From The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada): Man charged with threatening people using social media — again.
A Saint-Laurent man has been charged, again, with abusing social media to threaten people who express their views online.
Dennis Markuze, 40, faces three new charges, including one alleging he violated the conditions of a sentence he received in May for the same offence. He was also charged with threatening the Montreal police officer who was investigating claims from several of Markuze’s past victims. Those victims alleged that Markuze’s threats have intensified in recent months.
In May, Markuze received an 18-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to uttering threats toward eight people he believed to be atheists. The court was told Markuze’s problems could be attributed to drug consumption, which caused him to believe he was “the Voice of God.” As part of his sentence, he was ordered to “abstain from participating in a social network, blog and discussion forum.” But during the summer, several people contacted The Gazette to report that Markuze appeared to be ignoring the court order.
[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]
I went to three of Michael Behe's talk while he was in Toronto [see Michael Behe in Toronto!, Part 1,
Part 2].
The third talk was on Friday morning (Nov. 15, 2012) in the Multifaith Centre. It was sponsored by Power to Change (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ). There were about 150 people in the audience, mostly undergraduates. I estimate that less than half were believers.
Behe gave pretty much the same talk he had given the night before. There was only time for a few questions and most of them were from skeptics. Two students challenged the science but their questions were convoluted and confusing and Behe had no trouble dismissing them. (The standard trick is to say "That's a very good question" and then suggest they could discuss it later on so that others have a chance to ask questions right now.)
One student asked about the philosophical justification for some of Behe's conclusions. It was a valid question but way over the heads of the audience. Behe gave an incorrect answer. I spoke to that student and her friends after the talk. Several of them were taking biology/evolution courses but they weren't really prepared to identify the flaws in Behe's arguments. They just knew that he had to be wrong.
This is the problem. It's just not that easy for the average person to refute the arguments of people like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. That's why we need to teach the controversy in school and show why their science is flawed.
Here's a propaganda video produced by the Discovery Institute. It's based on a book called The Magician's Twin edited by John G. West. John G. West is "a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI), and Associate Director and Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs of its Center for Science and Culture (CSC), which serves as the main hub of the Intelligent design movement."
In other words, he's one of the chief IDiots.
The video is interesting for several reasons. Not only does it have the look and feel of a 1950's American propaganda film but it mimics the same utter lack of critical thinking that characterized that genre of film. Perhaps this is intentional since the goal is to attack rationality and critical thinking and the last thing you want to do is be accused of using the very tools that lead to evils such as eugenics, evolution, atheism, and Marxism. (But see "doublethink," below.)
Behe's main talk was last Thursday evening at 7pm (Nov. 15, 2012). It was in the lecture theater were we teach medical students. The room holds about 350 students and every seat was taken. There were about 100 people sitting in the aisles and on the floor.
The gist of Behe's talk was that "Darwinism" can't explain macroevolution. The problem isn't common descent—Behe agrees that common descent is "trivial." The problem isn't natural selection—Behe doesn't have a problem with natural selection. The problem is random mutation. It's incapable of generating the required changes in a timely manner.
Last week's molecule was capsaicin, the molecule responsible for the "hot" sensation of chili peppers. There were two winners: Seth Kasowitz and Bill Gunn [Monday's Molecule #192].
This week's molecule is featured in an article that I will (hopefully) blog about in the next few days. There's a common name of sorts but you will need to supply the correct IUPAC name to win the free lunch.
Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)
Michael Behe was in Toronto last Thursday and Friday (Nov. 15 & 16, 2012). His visit was sponsored in part by the Copernicus Group, a group of Christian men who are interested in the dispute between science and religion. I met several of them (three physicians and an engineer).
The first of Behe's talks was organized by the Copernicus Group who invited faculty and graduate students from the Dept. of Biochemistry and the Dept. of Molecular Genetics to a session at Hart House in the afternoon. Only eleven people showed up—four (five?) of them were from the Copernicus group. There were ten bottles of wine!
This was the first time I had a chance to meet Michael Behe in person. He's a lot shorter than I imagined but otherwise looks just like his photos.
Today's the day of the Santa Claus parade in Toronto. The radio tells me that one million people will be lining the parade route when the parade begins. Here's the Santa Claus fans just outside my building on Queen's Park Circle. You can see that some of them were smart enough to bring a Tim Hortons coffee.
The Intelligent Design Creationists change their stories so often that it's sometimes hard to keep up. The latest rationalization has to do with the sufficiency of random mutations. Here's the version given by Ann Gauger, Senior Research Scientist at Biologic Institute.
There's a lot of discussion about this video on the Biologic Facebook page [Biologic Institute]. Some commenters (e.g. Nick Matzke) raise the issue of neutral mutations and Gauger responds (not very well). This is one of the main problems with the current IDiot propaganda. They confuse the probability of specific, single nucleotide, beneficial, mutations at a specific binding site—which have a low probability—with the total number of possible mutations at thousands of different sites, any of which could have an effect on development. Many of the mutations could have been neutral giving rise to an enormous amount of standing variation in the population. (This makes it much more likely that you will get multiple mutations.)
Don't forget we're looking at a specific outcome (evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestors over 6 million years). There were thousand and thousands of other possible outcomes that could have given rise to intelligent beings (maybe smart chimps?) who would eventually spawn Intelligent Design Creationists.1 We don't know the total number of possibilities but it certainly isn't just one (1). Our species is a lottery winner and we all know that specific lottery winners are highly improbable.
