on the grounds that a university should also be a place where science can be explored. Investigations of cosmology, for example, aren't necessarily "public issues."
I want to question Janet Stein's first obligation. Is it true that universities have a direct obligation to teach students how to become good citizens? And what exactly is a "good citizen?" Who decides?
Notice that I added the word "direct" here because I think that is Prof. Stein's intent. Later on in her article she gives examples of what a university should be doing.
Educating students to be better citizens is the easier of the two challenges, though by no means easy. In the last decade, universities across North America have broadened and deepened their commitment to the civic education of their own students and to students in the broader community. My own university, the University of Toronto, runs special programs for students in some of the most challenged neighbourhoods in the city. It works closely with high schools across the city to provide opportunities for students that have special interests, special needs, and special gifts.Now don't get me wrong. I don't object to students doing these things if they're so inclined. I also wouldn't object to students who would oppose some of these things on the grounds that they are not the most effective use of our resources. There's nothing wrong with social activism. It's a perfectly legitimate way for university students to behave. I just don't want it to become a goal of the university that every students should do this.
My university also asks its students to do more, to consider actively how they can become better citizens. It encourages students to volunteer and provide assistance to people in neighbourhoods without shelter. Students work with university leaders to provide environmentally-friendly and healthy food in its cafeterias across campus. Those in classes on democratic theory go out into neighbouring communities to work with neighbourhood associations. Students studying global politics look at successful examples of social innovation and then go to their local communities to see how the global translates into the local. Students in the Faculty of Law work in neighbourhood legal clinics and with Legal Aid. Students and faculty increasingly understand that education is not only a classroom activity, that what happens outside the classroom is important. Learning and active citizenship are increasingly intertwined.
And I certainly don't want my university to be taking a position on what kinds of activities are example of "good" citizenship and which ones might be bad. Do all members of the university community agree, for example, on the right kind of food that should be served in our cafeteria? Not in my experience. Some of the students who want to dictate what I can or can't eat in the cafeteria don't necessarily qualify as "good citizens" in my book.
The main problem is whether this form of activity should be valued higher than all other activities in the university. Should community involvement of students really be an important obligation of a university?
I believe that education is an important goal of a university. I like to think that what we're trying to do is to teach students how to think critically. If that makes them better citizens then I count that as a beneficial spin-off but not a primary goal. For all I know, teaching students to think for themselves might lead to severe disruptions in our current society and I'm not certain that would qualify as teaching students how to be "good citizens." Universities are often centers of social change as we saw during the civil rights movement and opposition to the war in Viet Nam.
Another reason for being suspicious of Prof. Stein's view is that she seems to be coming from a humanities/social science perspective. She's only thinking of students who are at university to study human culture in one way of another. It makes some sense that such students might direct their energies toward improving the human condition by direct engagement.
What about science students? We have more than 10,000 science students on campus. One could argue that their primary focus is on learning about the natural world. Should the university be directing resources toward training these students to become "good citizens" according to the criteria established by Janice Stein? Or, is the acquisition of knowledge for it's own sake going to lead in the long run to good citizens in a knowledge based economy?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Parliament Hill
Here are some photos I took on Parliament Hill in Ottawa when we were there on Monday, May 12. These are taken with my camera phone.
If you follow the link to the Government of Canada website you can see what the Parliament Buildings look like right now via a video camera installed on the top of a building across the street.
The Threat of the Religious Right to the Core Liberties of the United States
Come to the Centre for Inquiry's lecture by Edward Tabash.Friday, May 23, 7:00 - 9:00pm
Centre for Inquiry, 216 Beverley St., downtown Toronto (just south of College St. at St. George St.)
$6 general, $4 students, FREE for Friends of the Centre for Inquiry
Catered Reception exclusively for CFI members 6:00pm. Please contact us to join today!
The Threat of the Religious Right to the Core Liberties of the United States
Edward Tabash is a Los Angeles attorney and chair of the Center for Inquiry's First Amendment Task Force, on whose behalf he filed one of the briefs on the winning side of the California Supreme Court's split decision to allow same sex marriage on May 15. Tabash argued to California's high court that the ban on same sex marriage is grounded in religious dogma and violates the separation of church and state.
