EvolutionBlog

Evolution and Suffering

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:58:25 -0500

Over the past few years I have asked a fair number of creationists what it is they find so objectionable about evolution. They have a great many complaints, but the one I hear most often is some version on the problem of evil. Evolution by natural selection is a cruel and wasteful process. It is not at all the sort of thing a just and loving God would set in motion.

They are hardly alone in thinking that. In his book Living With Darwin philosopher Phillip Kitcher wrote, referring to the evolutionary process:

There is nothing kindly or providential in any of this, and it seems breathtakingly wasteful and inefficient. Indeed, if we imagine a human observer presiding over a miniaturized version of the whole show, peering down on his “creation,” it is extremely hard to equip the face with a kindly expression.

I agree that this is a major problem for supporters of theistic evolution. Whenever I read books claiming to reconcile evolution with Christianity I am always looking in particular for an effective answer to this problem. I have yet to find one, and it is not for lack of looking.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Tarnishing the Brand?

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:48:29 -0500

Have a look at this interview with Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero. It contains a number of interesting nuggets, but this is the part that jumped out at me:

Baer: Proselytizing atheists like Dawkins have carved out a niche within a largely religious public sphere. Would a less emotional, less evangelistic atheism be capable of maintaining even this degree of influence?
Prothero: I feel quite certain that a less emotional and less evangelistic atheism would garner far more influence. Atheism has a brand problem. Lots of the people who do not believe in God refuse to call themselves atheists. Why? Because they don't want to be associated with proselytizers.

Where is the evidence to support this canard?

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Aggravation!

Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:25:50 -0500

Over the past few weeks I have been working my way through season three of Dexter. Somehow I had gotten my Netflix cue out of order, so that they actually delivered the final disc, number four, to me before sending me the other DVD's. This particular disc contained only a single episode, the final one of the season. I decided to hold onto it until I was ready.

When I am at my peak I can plow through a full season of a television show in a few days. In this case, however, I got a bit distracted with other things. It took me rather a long time to work my way through the rest of season three. All the while that final disk sat innocently on the table next to my TV. Finally, last night, I was ready to watch the final episode. The penultimate episode had ended with a suitably dramatic moment, the suspense had built to an almost unbearable level, and I couldn't wait to fire it up to see how it all turned out. I slid the DVD out of the sleeve.

And noticed an obvious crack right down the middle of it! Ugh! How vexing. Videotape was really a far superior technology.

At least I still have about seventeen chapters of R. Kelly's “Trapped in the Closet” to get through. That will have to hold me until Netflix can send a replacement DVD. (Also don't miss Weird Al's spoof “Trapped in the Drive-Thru.”).

Read the comments on this post...

Science and Faith at the World Science Festival

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:36:45 -0500

Last year I attended a paleontology conference in Cincinnati. While I was there I attended a session on science and religion, during which a parade of people trumpeted the warm relationship between the two. Predictably, there was much bashing of the New Atheists, with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Stenger all specifically called out by name. There was a lot of preening about how it is only clueless atheists who blur the lines between science and religion. This, remember, at a paleontology conference. The session consisted of a series of fifteen minute presentations with no Q and A's after the individual talks. (There was a very brief Q and A after several of the talks, but it was nowhere near sufficient to address all of the dubious arguments being offered by the speakers). The participants were all invited, and it goes without saying that no atheists made the list.

In short, it was a disgusting display. I've been to young-Earth creationist (YEC) conferences that were more open-minded and welcoming of different viewpoints. (I really have, I am not just saying that to be flamboyant.)

The World Science Festival is going on in New York this week and it will include a panel on science and faith. There is no one on the panel representing the New Atheist viewpoint. Surprise! This has caused a bit of a dust up in the blogosphere. Representing sunshine and puppies are Jerry Coyne and Sean Carroll. Preferring darkness and obscurantism are Chad Orzel and Josh Rosenau.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Israel

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:27:48 -0500

On most issues my politics are decidedly left-wing, but there is one big exception to that. That exception is Israel. On the subject of Isreal I get very right-wing.