1. I wonder if there are any possible pathways that would have given rise to truly intelligent beings and no IDiots?
I've been having discussion with several of my friends and colleagues about whether the activities of the Intelligent Design Creationists count as "science." My position is that much of what they do is science, especially when they criticize existing scientific explanations. It may not be very good science but that's not the question. After all, there are atheist scientists who don't do much better.
One argument is that simply criticizing current theories doesn't count as science unless you can also offer a plausible, scientific, competing model. I don't think that's a requirement. Here's an example we can discuss ...
One of the latest posts on Evolution News & Views (sic) is an article by Casey Luskin criticizing the old Urey-Miller experiment by pointing out that their origninal conditions didn't mimic the conditions on the primitive Earth [On the Miller-Urey Experiment, Wikipedia Offers a Citation Bluff]. He goes on to say that scientists still haven't shown convincingly that amino acids (and other molecules) could have formed spontaneously on Earth. Furthermore, the "chirality problem" hasn't been solved.1
Luskin correctly points out that a Wikipedia reference misrepresents the science it reports.
Is this (Luskin's article) scientific? Isn't criticism of current models and hypotheses an example of how science is supposed to work?
1. I agree that the spontaneous formation on Earth of significant amounts of amino acids, carbohydrates, and, especially, nucleotides, is extremely unlikely. That's why I support "Metabolism First." I disagree about the chirality problem—I think we have a good explanation.
Benjamin Phelan is a writer. He has an article in Slate on The Most Spectacular Mutation in Recent Human History.
I'm not going to tell you what it is. You'll have to read his article. But here are a few hints.
- The mutation is only common in Europeans. Asians and Africans get along just fine without it.
- It's not clear whether the mutation confers selective advantage. There's some evidence that it does but it's difficult to understand why.
- There are several different mutations that produce the same phenotype and it's not clear which one of them is the "most spectacular."
- The article claims that the mutation appeared 10,000 years ago but that's probably not true.
- The mutation has nothing to do with walking upright, opposable thumbs, big brains, or the ability to talk. Apparently those mutations are either much less spectacular or they don't qualify as "recent."
[Photo Credit: How to Milk a Cow]
[Hat Tip: Mike the Mad Biologist]
Today is my son's birthday. Here's two pictures of him taken 34 years apart.
The Multifaith Centre at the University of Toronto is sponsoring a series of talks. I represent the control group (no faith).
The title of the series is "Is It True?" Tonight I will defend the negative position from 5:30-7:00pm in room 52 University College. If you're in Toronto, come out and participate.
Is it True? Uncovering the Heart of Each of the World's Religions
The University of Toronto Secular alliance (UTSA), in conjunction with Power 2 Change, Muslim Students Association and the Multifaith Centre is hosting a lecture and discussion series entitled "…is it true?"
This series will feature the following speakers:
Oct. 24: Islam (Amjad Tarsin, Muslim Chaplain, U of T)
Oct. 31: Christianity (Kyle Hackmann, Grace Toronto Church)
Nov. 7: Judaism (Yishaya Rose, Chaplain, Chabad House, U of T)
Nov. 14: Atheism (Professor Larry Moran, U of T, Secular Alliance)
Each speaker will speak on behalf of the philosophical framework to which they subscribe to. Following the lecture, there will be a period of Q and A following by an open discussion amongst attendees.
I encourage you to attend these talks as I suspect a lot of fruitful conversations can emerge. To this end, specifically, we are delighted to have biochemist Dr. Larry Moran, represent our side of the conversation.
University College 5:30pm-7:00pm, rm 52. Light dinner will be served.
Please find event page below:
Facebook
Hope to see some of you there!
Last week's molecule was photosystem I (PSI). Mikkel Rasmussen was the only one to get it right [Monday's Molecule #191].
I thought of this week's molecule while I was in Los Angeles last week. We got to sample some excellent examples of cuisine that's hard to find in Toronto. You need to supply the common name AND the formal IUPAC name.
Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)
Barry Arrington has a new post on Uncommon Descent in which he discusses design and the appearance of design [Sorry Dr Barr, “Chance By Design” is an Oxymoron]. He's particularly annoyed at someone named Stephen M. Barr, a theistic evolutionary creationist.
Arrington claims that there are only three positions in this debate.
In summary, there are three positions in play here.
(1) The traditional theist observes the overwhelming appearance of design in living things and is content to conclude that things are they way they appear to be, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they are in fact designed for a purpose.
(2) The atheist admits that the appearance of design in living things is overwhelming but asserts that the appearance of design is an illusion and in reality natural law and random chance combine to produce a result that only appears to be designed.
(3) The Barr-type theistic evolutionist admits that the appearance of design in living things is overwhelming but asserts — like the atheist — that the appearance of design is an illusion and in reality natural law and random chance combine to produce a result that only appears to be designed. The TE then goes one step further by asserting that the explanation of the illusion of design is itself an illusion, because the randomness of evolution is in fact directed.
This isn't correct. I support the 4th position; namely ....
(4) When you step back and look at the big picture, living things do not appear to be designed and they do not appear to have a purpose. While there may be some features of living things that have been honed by natural selection, they are the exception, not the rule. Even those features with a strong illusion of design look much less designed when you examine them closely.
When I talk about Evolution by Accident I intend that to be an attack on Intelligent Design and also an attack on the Dawkins' view of evolution.