Tabash, a former two time runner up for a seat in the California Legislature, will be active in attempting to defeat a possible ballot by the religious right to overturn the decision by voters in November. In the meantime, the Center for Inquiry is celebrating this current victory for human rights and fundamental equality.
Tabash is a constitutional lawyer in the Los Angeles area. He is a specialist in the application of the United States Constitution to the controversies swirling round religion and government. An appointee of Congressman Brad Sherman to the State Central Committee of the California Democratic Party, he also chairs the national legal committee for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Tabash will be making his first election year presentation, outside of the United States, informing Canadians about the grave threat to the very fabric of American modern secular government that is at issue in the current presidential election.
Monday's Molecule #72
Today is Victoria Day in Canada so it must be Monday—time for Monday's Molecule.
Today's molecule is essential for all life as we know it, but biochemists didn't even know it existed 'till after World War II. It's discovery was hailed as one of the greatest contributions to modern biochemistry when the Nobel Prize was awarded for working out its structure and the role it plays in metabolism.
You need to identify the molecule and give its correct common name. We don't need the formal IUPAC name in this case. Pay attention to the correct common name—some incorrect trivial names just won't do.
There's an direct connection between today's molecule and a Nobel Prize. The first person to correctly identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate(s) wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk (at) bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureate(s) so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings.
Correct responses will be posted tomorrow. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.
UPDATE: We have a winner! The molecule is uridine diphosphate glucose (UDP-glucose), one of several nucleotide-sugar coenzymes. The Nobel Laureate is Luis Leloir (1970). Several people got the right answer this week—either the quiz was too easy or lots of people have more free time now that undergraduate classes are ending! The first person to email the correct answer was Brian Rosenberg from Harvard University in Boston (Cambridge) (USA). Brian has been invited to a free lunch.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
I "Get" This Part
James F. McGrath is one of those theologians who criticize Richard Dawkins and the new atheists. According to McGrath, those atheists simply don't get it when it comes to modern sophisticated theology. The sophisticated theologians say that Dawkins and his fellow atheists are attacking a strawman version of religion.
Alister McGrath's1 defense of religion falls into this category [Alister McGrath's Defense of Religion]. Like most theologians who employ the "sophisticated religion", defense their actual attempts end up sounding very much like the Courtier's Reply.
Over the past few weeks, James McGrath has attempted to educate atheists about modern theology. In response to many questions he has tried very hard to explain "sophisticated religion" and why the new atheists just don't get it. He hasn't been all that successful, in my opinion. I just don't see why his explanation of god is any different than the ones that have already been addressed by atheists over the past several hundred years. It looks a lot to me like the same-old, same-old, argument from personal experience.
That's exactly what it is. Yesterday McGrath posted an honest and forthright description of his views. A view that he has been very reluctant to describe in any other recent posting or in any of the comments that he has posted. Here's what he wrote on his blog in an article that was addressed to his followers [Spirits in a Material World: A Multi-Blog Conversation].
Would if be going too far to say that those who have had mystical experiences are in very much the position of sighted people trying to explain color to the blind, or music lovers trying to explain why a piece moves them so much to someone who is tone deaf? In this conversation, however, it is not clear that the other side of the conversation is "disabled". They simply have no interest in understanding the experience or appreciating the music. And there is no way I can introduce someone to the music or why it moves me just by talking in abstract terms about something that is deeply experiential.Thank-you James for being so honest. Your sophisticated explanation of God is just the old argument from personal experience dressed up so that it conflicts as little as possible with modern science and rationalism.
On the other hand, part of the issue is that I have no interest in defending any particular doctrines about God, and so my "views" seem hard to pin down, because I hold them so loosely. I realized long ago that the life-changing experience I had when I cried out to God in surrender and felt a sense of peace wash over me does not prove that a tomb was empty 2,000 or so years ago, or that God is 3-in-one, or any other such claims. What seems to confuse some people is that I still can find Trinitarian language helpful and inspiring and meaningful, not as a statement about what God is "really like" (as though I had a means to study that scientifically or objectively), but as an image of how this God that we speak of only in inadequate symbols and metaphors can be eternal love (since love requires more than one person).