When I look at Israel I see a Western-style democracy that has achieved extraordinary things in just sixty years. Their universities and technological achievements are among the most impressive in the world. They have achieved a standard of living for their people that puts the surrounding, mostly despotic, Arab regimes to shame. This they have done while facing relentless terrorism and threats to their existence from neighbors so consumed by religion-fueled hatred that they will not even take the elementary step of recognizing Israel's right to exist. I see a country that spent decades negotiating in good faith with Palestinian leaders who were not returning the favor. Reading much of the outraged, but ultimately clueless, self-righteousness from liberal pundits I respect on most other issues can be a painful experience.

Unfrotunately, I also see a country that has, more recently, been radicalized by the growing realization that it is unlikely that there will ever be peace in the region.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

It's Only Un-American to Criticize My Faith

Thu, 27 May 2010 00:57:57 -0500

Or so Karl Giberson seems to think. Early in his essay he writes:

This might suggest that Ken Ham and his Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., are becoming less relevant, as they speak for -- and to -- an increasingly smaller band of hyperconservative biblical literalists. Ham's followers, ironically, are exactly what Waltke warned us about -- a cult, with their own separate science.

And later:

There is something profoundly un-American about demanding that people give up cherished, or even uncherished, beliefs just because they don't comport with science.

Faith Giberson doesn't like? Dismissed as a hyperconservative cult. Faith he does like? It is un-American to critcize it. Charming.

Giberson has been spamming the internet lately with a series of indignant essays. For a cataloging of some of the many ways in which these essays are not very good, I will refer you to Jerry Coyne here and here.

Read the comments on this post...

The Dalai Lama on Tolerance

Thu, 27 May 2010 00:36:44 -0500

The Dalai Lama had an op-ed in The New York Times the other day. Alas, he got off to a very bad start with this:

WHEN I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best -- and that other faiths were somehow inferior. Now I see how naïve I was, and how dangerous the extremes of religious intolerance can be today.
Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.

“Radical atheists” write books expressing their views, and when invited to do so they speak publicly about what they believe. The Dalai Lama regards such activities as representing a dangerous extreme of religious intolerance, on the same level as violence against Muslim immigrants or fanning the flames of war in the Middle East. Forgive me if I question his moral judgment.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Martin Gardner, 1914-2010

Mon, 24 May 2010 20:50:34 -0500

Martin Gardner has died at the age of 95. He was a prolific writer in three different areas: mathematics, magic and debunking pseudoscience. Since those happen to be three of my favorite things in life you can imagine how big a fan I was of his writing. His book Puzzles From Other Worlds made a big impression on me when I stumbled onto a copy when I was about ten. It was a great thrill for me when Gardner volunteered to write a jacket endorsement for my book on the Monty Hall problem.

Obituaries are available all over the internet, but I think this profile, published in 1995 in Scientific American, will tell you what you need to know. Losing Gardner is like losing Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould or Carl Sagan. He will be sorely missed.

Read the comments on this post...

Scientists and Religion

Thu, 20 May 2010 20:56:21 -0500

I have now had a chance to read Elaine Howard Ecklund's new book Science vs. Relgion: What Scientists Really Think. It is worth reading, despite her annoying decision to include social scientists, but not mathematicians, in her definition of “scienitst.” I also did not care for her obvious preference for those scientists willing to talk sweetly about religion, but what can you do?

Most interesting to me were the statistics she gathered regarding the religious beliefs of scientists at major American research universities. The picture I had prior to reading this book was that scientists were vastly more likely than the public generally to be nonreligious, and that where you did find religion it would be mostly of the theologically liberal sort. That picture is overwhelmingly confirmed by Ecklund's data.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Anand Wins!

Tue, 11 May 2010 20:06:08 -0500

Could this fantastic match have ended in any other way than with a tremendous tactical slugfest?

The final game of the big chess match took place today, with the score tied and Topalov playing white. Topalov did what Topalov does: he overplayed a slightly better position, allowing Anand to unleash the forces of hell upon him. The game started with one of the stodgiest and most conservative openings, but ended with a breathtaking flurry of tactics. Let's have a look.

Position after 7. ... Nf6-e4

This introduces the Lasker Variation of the Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined, an old line in an old opening.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Carnage Interruptus, But Plenty of Action Nonetheless

Sun, 09 May 2010 20:40:31 -0500

I've gotten a bit behind in my chess match coverage. Time to remedy that!