Atheists have addressed the argument from personal experience. Dawkins covers it in his book. I wish his opponents would pretending that they have a "sophisticated" explanation of God that atheists have not refuted.
James, I "get" your explanation. I understand how someone can feel "a sense of peace" when you give up the struggle to be rational and "cry out to God in surrender." I can understand why you draw a parallel between your mystical experience and being able to see clearly. I know why you think atheists are like a blind person.
Here's a question for you. People who believe in aliens and UFO's think the same way. They honestly believe that they have been granted special insight. They see things that the rest of us can't see. They will use the same analogies and metaphors that you use. Do you take that as evidence that UFO's and aliens actually exist?
If the answer is "no", then why do you think Richard Dawkins should pay attention to your personal mystical experience if it conflicts with everything he knows about the natural world? You have every right to interpret your mystical experience however you want. But you go beyond that, don't you? You claim that the case for atheism is weak because we cannot explain your sophisticated personal experience. As soon as you make that claim you are stepping outside of your own personal experience and asking others to validate it from the outside. When you do that, you are obliged to present evidence that your personal experience reflects reality and not an illusion. What is the evidence that an objective outsider like me should consider?
1. No relation to James McGrath.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Clear as Mud
James F. McGrath is still trying to explain what modern sophisticated religion is all about, and why amateur atheists, like me, just don't get it.His latest attempt is on his blog at Does Being Exist?. The most revealing paragraph is the last one ...
So if you are looking for evidence that ancient deities and angels exist, with or without wings, residing on Mt. Olympus or just beyond the moon, I don't believe that such entities exist. They were ancient explanations for what we today recognize as natural phenomena. But if you are asking about language that can give symbolic expression to the sense of awe many people feel about the "miracle" that anything exists at all, much less that we exist and can ponder the nature of our existence and wonder about these mysteries, then theology has a lot to offer. Not logical arguments for the existence of invisible persons, but metaphors that allow us to give voice to our limited and inadequate perception of life's inexpressable mystery, then theology has a lot to offer. That doesn't mean that amateurs can't do theology, or write poetry, or make music, or even make scientific discoveries. But in every field, there is a body of knowledge and wisdom that has accumulated that allows one to not repeat all the mistakes and positive groundwork done in the past and build on what has gone before, rather than reinventing the wheel. If one wishes to discuss theology at that sort of level of academic sophistication, it involves significant reading and research to inform oneself, and not simply a handful of conversations with fundamentalists.Translation: You can't say that the Emperor has no clothes because you haven't invested years of study at the best institutes of fashion design in Paris and Milan. There are hundreds of smart people who have written sophisticated, metaphorical books on the Emperor's clothes. Don't talk to me until you've read all of them and can quote mystical passages and scholarly names as easily as I do.
What McGrath is illustrating here is referred to as The Courtier's Reply [The Emperor's New Clothes and the Courtier's Reply]. The term refers to an elaborate justification of a questionable viewpoint. Instead of addressing whether of not the Emperor is clothed, the courtier defends the "sophisticated" rationalization that the sycophants have constructed to preserve the delusion, and avoid admitting that they can't see the clothes either.
McGrath thinks that theology can be justified because it addresses "life's inexpressable mystery." This is reason enough to reject atheism even though he denies the existence of any of the classical gods. Furthermore, this is reason enough to call himself a Christian.
I'd like to discuss why he is impressed by some "inexpressible mystery" and why he thinks it's a "miracle" that anything exists at all. Why does he feel that this is enough to cause him to posit something beyond the natural world? Why are these feelings so powerful that he rejects the label of atheist and adopts theology as a way of knowing? Those are the key points.
But I'm not allowed to discuss those points, according to McGrath. I can't enter into a debate with him until I've read all of the sophisticated theologians who agree with him. I haven't done my homework. Until then, I'm just an amateur who doesn't understand the arguments against atheism and in favor of modern mysticism/theology.
That's not very helpful. It's a way of protecting one's core beliefs from close scrutiny by skeptics.
There's nothing new about McGrath's argument. It's just a version of the Argument from Personal Experience. Those arguments have been dealt with by atheists. There's nothing sophisticated about them.
Perhaps McGrath has been fooled into thinking that the argument from personal experience is valid because there are many scholars who find it convincing? If so, this is evidence of another logical fallacy called Argumentum ad nauseam.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Steve Paikin Interviews Richard Dawkins
Last week I went to a talk at the Centre for Inquiry by Wodek Szemberg, one of the producers of TVO's The Agenda. The topic was Why So Few Atheists in the Media?. It was a horrible talk. Wodek Szemberg spend most of his alloted time criticizing atheists and proclaiming that facts and evidence are not important on television shows. Szemberg is an atheist and he claims that most producers, writes, directors, etc. are atheists. They don't need to hear the atheist point of view on television because they are already familiar with it.
The host of The Agenda is Steve Paikin. Paikin is not an atheist. He has made this very clear on numerous shows where his bias against non-believers is patently obvious. He is one of those people who are overly respectful of believers no matter how silly their arguments.
Last year The Agenda ran a series on religion that was, to say the least, quite embarrassing. Near the end of the series the producers were pressured to bring on some atheists for balance. When I asked Wodek Szemberg about this he avoided the topic—it didn't fit into his theme that atheists have nothing to say.
Shortly after that, on May 10, 2007, the producers of the show broadcast an interview with Richard Dawkins [Richard Dawkins: Can We Live by Reason Alone?]. (The producer was Sandra Gionas, not Wodek Szemberg.) Videos of the show have just now been posted on YouTube ...
Part 1, Part 2, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5
If you listen to the opening remarks on the first episode you will hear Steve Paikin admitting that they have Richard Dawkins on the show in response to viewers who requested it. This is a direct refutation of what Wodek Szemberg was telling us last Friday night when he tried to make us believe that nobody wants to hear atheists on television.
Here's part 4 where Steve Paikin tries to argue that religion deserves much more respect and deference than Dawkins is willing to grant.
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]
The Toronto Star Reviews "Darwin: The Evolution Revolution"
Darwin: The Evolution Revolution is currently on at the Royal Ontario Museum (until August 4, 2008). There was a review of the exhibit by Peter Calamai in yesterday's Toronto Star [Darwin still battling creationists]. It seems like an excellent review. I haven't yet seen the exhibit so I can't comment on the details but everything that Peter Calamai says rings true. One of the criticisms of the exhibit is that there are too many things to read. Calamai estimates that it would take five hours to read all the explanatory panels. Another criticism is that the written information tilts heavily toward defending Darwin's ideas, and that sometimes this zeal trumps the truth ...
For make no mistake about it, parts of "Darwin: The Evolution Revolution" are an exercise in anti-creationist persuasion, usually subtle but often blatant.Calamai makes a good point. The statement on the exhibit is clearly incorrect and that's embarrassing.
Take this statement from a panel headed "Creationism" at the close of the exhibit:
"For 150 years since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the theory of evolution by natural selection has not been seriously challenged by any other scientific explanation."
The weasel word here is "seriously," since that's very much a qualitative judgment. Yet, even setting Creationism aside, well-respected historians of science such as Peter Bowler (The Non-Darwinian Revolution) have maintained that alternate scientific theories of evolution, such as mutation and Lamarckism, were resolutely championed by mainstream scientists until after World War I.
Evolution through the mechanism of natural selection, the core of Darwin's approach, was simply not a "slam-dunk" scientific revolution after On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, as the ROM exhibit repeatedly implies.
Yet Darwin's thesis is widely accepted by today's scientific community. So why all the defensive proselytizing, as though his ideas were under siege?
Why is there such an emphasis on defending Darwin when such a defense is serious overkill in Canada?