Last we saw Anand had blundered away an easily drawn endgame in Game Eight. This allowed Topalov to tie the match. Undeterred, Anand came out swinging in Game Nine. Topalov decided he had had enough of Anand's Catalan, and played the Nimzo-Indian Defense instead. Everything proceeded along normal lines until Topalov allowed an endgame with his queen pitted against Anand's two rooks. If you remember your basic chess arithmetic, rooks are worth five points each, while the queen is nine points. So two rooks count as a small material advantage, other things being equal. Anand steadily outplayed Topalov and reached a completely winning position:

Position after 53. ... Ka6-b7

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Carnage!!

Wed, 05 May 2010 20:24:29 -0500

You didn't think I'd forgotten about the big chess match, did you?

Topalov won game eight to tie the match with four games to go. His win had more to do with Anand's carelessness than it did with his own cleverness, but hey, a win is a win. The momentum has completely shifted to Topalov now. It will be interesting to see if Anand can get it together down the home stretch.

The game was another Slav. Once again Anand was the first to vary, but he got a bit careless in the queenless middlegame.

Position after 22. ... f5-f4

Anand has just moved his f-pawn one square forward, attacking the white bishop on e3. Sadly, he seems to have missed a little trick.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Should Scientists be Advocates?

Wed, 05 May 2010 18:31:52 -0500

Via Jerry Coyne, I came across this essay over at the BioLogos website. The author: Steven Benner. The title: The Dangers of Advocacy in Science. The key paragraphs:

This provides another reason why it is easy to be confused about what science is and what scientists do. The imagery of science and scientists is widely expropriated in the public square by non-scientists.
The temptation to participate in the public dialogue as an advocate is considerable. I myself have been interviewed by reporters who become impatient if I actually practice science before their eyes. It is generally simpler give an answer rather than to present the context, including all of its uncertainty.

For this reason, it is important, here and elsewhere, for scientists to emphasize that uncertainty is central to science, and advocacy is disruptive of it. When a scientist becomes an advocate, he loses for himself the power to use scientific discipline to discern reality.

no, No, NO! This is totally wrong.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

The Vileness of Joe Lieberman

Wed, 05 May 2010 17:37:19 -0500

As part of his ongoing campaign to make himself as buffoonish as possible, Joe Lieberman devised a brilliant idea for dealing with American terror suspects:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks he's found a work-around on the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism: Strip their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo.
Lieberman plans to introduce a bill that would amend a decades-old law aimed at yanking citizenship from U.S. citizens who fight for a foreign military.

“I'm now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights,“ Lieberman said Tuesday.

In other words, if the government says you are a terrorist then you have no rights.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

No New Carnage, But Plenty of Chess Excitement!

Mon, 03 May 2010 19:17:30 -0500

The big chess match continues apace. In Game Five the players plowed down the same line of the Slav Defense they explored in Game Three. No doubt Topalov had an improvement in mind, but Anand varied first. Topalov pressed, but in the end he was the one who was happy to call it a draw.

Game Six was another Catalan. Anand's two knights looked to be dominating Topalov's two bishops, but in the end he could not break through. Another draw.

But the real excitement came with today's Game Seven. Anand got his second white in a row. The schedule for the match calls for a rest day after every two games, with Topalov getting white in game one. That means Topalov is always getting white (a big advantage in top level chess) after the rest day. That is why they switch the pattern after the midway point of the match.

So, it was another Catalan. But this time Topalov had a surprise up his sleeve:

Position after 9. ... b5!

Black's last move entails a material investment. Play continued 10. Nxc6 Nxc6 11. Bxc6 Bd7!. This exchange sacrifice is not new, though Topalov's eleventh move is new. (In the past only 11. ... Ba6 had been tried). It is actually a common motif in positions with a kingside fianchetto. (That's chess-speak for developing your bishop along the short diagonal instead of the more common long one.) The basic idea is common in some lines of the Grunfeld, for example. Black will be down material, but White is losing a key defender of his kingside. Black will also have active pieces. It takes stones to play like this in a WC match, since white's material advantage is very tangible, while black's positional plusses are more nebulous. But lack of stones has never been Topalov's problem.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...