Because they are – at least in the United States, where this "show-in-a-box" originates. ROM officials acknowledge that they had minimal input on the thematic level to the travelling exhibit from the American Museum of Natural History in New York.Finally, I'm glad that Peter Calamai closed his article by mentioning the problem of funding.
Where evolution is concerned, a chasm yawns between the U.S. and Canada. Polling by Angus Reid published two years ago found that one in five Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Nearly half the Americans surveyed chose this option.
The resulting anti-creationist mindset, while at times annoying, cannot ruin an exhibit that will reward multiple visits at several different levels.
Perhaps we haven't progressed as far from such times as we'd like to believe. The Darwin exhibit opened without an outside sponsor, although several groups have since rallied to the cause, including the Humanist Association of Canada.I know the members of the Humanist group who put up the money. Thank
But there's still no major corporate sponsor. They're all too spooked by the prospect of the one-in-five minority of Canadians who believe – despite an Everest of evidence to the contrary – that human beings sprang upon the Earth in their current form a mere 10,000 years ago.
Is it true that some of these potential sponsors have declined because evolution is too controversial? Yes, in some cases that's true. There are members of the Gairdiner family, for example, who have doubts about evolution.
Atheists Behaving Badly
A reader has used the Conservapedia article on Atheism to support his/her belief in supernatural beings. I thought it might be fun to post some quotes from that article for your Friday amusement. Are these examples of "sophisticated" arguments against religion or do they fall into another category?
In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.
Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.[61][62][63][64] The Bible asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit." (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun."
Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable.
Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.[69] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.[66][70] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[66] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.
Although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism. Below are some examples which demonstrate the unreasonableness of atheist debaters.
Doug Jesseph: In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism "the most impressive debater to date" was Doug Jesseph.[85] Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with William Lane Craig in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).[86] In 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher Stanley Miller believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"[87] In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."[88]
Gordon Stein: In 1985, Christian apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen and prominent proponent of atheism Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine regarding the positions of atheism and theism. John Frame wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the transcendental argument for the existence of God that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."[89] The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate"
Atheism and its Decline as a Theoretical Position
According to Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide."[103] Oxford scholar Alister McGrath agrees and has stated that atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat."
Atheism in Academia
In 2001 atheist and philosopher Quentin Smith stated the following in respect to atheism: "Naturalists [atheists] passively watched as realist versions of theism … began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians…. God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."
Some have asserted that atheists do not exist. In regards to a biblical statement on atheism Sir Francis Bacon stated in his essay Of Atheism the following regarding atheism: "The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man.[82]"
In addition, Christian philosophers and apologists Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen argued there are no atheists and that atheists are actively suppressing their belief and knowledge of God and enigmatically engage in self-deception.
Charles Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist which is a type of atheist.[11][12] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away. ”(Argyll 1885, 244)
[Photo Credit: God is for Suckers!]
Pretty Flower
Nick sent me this picture of a beautiful flower.1 I hope it makes your Friday more pleasant.
1. The Best Flowering Plant.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
ORFans
ORFans are putative genes that are only found in a single species or in a small number of closely related species. They are interesting examples of evolution. Creationists have focused on the large number of putative ORFans that have been reported in the scientific literature in order to cast doubt on evolutionary theory.
In today's Panda's Thumb Ian Musgrave has posted a long and excellent article on ORFans [Inordinately Fond of Viruses: ORFans and Intelligent Design]. It's a perfect example of how to refute a creationist ... in this case Paul Nelson.1
1. I know. It's usually about as difficult as shooting fish in a barrel. But in this case Ian is making a number of important points that also challenge some scientists who are confused about ORFans.
It Happens to All of Us Eventually
We all make mistakes from time to time. Some of us make way more than others.John Dennehy is not one of those people. His blog is excellent and he almost always comes up with wonderful citation classics that truly deserve the attention he gives them.
Today's citation classic is not one of those classics. John seems to have slipped up this time. I hope it's only temporary [This Week's Citation Classic].
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)